This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 11]

नई दिल्ली, मार्च 10 मार्च 16 , 2013 , शनिवार/फाल्गुन 19-फाल्गुन 25, 1934

NEW DELHI , MARCH 10-MARCH 16, 2013, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 19 PHALGUNA 25, 1934 No. 11 ]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II-खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii )

PART II-Section 3-Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) री किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिभूषनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 6 मार्च , 2013

थाना हाथिगावां , जिला प्रतापगढ़ , यू.पी. में पंजीकृत अपराध के संबंध में अन्वेषण करने तथा प्रयास करने , दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्यंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किये गये अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है ।

[फा.सं. 228/21 /2013- एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव का.आ. 592.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की ध ारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों काप्रयोग करते हुए, उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सरकार , गृह (पुलिस ) अनुभाग -11 की अधिसूचना संख्या 565/6-पी - 11-2013-99 एम/2013 दिनांक 4 मार्च , 2013 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से निम्नलिखित कांडों :

अंतर्गत धारा

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

क्रम अपराध संख्या

सं.

(Department of Personnel and Training)

1 . 18/2013

New Delhi , the 6th March, 2013 302 भा.द.सं. , 1860 और धारा 7 सी. एल.ए. अधिनियम , 1961

2. 19/2013

396, 307 , 323 , 504, 332 , 353 , भा.द. सं. 1860 और धारा 7 सी.एल.ए. अधिनियम, 1961

20/2013

3.

4. 21/2013

302, 504, 506 , 120 बी भा.द.सं.ए 1860 147, 148 , 149 , 302 , 504 , 506 , 120 बी भा.द.सं. 1860 और धारा 7 सी.एल.ए. अधिनियम , 1961

S.O. 592.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Grih (Police) , Anubhag - 11 , Lucknow conveyed vide Notification F. No. 565/6-P- 11-2013- 99M/2013 dated 4th March, 2013 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction ofthe members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation of the offences viz:

870GI/2013

(1791) 1792

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

CaseNo.

Section Laws

SI . No.

राजभाषा नियम 10( 4 ) के अंतर्गत सरकारी गजट में अधिसूचित करने हेतु पात्र शाखाओं के नाम

'क' क्षेत्र

1. 18/2013 Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860) and 7 Criminal Law (Amend- ment) Act, 1961 (Act No. 23 of 1961).

क्रम शाखाओं के नाम एवं पते सं.

2. 19/2013

Under Section 396 , 307 , 323 , 504 ,. 332, 353 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860) and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment ) Act, 1961 (Act No. 23 of 1961 )

1. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , दहेरादून , 41 , इंदिरा नगर कॉलोनी सीमा द्वार के निकट , देहरादून -248001

3. 20/2013 Under Section 302 , 504 , 506, 120B ofthe Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860 )

2. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, हरदा शाखा , प्लाट नं. सी-35 , सी-36 , नेहरू कालोनी , नई सब्जी मंडी के पास , हरदा-461331 ( म.प्र. )

4. 21/2013 Under Section 147 , 148 , 149 , 302 , 504, 506 , 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act No. 23 of 1961)

3. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बैतुल शाखा , गोकुल ट्रेड सेंटर , स्टेशन रोड, बैतुल -460001 ( म.प्र. )

registered at Police Station Hathigawan , Distt. Pratapgarh , Uttar Pradesh and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences com- mitted in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

4. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बीएचईएल शाखा , ' रुद्राक्ष भवन ' , 27 , सेक्टर - सी , इन्द्रपुरी , रायसेन रोड , भोपाल-462021 (म.प्र. )

[F. No. 228 /21 /2013 -AVD - II] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy. 5. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, भाटापारा शाखा , वृन्दावन पैलेस , स्टेशन रोड़ , भाटापारा-493118 , जिला रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

वित्त मंत्रालय (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2013

बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बालोद शाखा , हाई स्कूल रोड , बालोद -491226 , जिला दुर्ग ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) 6.

का.आ. 593.- केन्द्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग.) नियम, 1976 ( यथासंशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप- नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में , वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग के नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित बैंकों की शाखाओं को, जिनके 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी में कार्य- साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , प्रताप नगर शाखा , सुन्दरवास , प्रताप नगर , उदयपुर , (राजस्थान ) पिन-313001 7.

शाखाओं की संख्या

क्रम बैंकों के नाम

सं.

479

1. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

122

2. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक

मावली शाखा , उदय गेस्ट हाउस , उदयपुर रोड , मावली, जिला उदयपुर ( राजस्थान ) , पिन-313001 8. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा,

77

3. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

4. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला

72 750

कुल

[सं. 11016/2/2013-हिन्दी]

9. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सलूम्बर शाखा , नेहरू मार्ग , बोहरवाडी के पास , सलूम्बर , जिला उदयपुर ( राजस्थान ) , पिन-313001

मिहिर कुमार , निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

10. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गोवर्धन विलास शाखा , आर-2 , एच. ब्लॉक , 100 फीड रोड , गोवर्धन विलास , सेक्टर-14 , उदयपुर (राजस्थान ) , पिन-313001

11. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बस्सी शाखा , बस स्टैण्ड के पास , बस्सी, जयपुर-303301 ( राजस्थान)

12. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, शाहपुरा शाखा , चुंगी नाका, ओल्ड दिल्ली रोड , शाहपुरा , जयपुर-303103 ( राजस्थान)

13. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , गोपालपुरा बाईपास शाखा , 65 सूर्य नगर , गोपालपुरा बाईपास , जयपुर-302015 ( राजस्थान)

14. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बांदीकुई शाखा, सिंकदरा रोड , पुलिस थाने के पास , बांदीकुई-303313 ( राजस्थान)

15. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, दुर्गापुरा शाखा, प्लाट नं. 1 , मणी भवन, महिंद्रा टॉवर के पास , दुर्गा विहार , दुर्गापुरा टोंक रोड, जयपुर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-302015

16. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, तिजारा शाखा , पॉवर हाउस के सामने , फिरोजपुर रोड , तिजारा , जिला अलवर ( राजस्थान ) पिन -301411

17. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, दूदू शाखा , छबडा पेट्रोल के पास , दूदू, जयपुर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-303008

18. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, चाकसू शाखा , मुख्य टौंक रोड, चाकसू, जयपुर ( राजस्थान) , पिन-303901

19. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, शास्त्री नगर शाखा, ए-22 ए, साई मोहन विला , अमानी शाह रोड, रामनगर , शास्त्री नगर , जयपुर , (राजस्थान) पिन-302015

20. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, प्रताप नगर शाखा , ४ एस.पी. 3 , कुम्भा मार्ग , प्रताप नगर , जयपुर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-302033

1793

21. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नगर शाखा , डाक बंगलो चौराहा , उनियारा के रास्ते से, पोस्ट ऑफिस नगरफोर्ट अलवर - भरतपुर रोड, नगर, भरतपुर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-321205

22. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , टपूकड़ा शाखा , गोपाली चौक , अलवर हाई तहसील , टपूकड़ा, राजस्थान-301707

23. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सूरतगढ़ शाखा , लाहोटी पेट्रोल पंप के पास , सूरतगढ जिला श्री गंगानगर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-335804

24. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , भादासर शाखा , भादासर तहसील , सरदार शहर , जिला चूरु ( राजस्थान) पिन-331403

25. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बोरानाडा शाखा, राज. स्टेट इंण्ड, डेवलपमेंट कार्पो. , बोरानाडा जोधपुर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-342001

26. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नोखा शाखा बीकानेर हाईवे , बाबूछोटूनाथ स्कूल के सामने , जिला बीकानेर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-334001

27. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फलोदी शाखा , नई सड़क , फलोदी , जिला जोधपुर ( राजस्थान ) पिन -342301

28. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मकराना शाखा , गुनावती रोड, मकराना , जिला नागौर ( राजस्थान) पिन-341505

29. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मेडता सिटी शाखा , कृषि मंडी रोड , मेडता सिटी , जिला नागौर ( राजस्थान ) , पिन-341510

30. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सुमेरपुर शाखा , जवाई बांध रोड, सुमेरपुर , जिला पाली ( राजस्थान ) पिन-306401

31. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , हनुमानगढ़ जंक्शन शाखा , सांगरिया रोड, भगतसिंह चौक के पास , हनुमानगढ़ जंक्शन ( राजस्थान) पिन-335501 1794

[ PART 11 - SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 16 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

32. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , भादरा शाखा , बस स्टैण्ड के पास , भादरा , जिला हुनमानगढ़ ( राजस्थान ) पिन-335501

33. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सांचौर शाखा , रानीवाडा रोड, सांचौर , जिला जालोर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-343041

34. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फालना शाखा , सांडेराव रोड , फालना , जिला पाली ( राजस्थान ) पिन-306116

35. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सरदारपुरा शाखा , 658 , रेजीडेंसी रोड , जलजोग चौराहा , जोधपुर ( राजस्थान ) पिन-342001

36. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गंगापुर शाखा , बस स्टैण्ड के पास , तहसील सहाडा, जिला भलवाडा ( राजस्थान ) पिन -311801

37. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सरवाड शाखा , मथुराधीश मंदीर , सदर बाजार , सरवाड, जिला अजमेर ( राजस्थान) पिन-305403

38. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , असींद शाखा , प्लाट नं. 16 , प्रताप नगर, आसींद , जिला भीलवाडा (राजस्थान ) पिन-311301

39. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कुदरा शाखा , विमला कृषि केन्द्र के बगल में, जी.टी. रोडकुदरा ( बिहार ) 821108

40. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बांका शाखा , डोकानियां मार्केट के पास , अलीगंज , एम.आर.डी हाई स्कूल के समीप , बांका (बिहार ) -813102

41. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कहलगांव शाखा , स्टेशन रोड, गवर्नमेंट ओल्ड हाउस हॉस्पीटल केपास , कहलगांव , जिला-भागलपुर (बिहार )-813203

42. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , भीखनपुर शाखा संस्कार अपार्टमेंट , गुमटी नं. 3 के पास , आर. बी. एस. सहाय रोड , भीखनपुर , भागलपुर ( बिहार ) -812001

43. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, डेहरी शाखा , मेहरा हाउस , पाली रोड , डेहरी ओन सोन-821307 (बिहार )

44. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बाढ शाखा , सविता सिनेमा के सामने , एन.एच. 31 , बाढ ( बिहार ) -803213

45. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सहरसा शाखा , इन्दिरा भवन , बी.आई.पी. रोड, पूरब बाजार , सहरसा (बिहार ) -852201

46. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , दोनार शाखा , बिपिन मार्केट , दोनार , दरभंगा ( बिहार ) -846004

47. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बख्तियारपुर शाखा , नया टोला , माधोपुर , ओल्ड बाई पास, बख्तियारपुर ( बिहार) -803212

48. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, दानापुर शाखा , बी.एम. कम्प्लेक्स, सगुना मोड, दानापुर (बिहार ) -801503

49. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , शेखपुरा शाखा , चांदनी चॉक , सिनेमा रोड , समाहरणालय के पास, शेखपुरा (बिहार ) -803211

50. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जमालपुर शाखा , द्वारा-रीव ट्यूबवेल , चर्च के सामने , मुंगेर रोड, जमालपुर ( बिहार ) -811241

51. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जयनगर शाखा , मेन रोड, बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के पास , जयनगर ( बिहार ) -800213

52. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, राजेन्द्र नगर शाखा, ऐश जगत कम्प्लेक्स , राजेन्द्र पथ , कदमकुआं पटना ( बिहार ) -800003 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1795

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

53. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नवादा शाखा , एल.आई.सी ऑफिस के पास , थाना रोड, नवादा (बिहार ) -805110

54. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फतुहा शाखा , रेलवे स्टेशन रोड , देवी चॉक , फतुहा , जिला पटना ( बिहार ) -803201

55. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, लंका कचरुआ शाखा , खेमनीचक, मेन रोड पो . न्यूजगनपुरा , रामकृष्णनगर , पटना (बिहार ) -800027

56. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मुंगेरशाखा, पूरब सराय , अशोका पैलेस , दिलीप भवन के पास , मुगेर (बिहार ) -811201

57. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नजरथ हॉस्पिटल , मोकामा शाखा नजरथ हॉस्पिटल , मोकामा ( बिहार ) -803302

58. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फुलवारीशरीफ शाखा , साकेत विहार मोड, अनिसाबाद , फुलवारीशरीफ , पटना (बिहार) -800020

59. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कुर्जी मोड शाखा , एन.आर. लोयला हाई स्कूल , नालंदा कॉलनी के सामने, पटना (बिहार ) -800010

60. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बिहिया शाखा, स्टेशन रोड , जंज बाजार , अम्बे टॉकिज के पास , बिहिया , जिला भोजपुर ( बिहार ) -802152

61. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, जहानाबाद शाखा , मख्दुमपुर , इंडेन गैस एजेंसी के पास , जहानाबाद (बिहार)-804408

62. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, लोहियानगर शाखा, लोहियानगर , पी सी कालोनी , शालीमार स्वीट्स के पास , कंकडबाग , पटना (बिहार ) -800020

63. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जमुईशाखा, जंगलिया बाबा मार्केट , कचहरी रोड , जमुई ( बिहार ) -811307

64. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, खूंटी शाखा , डाक बंगला रोड , खूंटी ( झारखंड ) -835210

65. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बरियातूशाखा , बरियातू नर्सिंग होम के सामने , शांति कम्प्लेक्स बरियातू रोड, रांची ( झारखंड ) -834009

66. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, आदित्यपुर शाखा , भूतल , एम.पी. नगीना कम्प्लेक्स, टाटा- कंद्रा रोड , आदित्यपुर जमशेदपुर ( झारखंड )

67. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , साहेबगंज शाखा, भूतल, महाजनपटट्टी, साहेबगंज ( झारखंड ) -816109

68. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कुजु शाखा, आरा रोड, कुजु रामगढ ( झारखंड ) -825316

69. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, चक्रधरपुर शाखा , रांची- चाईबासा मेन रोड, चक्रधरपुर, पूर्वी सिंहभूम ( झारखंड) -823102

70. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गोविंदपुर, शाखा, प्रथम तल , तिरूपति कम्प्लेक्स , जी. टी . रोड , गोविंदपुर जिला धनबाद ( झारखंड ) -828109

71. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बडा जामदा शाखा , दीपा कम्प्लेक्स, मेन रोड , बडा जामदा ( झारखंड ) -833221

72. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, डालटनगंज शाखा, के. जी. गर्ल्स हाई स्कूल रोड , डालटनगंज पलामू ( झारखंड ) -822101

73. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, लालपुर चौक शाखा , 206, प्रथम तल , देवर्नी कम्प्लेक्स , लालपुर रोड , रांची ( झारखंड ) -834001

74. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मिहिजाम शाखा , चित्तरंजन स्टेशन रोड, मिहिजाम ( झारखंड ) -815354

75. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बवाना शाखा , 48 , नरेला रोड, प्रथम तल , बवाना दिल्ली-110039 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/ PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

1796

76. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , डॉ. मुखर्जी नगर शाखा 855 , ग्राउंड फ्लोर , डॉ. मुखर्जी नगर , दिल्ली-110009

77. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , दुर्गापुरी शाखा बी-7 , वेस्ट ज्योति नगर , दुर्गापुरी चौक के पास, दिल्ली -110094

78. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गांधी नगर शाखा, 912 , मेन रोड कैलाश नगर , दिल्ली-110031

79. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कृष्णा नगर शाखा, ई-5/112 ,कृष्णा नगर दिल्ली-110051

80 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, शाहदरा शाखा , 641- बी , लोनी रोड, दिल्ली -110032

81. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, शास्त्री नगर शाखा , ई-2/256 , शास्त्री नगर , दिल्ली -110052

82. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अलीपुर शाखा, 75/138 , नेहरू एन्कलेव , अलीपुर, दिल्ली-110036

83. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, आई पी एक्सटेंशन दिल्ली शाखा शॉप नं. 2 , ऋषभ इम्पैक्स मॉल , सीएससी प्लॉट, पटपड़गंज , आई पी. एक्सटेंशन , दिल्ली-110092

84. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मिड कार्पोरेट शाखा , प्रथम तल, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा बिल्डिंग , 16 संसद मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110001

85. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , एम 2के चौक दिल्ली शाखा , एफ-19 / 13 , सेक्टर-8 , एम 2 के चौक , रोहिणी , दिल्ली-110085

86. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , गोहाना शाखा समता चौक के पास , गोहाना डिस्ट्रिक्टः सोनीपत -131301

87. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नांगल राय दिल्ली शाखा डब्ल्यूजेड 1390/2 , नांगल राय , दिल्ली-110046

88. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नांगलोई दिल्ली शाखा 17/1, बिमल हॉस्पिटल के पास , मेन रोहतक रोड , नांगलोई , दिल्ली -110041

89. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नेताजी सुभाष प्लेस दिल्ली शाखा, प्रथम तल , अग्रवाल हाइटस , प्लॉट नं. 05 , नेताजी सुभाष प्लेस, दिल्ली -110034

90. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सैक्टर -15 रोहिणी शाखा , ग्राउंड फ्लोर , पॉकेट- पीए, एच नं. 1 सैक्टर -15 , रोहिणी , दिल्ली-110085

91 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, घुमारवीं शाखा , VIII डकारी चौक , पीओ एंड तहसील घुमारवीं, डिस्ट्रिक्ट-बिलासपुर , घुमारवीं , हिमाचल प्रदेश -174021

92. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पांवटा साहिब शाखा , मिन्नी टावर , पीएनबी के सामने , पांवटा साहिब , डिस्ट्रिक्टः सिरमौर , हिमाचल प्रदेश -173025

93. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कुल्लूशाखा, आशा दीप , गांधी नगर, कुल्लू, हिमाचल प्रदेश -175101

94. गार्डन- II , गाजियाबाद उत्तर प्रदेश -201005 बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , शालीमार गार्डन गाजियाबाद शाखा , अपर ग्राउंड फ्लोर एस -23 , बी ब्लॉक , शालीमार

95. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, जेन नेक्सट शाखा टावर 2 स्टेलर आई टी पार्क, सी 25 , नोएडा , उ.प्र. - 201301

96. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, आर्या नगर शाखा 233 , न्यू आर्या नगर , मेरठ रोड , गाजियाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश -201001

97. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मुराद नगर शाखा , वार्ड नं. 14 , मेन रोड , मेन मार्किट , मुराद नगर , गाजियाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश-201206

98. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पिलखवा गाजियाबाद शाखा , 42, माइल स्टोन, दिल्ली गढ़ रोड , एन एच -24 , पिलखवा , गाजियाबाद , यू. पी. - 245304 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1797

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

99. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, वैशाली शाखा शॉप नं. 2 , सी -1 सैक्टर-4 वैशाली, गाजियाबाद , यू. पी.-201011

100. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बहादुरगढ़ शाखा , आर एन प्लाजा , रेलवे रोड डिस्ट्रिक्ट झज्जर , बहादुरगढ , हरियाणा-124507

101. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सोहना रोड शाखा यूनिट नं. 06 , टावर- बी , वाटिका बिजनेस पार्क , सोहना रोड, सैक्टर -49 , गुड़गांव , हरियाणा -122101

102. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बरवाला शाखा बस स्टैंड के पास , पांवटा साहिब रोड , वीपीओ, पंचकुला , हरियाणा-134118

103. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पेहोवा शाखा अम्बाला रोड, पेहोवा, हरियाणा-136128.

104. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पिंजोर शाखा 1330, बी-1 , वार्ड नं. 4 , अब्दुलपुर, पिंजोर, पंचकुला, हरियाणा-134102

105. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , राम नगर शाखा , 48 , राम नगर , करनाल , हरियाणा-132001

106. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, साहा शाखा साहा , राजीव गांधी चौक के पास , जिलाः अम्बाला , हरियाणा-133104

107. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सेक्टर-14 , पंचकुला, शाखा एससीओ 204 , सैक्टर 14 , पंचकुला, हरियाणा-134113

108. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , तरोरी शाखा एमएस भगवती राइस मिल , जी टी रोड, तरोरी , हरियाणा-132116

109. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मॉडल टाउन शाखा , 225 एल, मॉडल टाउन , पानीपत, हरियाणा -132103

110. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सैक्टर-16 फरीदाबाद शाखा एससीओ नं. 3 , सैक्टर -16 फरीदाबाद , हरियाणा -121002

111. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सैक्टर-23 गुड़गांव शाखा एससीओ 40 , सैक्टर -23 गुड़गांव , हरियाणा-122001

112. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, आदमपुर हिसार शाखा हाई स्कूल रोड , राजेन्द्र हॉस्पिटल के पास , मंडी, आदमपुर , डिस्ट्रिक्टः हिसार , हरियाणा-125052

113. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , ग्रेन मार्किट करनाल शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 417 एवं 418 , न्यू ग्रेन मार्किट, करनाल, हरियाणा-132001

114. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नारायणगढ़ शाखा ट्रैक्टर मार्किट , सुधौरा रोड, नारायणगढ़ , डिस्ट्रिक्ट- अम्बाला , हरियाणा-134203

115. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पिंडरा शाखा पिंडरा , जौनपुर रोड, जिला वाराणसी-221006 (उ.प्र. )

116. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, केराकत शाखा केराकत , जिला जौनपुर -222142 (उ.प्र. )

117. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , चन्दौली शाखा , चन्दौली , जी. टी.रोड, जिला चन्दौली-232104 ( उ.प्र. )

118. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बदलापुर शाखा बदलापुर , बदलापुर चौराहा जिला जौनपुर -222125(उ.प्र.)

119. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मडियाहूं शाखा मडियाहूं, मछली शहर रोड, (पोस्ट ऑफिस के सामने ) जिला जौनपुर-222161 (उ.प्र. )

120. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, जलालपुर माफी शाखा जलालपुर माफी जिला मिर्जापुर-231304 ( उ. प्र. ) [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

1798

121 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, जमनीपुर शाखा , जमनीपुर , जिला संत रविदास नगर-221401 (उ. प्र. )

122. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नईगंज शाखा, पॉलिटेक्रिक चौराहा , नईगंज , जिला जौनपुर-222002 (उ.प्र. )

123. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पाण्डेपुर शाखा, पाण्डेपुर , सी-9/471- सी, जायसवाल कोल्ड स्टोरेज कंपाउंड जिला वाराणसी-221002 (उ.प्र. )

124. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, विकास भवन , बरेली शाखा , आंनद आश्रम रोड, विकास भवन , बरेली -243001 (उ. प्र. )

125. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मीरगंज , बरेली शाखा, कमला मार्केट , जी.टी. रोड , अपोजिट एस.बी.आई , मीरगंज बरेली-243504( उ. प्र. )

126 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, रामनगर , बरेली शाखा , अपोजिट जैन मन्दिर , आवला शाहबाद रोड , राम नगर जिला बरेली-243703 (उ. प्र.)

बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , 127. विकास भवन , शाहजहांपुर शाखा , अपोजिट विकास भवन , कचहरी रोड़ जिला शाहजहांपुर-242001 ( उ. प्र. )

128. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मकसूदापुर , शाहजहांपुर शाखा , मेन मार्केट मकसूदापुर , नियर बजाज हिन्दुतान लि. मकसूदापुर , जिला शाहजहांपुर-242042 ( उ. प्र. )

129. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, हरहरपुर मटकली , बरेली शाखा, हरहरपुर मटकली , मेन रोड़ , तहसील नबाबगंज , ब्लाक नबाबगंज , जिला बरेली-243407 (उ. प्र. )

130. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, भउआ बाजार , शाखा भौवा बाजार , मेन रोड़ , ब्लाक भदपुरा , तहसील नबाबगंज , जिला बरेली-243407 (उ. प्र.)

131. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कर्मचारी नगर , बरेली शाखा , कर्मचारी नगर रोड़ , मिनी बाई पास , नियर बिपिन एण्ड भास्कर हॉस्पिटल , बरेली-243001 ( उ . प्र. )

132. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सुभाषनगर, बरेली शाखा 752, तिलक कालोनी , सुभाषनगर , बरेली-243001 (उ. प्र. )

133 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , ग्रीन पार्क , बरेली शाखा , अरमान हाईट , ग्रीन पार्क के सामने , बीसलपुर रोड़, बरेली- 243001 (उ. प्र. )

बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, 134. अलीगंज , बरेली शाखा, मेन रोड़ , अलीगंज , जिला बरेली- 243302 (उ.प्र. )

135. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , रामनगर कालोनी , शाहजहांपुर शाखा , मोहल्ला दिलजाक , रामनगर , निकट निगोही रोड़ , जिला शाहजहांपुर 242001 (उ.प्र. )

136. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , एफजीआईईटी रायबरेली शाखा , एफजीआईईटी रतापुर , रायबरेली -229001 (उ.प्र.)

137. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, राणा नगर , रायबरेली शाखा , राणा नगर , रायबरेली-229001 (उ.प्र. )

138. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, हरचंदपुर शाखा बड़ौदा स्टेशन रोड, हरचंदपुर-229303 ( उ.प्र. )

139. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अलीगंज शाखा , अलीगंज , सुल्तानपुर-227805 (उ. प्र. )

140. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बन्धुअकलां शाखा , बन्धुअकलां, सुल्तानपुर-222801 (उ. प्र. )

141. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बरौंसा शाखा , बरौंसा, सुल्तानपुर -228120 (उ. प्र. )

142. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , गोसाईगंज शाखा , गोसाईगंज , सुल्तानपुर-228119 (उ.प्र. ) 1799

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

143. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , हनुमानगंज शाखा, हनुमानगंज , सुल्तानपुर -228001 (उ.प्र. )

144. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कादीपुर शाखा , सुल्तानपुर-228145 (उ.प्र. )

145. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कामतागंज शाखा , कामतागंज, सुल्तानपुर -228131 (उ.प्र. )

146. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मोतिगरपुर शाखा , मोतिगरपुर, सुल्तानपुर-228132(उ. प्र. )

147. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कूरेभार शाखा, सुल्तानपुर-228151 (उ. प्र. )

148. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अमौली शाखा , अमौली, फतेहपुर -212631 (उ. प्र.)

149. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, राधा नगर , फतेहपुर शाखा, राधा नगर , गाजीपुर रोड़, फतेहपुर-212601 ( उ.प्र. )

150. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कैन सोसाइटी , काशीपुर शाखा , काशीपुर , उत्तराखंड-242521

151. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, डी. एस. बी. कॉलेज शाखा, नैनीताल , उत्तराखंड-263135

152. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , आवास विकास शाखा , रूद्रपुर, उत्तराखंड-241578

153. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नानकमत्ता शाखा , मेन मार्केट , खटीमा रोड , जिला- यू. एस . नगर , उत्तराखंड-262311

154. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, निर्मल नगर शाखा, ग्राम- शक्ति फर्म पो.- बारुई , बागझारी सितारगंज , उधमसिंग नगर , उत्तराखंड-263151

155. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, दिनेशपुर शाखा , दिनेशपुर , जिला - यू. एस. नगर , उत्तराखंड-263160

870 92/13-2

156. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , शिवनगर शाखा , ग्राम-शिवनगर , पूरनपुर जिला पिलीभीत , उ. प्र. - 261222

157. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जहांगीराबाद शाखा , अनूपशहर बस स्टैण्ड , जहांगीराबाद , बुलंदशहर -202394

158. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, राय , शाखा , सादाबाद रोड , राया , जिला मथुरा

159 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सहसवान शाखा , तहसील सहसवान , बदायूं

160. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गुन्नौर शाखा, निकट ब्लॉक ऑफिस , गन्नौर , बदायूं

161 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, दातागंज शाखा , बस स्टैण्ड के सामने , दातागंज , बदायूं-243637

162. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गोवर्धन चौक शाखा , गोवर्धन चौक, मथुरा

163. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, ट्रांस यमुना शाखा , वंदना नर्सिंग होम के पास , ट्रांस यमुना, आगरा-282006

164. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, दिबियापुर शाखा , एन.टी.पी.सी.रोड़ दिबियापुर , औरेया-206244

165. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, झीझक शाखा, वॉर्ड नं. 8 , ओम नगर , मेन स्ट्रीट , रेल बाजार , झीझक , जिला- रमाबाई नगर , पिन-209302

166. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सिंहपुर शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 684 , सिंहपुर चौराहा , सिंहपुर जिला , कानपुर नगर , पिन-208017 [ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

1800

167. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, यशोदा नगर शाखा , 128/132 , " वाई " " आई " ब्लॉक, यशोदा नगर, कानपुर , पिन- 208011

168. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , रावतपुर गांव शाखा , 1059 , गणेश नगर , रावतपुर गांव, कानपुर , पिन-208019

169. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, रूरा शाखा, स्टेशन रोड , रूरा , जिला रमाबाई नगर , पिन- 209303

170. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जगईपुरवां शाखा, 51, बी ( 4बी ) पोखरपुर , लालबंगला, कानपुर, पिन-208007

171 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मौधा शाखा, बस स्टेशन के निकट , तहसील रोड, पोस्ट रागौल , जिला हमीरपुर , पिन-210507

172. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, रनिया शाखा रनिया पुलिस स्टेशन के सामने, पोस्ट रनिया , जिला रमाबाई नगर , पिन-209304

173. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मेडिकल कॉलेज शाखा , 1908 , शिवाजी नगर , मेडिकल कॉलेज रोड , झांसी पिन- 284001

174. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कालपी शाखा , 407/349 , टर्नरगंज , कालपी जिला जालौन , पिन-265204

175. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, ईमलिहा शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 7 , श्रीनगर , ईमलिहा, चौबेपुर , पोस्ट तात्त्यागंज , जिला कानपुर नगर , पिन-209217

176. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बर्रा वल्र्डबैंक शाखा , जे -23 , एचआईजी , वर्ल्ड बैंक बर्रा , करही 80 फीट रोड , कानपुर -208027 177. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , आंतिया तालाब शाखा , 1385 , शारदा हिल्स्कॉलोनी , न्यूबस्ती, झांसी पिन -284001

178. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , रतनलाल नगर शाखा, 572, ब्लॉक आरएन , योजना नं. 2, रतनलाल नगर , कानपुर , पिन-208022

179. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, लखनपुर शाखा, 15 विकास नगर , कानपुर , पिन-208024

180. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कल्याणपुर शाखा , राज कॉम्पलेक्स जीसी2 , पनकी मेन मार्ग , आवास विकास , कल्याणपुर , कानपुर . पिन-208017

181. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मिड कार्पोरेट शाखा , रेडियस टाऊन , 7/119 , स्वरूप नगर , निकट आर्या नगर चौक , कानपुर , पिन-208002

182. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , विनोबा नगर शाखा, 127/443 , ' एस' ब्लॉक , जूही , विनोबा नगर , कानपुर , पिन-208014

183. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बलैसा शाखा, डाकघर- आजमगढ़ ,ब्लॉक-पलहानी तहसील- आजमगढ़ , जिला आजमगढ , उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन-276001

184. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , चमनगंज शाखा, स्थान- चमनगंज बाजार , ग्राम करमडंडा , डाकघर- गौहाना ब्लॉक- मलिकपुरि तहसील- मलिकपुरि , जिला, फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश पिन-224127

185. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सिविल लाइंस बस्ती शाखा , सड़क- मालवीय रोड , स्थान नवयुग मेडिकल सेंटर प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , डाकघर अस्ती, जिला बस्ती, पिन 272001

186. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , देवकाली शाखा, बाईपास क्रॉसिंग , डाकघर फैजाबाद , जिला-फैजाबाद . ( उ.प्र. ) पिन -22400001 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1801

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

187. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, घोसी शाखा, इमारत- मिर्जा जमालपुर , रोड-मेन रोड़, स्थान -मजवारा रोड़, डाकघर-घोसी, ब्लॉक घोसी तहसील- घोसी, जिला- मऊ, उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन-275305

188. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कैसरगंज शाखा स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इडिया के नजदीक, कैसरगंज रोड़ , बहराईच रोड, डाकघर- कैसरगंज , तहसील- कैसरगंज जिला- बहराईच , उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन-271903

189. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पयागपुर शाखा , पयागपुर बस स्टॉप के नजदीक , डाकघर- पयागपुर , ब्लॉक-पयागपुर, तहसील-बहराईच , उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन-271871

190. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, रानी मउ शाखा डाकघर-रानीमउ , भटट्टी, ब्लॉक- मवाई , तहसील- रूदौली, जिला-फैजाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन-225408

191. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, रसरा शाखा , इमारत ए.पी. टावर , रोड- बलिया रोड स्थान- भगतसिंह चौराहा के नजदीक, जिला बलिया, उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन-221712

192. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पालिया कलॉ शाखा , संपूर्णा नगर , बाईपास रोड़ , पालिया कलॉ, जिला-लखमीपुर , पिन -262902

193. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, ट्रांसपोर्ट कमिश्नर्स ऑफिस शाखा, ट्रांसपोर्ट कमिश्नर्स ऑफिस , शहीद स्मारक के निकट , टेहरी कोठी , लखनऊ -226001

194. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, विभूति खंड शाखा , वी-26 , विभूति खंड, गोमती नगर. लखनऊ -226010

195. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , आस्ति वसूली प्रबंधन शाखा, बड़ौदा हाउस , प्रथम तल , वी-23 , विभूति खंड, गोमती नगर , लखनऊ -226010

196. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बक्शी का तालाब शाखा , सीतापुर हाईवे , बक्शी का तालाब , लखनऊ-227202

197. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सिधौली शाखा , मिश्रीख रोड , सधौली , जिला- सीतापुर , पिन-261303

198. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मोहनलाल गंज शाखा , मेन रायबरेली रोड, मऊ , मोहनलाल गंज , लखनऊ-227305

199. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नक्खास शाखा, 292/132, कटरा आजमबेग , विक्टोरिया स्ट्रीट , नक्खासचौक, लखनऊ-226003

200 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, राजाजी पुरम् शाखा , सी-13/ 110 , राजाजी पुरम्, लखनऊ-226017

201 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, विकास नगर शाखा , 301/3, सेक्टर -9 , विकास नगरं, लखनऊ-226022

202. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, चिनहट शाखा , मेन देवा रोड़ , मटियारी चौराहा , चिनहट , लखनऊ-227015

203. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मोहन रोड़ , शाखा, डॉ. शकुन्तला मिश्रा पुनर्वास विश्वविद्यालय , बुद्धेश्वर मंदिर चौराहा, मोहान रोड़, लखनऊ-226017 [PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

1802

204. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मलिहाबाद शाखा , ग्राम- मलिहाबाद , पोस्ट- मलिहाबाद जिला-लखनऊ , पिन-227111

205 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सरोजनी नगर शाखा , 578/689 - ए, लक्ष्मण नर्सरी के निकट, गौरी बाजार , सरोजनी नगर , लखनऊ-226008

206. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बंथरा शाखा , ग्राम- बंथरा , लखनऊ- कानपुर रोड, लखनऊ-227101

207. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जानकीपुरम एक्सटेंशन शाखा , मुकुट ट्रेड सेंटर गोल चौराहा, सीपी-1 , सेक्टर -5 , जानकीपुरम एक्सटेंशन , लखनऊ-226021

208. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , डालीगंज शाखा , 493/72 , पन्नालाल रोड़ डालीगंज , लखनऊ-226021

209. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बिसवाँ शाखा, 85 - ए , थावई टोला , बिसवाँ-सीतापुर रोड , बिसवाँ जिला- सीतापुर , पिन-261201

210. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बालमऊ शाखा , डाकघर के सामने , लखनऊ- हरदोई रोड , बालामऊ जिला- हरदोई पिन-241126

211 .

214. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, भिटरिया शाखा , पेट्रोल पंप के निकट , भिटरिया , जिला- बाराबंकी पिन-225409

215. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , रानीगंज शाखा, रानीगंज जिला- प्रतापगढ़ उ.प्र. , पिन-230304

216. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , करछना शाखा, करछना जिला- प्रतापगढ़ उ.प्र. , पिन-212301

217. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सिराथूशाखा, धाता रोड़ सिराथू, जिला कौशाम्बी, उ.प्र.212217

218 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, जार्ज टाउन शाखा 68/6सी/1 सी, सीवाई चिंतामणि रोड , जार्ज टाउन , जिला- इलाहाबाद , पिन-211002

219. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जसरा शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट-जसरा , जिला- इलाहाबाद, पिन-212107

220. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मऊ आइमा शाखा , टाउन , एरिया , मऊअइमा , इलाहाबाद , पिन-212501

221 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, विकास नगर शाखा , जिला- देहरादून उत्तराखंड , पिन-248001

बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गोला गोकरणनाथ शाखा , श्री लक्ष्मी निवास , श्री राम मंदिर के निकट , लखीमपुर रोड, गोला गोकरणनाथ, जिला- लखीमपुर, पिन-262802

212. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, ओल्ड, सीतापुर शाखा 251- ए, सीटी स्टेशन रोड़ , कॉट ओल्ड सीतापुर , पिन-262802

213 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फतेहपुर शाखा, मोह बाजार , मुंशीगंज, फतेहपुर जिला- बाराबंकी, पिन-225305

222. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , झूसी शाखा-9/102, आवास विकास कालोनी , योजना -3 , झुंसी, इलाहाबाद-211205

223. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फाफामउ शाखा , 56/15 , ए/ 2 , श्री गंगा कॉम्पलेक्स फाफामऊ , तहसील-सोंराव , इलाहाबाद पिन-211013 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1803

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन, 25, 1934

224. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फैजाबाद रोड, शाखा 173 , बा सहोदापुर ( पश्चिम ) , प्रतापगढ़ उ.प्र. -230001

प्लॉट नं. 104 , सीटीएस नं. 16035 , टेलीफोन ऑफिस के पीछे , सहकार नगर , औरंगाबाद-431005 , महाराष्ट्र 235. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा,

225. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कोरांव शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट-कोरांव , जिला- इलाहाबाद , पिन-212306

बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, 236. टाईम स्क्वेअर कॉम्प्लेक्स, तल मंजिल , द्वारका सर्कल के पास , मुंबई आगरा हाइवे , नासिक-422011 , महाराष्ट्र

226. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सहसों शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट- सहसों, जिला- इलाहाबाद , पिन-221507

237. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मधुगन्धा कॉम्प्लेक्स, त्रिम्बकदास पटेल नगर , देवी मंदिर के पास , पैठण-431107 , जि. औरंगाबाद , महाराष्ट्र 227. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मामा भांजा का तालाब शाखा , ग्राम-मामा भांजा का तालाब , पोस्ट-नैनी , इलाहाबाद-211008

238. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गंगापुर शाखा, पोलीस क्वाटर्स के सामने, लासुर नाका, गंगापुर-431109- महाराष्ट्र 228. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, ममफोर्डगंज शाखा , 268ए, स्टेनली रोड , ममफोर्डगंज इलाहाबाद पिन-211002

239. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पो. साकुरी , ता. राहता -423107, जि. अहमदनगर , महाराष्ट्र

229. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पडीला महादेव शाखा , ग्राम-पडीला, मौजा-जेटवारडीह , परगाना व तहसील- सोरांव जिला- इलाहाबाद , उ. प्र. 212502

240. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, प्लॉट नं. ए -1 , तल मंजिल सीटीएस 2113 /के/ 2 , ई-वार्ड, रुईकट कॉलोनी , कोल्हापुर -416005 , महाराष्ट्र

230. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, राजरूपपुर शाखा-683 , राजरूपपुर इलाहाबाद , उ. प्र. पिन -211011

241 . बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, संगरूल फाटा, कोल्हापुर -416204, महाराष्ट्र

231. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, तेलियरगंज शाखा , बी-6 , आजाद मार्केट , तेलियरगंज इलाहाबाद , उ. प्र. पिन-211004

'ख' क्षेत्र

242. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सी.एस. नं 2082 , प्लॉट नं 51 जयसिंगराव पार्क, कागल-416216 , महाराष्ट्र

क्र.सं. शाखओं के नाम एवं पत्ते

243. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अनिकेत शॉपिंग सेंटर , खेड दापोली रोड , रत्नागिरी , खेड-415709 , महाराष्ट्र

232. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , न्यूनासिक कलवण रोड , दिंडोरी जि. नासिक-422202 , महाराष्ट्र

244. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, एफ -119 , भवांनी प्लेस , गवर्नमेंट रेस्ट हाउस के बाजू में , सलाईवाडा , सावंतवाडी-416510 , महाराष्ट्र

233. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , लक्ष्मी बिल्डींग , मेन रोड , उस्मानाबाद-413501 , महाराष्ट्र

234. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , प्लॉट नं. 120 , एन 3 सिडको, औरंगाबाद-431005 , महाराष्ट्र

245. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , अफोन्सो रेसिडेन्सी, तल मंजिल , शॉप नं -456 , सेंट क्रूझ मेन रोड, तालीगांव 403002, महाराष्ट्र PART 11 -SEC. 3 (ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25. 1934

1804

246. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

साईकृपा हाउस , नं. 1256 , तल मंजिल , तिलकपथ , गडहिंग्लज -416502 , महाराष्ट्र

247. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

सांयतारा कॉम्प्लेक्स, इ वार्ड, विवेकानंद कॉलेज के नजदीक , कोल्हापुर-461003 , महाराष्ट्र

248. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

हत्तरगी कॉम्प्लेक्स, बाजार पेठ , मुख्य रस्ता, गारगोटी जिला कोल्हापूर-461209 , महाराष्ट्र

249. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्लॉट नं. 6 , 7 श्याम नगर , मनीष नगर , बेलतरोडी रोड , नागपुर -440015 , महाराष्ट्र

250. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्रथमेश राजा प्लॉट नं. 201 /ए उंटखाना चौक मेन रोड , मेडिकल चौक , नागपुर -440 009 , महाराष्ट्र

251. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

शॉप नं. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 अप्पर ग्राउंड प्लोअर, पारस प्लाझा 2 , रिशद वाशिम महामार्ग ,

वाशिम-444505 , महाराष्ट्र

252. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्लॉट नं. 260 , नारा रिंग रोड बीपीएल पंप के नजदीक ,

जरीपटका-440014 , महाराष्ट्र

253. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्लॉट नं. 1153 , हुडकेश्वर चौक के नजदीक , गणराज हॉल रिंग रोड, मानेवाडा,

नागपुर-440023 , महाराष्ट्र

254. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

रजत आर्केड , प्लॉट नं. 51 , एमआईडीसी वाडी टी पॉइंट , नागपुर-440023 , महाराष्ट्र

255. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

बल्लारपुर पेपर इंडस्ट्रीज , जिला चंद्रपुर-442701 , महाराष्ट्र

256. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्लॉट नं. 177 , त्रिमुर्ति नगर , रिंगरोड,

नागपुर-440025 , महाराष्ट्र

257. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

इंदिरा मार्केट रोड , वर्धा-442001,

महाराष्ट्र

258. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

कन्नमवार चौक, विरानी टॉकिज रोड, वणी-445 304 जिला यवतमाल , महाराष्ट्र

259. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

शॉप नं. ई 1 , 2 , 3. एफ 1 , 2 , 3 नगर परिषद भवन, मुख्य मार्ग , वरूड अमरावती-444906, महाराष्ट्र

260. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

राजीव गांधी चौक. टाकिया वरद.

तुमसर महामार्ग , भंडारा-441904, महाराष्ट्र

261. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्लॉट नं. । , गली नं. 23 , विदर्भ को ऑप सो के सामने बस स्टॉप के नजदीक , अमरावती रोड, अचलपुर कैंप . परतवाडा-444805 , महाराष्ट्र

262. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्लॉट नं. 13 , रघुवीर सोसायटी. साईनगर , मेन रोड अमरावती-444701 , महाराष्ट्र

263. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्लॉट नं. 22 , वॉर्ड नं. ४ मेन रोड , ठाकरे चौक , देवली-442401 जिला वर्धा, महाराष्ट्र

264. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

प्लॉट नं. 52 , सुयोग नगर , नरेंद्र नगर, रिंग रोड , नागपुर-440022 , महाराष्ट्र

265. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

शॉप नं. 19-20 स नं. 158/2/1/59/1 किंग स्केअर , मेडी पॉइंट के सामने आंध्र पुणे . 411 007 , महाराष्ट्र

266. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

कचरे क्लासिक सी टी एस 1081 सनं 18 /ए/ 1 / 1/ 1/ 1 , एरंडवणे , पुणे-411029 , महाराष्ट्र

267. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

स नं. 38 धनकवडी , पुणे सातारा रोड , पुणे--411043 , महाराष्ट्र

268. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

सन 1690 पुणे नासिक रोड, भोसरी , पुणे -411039, महाराष्ट्र

269. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा मलद ता बारामती जि. पुणे-413 102 , महाराष्ट्र

270. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

द सोव्हरजन , शॉप नं . 12 , कल्याणी नगर, पुणे-411006 , महाराष्ट्र

271. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा

कोणार्क इंद्रायू 114-117 कोणार्कपुरम के नजदीक , कोंढवा-411045 , महाराष्ट्र

272. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा ,

मनाली अपार्टमेंट , डहाणूकर कॉलनी कोथरूड- 411038 , महाराष्ट्र 1805

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग !!-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

273. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सणस प्लाझा ए 10 सॅमसन नगर तलेगांव , दाभाडे -410587 , महाराष्ट्र

274. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नैशनल पेट्रो के बाजूमें , पुणू सोलापुर रोड , भिगवण-413132 , महाराष्ट्र

275. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , रिद्धी सिद्धी अपार्टमेंट्स , 120 ए बी , टी पी नं. 545 सब प्लॉट नं. 28 , सिंहगड रोड पुणे-411030 , महाराष्ट्र

276. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , व्हिनस गार्डन , प्लॉट नं. 14/1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , खराडी, पुणे-411014 , महाराष्ट्र

277. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, शॉप नं. 2 , स.न. 90 , लक्ष्य दीप पैलेस , ए विंग , पिंपले सौदागर , पुणे-411027 , महाराष्ट्र

278. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कुदले साई समृद्धी , स.नं. 39/1 , सिंहगड रोड , माणिक बाग , पुणे-411051 , महाराष्ट्र

279. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, 1171 ब्राहमणशाही, सिव्हिल हॉस्पीटल के नजदीक , वाई, सातारा -412803 , महाराष्ट्र

280. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा. अंबिका नगर , देवी मंदीर के सामने, पुणे सोलापूर महामार्ग , इंदापूर-413106 , महाराष्ट्र

281. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, रविवार पेठ , छत्रपती शिवाजी महाराज पुतले के नजदीक, फलटण , जिला : सातारा -415523, महाराष्ट्र

282. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , भारत शिक्षण प्रसारक मंडल , बार्शी सोलापूर रोड , नॉर्थ सोलापुर , बडाला-413222 , महाराष्ट्र

283. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , 4139 , द्राणे गली , प्रसन्नदत्त मार्ग , बर्शी , जिला सोलापुर -413401 , महाराष्ट्र

284. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, शॉप नं. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , बुएना व्हिस्टा, प्लॉट नं. 58 , विमाननगर , गुणे -411014, महाराष्ट्र

285. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सेक्टर 59 , मोहाली शाखा , एससीएफ 53 , फेस 5 , सेक्टर 59 , एसएएस नगर , मोहाली , पंजाब-160059

286. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , धुरी शाखा, धुरी पिंड रोड , बीडीओ ऑफिस के पास , धुरी , पंजाब-148024

287. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , माहिलपुर शाखा , बस स्टैंड के पास , माहिलपुर , डिस्ट्रिक्ट: होशियारपुर , पंजाब -146105

288. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कोटकापुर शाखा , मेन मोगा रोड , कोटकापुर बस स्टैंड के पास , कोटकापुरा , डिस्ट्रिक्ट: फरीदकोट, पंजाब -151204

289. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मनसा शाखा , गौशाला , मार्किट , गौशाला रोड, मनसा , पंजाब-151505

2900. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मुकेरियन शाखा , वार्ड नं. 1 , आदर्श नगर, मुकेरियन , डिस्ट्रिक्ट : होशियारपुर, मुकेरी, पंजाब -144211

291. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मुक्तसर शाखा, न्यू ग्रेन मार्किट , मुक्तसर, पंजाब-152026

292. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, रोपड़ शाखा , एससीओ 32 , बेन्ट सिंह, अमन नगर , बेला रोड , रूप नगर, रोपड़, पंजाब -140001

293. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सुन्दर नगर लुधियाना शाखा , 70 , फीट मेन रोड , सुन्दर नगर , लुधियाना-141007 , पंजाब

294, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, टांडा शाखा , वार्ड नं . 7 , शिमला पहाड़ी रोड के पास , टांडा उरमार , डिस्ट्रिक्ट: होशियारपुर , पंजाब-144203

295. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, एआरएमबी शाखा , एससीओ 62/63 , तृतीय तल , सैक्टर 17 बी , बैंक सक्वेयर , चंडीगढ़-160017 1806

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

296. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सैंट माजरा शाखा , एससीएफ 29 , शिवालिक सिटी , सैक्टर 127 , सैंट माजरा , मोहाली , पंजाब-140307

297. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, धोलेता शाखा , V एवं पीओ धोलेता , ब्लॉक फिल्लौर , पंजाब -144418

298. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , गंधरन शाखा , V एवं पीओ गंधरन , ब्लॉक शाहकोट , पंजाब -144040

299. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , माधपुर शाखा , V एवं पीओ माधपुर , ब्लॉक समराला , डिस्ट्रिक्ट: लुधियाना , पंजाब 141114

308 ). बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मोरिंडा शाखा, 599 , सुगर मिल , मोरिंडा, डिस्ट्रिक्ट रूप नगर , पंजाब 140101

301. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पंजाब व जम्मू कश्मीर क्षेत्र , प्रथम तल , 24, विजय नगर , फुटबाल चौक, जालंधर 144001 , पंजाब

302. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सीबीडी बेलापुर शाखा , सीसीआई , तल मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. 3 ए, सेक्टर 10 , सीबीडी बेलापुर , नवी मुंबई -400614 , महाराष्ट्र

303. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, तिसगांव नाका शाखा , बालाजी अपार्टमेंट , बालाजी अपार्टमेंट , पूना लिंक रोड , कल्याण पूर्व 421 306 , महाराष्ट्र

304. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, उल्हासनगर सेक्टर 4 शाखा , महोदव डिपार्टमेंट स्टोर्स , पहली मंजिल . व्हीनस सिनेमा के पास , उल्हासनगर 421 004 , जिल. ठाणे महाराष्ट्र

305. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , डोंबिवली ( प ) शाखा , स्वामी विवेकानंद स्कूल के पास , दीनदयाल क्रॉस रोड , डोंबिवली ( प) 421 202 , महाराष्ट्र

306. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , एनआरआई शाखा , तीसरी मंजिल , बैंक ऑफ चड़ोदा बिल्डिंग , 10/12 , मुंबई समाचार मार्ग , फोर्ट, मुंबई 400 023 , महाराष्ट्र

307. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पर्सनल बैंकिंग ( पीबीबी ) शाखा , 10/12 , मुंबई समाचार मार्ग , फोर्ट, मुंबई-400 023 , महाराष्ट्र

308. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बान्द्रा कुर्ला कॉम्प्लेक्स शाखा, सी-26 , जी ब्लॉक, बान्द्रा कुर्ला कॉम्प्लेक्स , बान्द्रा ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई -400 051 , महाराष्ट्र

309. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सीएफएस बैलार्ड पियर शाखा, पहली मंजिल , वालचंद हीराचंद मार्ग , बैलार्ड पियर , मुंबई-400001 , महाराष्ट्र

310. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सीएफएस फोर्ट शाखा , चौथी मंजिल , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा बिल्डिंग , 10/12 , मुंबई समाचार मार्ग , फोर्ट, मुंबई-400 023 , महाराष्ट्र

311. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , खारघर शाखा , शॉप नं. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , श्री बालाजी कृपा को ऑप सोसायटी , सेक्शन 20 , प्लॉट नं. 194 , खारघर , नत्री मुंबई -410 210 , महाराष्ट्र

312. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मीरा रोड शाखा , लॉर्ड प्लाजा, पहली मंजिल, रसाज मल्टीप्लेक्स, मीरा रोड, ( पूर्व ) जि. ठाणे -401 107. महाराष्ट्र

313. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , ठाकुर विलेज शाखा, शॉप 20/21/22/23 , तल मंजिल , कृष्ण वसंत सागर ठाकुर विलेज , कांदिवली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई 400 101 , महाराष्ट्र

314. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , माईड स्पेस शाखा , 2/3 कैंप प्लाजा , चिंचोली बंगर , मालाड ( प ) , मुंबई -400 064 , महाराष्ट्र

315. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, भाईंदर ( प ) शाखा कैलाश दर्शन , पहली मंजिल , गीता नगर, पाठक रोड, भाईंदर ( प ) , जि. ठाणे -401 101 , महाराष्ट्र

316. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नालासोपारा शाखा , 41 समयपाडा, नालासोपारा ( प ) , जि. ठाणे , महाराष्ट्र

317. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, ऐरोली शाखा , शॉप नं. 1 से 4 , तल मंजिल , यश रेसिडेन्सी , प्लॉट नं. 6 , सेक्टर-6, नवी मुंबई -400 708 , महाराष्ट्र 1807

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

318. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जोगेश्वरी ( प ) , शाखा एस वी रोड , जोगेश्वरी ( प ) , मुंबई-400 102, महाराष्ट्र

319. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कोपरखैराणे शाखा , कृष्ण टॉवर , प्लॉट नं. 17 , सेक्टर -14 , कोपरखैराणे , नवी मुंबई , महाराष्ट्र

320. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बदलापुर शाखा , सिद्धिविनायक अपार्टमेंट, स्टेशन रोड, कुलगांव , बदलापुर ( पूर्व ) -421 504, महाराष्ट्र

321. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सानपाडा शाखा , शॉप नं. 5 से 8 , धारा कॉम्प्लेक्स , प्लॉट नं. 3 और 4 , सेक्टर -44 ए , सीवुड ( प ) , नवी मुंबई -400706 , महाराष्ट्र

322. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, विरार ( प ) शाखा , तल मंजिल , शॉप नं. 3/11 , सुयश बिल्डिंग , सरस्वती बाग , विवा कॉलेज रोड , विरार ( प ) , जि. ठाणे -401 303 , महाराष्ट्र

323. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बसई ( प ) शाखा , पहली मंजिल , अनिता चेंबर , गुरुवारा अंबाडी रोड, वसई ( प ) , जिल. ठाणे -401 202 , महाराष्ट्र

324. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सीवुड शाखा, शॉप नं. 5 से 8 , धारा कॉम्प्लेक्स, प्लॉट नं. 3 और 4 , सेक्टर 44ए, सीवुड ( प ) , नवी मुंबई -400 706 , महाराष्ट्र

325. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, उथलसर नाका शाखा , पुष्पमंगल कॉम्प्लेक्स, बिल्डिंग नं. 1 , एलबीएस मार्ग , उथलसर नाका , ठाणे ( प ) -400 601 , महाराष्ट

326. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सेंन्ट्रल एवेन्यू, पवई शाखा , फ्लैट नं. । , ए-4 से ए-6 सी वाय प्रेस को- ऑप हाउ . सोसायटी लि. , हीरानंदानी गार्डन , पवई, मुंबई-400 076 , महाराष्ट्र

327. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , लोखंडवाला शाखा , रॉयल एकॉर्ड 4 , तल और पहली मंजिल , 120 फीट रोड, बी डी मार्ग , लोखंडवाला कॉम्प्लेक्स, अंधेरी ( प ) , मुंबई -400 053 , महाराष्ट्र

870 95/13-3

328. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , अलिबाग शाखा , 301 , कृष्ण महाल बिल्डिंग , महेश टॉकीज के पास , बिग स्प्लैश हॉटेल के सामने , चेंधारे , अलिबाग-402 201 , महाराष्ट्र

329. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, महावीर नगर शाखा , संजय दाणी बिल्डिंग , दत्त मंदिर के आगे , डहाणूकर वाडी, कांदिवली (प ) , मुंबई -400 067, महाराष्ट्र

330. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बल्लभबाग लेन शाखा , शॉप नं. 4 , 5 व 6 , स्किफल बिल्डिंग नं. 143 , घाटकोपर ( पूर्व ) , मुम्बई -400 077 , महाराष्ट्र

331. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , भिवंडी शाखा , शॉप नं. 11 , 12 व 13 , सुमेरिया इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स, गिरिराज बालाजी बॅक्वेट हॉल , अंजुर फाटा , भिवंडी , जि. ठाणे-421 308 , महाराष्ट्र

332. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कर्जत शाखा , श्री छत्रपति यावाजी महाराज मंडल , शिवाजी चौक , बाजार पेठ के पास , कर्जत , जि. रायगढ़ -410 201 , महाराष्ट्र

333. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , निलजे शाखा , शॉप नं. 1 , 2 व 3 , शकुंतला रेसिडेन्सी, लोढा हेवन , डोंबिवली कल्याण शील फाटा, निलजे-421 204 , महाराष्ट्र

334. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नेरूल ( पूर्व ) शाखा, शॉप नं. 4 , 5 , 6 ए व बी, सेंच्युरियन ऑफिस एन्ड शॉपिंग सेंटर , प्लॉट 88-91 , सेक्टर 19 - ए , नेरूल ( पूर्व ) , नवी मुंबई -400 706 , महाराष्ट्र

335. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , गोराई शाखा , बंगलो प्लॉट नं. 155/160 , गोराई शिंपोली रोड , गोराई , बोरीवली ( प ) , मुंबई -400 091 , महाराष्ट्र

336. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सुंदरनगर शाखा , तल मंजिल , राजस्थान सम्मेलन एज्युकेशन ट्रस्ट, न्यूएज्युकेशन कंपाउंड , एस वी रोड , गोरेगाव ( प ) , मुम्बई-400 064 , महाराष्ट्र

337. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, खडकपाडा शाखा , 3 , नीरज पार्क , मोहन प्राइड के पास , खडकपाडा चौक, कल्याण (प ) -421 301 , महाराष्ट्र 1808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

338. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बोईसर ( प ) शाखा , 101 से 106 , पहली मंजिल , ओसवाल एम्पायर बिल्डिंग ' जी' , महावीर मार्केट , बोईसर तारापूर रोड , बोईसर ( प ) -401 501 एजि. ठाणे, महाराष्ट्र

339. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, विजयनगरी शाखा , शॉप नं. 13 से 18 , ग्रीन एकड फेज 1 , विजयनगरी हाउसिंग कॉम्लेक्स के पास , बाघबील , कावेसर , घोडबंदर रोड , ठाणे (प ) -400 615 , महाराष्ट्र

340. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मुलुंड पूर्व शाखा , शॉप नं. 1 और 2 . विनायक ब्लेसिंग्ज, 90 फीट रोड , मुलुंड पूर्व , मुम्बई -400 081 , महाराष्ट्र

341. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मांडा टिटवाला शाखा , शॉप नं. 7 से 9 , श्रीराम प्लाजा , गणेश मंदिर रोड , टिटवाला ( पूर्व ) , ता. कल्याण , जि. ठाणे-421 605 , महाराष्ट्र

342. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, उल्हासनगर -5 शाखा , साई प्लाजा, भगवान अस्पताल के सामने , पुराना बस स्टॉप, सेक्टर 5 , अल्हासनगर -421 005 , महाराष्ट्र

343. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , वाशिंद शाखा , दूर्वांकुर, बीएसएनएल टेलीफोन ऑफिस के सामने , श्री रामनगर , तालुका-शहापूर-421604 , महाराष्ट्र

344. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , फ्लावर वैली शाखा , जेडज़ी (14 , फ्लावर वैली कॉम्प्लेक्स, ज्युपिटर हास्पिटल के सामने , अपोलो फार्मसी के पास , ईस्टर्न एक्स्प्रेस हाइवे , ठाणे ( प ) -400 601 , महाराष्ट्र

345. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नालासोपारा ( पूर्व ) शाखा , करण ए, शॉप नं. 1 से 6 , मजीठिया पार्क, गाला नगर , नालासोपारा ( पूर्व ) , जि. ठाणे -401 203 , महाराष्ट्र

346. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कौसा मुंब्रा शाखा, 5 और 6 , दोस्त अपार्टमेंट , पुराना मुंबई पुणे रोड, कौसा , जि. ठाणे -400 612 , महाराष्ट्र

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

347. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मेमनवाडा शाखा , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा बिल्डिंग , 93, मेमनवाडा रोड, मिनारा मस्जिद के पास , मुंबई-400 035 , महाराष्ट्र

348. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मिनारा मस्जिदशाखा , 38 , मोहम्मदअली रोड , अल- हज जकारिया अगाडी चौक , मुंबई-400 003 , महाराष्ट्र

349. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मोरलैंड रोड शाखा, गुलमर्ग अपार्टमेंट , वाईएमसीए , मुंबई सेंट्रल, मुंबई-400 008 , महाराष्ट्र

350. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मुस्तफा बाजार शाखा , संत सावता मार्ग , भायखला ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई -400 010 , महाराष्ट्र

351. बैंक ऑफ बडौदा , माहिम शाखा , 80 , एल जे रोड, माहिम पश्चिम , मुंबई 400 016 , महाराष्ट्र

352. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , शिवडी शाखा , यूनिट नं. 9 , रीगल उद्योग भवन, ए डी मार्ग , शिवडी, मुंबई -400 015 , महाराष्ट्र

35.3. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नल बाजार शाखा, शॉप नं . 29 . कोलंबो स्टोर्स के बाद , अस्र्काईन रोड . नल बाजार , मुबई 400 003 , महाराष्ट्र

354. बैंक ऑफ चड़ौदा , ओशिवरा लिंक रोड शाखा , शॉप नं. 2 . नूर महल , फारुख हायस्कूल के सामने , एस वी रोड , जोगेश्वरी ( प ) मुंबई 400 102 . महाराष्ट्र

355. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा . सात बंगला , वरसोत्रा शाखा , गोल्ड क्राउन , जे पी रोड, सात बंगला , पिकनिक कॉटेज , अंधेरी ( प ) , मुंबई 400 061 , महाराष्ट्र

356. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पाली रोड शाखा , काकड अपार्टमेंट , पाली रोड , बान्द्रा ( प ) , मुंबई-400 055 , महाराष्ट्र

वाकोला शाखा , श्री कैलाश को. ऑप. हा.सो.लि. नेहरु रोड, 357. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , वाकोला ब्रिज , वाकोला , सांताक्रूज पूर्व , मुंबई-400 055 , महाराष्ट्र [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1809

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

358. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, साईनाथ रोड शाखा , 18 , पटेल शॉपिंग सेंटर , सबवे के पास , साईनाथ रोड , मालाड (प ) , मुंबई -400 064 , महाराष्ट्र

359. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, एल बी एस मार्ग , कुर्ला शाखा , 5 , सोलंकी अपार्टमेंट , एल बी एस मार्ग , कुर्ला ( प ) , मुंबई -400 070 , महाराष्ट्र

360. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कांजूर मार्ग शाखा , सीएसटी नं. 115 , बी/ 1 , शॉप एनएलबीएस मार्ग , रेलवे स्टेशन के पास , कांजूर मार्ग (प ) , मुंबई-400 028 , महाराष्ट्र

361. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, मानापाडा शाखा , आई बंगलो , स्आर कॉलोनी के पास , मानपाडा रोड , डोंबिवली ( पूर्व ) , जि. ठाणे -421 204 , महाराष्ट्र

362. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, इंडियन ऑइल नगर शाखा , शॉप नं. 1 से 8 , रुबिन बिल्डिंग नं. 9 , प्रेमसागर को. ऑप. हा. सो. , मानखुर्द गोवंडी लिंक रोड , इंडियन ऑइल नगर , गोवंडी, मुंबई -400 043 , महाराष्ट्र

363. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , रबाले शाखा , पी/ 51/ 5 , टीटीसी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , रबाले एमआईडीसी , भूषण होटल के पास , नवी मुंबई -400 701 , महाराष्ट्र

364. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अंबरनाथ शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 45 , टी ए बिल्डिंग , स्टेशन रोड, अंबरनाथ ( पश्चिम ) -421 501 , महाराष्ट्र

365. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नेरल शाखा , जुना बाजारपेठ , राममंदिर के पास , नेरल , ता. कर्जत. जि. रायगड़ -410 101 , महाराष्ट्र

366. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अंधेरी ( पूर्व ) शाखा , उमाजी हाउस , तल मंजिल , तेली पार्क रोड , अंधेरी ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई-400 609 , महाराष्ट्र

367. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , दयादरा शाखा , मस्जिदबिल्डिंग के पास , मैन रोड, दयादरा जिला : भरुच

368. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अलियाबाडा शाखा , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा बिल्डिंग , बस स्टैंड रोड, बस स्टैंड के पास , अलियाबाडा, जिला : जामनगर

369. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, भेसान शाखा, भेंसालि , वाया वाग्रा, गांव भैंसाली , जिला भरुच

370. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , देसलपर शाखा , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा बिल्डिंग , बस स्टैंड रोड, बस स्टैंड के पास , देसलपर , जिला: भुज

371. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, हांसोट शाखा , साई कॉम्प्लेक्स , रिलायंस पेट्रोल पंप के पास , अंकलेश्वर रोड , हांसोट जिला : भरुच

372. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , निझामपुरा शाखा , 2 , 3 , ए, सहयोग कॉम्प्लेक्स, निझामपुर , कमलकुंज सोसायटी, फतेगंज, जिला : बड़ौदा

373. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कामरेज चार रस्ता शाखा , गांव नवागाम , तालुका-कामरेज, जिला : सूरत

374. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, परिवार चार रस्ता शाखा , वासु एस्टेट बिल्डिंग , अंबे पेट्रोल पंप के पास , परिवार चार रस्ता , डभोड़ वाघोडीया रिंग रोड , जिला : बड़ौदा

375. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, दरबार चोकडी शाखा , ओमकार रेसिडेंसी, सन सिटी रोड माजलपुर , बड़ौदा , गुजरात

376. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , भंसाली शाखा, भैंसाली , वाग्रा , गांव भैंसाली , भरुच , गुजरात

377. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पिज शाखा , सी.टी. पटेल महिला उत्कर्ष केंद्र द्वारा , पिज केलवणि मंडल , पिज , नडियाद , जिला : खेडा

378. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , टंकारा शाखा, सदगुरु मार्केट , प्रथम तल , शॉप नं. 1 से 4 , जबलपुर टंकारा क्रास रोड, राजकोट मोरबि स्टेट हाईवे , टंकारा , राजकोट, गुजरात

379. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, बोटाद शाखा , मेघाणी चेम्बर्स , प्रथम तल , शॉप नं. 9 से 17 , पडियाद रोड , हवेली चौक , बोटद , जिला : भावनगर 1810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

380. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, तारापुर शाखा , प्रथम तल , लक्ष्मी प्लाझा , मही केनाल कॉलोनी के पास , तारापुर, आणंद

381. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सामापुर शाखा , संस्कृति भवन , नवसारी दान्डी मैन रोड, धुदरिया फलीया सामापुर शाखा , जि. जल्ल्पोरे , जि. नवसारी

382. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सेवालिया शाखा , लालाजी कॉम्प्लेक्स, अहमदाबाद इंदोर हाईवे , सेवालिया , ठासरा , खेडा, गुजरात

383. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कलाणा शाखा , तेरा केबल इंडीया ( प ) , कम्पाउंड टाटा नेनो प्लांट रोड , चरोडी रेल्वे स्टेशन के सामने , कलाणा

384. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, भिलोडा शाखा , सहकारी जिन के सामने , इडर रोड , जिला साबरकांठा

385. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, आदीपुर शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 85 , भूतल , वॉर्ड नं. 5ए राम बाग हॉस्पिटल रोड जिला: कच्छ

386. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , महुधा शाखा, नगर सेवा सदन एट व पोस्ट महुधा , खेडा , गुजरात

387. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, न्युराणीप शाखा, 15-18 भूतल , श्रलोक रेसिङसी आलोक रेसिडंसी के सामने 80 फुट रिंग रोड , अहमदाबाद

388. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, घाट लोडिया शाखा , भूतल , शॉप नं. 65-70 देवनंदन कॉम्पलेक्स, चाणक्यपुरी ओवर ब्रिज के पास , अहमदाबाद

389. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कठवाडा शाखा , दिव्य मंगल आर्केड , शॉप नं. 6,7,8,9 एवं शेड 1 दिव्य मंगल कार्पोरेशन , कठवाडा चार रास्ता कठवाडा , अहमदाबाद

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

390. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , आसोज शाखा , पंचायत बिल्डिग सवली रोड , आसोज

391. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, भाटीया शाखा , मुख्य बाजार , पोस्ट ऑफिस भाटीया , जामनगर

392. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पुना शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 12 , 13 पुना पुना कुम्भारिया रोड , सूरत

393. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , धनेरा शाखा, बालाजी प्लाझा, धानेरा बनासकांठा

394. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , न्यूवी आई पी रोड शाखा, श्री एवन्यू, न्यूवी आई पी रोड कारेली बाग

395. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , चाणसंद शाखा , पंचायत बिल्डिंग , चाणसद

396. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , रखोली शाखा , प्रथम तल , रतन कॉम्प्लेक्स सायली रोड , जि. सिलवासा दादर और नगर हवेली

397. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, विसावदर शाखा , गथाणी चेरिटेबल ट्रस्ट हॉस्पिटल के सामने बस स्टेशन रोड, विसावदर शाखा , विसावदर जिलाः जुनागढ़

398. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, राजुला शाखा , शिव शक्ति शॉपिंग सेंटर शॉप नं. 25 से 28 जफराबाद रोड , जिलाः अमरेली

399. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , धारी शाखा, श्रीनाथजी आर्केड , प्रथम तल शॉप नं. 16-18 , अमरेली रोड एस टी रोड , धारी जिलाः अमरेली 1811

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

400. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गढशीशा शाखा , पाटीदार वाडी के पास नवा वास , शेठिया चौक गढशीशा , कच्छ

401. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , प्रांतीज शाखा , भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम भवन एप्रोच रोड , प्रांतीज जिलाः साबरकांठा

402. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, हिम्मतनगर शाखा, मेहतापुरा सर्कल, विजापुर- हिम्मतनगर रोड हिम्मतनगर

403. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, ओड शाखा, राम कुटीर बंगलो, ओड अर्बन को- ऑप बैंक लि. मुख्य बझार , ओड , जिलाः आणंद

404. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , वल्लभ विधानगर रोड शाखा , डिवाईन डायनींग हॉल के पास प्रार्थना विहार कॉम्प्लेक्स के पास , आणंद विधानगर रोड , आणंद

405. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , अटाली शाखा, बैंक फलिया, स्थान व पोस्ट अटाली तालुका: वागरा ( गुजरात )

406. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, वेलफेयर हॉस्पिटल चोकडी शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 1 , अमन पार्क , दहेज बाय पास रोड जंबुसर चोकडी, जिलाः भरुच

407. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कडोदरा चार रस्ता शाखा , शॉप नं. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 सतकारकॉम्प्लेक्स, स्थान व डाक कडोदरा , जिला: सूरत

408. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , वेसु भरथाना रोड सूरत शाखा , सोहम स्क्वेर, न्यूवीआईपी रोड , भरथाना-अलथान रोड , भरथाना , तेहसिल-चोर्यासी जिलाः सूरत

409. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, हंजर चेंबर सूरत शाखा, प्रथम तल , हंजर चेम्बर , झांपा बाझार , सलाबतपुरा , हेड पोस्ट ऑफिस , तेहसिल-चोर्यासी, जिला; सूरत

410. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सलापस रोड शाखा, अलीफ कॉम्प्लेक्स , सलापस रोड, रीलिफ सिनेमा के पास जनरल पोस्ट ऑफिस , अहमदाबाद

411. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बाजार चौक , धोराजी शाखा, जकरिया अघडी होल बिल्डिंग स्टेशन रोड, बाजार चौक , धोराजी , राजकोट , गुजरात

412. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जमियतपुरा शाखा , इनलेंड ऑफ इंडिया लि. पो. ओ. जमियतपुरा , खोडियार रेलवे स्टेशन ता एवं जिलाः गांधीनगर

413. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अडाडा शाखा , अडाडा गांव-अडाडा जिलाः नवसारी

414. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , मिड कार्पोरेट शाखा , दूसरा तल, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा टॉवर्स लॉगार्डन , एलीसब्रीज , अहमदाबाद

415. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , भेसान शाखा , स्थान भेसान , द्वारा रांदेर ता. चोर्यासी, पोस्ट. भेसान , सूरत

416. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, लिमडी शाखा , समृद्ध कॉम्प्लेक्स, प्रथम तल , ग्रीन चौक स्टेशन रोड , लुहार वाडी के पास लिमडी, जिला: सुरेंद्रनगर

417. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , आंबली शाखा , बगाईडोल दुध उत्पादक मंडलि लि. रूथान व डाकबगाईडोल , आंबली तहसिलः गोधरा. जिला पंचमहाल

418. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , तलाजा शाखा, फाईव स्टार कॉम्प्लेक्स प्रथम तल , स्टेशन रोड तलाजा 1812

=

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

419. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पलानपुर पाटिया शाखा , जी/2-5 , माडर्न शोपी पालनपुर पाटिया, रान्देर रोड ता. चोर्यासी , सूरत

420. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नारनपुर पसायता शाखा , स्वामिनारयन टेम्पल ( महिलायें ) नारनपुर पसायता

421. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कविथा शाखा, कविथा सेवा सहकारी मंडली बिल्डिग पोस्ट कविथा , जिलाः भरुच

422. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, युनिवर्सीटी रोड शाखा, नक्षत्र कॉम्प्लेक्स एक्स्चेंज पोस्टऑफ युनिवर्सीटी रोड जिला: राजकोट

423. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बेचराजी शाखा, सुखडिया समाजनी वाडी आईस फैक्टरी पासे, बेचराजी

424. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, नेत्रंग शाखा , एस्सार पेट्रोल पंप कंम्पाउड , जीन बाजार , पो. नेत्रग , जिलाः भरुच

425. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सारसा शाखा, इन्दुमति एस्टेट बिल्डिंग बस स्टैंड के पास , एट व पीओ सारसा , जिलाः आणंद

426. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , गांत्री रोड शाखा, 1-5, सेनेट स्केयर , गंगोत्री कॉम्प्लेक्स के सामने गोत्री रोड, पी.ओ. गोत्री , देव ब्लॉक , बड़ौदा, जिलाः बड़ौदा

427. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , धंधुका शाखा , फारुख टॉकिज , लाटो बाजार धंधुका, जिलाः अहमदाबाद पिन -382460 ग क्षेत्र

428. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , आलुया शाखा , लूर्द सेंटर , सब जेल रोड़ , आलुया , एरणाकुलम जिला , केरला-683101

[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

429. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, अडूर शाखा, संतोष बिल्डिंग , प्रथम तल , एम.सी.रोड़ , अडूर , पत्तनमतिट्टा जिला-691523 ( केरल )

430. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पनम्पिल्ली नगर शाखा , 28/94 पनम्पिल्ली एवेन्यू, पनम्पिल्ली नगर, कोच्चि-682036

431. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, वडक्कनचेरिशाखा , IV-287- एफ , मन्नारकुडी बिल्डिंग , प्रथम तल , त्रिश्शूर रोड़ , वडक्कनचेरी , पालक्काड़ जिला-678683 ( केरल )

432. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नोर्थ परूर शाखा , आर. के.जि. बिल्डिंग , पोटन स्ट्रीट, के. ऐं. के. जंक्शन, नोरत परूर , एरणाकुलम , जिला -683513 ( केरल )

433. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कोन्नि शाखा, कुट्टीम कॉम्प्लेक्स, पोस्टऑफिस रोड , कोन्नि, पत्तनंतिटटा -689691 ( केरल)

434. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , होटल कृष्ण बिल्डिंग , कोर्ट रोड, मंजेरी-676121

435. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, समा सेन्टर , जुबिली रोड़, तलश्शेरी, कन्नूर जिला- 670101

436. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, ओट्टप्पालम शाखा, प्रथम तल , मोडेण टवेरस , टि.बि. रोड़ , ओट्टपालम-679 101 , पालाक्काड जिला , केरलम्

437. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , काक्कनाड शाखा , श्री नारायणा सास्कारिका समिति बिल्डिंग, सिविल स्टेशन के सामने , एरणाकुलम -682030 ( केरल)

438. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, चेंगन्नूर शाखा , परम्बिल बिल्डिंग , एम.सी. रोड़, चेंगन्नूर, आलप्पुषा जिला-689121

439. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , कोट्टारक्करा शाखा , वेयर हाउस के सामने , पुलमण पोस्ट ऑफिस , कोट्टाराक्करा , कोल्लम जिला-691531

440. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , प्रथम तल , 23/447 , व्यापार भवन , कट्टाकायम मार्ग , पाला, कोट्टयम जिला -686575

441. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, 12/716, एन.एस.एस. करयोगम शॉपिंग कॉम्प्लेक्स , अष्टमिच्चिरा , जिला-नृश्शूर-680731 केरल 1813

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भागII-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

442. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पत्र पेटिका सं. 335 , मंगलम टवेर्स , टाउण बस स्टेण्ड के सामने , पालक्काड-678014

443. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पुल्लाषी शाखा , ओलरिक्करा , जंक्शन, नृश्शूर-680912

444. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पेरामंगलम , नृश्शूर-680545

445. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फोर्ट शाखा, करिम्पनाल आर्केड , ईस्ट पोर्ट, तिरुवनन्तपुरम -695023

446. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, उदमा शाखा , फोर्टलान्ड , टूरिस्ट बिल्डिंग , मेइन रोड , उदमा , कासरगोड जिला-671319

447. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, इडत्वा शाखा , आलप्पुषा जिला-689573

448. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, कांञक्काड , कासरगोड जिला-671315

449. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, वैटिला शाखा , वेलकेयर अस्पताल के पास , एस.ए. रोड , वैटिला, एरणाकुलम

450. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय ( उत्तर पूर्वी क्षेत्र ) भंगागढ़ , गुवाहाटी अंचल , असम

451. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , एटी रोड शाखा, विशाल मेगा मार्ट के सामने , गुवाहाटी , असम

452. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, शिलॉग शाखा, पुलिस बाजार, शिलॉग , मेघालय

453. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, जेन नेक्स्ट शाखा , डी. एन. - 14 , विष्णु अपार्टमेंट , सेक -5 साल्ट लेक सिटी, कोलकाता-700091

454. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , तेघोरिया शाखा , यमुनोत्री, अपार्टमेंट, वी.आई.पी.रोड , तेघोरिया

455. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सोदपुरशाखा, स्टेशन रोड , उत्तर 24 परगना सोदपुर जिला

456. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, केस्टोपुर शाखा, ब्लॉक ए.सी. - 93 ए, प्रफुल्य कानन , केस्टोपुर , कोलकाता-700101

457. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गंगटोक शाखा, एम. जी.मार्ग , गंगटोक-737101 सिक्किम

458. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, दार्जिलिंग शाखा , रोबर्टसन रोड , दार्जिलिंग

459. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , पट्टामुंडई शाखा, प्रथम तल, मिश्रा ऑटो के ऊपर , ग्राः बेलताल पट्टामुंडई ( उड़ीसा) 754235

460. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, सोनपुर शाखा , प्रथम तल , प्रवास लॉज बिल्डिंग , मेन रोड सोनपुर ( उडीसा ) 767017

461. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , जगतसिंगपुर शाखा, प्रथम तल, श्रीराम सीमेंट स्टोर के ऊपर कटक-मछगांव रोड जगतसिंगपुर ( उड़ीसा ) 754103

462. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , छत्रपुर शाखा, को-ऑपरेटिव बैंक के सामने , मेन रोड छतरपुर, जिला: गंजाम (उड़ीसा ) 731020

463. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा ,

कंटाभांजी शाखा, प्रथम तल , राधे रूक्मिणी कंप्लेक्स अन्नपूर्णा होटल के पास , कंटाभांजी, जिलाः बोलनगीर ( उड़ीसा ) 767039

464. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा,

सुंदरगढ शाखा, 147/04 पी.डब्ल्यू. डी रेस्ट हाउस के सामने सुंदरनगर मंडी सुंदरगढ ( उड़ीसा ) 750002

465. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, पटनागढ शाखा , भूतल , कॉलेज रोड पटनागढ ( उड़ीसा ) 767025

466. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, महताब रोड कटक शाखा , सागर संगम सिनेमा के पास , महताब रोड , कटक (उड़ीसा) 753012 1814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

478. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा . पीडीए कॉलोनी , प्लॉट नं. 122 , पिलर्नी गोवा-40311

467 बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, भंजनगर शाखा , भूतल , होल्डिग नं 193 , वार्ड नं 9 , रेड क्रॉस स्ट्रीट , भंजनगर जिला: गंजाम ( उड़ीसा ) 761126

479. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , शेटये प्राईड , तल मंजिल , सोनार पेठ , बिचोलिम गोवा-403504

463. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , सी.डी.ए. कटक शाखा , प्लॉट सं सीएम 2 बी , प्रथम तल , न्यू मार्केट पुलिस स्टेशन के पास, सी.डी.ए. कटक ( उड़ीसा ) 753014

480. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय ( क्षेत्र -1 ) प्रशासनिक कार्यालय भवन । , न्यूकैंट रोड देहरादून-248 001

46% बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, फुलबनी शाखा , फुलबनी , राम मंदिर रोड हाटपाडा, कंधमाल ( उड़ीसा ) 762001

481. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय ( क्षेत्र -2) प्रशासनिक कार्यालय भवन । , न्यूकैंट रोड देहरादून -248001

4710. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , बारापली शाखा ब्वायज हाई स्कूल के पास, बारापल्ली जिः बरगढ ( उड़ीसा ) 767023

482. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय ( क्षेत्र -3 ) देवी रोड , कोटद्वार, कोटद्वार-246 149

471. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, रायगदा शाखा , साईं मंदिर रोड , न्यूकॉलनी , रायगदा ( उड़ीसा ) 765001

483. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय ( क्षेत्र -4 ) प्रशासनिक कार्यालय भवन 1 , न्यूकैंट रोड देहरादून -248 001

472. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, डेबागढ शाखा , कारगिल चौक, जिला: देवगढ ( उड़ीसा ) 768108

484. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय ( क्षेत्र-४ ) प्रशासनिक कार्यालय भवन 1 , न्यूकैंट रोड देहरादून -248 001

473. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , करंजिया शाखा , मानिकचक , करंजिया जिला- मयूरभंज ( उड़ीसा ) 757037

485. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय ( क्षेत्र -9 ) प्रशासनिक कार्यालय भवन 1 , न्यूकैंट रोड़ देहरादून -248 001

474. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, किसिंगा शाखा, चिरंजीव टॉकिज के पास , किसिंगा

जिला: कालाहांडी ( उड़ीसा)

486. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , मुद्रा प्रशासन प्रकोष्ठ 4 , कान्वेन्ट रोड देहरादून -248 001

475. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा , नुआपदा शाखा, राजापुर, नुआपदा ब्लॉक नुआपदा ( उड़ीसा ) 766105

487. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, तनावग्रस्त आस्तियाँ समाधान शाखा, 91/2, धर्मपुर देहरादून -248 001

476. बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, गुडियाकेतनी शाखा , गुडियाकेतनी छक पोः बलराम प्रसाद ढेंकानाल ( उड़ीसा ) 759019

477 , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा, डुंगरपल्ली शाखा , ग्रा+पोः डुंगरपल्ली जिलाः सुबरनपुर (उड़ीसा)

488. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , फुटकर आस्ति केंद्रीय प्रक्रिया केंद्र प्रशासनिक कार्यालय भवन ! , न्यूकैंट रोड देहरादून -248 001 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1815

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

489. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम शहरी ऋण केंद्र 4, कान्वेन्ट रोड

देहरादून -248 001

490. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , केंद्रीयकृत समाशोधन प्रक्रिया केंद्र 4, कान्वेन्टरोड देहरादून-248 001

491. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, प्रलेख अभिलेखागार केंद्र ओमनी बिल्डिंग , टाईटन स्ट्रीट मोहब्बेवाला देहरादून-248001

492. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , खुदरा आस्ति लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम शहरी ऋण केंद्र -सह- तनावग्रस्त आस्तियाँ समाधान केंद्र सेक्टर -5 शाखा परिसर , बीएचईएल रानीपुर

हरिद्वार-249403

493. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , ग्रामीण केंद्रीय प्रक्रिया केंद्र आर बी ओ -5 परिसर, कुसुमखेड़ा हल्द्वानी-263 139

494. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , ग्रामीण केंद्रीय प्रक्रिया केंद्र मुख्यशाखा परिसर , सिविल लाइंस रूड़की-247667

500. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , जी एम एस रोड शाखा , 26/9 विवेक विहार , पॉकेट-3 देहरादून- 248001

501. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , ई सी रोड शाखा, 2, ओल्ड सर्वे रोड देहरादून -248 001

502. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , कनॉट पैलेस शाखा , 37 , टैगोर विला , चकराता रोड देहरादून- 248001

503. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , मसूरी रोड शाखा , मक्कावाला, डाकघर , भगवंतपुर देहरादून- 248 009

504. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, राजपुर शाखा , 228/1 , राजपुर , देहरादून- 248 009

505. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , डी एल रोड शाखा , 1 , डी एल रोड देहरादून- 248 001

506. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ,

नैशविला रोड शाखा ,

1, नैशविला रोड

देहरादून- 248 001

495. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , ग्रामीण केंद्रीय प्रक्रिया केंद्र गैस एजेंसी रोड किच्छा-263 148

496. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ,

ग्रामीण केंद्रीय प्रक्रिया केंद्र चामुंडा काम्पलैक्स, रामनगर रोड काशीपुर-244 713

497. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , एन आर आई शाखा , 4, कान्वेन्ट रोड देहरादून- 248 001

498. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, नेहरू कॉलोनी शाखा , सी-24, नेहरू कॉलोनी देहरादून- 248 001

499. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , शिमला बाईपास शाखा , सेवला कलां, शिमला रोड देहरादून- 248 017

870 40713-4

507. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , नथुआवाला शाखा , गुज्जरवाला चौक , नथुआवाला देहरादून- 248 008

508. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , हर्रावाला शाखा , गांव व डाकघर- हर्रावाला देहरादून- 248 160

509. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , कारगी ग्रांट शाखा , 92, कारगी ग्रांट देहरादून- 248 001

510. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , माजरी ग्रांट ( लालतप्पड ) शाखा , बिरला पॉवर सोलेशन, ब्लॉक-डोईवाला देहरादून- 248 140 1816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

511. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, रायवाला शाखा , रायवाला , ब्लॉक-डोईवाला , देहरादून- 249 205

512. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , रायवाला , मिलिट्री स्टेशन शाखा, रायवाला , ब्लॉक-डोईवाला , देहरादून- 249 205

513. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, सहसपुर शाखा, ब्लॉक- सहसपुर , डाक- विकासनगर , देहरादून- 248 197

514. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , बल्ली शाखा , गांव व डाक- बल्ली ( वाया दुग्गडा) , पौड़ी- 246127

515. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , देवीयांखाल शाखा , डाकघर डाबरी , पौडी-246 189

516. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , जी बी पंत इंजीनियरिंग कॉलेज शाखा , गांव व डाकघर- घुडदौडी, पौडी 246 194

517. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , देवप्रयाग शाखा , बाह बाजार , देवप्रयाग , देवप्रयाग- 249 301

518. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , मैथान शाखा , डाक-मैथान तहसील-गैरसैंण, चमोली 246 486

519. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सिमली बाजार शाखा , डाक सिमली, तहसील- कर्णप्रयाग , चमोली- 246 474

520. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , मुरादाबाद रोड़ शाखा, नजदीक डिजाइन सेंटर , काशीपुर- 244 713

521. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , खटीमा पीलीभीत रोड शाखा , डाकघर खटीमा , खटीमा- 262 308

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

522. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, धिकुली ( रामनगर ) शाखा , डाकघर-रामनगर , रामनगर- 244 175

523. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , हल्दूचौर शाखा , मुख्य बाजार हल्दूचौर , नैनीताल- 262404

524. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, कालाढूंगी शाखा, मुख्य बाजार कालाढूंगी , हल्द्वानी- 263 140

525. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, पिरूमदरा शाखा , तहसील रामनगर , रामनगर- 244 715

526. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, मुखानी शाखा, मुखानी चौराहा , हल्द्वानी- 263 139

527. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, टेढी पुलिया शाखा, नैनीताल रोड , हल्द्वानी- 263 139

528. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , कोसीशाखा, रानीखेत रोड़ कोसी, अल्मोड़ा- 263667

529. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , भिकियासेन शाखा , मुख्य मार्ग भिकियासेन , अल्मोड़ा- 253 667

530. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , लाला बाजार शाखा , डाकघर लाला बाजार , अल्मोड़ा- 263 601

531. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, पाली गुनदित्या शाखा, डाकघर- गुनदित्या, अल्मोड़ा- 263 623

532. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , पतंजली योगपीठ संस्थान शाखा , हरिद्वार रूड़की राजमार्ग, हरिद्वार- 249 405 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1817

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

533. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , लंढौरा शाखा, रेलवे रोड लंढौरा , हरिद्वार -247664

534. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , इकबालपुर कमेलपुर शाखा , गांव व डाकघर इकबालपुर , हरिद्वार -247 668

535. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , थापली चौरस ( कीर्तिनगर ) शाखा , थापली चौरस , कीर्तिनगर (टिहरी ) -249 161

536. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , जोशीयारा शाखा , नजदीक विकास भवन, जोशियारा , उत्तरकाशी-249 193

537. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, सी ए सी, मेरठ कैंट, जिला मेरठ -250001

538. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सदर, मेरठ कैंट, जिला मेरठ-250001

539. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, स्पोर्ट्स गुड्स कोम्प्लैक्स, मेरठ जिला मेरठ-250005

540. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , गढ़ रोड, मेरठ , जिला मेरठ -250004

541. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, आई आई एम टी , गंगा नगर , मेरठ, जिला मेरठ -250002

542. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, आर सी पी सी , मेरठ, जिला मेरठ -250002

543. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय , मेरठ , जिला मेरठ -250002

546. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , संजय नगर , गाजियाबाद , जिला गाजियाबाद-201001

547. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , नहरु नगर , गाजियाबाद, जिला गाजियाबाद -201001

548. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, न्यूआर्य नगर , गाजियाबाद , जिला गाजियाबाद-201001

549. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , वैशाली , गाजियाबाद, जिला गाजियाबाद-201012

550. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , लाल कुंआ , गाजियाबाद , जिला गाजियाबाद -201009

551. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, अग्रवाल मंडी, जिला बागपत-250601

552. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , आर सी पी सी हापुड़, जिला-हापुड़-245101

553. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , आर सी पी सी, बडौत, जिला बागपत-250611

554. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , खेकडा, जिला बागपत-250101

555. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय , गाजियाबाद , जिला गाजियाबाद -201001

556. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , क्रोसिंग रिपब्लिक, जिला गाजियाबाद -201009

557. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, अहिंसा खंड , इंदिरापुरम्, जिला गाजियाबाद -201012

558. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ,

शाहपुर जट,

जिला हापुड-201206

544. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , एस एम ई सी सी, साबुन गोदाम, जिला मेरठ-250005

545. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सी ए सी , गाजियाबाद, जिला गाजियाबाद-201001 559. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , शास्त्रीनगर , जिला गाजियाबाद-201002

560. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, ऊन, जिला शामली-247778 1818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

561. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , मंसूरपुर, जिला मुज़फ्फरनगर -251203

562. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , आर सी पी सी, मुज़फ्फरनगर, जिला मुजफ्फरनगर-251001

563. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , आर सी पी सी , शामली , जिला शामली-247776

564. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय , मुज़फ्फरनगर, जिला मुज़फ्फरनगर -251001

565. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, छापर, जिला मुज़फ्फरनगर -251307

566. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, जलालाबाद , जिला मुज़फ्फरनगर-247772

567. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , मुंडेत खादर, जिला शामली-247778

568. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , जिला सहारनपुर-247662 छुट्द्मलपुर ,

ननौता, जिला सहारनपुर -247452 569. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ,

570. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , आर सी पी सी , सहारनपुर, जिला सहारनपुर-247001

571. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , जिला सहारनपुर-247001 क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय , सहारनपुर,

572. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , गागलहेडी, जिला सहारनपुर-247769

573. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, ट्रांसपोर्ट नगर, सहारनपुर , जिला सहारनपुर-247001

574. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , जनकपुरी , सहारनपुर, जिला सहारनपुर-247001

575. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , रामदासपुर नांगल , जिला सहारनपुर-247551

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

576. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, आर सी पी सी देवबंद , जिला सहारनपुर-247554

577. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सेक्टर-44, नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर -201303

578. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सी ए सी, नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर -201301

579. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, सिकारपुर, जिला बुलंदशहर -202395

580. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सेक्टर -7 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर -201301

581. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, सेक्टर-11 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर-201301

582. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सेक्टर -35 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर -201303

583. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , बिसरख जलालपुर , जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर -201301

584. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, सेक्टर -48 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर-201303

585. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सेक्टर-63 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर -201309

586. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सेक्टर-55 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्धनगर -201307

587. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सेक्टर -126 , नौएडा , जिला गौतमबुद्धनगर -201309

588. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, सेक्टर -30 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्धनगर -201301

589. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, आर सी पी सी- बुलंदशहर , जिला बुलंदशहर -203001

590. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, आर सी पी सी अनूपशहर, जिला बुलंदशहर -202390 1819

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

591. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , रखुपुरा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर 203209

592. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , अट्टा चौक, नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर 203201

593. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , सेक्टर -39 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्धनगर 201307

594. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्धनगर 201301

595. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , एस. ए. आर. बी, औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, परतापुर, जिला-मेरठ 25000

596. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , आर. ए. एस. एम. ई. सी. सी. सी. , ए-36 सेक्टर -26 , नौएडा, जिला गौतमबुद्धनगर 201301

597. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, आर. ए. एस. एम. ई. सी. सी. सी. , कचहरी रोड, जिला- सहारनपुर 247001

598. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , आर.ए.सी.पी.सी. , गढ़ रोड, कैम्प- प्रशानिक कार्यालय , जिला -मेरठ 250001

599. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , एस. एम. ई. सी. सी. , साबुन गोदाम, जिला -मेरठ-250002

600. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , आर.ए.सी.पी.सी. , न्यूआर्य नगर, जिला - गाजियाबाद 201001

601. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक , एस. एम. ई. सी. सी. सी. , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र बुलंदशहर रोड , गाजियाबाद जिला - गाजियाबाद 201009

मुंबई उत्तर

602. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, दहिसर ( पूर्व ) शाखा , लुखी इम्पायर , तल मंजिल , एस. वी. रोड, दहिसर पुलिस थाने के सामने , दहिसर ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई- 400 068 603. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , अशोकवन शाखा, सिद्धिविनायक सीएचएस लि. , शिव वल्लभ रोड , अशोकवन , ओरिवली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई - 400 066

604. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , जोगेश्वरी ( पूर्व ) शाखा , तल मंजिल , शांता मंगेश अपार्टमेंट , हिंदू फ्रेंडस सोसायटी रोड, सरस्वती बिल्डिंग , जोगेश्वरी ( पूर्व) , मुंबई- 400 015

605. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , जोगेश्वरी ( पश्चिम ) शाखा फ्लिक्सेल पार्क , तल मंजिल , एस. वी. रोड, 24 केरेट मल्टिप्लेक्स के पास , जोगेश्वरी ( पश्चिम ) , मुंबई 400 102

606. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , कुर्ला शाखा, माइलस्टोन बिज़नेस पॉइंट , सीएसटी नं. 327 , एलबीएस मार्ग , फौजिया अस्पताल के सामने , कुर्ला ( पश्चिम ) , मुंबई - 400 078

आगरा

607. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, शमशाबाद शाखां, 21 , गोपालपुरा , आगरा- शमशाबाद रोड, शमशाबाद , जिला आगरा ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) पिन-283 125

608. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , सिंगनपुर शाखा , मेजर एस . डी. मेडिकल कालेज कैम्पस , ग्राम सिंगनपुर, बेवर रोड, जिला-फर्रुखाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश , पिन 209601

609. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , रोहताशाखा, आगरा-अलीगढ़ हाईवे , 71 , डायमंड सिटी , ग्वालियर रोड , रोहता, जिला आगरा ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) पिन 282 009

पुणे

610. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, वडूज शाखा , ' सफारी' जी. पी. नं. 414, सी. एस. नं. 464, कोर्ट रोड, पोस्ट: वडूज, तालुका : खटाव, जिला सातारा 415 506 1820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

611. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ,

कासेगांव शाखा , ' रेथारेकर कॉम्पलेक्स' , सर्वे नं. 2845,

पोस्ट: कासेगांव ,

तालुका : वालवा,

जिला सांगली 415 404

612. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ,

भिलवडी स्टेशन शाखा , चितले डेअरी कॅम्पस पोस्ट: भिलवडी स्टेशन , तालुका : पलूस, जिला सांगली 416 303

भोपाल

613. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, तारा सेवनिया शाखा , ब्लाक/तहसील फंदा, जिला- भोपाल पिन 462 036 (म.प्र. )

614. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, दतियाशाखा , रतन भवन , सिविल लाईन्स रोड , पिताम्बरापीठ के पास , दतिया ( म.प्र. ) 475 661

615. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, बैरागढ़ शाखा, न्यूबी-51/524, कालका चौक , मेन रोड , बैरागढ़, भोपाल ( म.प्र. ) 462 030

616. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , गंजबासौदा शाखा, बजाज टॉवर , सुभाष रोड, स्टेशन रोड , गंजबासौदा, जिला-विदिशा ( म.प्र. ) 464 221

नवी मुंबई

617. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

विरार ( पूर्व ) शाखा, रिद्धि-सिद्धि रेसीडेंसी , पहला तल, पारेख इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट के सामने , वीर सावरकर मार्ग , विरार ( पूर्व ) जिला ठाणे 401 303

उज्जैन

618. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, नामली शाखा, पुलिस स्टेशन के पास , नामली , जिला -रतलाम ( म.प्र. ) 457 222

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

619. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , पिपल्या मण्डी शाखा , मार्केटिंग सोसायटी, मनसा रोड, पिपल्या मण्डी, जिला-मंदसौर ( म.प्र. ) 458 664

620. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , सीतामउ शाखा, राणावत भवन , मंदसौर रोड, सीतामउ , जिला-मंदसौर ( म.प्र. ) - 458.990

621. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, नरवर शाखा , उज्जैन- देवास मुख्य मार्ग , ग्राम व पोस्ट- नरवर , तहसील - उज्जैन , जिला उज्जैन ( म.प्र. ) 456 664

अमृतसर

622. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , आंचलिक कार्यालय , एस सी ओ 128 नागपाल टॉवर - 1 , विशाल मेघा मार्ट के पास , रंजीत एवेन्यू अमृतसर-143 001

नई दिल्ली

623. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , प्रशांत विहार शाखा , ई-6, प्रशांत विहार , नई दिल्ली -110085

624. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , मीरा बाग शाखा , ए-6, मीरा बाग , नई दिल्ली 110087

625. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, द्वारका ( सेक्टर -7 ) शाखा, ए-67 से ए-70 , पालम एक्सटेंशन , रामफल चौक , सेक्टर -7, द्वारका , नई दिल्ली

626. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , वेस्ट पटेल नगर शाखा , 7/16 , वेस्ट पटेल नगर , नई दिल्ली 110008

627. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ,

खामपुर शाखा , मंदिर वाली गली , प्लॉट नं. 5 , खामपुर, दिल्ली-110036 1821

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

628. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बुद्धनपुर शाखा, गांव व डाकखाना बुद्धनपुर एवं माजरा डबास , मेन बस अड्‌डा के नजदीक , नई दिल्ली -110081

629. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सुलतानपुर शाखा, हाउस नं. 48 , सुलतानपुर, नई दिल्ली -30

630. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया शालीमार बाग , एई-90 , शालीमार बाग , नई दिल्ली -88

631. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बुद्धपुर शाखा , गांव बुद्धपुर ( बीजापुर ) , नई दिल्ली -110036

632. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

जामिया मिलिया इस्लामिया शाखा , जामिया यूनिवर्सिटी कैम्पस , मौलाना मोहम्मद अली जौहर मार्ग , मस्जिदलेन , नई दिल्ली- 25

6. नागपुर ।।

633. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नरखेड शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 326/2 , 3 , वार्ड नं. 16 , बाजार चौक , जिला- नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र-441 304

634. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

समुद्रपुर शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 5 , विद्या विकास कॉलनी , सर्वे नं. 43/2 , समुद्रपुर, जिला- वर्धा, महाराष्ट्र 442 305

635. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मौदा शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 5 , भंडारा रोड , मु. पो. मौदा, जिला- नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र 441 104

7. चंडीगढ़

636. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

गुडगांव सेक्टर 40 , शाखा, डीएसएस 84-85 , सेक्टर 40 गुडगांव , जिला- गुडगांव 122 001

637. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सेक्टर 47 शाखा, एससीबी 113 , सेक्टर 47-सी चंडीगढ़-160 047

638. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कुल्लुशाखा, प्रथम तल , होटल नेस्ट, मेन बस टर्मिनल ( आई एस बी टी ) सरवरी , कुल्लु, जिला- कुल्लु, हिमाचल प्रदेश -175 101

639. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

पालनपुर शाखा, शॉप नं. 52-53 , प्रथम तल , ग्रांड प्लाजा , धर्मशाला रोड , पालमपुर, जिला-कांगड़ा, पिन-176 061-

640. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कालका शाखा , सैनी ढाबा के पास , एनएच 22 , (चंडीगढ़ - शिमला हाइवे ) , कालका, जिला- पंचकूला , हरियाणा-133 002

641. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया लाड़वा शाखा, इन्द्री चौक , लाड़वा , जिला- कुरूक्षेत्र , हरियाणा-136 132

642. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नारायणगढ़ शाखा , वार्ड नं. 13 ,चंडीगढ़ नाहन रोड, नारायाणगढ़ , जिला- अम्बाला, हरियाणा-134 203

643. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया फतेहाबाद शाखा, तल माला , ढ़ीगरा मोटर्स , भूना क्रासिंग के सामने , जी. टी. रोड, फतेहाबाद , हरियाणा-125 050

644. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सोहना रोड गुडगांव शाखा , यूनिट सं. 14-15-16 , तल माला , जेएमडी गलेरिया माल , सेक्टर 47 , सोहना रोड, गुडगांव ( हरियाणा ) 122001

645. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

हमीरपुर शाखा , भूतल , अंतरिक्ष माल, वार्ड नं. 2 , गांधी चौक , हमीरपुर, हिमाचल प्रदेश -177 001 1822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/ PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

646. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया मानपुरा शाखा , मेन मार्केट, मानपुरा, जिला-सोलन , हिमाचल प्रदेश -173 205

647. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

दिल्ली रोड हिसार शाखा , भू तल , लक्ष्मी प्लाजा , डाबरा चौक , पुरानी दिल्ली रोड , हिसार , हरियाणा -125 005

648. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया महेन्द्रगढ़ शाखा , भू तल , सुनरिया रायल पैलेस , राउ तुलाराम चौक के पास , दादरी रोड , वार्ड नं. 2, महेन्द्रगढ़ ( हरियाणा) -123 029

649. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया तरावड़ीशाखा, शाप नं. 190-191 , नई अनाज मंडी, तरावड़ी, जिला- करनाल , हरियाणा-132 116

8. पुणे

650. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया केडगांव शाखा , गट नंबर 13 , वार्ड नंबर 6 , ग्राम एवं डाकघर केडगांव , तहसील दौंड , ग्राम पंचायत के पास, पुलिस थाने के पास , जिला पुणे -412 203

651. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया अंबड इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट शाखा , आनंद अपार्टमेंट्स, प्लॉट नंबर 4 , सर्वे नंबर 302/1 , अंबड सिडको लिंक रोड, उत्तम नगर , नासिक-422 009

652. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया लासुर स्टेशन शाखा , प्लॉट नंबर 391 , शिवाजी मैदान , ग्राम एवं डाकघर लासुर स्टेशन , तहसील गंगापुर, जिला औरंगाबाद-423 702

653. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया राहुरी शाखा, गुलदगड कॉपलेक्स, प्रगति विद्यालय रोड, सर्वे नंबर 417/2/4 एवं 417/2/3/2 , प्लॉट नंबर 1 व 2 , ग्राम - डाकघर एवं तहसील राहुरी , जिला अहमदनगर-413 705

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

654. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कर्वे नगर शाखा, श्रीनिवास कपिल वास्तु, सर्वे नंबर 1/15/1 , सी टी एस नंबर 694, हिंगणे बुद्रुक, कर्वे नगर , पुणे -411 052

655. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मांजरी शाखा , दुकान नंबर 26 से 29, सर्वे नंबर 93 / आई बी/ 1 , चौरंग स्मित शिल्प, मांजरी बुद्रुक, पुणे -412 307

656. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया राजुर ( गणपति ) शाखा , प्लॉट नंबर 795 , जालना जलगांव रोड , (राज्य हाइवे 222 ) , ग्राम एवं डाकघर राजुर , तहसील भोकरदण , जिला जालना-431 203

657.

संदिप फाउंडेशन शाखा , त्रंबक रोड , ग्राम एवं डाकघर महिरावणी , तहसील एवं जिला नासिक-422 213 बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

658. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सातारा रोड शाखा , कदम प्लाझा , " श्रद्धानिकेतन" , भारती विद्यापीठ के सामने , प्लॉट नंबर एक्स + ए । , सर्वे नंबर 7/1 , कात्रज, पुणे सातारा रोड , पुणे -411 046

659. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

शेंद्रे इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट शाखा, गट नंबर 326 , जगताप पेट्रोल पंप के पास, शेंद्रे एस आय डी सी के सामने , ग्राम कुंभेफल , तहसील एवं जिला औरंगाबाद -431 027

660. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

माईर राजबाग शाखा (लोणी कालभोर ) , गट नंबर 140 , कदमवाक वस्ती राजबाग , विश्वशांति गुरुकुल एज्युकेशनल कॉपलेक्स, लोणी कालभोर , तहसील हवेली , जिला पुणे -412 201 1823

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुनं 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

661. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

श्रीरामपुर शाखा,

वार्ड नंबर 6 , नारायण कांपलेक्स , के.वी. रोड , ग्राम एवं डाकघर श्रीरामपुर, जिला अहमदनगर -413 709

669. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

छत्रपुर शाखा, खाता सं. 192 , प्लॉट सं. 627 , मौजा-अभिमन्यूपुर, मेन रोड , ग्राम/डाकघर - छत्रपुर, जिला-गंजाम , उडीसा-761 202

बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

662. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

एस टी ई एस आंबेगांव बुद्रुक शाखा , नई इन्स्टिट्युशनल बिल्डिंग नंबर 1 , सिंहगड टेक्निकल एज्युकेशन सोसायटी का कैंपस , सर्वे नंबर 10, आंबेगांव बुद्रुक , पुणे -411 041

9. भुवनेश्वर

663. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

पोखरीपुट शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 400 , गंडमुण्डा चौक , पोखरीपुट, जागमरा रोड , खण्डगिरी , भुवनेश्वर जिला-खोर्दा, उडीसा-751030

664. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बिजयचंद्रपुर शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 485 , खाता नं. 48 , ग्राम - बिजयचंद्रपुर , डाकघर- अठरबांकी, जिला-जगतसिंहपुर , उडीसा-754 120

665. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बौद्ध शाखा , प्लॉट नं. 1659 , वार्ड नं. 7 , बौद्ध ( मार्केट साही ) , डाकघर- बौद्ध , जिला- बौद्ध, उडीसा-762 014

666. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

670.

सोनपुर शाखा, खाता नं. 1673 , प्लॉट नं. 1782, आंबेडकर चौक के पास , डाकघर-सोनपुर शहर, जिला-सुवर्णपुर, उडीसा-767 017 .

671. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

नवरंगपुर शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 62/71 , मौजा-चमारीगुडा, डाकघर/जिला नवरंगपुर , उडीसा-764059

10. राजस्थान

672. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

दांतली शाखा , ग्राम व पोस्ट-दांतली , गोनेर रोड , वाया- कानोता , तहसील-सांगानेर जिला-जयपुर-303 012 ( राजस्थान )

11. कोल्हापुर

673. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कोरेगांव शाखा, "चैतन्य बिल्डिंग " , जी. पी. नं. 129/9/6 के , रहिमतपुर रोड , पोस्ट-कोरेगांव , जिला-कोरेगांव, जिला- सातारा -415 501

674. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

खोर्दा शाखा, प्लॉट नं. 648/1168 , खाता नं. 1062/4150 , मौजा- जाजारसिंह , गोडी पोखरी न्यूकॉलनी, मेन रोड , जिला-खोर्दा, उडीसा-752 055

667. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

दहिवडी शाखा,

' राजहंस प्लाझा', सर्वे नं. 730/ 1 ए, फलटन चौक पोस्ट- दहिवडी, तालुका-मान , जिला-सातारा-415 508

12. मुंबई दक्षिण

बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

फुलबाणी शाखा,

प्लॉट नं. 149 , ब्लॉक कार्यालय के पास, मौजा-जिरीगांपड़ा, डाकघर-फूलबाणी, जिला-कन्धमाल ,

उडीसा -762 001

668. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

675.

लोअर परेल शाखा , सी. एस . टी. क्र. 156 , उर्मी एस्टेट-95 , गणपत राव कदम मार्ग , लोअर परेल (प. ) , मुंबई -400013

13. कानपुर

676. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

घाटमपुर शाखा ,

कानपुर रोड,

पोस्ट-घाटमपुर ,

उत्तर प्रदेश-209 206

खरीआर शाखा, होल्डिंग नं. 825 , वार्ड नं. 06 , मौजा-खरीआर , डाकघर - खरीआर , जिला- नुआपड़ा, उडीसा-766 107

870 40113-5 1824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25.1934

677. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

चौडगरा शाखा, बिन्दकी रोड , पोस्ट-मनहार , चौडगरा , उत्तर प्रदेश -212 665

678. बैंक ऑफ इंडिया गीतानगर शाखा , 117/378 , ओ ब्लॉक , गीतानगर , कानपुर-208025

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , मुम्बई अंचल की शाखाएं

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय-1

क्रमांक शाखा का नाम/पता

679. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , अहमदाबाद मुख्य शाखा , वासुपुंजया चैंबर , आश्रम रोड, अहमदाबाद -380 014

680. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , प्राइम प्लाजा, रावजी भाई टावर के सामने , करिश्माबाग , मनी नगर , अहमदाबाद

681. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, दादर को- आपरेटिव हाउसिंग सोसाइटी लि. , शरद आश्रम , भवानी शंकर रोड, दादर , मुम्बई -400 028 (महाराष्ट्र)

682. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, 37 , ललित बिल्डिंग , नथालाल पारेख मार्ग , कोलाबा, बोड हाऊस रोड शाखा, मुम्बई -400 001 , (महाराष्ट्र)

683. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , शाप नं. 4 , महापालिका मार्किट , लिंक रोड, मिथ चौकी, मलाद (वैस्ट) , मुम्बई -400 064, (महाराष्ट्र)

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

684. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, के. के. टावर , रिंग रोड, सूरत मुख्य शाखा , सब जेल रिंग रोड के सामने , सूरत-395 002

685. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , अनीता अकार्ड , दुकान नं. 1-5, आकुर्ली रोड, महादा लेआउट, लोखनवाला, कांदीवली ( ईस्ट) , मुम्बई-400 101 , (महाराष्ट्र)

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय- III

686. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , शाप नं. 1 , 2 , 3 , पूनम प्लाजा, सिविल लाईन , नजदीक आकाशवाणी स्कैयर , आर.बी.आई. रोड, नागपुर-440 001 , (महाराष्ट्र)

687. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , प्लॉट नं. 66 , भाग्यानगर , नजदीक एस. टी. कार्यालय , समरजीत नगर, औरंगाबाद -431 001 , (महाराष्ट्र)

688. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , दुकान नं. -2, ग्राऊंड तल , मनरतना बिजनैस पार्क , जंक्शन ऑफ डेरासर एंड तिलक रोड , घाटकोपर ( ईस्ट) , मुम्बई -400 007

689. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , शाप नं. 5-8 , गणेश कृपा, आर. एच. बी. रोड, मुलंड ( वैस्ट) , मुम्बई -400 080 , (महाराष्ट्र) 1825

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

690. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , प्लाट नं. 3 , रामदास टावर , कल्पातारु हाउसिंग , गजानन मंदिर से सिडको रोड , औरंगाबाद

691. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, दिलकुश , नजदीक नगर पालिका गार्डन , मापूसा तहसील मापूसा-403 507, गोवा

692. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , एन-45/सी.बी. -1/6/4 , त्रिमूर्ती चौक, नासिक, डाकखाना दिडको , तहसील नासिक-422 001

693. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , उपैन्द्र नगर, सिडको-अंबाद लिंक रोड , उपैन्द्रा नगर , दिडको-नासिक-422 009

694. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, 1 , 2 , 3 , आदम कोर्ट बनेर रोड, बनेर ( औंध ) , पुने-411 045

695. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , सराफ़ा बाजार , सामने धूत निवास , नांदेड-431 604

696. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , क्रिश्नाई, सांगवी केसरी रोड, औंध, पुने-411 007

आंचलिक कार्यालय , मुम्बई के अधीन शाखाएं

697. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , ब्लाक नं. 1 , गली नं. 2, सीपज, अंधेरी ( ईस्ट) , मुम्बई-400 096

698. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, 2, खुराना भवन , केन्द्रीय एवैन्यू, नागपुर-440 018

699. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , 5-2-134, पहली मंजिल , आर. पी. रोड, सिकंदराबाद, हैदराबाद

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , मुम्बई अंचल के अधीन शाखाएं

700. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, अहमदाबाद मुख्य शाखा , वासूपूंज्य चैम्बर, आश्रम रोड, "अहमदाबाद-380 014

701. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , अहमदाबाद मनी नगर , 25 -सीता राम सदन , शाह आलम रोजा , अहमदाबाद -380 022

702. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, अहमदाबाद सुभाष ब्रिज , असरे हाऊस , भू- तल, सामने कलेक्टर आफिस नजदीक गांधी आश्रम , सुभाष ब्रिज , अहमदाबाद

703. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , प्लाट नं. 20 , वृंदावन-कम्पलैक्स, सैक्टर -9 , गांधीधाम-370 201 ( गुजरात )

704. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , 8-14 कृष्णा कोन-अर्च-2 प्रथम तल , टैगोर रोड , नजदीक विरानी चौक राजकोट-360 002 ( गुजरात)

705. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, के. के. टावर , रिंग रोड , सामने सब जेल , आश्रम रोड, सूरत-395 002

706. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, सूरत भतार रोड, शीतल शापिंग स्क्वायर , भतार रोड, टूनिंग प्वाईंट ननपुरा सूरत-395 007 1826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

707. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, वापी, शाप नं. 15 से 19, त्रिपुती प्लाजा, वापी -396 191 ( गुजरात)

708. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , 82 , हिल रोड, बांद्रा , मुम्बई -तहसील मुम्बई -400 050

709. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, मुम्बई वोडे हाउस रोड, ललित भवन 37 , नाथलाल पारेख मार्ग, कोलाबा , मुम्बई

710. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , औरंगाबाद, प्लाट नं. 3 , रामदास टावर , कल्पतरू एचएसजी. गजानन मंदिर टू सिडको रोड , पंडलिक नगर गरखेड़ा मुकंदवाद ( महाराष्ट्र)

711. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, बारामती, विद्या कार्नर, सुपर मार्किट , भिगवां रोड, एम आई डी सी बारामती -413 133

712. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , कोल्हापुर , 14 , सर्वे कालोनी , तारा बाई पार्क-416003 , कोल्हापुर ( महाराष्ट्र)

713. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , बीपीसीएल रिफाईनरी कम्पलैक्स माहुल, मुम्बई

714. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, मुम्बई मुलुंड, कुमार को- ओप्रेटिव हाऊसिंग सोसाइटी लि. , महादा कालोनी मुम्बई मुलुंड ( ईस्ट) -400 081

715. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, मुम्बई वाशी , जैड-7 एपीएमसी कम्प्लैक्स , दना बंडर, वाशी , नवी मुम्बई डाकखाना नवी मुम्बई-400 705

716. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , नागपुर, 2, खोराना भवन , सेन्ट्रल एवेन्यू नागपुर-400 018

[ PART II -SEC . 3( ii ) ]

717. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , मुम्बई खारघर , प्लाट नं. 28 शाप नं. 6 , 7 , 8 एवं 9 भूमिटावर सैक्टर -4 खारगर , नवी मुम्बई-401 210

718. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , उज्जैन , वारूची मार्ग फ्री गंज , तहसील उज्जैन -456 001 (म.प्र. )

719. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , मुम्बई पनवेल , 24, तनिष्क हाईटस एमटीएनएल रोड, नजदीक रूपाली सिनेमा सर्कल , पनवेल -410206 ( महाराष्ट्र).

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , पटियाला अंचल के अधीन शाखाएं

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय -1

क्रमांक डाक का पता

720. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , गांव-जलालपुर, डाकखाना बहादुरगढ़ , तहसील एवं जिला पटियाला , पिनः 147 021

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय- III

क्रमांक डाक का पता

721. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , थुलीवाल रोड , गांव और डाक्खाना : हमीदी-148 025 , तहसील एवं जिला बरनाला ( पंजाब )

722. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , माना पत्ती रोड , गांव एवं डाकखाना चाहड़ , तहसील सुनाम जिला संगरूर -148 035 (पंजाब)

723. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, करेंसी मैनेजमैंट शाखा , एस. सी. ओ . - 4, साईं मार्किट काम्पलेक्स , लोअर माल , साईं मार्किट , पटियाला -147001 जिला : पटियाला ( पंजाब ) 1827

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , बठिंडा अंचल के अधीन शाखाएं

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय- II

क्रमांक डाक का पता

724. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, गांव एवं डाकखाना सीतो गुन्नो,

तहसील : अबोहर ,

जिला फाजिल्का -152 116 ( पंजाब )

725. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , गांव एवं डाकखाना अरनीवाला शेख सुभान , तहसील एवं जिला फाजिल्का -152124 (पंजाब)

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय -II क्रमांक डाक का पता

726. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , महाराजा अग्रसेन मार्ग , वार्ड संख्या-10 , सादूल शहर -335 062

जिला : श्री गंगानगर (राजस्थान)

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , जालंधर अंचल के अधीन शाखाएं

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय - II

क्रमांक डाक का पता

727. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , नजदीक रेलवे स्टेशन , गांव एवं डाकखाना झाको लहरी , तहसील एवं जिला पठानकोट- 145 025 (पंजाब)

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय - III

क्रमांक डाक का पता

728. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , आयकर भवन , ऋषिनगर, लुधियाना -141 001 (पंजाब)

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय- IV

क्रमांक डाक का पता

729. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , मेन रोड, गांव राकडी, डाकखाना दातारपुर , तहसील मुकेरियां जिला होशियारपुर - 144 222 (पंजाब)

730. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग , नजदीक प्राथमिक हैल्थ सेंटर , वार्ड संख्या-1 , बडी बराहमना 181 133 तह. एवं जिला सांबा ( जम्मू एवं कश्मीर )

731. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , सिख नैशनल कालेज , बंगा-144 505 , जिला नवां शहर , (पंजाब)

732. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, करेंसी मैनेजमेंट सैल, एस. सी. ओ. 125-126 , सेक्टर-17 सी, चंडीगढ़ - 160 017

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , हरियाणा अंचल के अधीन शाखाएं

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय - 1

क्रमांक डाक का पता

733. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, हरियाणा स्टेट इलेक्ट्रीसिटी बोर्ड , सेक्टर -6, एच.वी.पी.एन.एल बिल्डिंग , शक्तिभवन , पंचकुला-134 109 जिला पंचकुला ( हरियाणा )

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय - III

क्रमांक डाक का पता

734. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , गांव एवं डाकखाना जल्लोपुर , तहसील रतिया , जिला फतेहाबाद -125 051 (हरियाणा)

735. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , गांव एवं डाकखाना राजली , तहसील जिला हिसार -125 121 (हरियाणा)

736. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला,

पंचकुला- नारायणगढ़ बाई पास रोड , गांव एवं डाकखाना बरवाला , तहसील एवं जिला पंचकुला 134 118 (हरियाणा) 1828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

737. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, करेंसी नियंत्रण सैल, एस.सी.ओ. 414, सेक्टर -8 , पंचकुला -134 109, जिला पंचकुला ( हरियाणा)

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , दिल्ली अंचल के अधीन शाखाएं

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय -1

क्रमांक डाक का पता

738. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , एस.डी. कन्या सीनीयर सैकंडरी स्कूल , लाल मंदिर , ईस्ट पटेल नगर , नई दिल्ली-110 008 ,

739. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला,

खसरा- 74/31, करनाल रोड, सामने स्वामी शारदा नन्द कालेज , अलीपुर, नई दिल्ली -100 036 ,

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय - III

क्रमांक डाक का पता

740. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , सैंट जान कालेज , एम. जी. रोड , आगरा- 282 002 ,

(उत्तर प्रदेश)

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , मुबंई अंचल के अधीनशाखाएं

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय II (चैन्नई )

क्रमांक डाक का पता

741. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, स्टार ऑफ बॉम्बे होटल काम्प्लैक्स, बंदूरवैल कनकानाडी, मंगलूर , कर्नाटक ,

742. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , 109. वकील नई स्ट्रीट , मदुरई 625 001 , ( तमिलनाडु )

743. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला ,

नं. 20-114/3 , आर.बी. नगर , शम्शाबाद , जिला रंगारेड्डी आन्ध्रा प्रदेश

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

744. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, 54 एच. एस. आर लेआऊट , VI-सैक्टर , 17वां क्रास , 12वांमेन बंगलूर -560 102

745. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला,

21/6, सुख निवास , कामराज स्ट्रीट, तांबरम ( वैस्ट) चैन्नई (तमिलनाडु)

746. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , भरतीयार रोड, पापानैकिन पालायम लक्ष्मी मिल्स जंक्शन , कोयम्बतूर-641 037

मिड कार्पोरेट शाखा

747. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला, मिड कार्पोरेट शाखा , ऑरबिट मॉल , ए. बी. रोड, इन्दौर

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , द्वारा खोले गए नए क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय

क्रमांक डाक का पता

748. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , 11 , गोपीनाथ मार्ग , एम आई रोड, जयपुर-302 001 (राजस्थान)

749. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , राजगढ़ रोड, सोलन-173 212 (हिमाचल प्रदेश)

750. स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला ,

पहली मंजिल , एस.बी.ओ.पी कांगडा शाखा ,

धर्मशाला रोड,

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , नजदीक कालेज चौक , कांगडा जिला कांगडा-176 001 (हिमाचल प्रदेश) 1829

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II---खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi , the 24th January, 2013

S.O. 593. In pursuance of sub -rule(4) ofRule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official purpose of the Union ) Rules , 1976 ( as amended 1987 ) the Central Government hereby notifies following branches of Banks . under the control of Department of Financial Services , M/ O Finance, whereof more than 80% officers /staffs have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

Number of branches S. N. Name ofBanks

479

1. Bank ofBaroda

122

2. State Bank of India

77

3. Bank of India

4.

72

State Bank of Patiala

750

Total

[No. 11016/2/2013 -Hindi ]

MIHIR KUMAR, Director (O.L. )

List ofOffices/Branches to be notified in the Official Gazette under the Official Languages Rules , 1976 ,

10(4)

'A' Region

Sr. No. Name and Address of Branches

1 .

Bank of Baroda Regional Office , Dehradun 410 , Indira Nagar Colony Near Seema Dwar Dehradun -248001

2.

Bank ofBaroda Harda Branch Plot No. C-35 , C-36, Nehru Colony, Near New Vegetable Market , Harda-461331 ( Μ.Ρ. )

3.

Bank of Baroda Betul Branch Gokul Trade Centre , Station Road , Betul-460001 ( M.Ρ.)

4.

Bank ofBaroda BHEL Branch ' Rudraksha Bhawan ' 27, Sector - C, Indrapuri , Raisen Road , Bhopal- 462021 (M.P. )

5.

Bank of Baroda Bhatapara Branch Vrindavan Palace , Station Road , Bhatapara -493118 Dist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh )

6. Bank of Baroda Balod Branch High School Road, Balod-491226 Dist. Durg (Chhattisgarh )

7. Bank of Baroda Pratap Nagar Branch Sunderwas , Pratap Nagar, Distt . Udaipur (Rajasthan ) Pin - 313001

8. Bank of Baroda Mavli Branch Udai Guest House , Udaipur Road , Mavli , Distt . -Udaipur Pin - 313001

9. Bank ofBaroda Salumber Branch Nehru Marg , Near Boharawadi , Salumber, Distt. Udaipur Pin - 313001

10. Bank of Baroda Goverdhan Vilas Branch R-2, H- Block , 100 Feet Road, Goverdhan Vilas , Sector - 14 , Udaipur(Rajasthan ) Pin -313001

11. Bank ofBaroda Bassi Branch Near Bus Stand, Bassi , Jaipur(Rajasthan ) Pin - 303301

12 . Bank of Baroda Sahapura Branch Chaungi Naka , Old Delhi Road, Sahapura Jaipur( Rajasthan ) Pin - 303103

13. Bank of Baroda Gopalpura Bypass Branch 65, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura , Bypass , Jaipur (Rajasthan ) Pin - 302015

14. Bank ofBaroda Bandikui Branch Sikandra Road , Police Thane ke Pas , Bandikui - 303313 ( Rajasthan )

15. Bank ofBaroda Durgapura Branch Plot No. 1 , Mani Bhawan , Near Mahindra Tower , Durga Vihar , Tonk Road , Jaipur ( Rajasthan ) Pin - 302015

16. Bank of Baroda Tijara Branch Near Power House , Firojpur Road , Tijara Dist . Alwar ( Rajasthan ) Pin - 301411 1830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

17. Bank of Baroda

Dudu Branch

Near Chabra Petrol Pump, Dudu , Jaipur (Rajasthan) Pin - 303008

18.

Bank of Baroda

Chaksu Branch MainTonk Road , Chaksu , Jaipur ( Rajasthan) Pin - 303901

19.

Bank of Baroda

Shashri Nagar Branch

A -22 A , Sai Mohan Vila , Amani Saha Road , Ram Nagar , Jaipur(Rajasthan) Pin - 302015

20. Bank ofBaroda

Pratap Nagar Branch

8 SP 3 , Kumbha Marg , Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

21. Bank of Baroda

Nagar Branch

DakBangio Circle , Unir . Ke Raste se , PostOffice , Nagarfort , Alwar- Bhartpur Road , Nagar Bharatpur, ( Rajasthan) Pin - 321205

22. Bank ofBaroda

Tapukara Branch

Gopali Chauk, Alwar Hy Tahcil , Tapukara -301707 (Rajasthan) Pin-301707

23. Bank ofBaroda

Suratgarh Branch Near Lahoti Petrol Pump Suratgarh Distt. Sriganganagar ( Rajasthan) Pin-335804

24. Bank of Baroda

Bhadasar Branch

Bhadasar The . Sardarsahar, Distt. Churu ( Rajasthan) Pin -331403

25. Bank of Baroda

Boranada Branch

Rajasthan State Industries Development Corporation,

Boranada, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Pin - 342001

26. Bank of Baroda

Nokha Branch

Bikaner Highway, Opp . Babu Chhotunath School , Nokha, Distt . Bikaner (Rajasthan)

27.

Bank of Baroda

Phalodi Branch Nai Sadak , Phalodi Distt . Jodhpur, (Rajasthan) Pin-342301

28.

Bank of Baroda

Makrana Branch Gunawati Road, Makrana Distt . Nagaur (Rajasthan ) Pin - 341505

[ PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ] .

29.

Bank of Baroda

Merta City Branch

Krishi Mandi Road , Makrana Distt . Nagaur (Rajasthan ) Pin - 341510

30.

Bank of Baroda

Sumerpur Branch

Jawai Bandh Road , Sumerpur, Distt . Pali ( Rajasthan) Pin - 306401

31 . Bank of Baroda

Hanumangarh Junction Branch

Sangria Road , Near Bhagat Singh Chowk , Hanumangarh Junction ( Rajasthan ) Pin - 335501

32.

Bank of Baroda

Bhadra Branch

Near Bus Stand, Bhadra , Distt . Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) Pin - 335501

33. Bank of Baroda

Sanchore Branch

Raniwada Road , Sanchore Distt . Jalore (Rajasthan) Pin -343041

34. Bank of Baroda

Falna Branch

Sanderao Road , Falna, Distt . Pali ( Rajasthan ) Pin-306116

35. Bank ofBaroda

Sardarpura Branch

658 , Residency Road , Jaljog Chouraha , Jodhpur ( Rajasthan ) Pin - 342001

36.

Bank of Baroda

Gangapur Branch Near Bus Stand , The . Sahara , Distt. Bhilwara (Rajasthan ) Pin - 311801

37.

Bank of Baroda

Sarwar Branch

Mathuradish Mandir , Sardar Bazar , Sarwar, Distt . Ajmer ( Rajasthan ) Pin -305403

38. Bank of Baroda

Asind Branch

Plot No. 16 , Pratap Nagar, Asind. Distt. Bhilwara ( Rajasthan) Pin - 311301

Bank of Baroda

39.

Kudara Branch Beside Vimla Krishi Kendra G.. T. Road Kudara ( Bihar) -821108

Bank of Baroda

40.

Banka Branch

Near Dokania Market , Aliganj Near M.R.D. High School , Banka (Bihar) -813102 1831

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Bank of Baroda

41.

Kahalgaon Branch

Station Road Near Govt . Old House Hospital, Kahalgaon Distt .Bhagalpur ( Bihar) -813203

Bank of Baroda

42.

Bhikanapur Branch Sanskar Appt. Near Gumti No. 3 , R.B.S. Sahay Road, Bhikanapur, Bhagalpur ( Bihar )-812001

Bank of Baroda

43.

Dehari Branch Mehra House , Pali Road , Dehari On Sone(Bihar) -821307

Bank ofBaroda

44.

Barh Branch Opp. Savita Cinema , N.H. -31 , Barh (Bihar ) -803213

Bank of Baroda

45.

Saharsa Branch

Indira Bhawan , VIP Road, Purab Bajar, Saharsa, (Bihar) -852201

Bank ofBaroda

46.

Donar Branch BipinMarket, Donar, Darbhanga (Bihar ) -846004

47. Bank ofBaroda

Bakhtiyarpur Branch

Naya Tola, Madhopur,Old By Pass , Bakhtiyarpur (Bihar ) -803212

Bank of Baroda

48.

Danapur Branch

B.M. Complex, Saguna More , Danapur (Bihar) -801503

Bank of Baroda

49.

Sheikhpura Branch

Chandani Chowk , Cinema Road , NearCollectorate , Sheikhpura (Bihar ) -803211

Bank of Baroda

50.

Jamalpur Branch

C/o Ravi tubewell , In front ofChurch , Munger Road, Jamalpur (Bihar)-811214

Bank ofBaroda

51 .

Jainagar Branch

MainRoad , Near Bank of India , Jainagar (Bihar ) -800213

Bank ofBaroda

52.

Rajendra Nagar Branch

Ashjagat Complex, Rajendra Path , Kadamkuan, Patna (Bihar ) -800003

87048/ 13-6

Bank ofBaroda

53.

Nawada Branch

Near L.I.C. Office, Thana Road,Nawada (Bihar) -805110

54. Bank ofBaroda

Fatwah Branch

Railway Station Road, Devi Chowk, Fatwah, Distt. Patna(Bihar) -803201

Bank ofBaroda

55.

Lanka Kachrua Branch Khemnichak Main Road , P.O. New Jaganpura Ramkrishna Nagar , Patna(Bihar) -800027

Bank ofBaroda

56.

Munger Branch

Purab Sarai , Ashoka Palace , Near Dilip Bhawan , Munger (Bihar) -811201

Bank ofBaroda

57.

Nazerath Hospital , Mokameh Branch Nazerath Hospital , Mokameh (Bihar ) -803302

Bank ofBaroda

58.

Phulwarishari Branch Saket Vihar More, Anishabad Phulwarishari More , Distt : Patna (Bihar ) -800020

Bank ofBaroda

59.

Kurji Mod Branch N. R. Loyala High School ,Opp . Nalanda Colony, Patna (Bihar ) -800010

Bank of Baroda

60.

Behea Branch

Station Road, Judge Bazaar Near Ambe Talkies , Behea , Distt . Bhojpur (Bihar )-802152

Bank ofBaroda

61.

Jehanabad Branch Makhdumpur , Near Indane Gas Agency, Jehanabad (Bihar ) -804408

Bank of Baroda

62.

Lohiya Nagar Branch

LohiyaNagar At Po : P.C.Colony Near Shalimar Sweets Kankarbagh Patna(Bihar) -800020

Bank ofBaroda

63.

Jamui Branch Jangalia Baba Market, Kutcheri Road, Jamui (Bihar)-811307

Bank of Baroda

64.

Khunti Branch

Khunti , Dak Bunglow Road, Dist- Khunti (Jharkhand)-835210 1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

65.

Bank ofBaroda

Bariyatu Branch

Opp Bariyatu Nursing Home Shanti Complex , Bariyatu Road , Ranchi ( Jharkhand )-834009

66. Bank ofBaroda

Adityapur Branch

Groundfloor, M.P. Nagina Complex Tata Kandra Road, Adityapur, Jamshedpur , ( Jharkhand)

67. Bank of Baroda

Sahebganj Branch

Ground Floor, Mahajan Patti , Sahebganj , ( Jharkhand) -816109

68. Bank of Baroda

Kuju Branch

Ara Road , Kuju , Ramgarh , ( Jharkhand) -825316

59. Bank of Baroda

Chakradharpur Branch

Ranchi Chaibasa Main Road , Chakradharpur, Disti : East Singhbhum , ( Jharkhand)-833102

70. Bank of Baroda

Govindpur Branch

Ist floor, 'Triputi Complex , G T. Road, Govindpur , Dhanbad ( Jharkhand ) -828109

71 . Bank of Baroda

Barajamda Branch

Deepa Complex, Main Road Barajamda ( Jharkhand) -833221

72. Bank of Baroda

Daltonganj Branch

K.G. Girls High School Road , Atand Po: Daltonganj , Palamau ( Bihar)-822101

73. Bank of Baroda

Lalpur Chowk Branch

206, 1st Floor, Devarni Complex , Lalpur Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834001

74. Bank of Baroda

Mihijam Branch

Chittaranjan Po & P.S. Station Road Mihijam ( Jharkhand) -815354

75.

Bank of Baroda

Bawana Branch

48 , Narela Road , Ist Floor , Bawana , Delhi- 110039

76. Bank of Baroda

Dr. Mukharjee Nagar Branch

855, Ground Floor, Dr. Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi- 110009

77. Bank of Baroda

Durgapuri Branch

B -7 , West Jyoti Nagar, Near Durgapuri Chowk , Delhi -110094

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

78. Bank of Baroda

Gandhi Nagar Branch

912, Main Road, Kailash Nagar, Delhi- 110031

79. Bank of Baroda

Krishna Nagar Branch

E-5/ 112 , Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 110051

80. Bank of Baroda Shahdra Branch

641 -B , Loni Road , Delhi - 110032

81 .

Bank of Baroda

Shastri Nagar Branch E-2/256 , Shastri Nagar , Delhi - 110052

82. Bank of Baroda

AlipurBranch

75/138 , Nehru Enclave , Alipur, Delhi- 110036

83. Bank of Baroda

IP Extension Delhi Branch Shop No. 2, Rishabh Impex Mall , CSC Plot , Patparganj , I.P. Extn. , Delhi - 110092

84.

Bank of Baroda Mid Corporate Branch Ist Floor, Bank of Baroda Building , 16 , Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001

85. Bank of Baroda

M2K Chowk Delhi Branch F- 19/ 13 , Sector - 8 , M2K Chowk, Rohini , Delhi- 110085

86.

Bank of Baroda Gohana Branch Near Samta Chowk , Gohana, Dist. Sonepat- 131301

87. Bank of Baroda

Nangal Raya Delhi Branch WZ 1390/2 , Nangal Raya , Delhi - 110046

88. Bank of Baroda

Nanglot Delhi Branch

17/1 , Near Bimal Hospital , Main Rohtak Road , Nangloi, Delhi - 110041

89. Bank of Baroda

Netaji Subhash Place Delhi Branch

First Floor, Aggarwal Heights , Plot No. 05, Netaji Subhash Place , Delhi - 110034

90.

Bank of Baroda

Sector- 15 Rohini Branch

Ground Floor , Pocket - PA , H.No. 1 , Sector- 15, Rohini , Delhi - 110085

91 .

Bank of Baroda

Ghumarwin Branch

VIII Dakari Chowk . PO & Tehsil , Ghumarwin , Dist- Bilaspur, Ghumarwin, Himachal Pradesh -174021 1833

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

Bank of Baroda

105.

92.

Ramnagar Branch

48, Ramnagar, Karnal , Haryana - 132001

Bank of Baroda

106.

Bank of Baroda Ponta Sahib Branch Minni Tower , Oppsite PNB, Paonta Sahib , Dist-Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh- 173025

93. Bank of Baroda Kullu Branch

Saha Branch Saha , Near Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Distt . Ambala, Haryana-133104

Bank of Baroda

107.

Asha Deep, Gandhi Nagar, Kullu , Himachal Pradesh - 175101

94.

Sector- 14 Panchkula Branch SCO204, Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana-134113

Bank of Baroda Shalimar Garden Ghaziabad Branch UpperGround Floor, S-23 , B-Block , Shalimar Garden- II , Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh -201005

108.

95. Bank of Baroda GenNext Branch

Bank of Baroda Taraori Branch MS Bhagwati Rice Mill , NearGT Road, Taraori , Haryana-132116

Tower 2 Stellar IT Park, C 25 , Noida, U. P. -201301

109.

Bank of Baroda

96.

Bank of Baroda Model Town Branch 225L, Model Town , Panipat , Haryana-132103

Arya Nagar Branch 233, New Arya Nagar, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001

110.

97.

Bank of Baroda Sector- 16 Faridabad Branch SCO No. 3 , Sector- 16 , Faridabad, Haryana-121002

Bank of Baroda Murad Nagar Branch Ward No. 14, Main Road, Main Market, Murad Nagar , Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh -201206

111.

Bank of Baroda

98.

Bank of Baroda Sector -23 Gurgaon Branch SCO40, Sector 23 , Gurgaon , Haryana- 122001

Bank of Baroda

112.

Pilakhwa Ghaziabad Branch 42,Milestone, Delhi Garh Road , NH -24, Pilakhwa, Ghaziabad , U.P. -245304

Bank of Baroda

99.

Adampur Hissar Branch High School Road, Near Rajendra Hospital , Mandi , Adampur, District -Hissar, Haryana-125052

Vaishali Branch Shop No. 2 , C- 1 , Sector-4, Vaishali , Ghaziabad , U. P. -201011

Bank of Baroda

113.

100.

Grain Market Karnal Branch PlotNo. 417 & 418, New Grain Market, Karnal , Haryana-132001

Bank of Baroda Bahadurgarh Branch RN Plaza, Railway Road , Dist , Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana - 124507

Bank of Baroda

114.

Bank of Baroda

101.

Naraingarh Branch

Tractor Market , Sudhoura Road,Naraingarh , District- Ambala, Haryana- 134203

Sohna Road Unit No. 06, Tower- B , Vatika Business Park , Shohna Road, Sector - 49, Gurgaon , Haryana- 122101

Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda

115.

102.

Pindara Branch Jaunpur Road, District Varansi - 221006 (U.P. )

Barwala Branch Near Bus Stand, Paonta Sahib Road , VPO Barwala, Panchkula, Haryana- 134118

Bank of Baroda

103.

116.

Pehowa Branch Ambala Road, Pehowa, Haryana - 136128

Bank of Baroda KerakatBranch Kerakat, District Jaunpur- 222142 (U.P. )

Bank of Baroda

104.

Bank of Baroda

117.

Chandauli Branch G.. T. Road, District Chandauli -232104 (U.P. ) PinjoreBranch 1330 B - 1 , Ward No. 4, Abdulapur, Pinjore , Panchkula, Haryana- 134102 1834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/ PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )]

118. Bank of Baroda

130. Bank of Baroda

Badalapur Branch

Bhaua Bazar, Bareilly Branch

Badalapur, Badalapur Chauraha, District Jaunpur- 222161 (U.P. )

119.

Bhaua Bazar, Main Road , Block Bhadpura , Tehsil -Nawabganj , Dist. Bareilly ( U.P. )-243407 Bank of Baroda

131 .

Marihahu Branch

Bank of Baroda

Karmchari Nagar, Bareilly Branch Machli Shahar Road, Opposite Post Office, District Jaunpur- 222161 (U.P. )

120. Bank of Baroda

Karmchari Nagar Road , Mini Bye Pass , Near Bipin & Bhaskar Hospital , Bareilly-243001 (U.P. )

Jalalpur Maphi Branch

132. Bank of Baroda

Jalalpur Maphi , District Mirzapur -231304 (U.P. )

121. Bank of Baroda

Shubhash Nagar, Bareilly Branch

Jamnipur Branch

Jamnipur,

752, Tilak Colony, Shubhash Nagar , Bareilly -243001 (U.P. )

District S.R.D. Nagar -221401 (U.P. )

133. Bank of Baroda

122. Bank of Baroda

Naiganj Branch

GreenPark, Bareilly Branch ArmanHeight , Opp . Green Park , Bisalpur Road, Bareilly-243001 ( U.P. ) Polytechnic Chauraha , Naiganj , District Jaunpur-222002 (U.P. )

123.

134. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda

Aliganj , Bareilly Branch

Pandeypur Branch

MainRoad , Aliganj Dist. Bareilly-243302 (U.P. )

Pandeypur, C-9 /471 -C, Jaiswal Cold Storage Compound, District Varanasi -221002 (U.P. )

135. Bank of Baroda

124. Bank of Baroda

Vikas Bhawan, Bareilly Branch

Anand Ashram Road, VikasBhawan, Bareilly-243001 ( U.P. )

Ramnagar Colony, Shahjahanpur Branch, Mohalla Dilzac , Ramnagar, Near Nigohi Road, Dist. Shahjahanpur- 242001 (U.P. )

125. Bank of Baroda

136. Bank of Baroda

Meerganj Bareilly Branch

FGIET Raebareilly Branch FGIET Ratpur, Raebareilly-229001 (U.P. )

Kamla Market, GT. Road , Opposite SBI , Meerganj , District, Bareilly-243504 (U.P. )

137. Bank of Baroda

126. Bank of Baroda

Ramnagar, Bareilly Branch

Rana Nagar Raebareilly Branch Rana Nagar, Raebareilly- 229001 ( U.P. )

138. Bank of Baroda

Opposite- Jain Mandir Aonla Shahabad Road, Ramnagar, District Bareilly-243703 (U.P.)

127. Bank of Baroda

Harchanpur Branch Baroda Station Road, Harchanpur - 229303 (U.P. )

139. Bank of Baroda

Vikas Bhawan, Shahjahanpur Branch Opposite Vikas Bhawan , Kutcheri Road, District Shahjahanpur- 242001 (U.P. )

128.

Aliganj Branch Aliganj , Sultanpur- 227805 (U.P. )

Bank of Baroda

140. Bank of Baroda

Bandhuakal Branch Bandhuakal , Sultanpur- 222801 ( U.P. ) Maqsoodapur, Shahjahanpur Branch MainMarket Maqsoodapur, Near Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. District Shahjahanpur- 242042 ( U.P. )

141. Bank of Baroda

129. Bank of Baroda

Baraunsa Branch

Harharpur Matkali , Bareilly Branch

Baraunsa Sultanpur - 228120 ( U.P. )

142. Bank of Baroda

Harharpur Matkali , Main Road, Tehsil -Nawabganj , Block - Nawabganj , District -Bareilly-243407 (U.P. )

Gosaiganj Branch Gosaiganj , Sultanpur - 228119 (U.P. ) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1835

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

143. Bank of Baroda

Hanumanganj Branch

Hanumanganj , Sultanpur-228001 ( U.P. )

Bank of Baroda

144.

Kadipur Branch

Sultanpur -228145 (U.P. )

145. Bank of Baroda

Kamtaganj Branch

Kamtaganj , Sultanpur- 228131 (U.P. )

146. Bank of Baroda

Motigarpur Branch

Motigapur, Sultanpur-228132 (U.P. )

147. Bank of Baroda

Kurebhar Branch

Sultanpur-228151 (U.P. )

148. Bank of Baroda

Amauli Branch

Amauli , Fatehpur -212631 (U.P. )

Bank of Baroda

149.

Radha Nagar , Fatehpur Branch

Radha Nagar, Gazipur Road,

Fatehpur- 212601 (U.P. )

150. Bank of Baroda

KenSociety Branch

Kashipur, Uttarkhand-242521

151 . Bank of Baroda

D.S.B. College Branch

Nainital , Uttarkhand- 263135 (U.P. )

152. Bank of Baroda

Aawas Vikas Branch

Rudrapur, Uttarkhand--241578 (U.P. )

153. Bank of Baroda

Nanakmatta Branch

Main Market, Khatima Road , Dist . U.S. Nagar, Uttarkhand -262311

Bank of Baroda

154.

Nirmal Nagar Branch

Vill- Shakti Farm , P.O. Barua,

Bagjhari , Sitarganj , Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand-263151

Bank of Baroda

155.

Dineshpur Branch

Dineshpur, Dist . U.S. Nagar,

Uttarkhand- 263160

Bank of Baroda

156.

ShivNagar Branch

Vill -Shiv Nagar, Puranpur Dist. Pillibhit U.P. -262122

157. Bank of Baroda

Jahangirabad Branch

Anupshahar bus stand, Jahangirabad ,

Bulandshahar-202394

158. Bank of Baroda

Raya Branch

Sadabad Road, Raya, Mathura

Bank of Baroda

159.

Sahaswan Branch

Tahasil Sahaswan

Badaun

160. Bank of Baroda

Gunnaur Branch

Near Block Office ,Gunnaur , Badaun .

161 . Bank of Baroda

Dataganj Branch

NearBus Stand, Dataganj ,

Badaun-243637

162. Bank of Baroda

Gowardhan Chowk Branch Gowardhan Chowk , Mathura

Bank of Baroda

163.

Trans Yamuna Branch

Near Vandana Nursing Home, Trans Yamuna, Agra-282006

164. Bank of Baroda

Dibiyapur Branch

N.T.P.C. Road,

Dibiyapur, Auriya-206244

165. Bank of Baroda

Jhijhak Branch

Ward No. 8 , Om Nagar,

Main Street, Rail Bazar, Jhijhak, Dist. Rambai Nagar Pin-209302

166. Bank of Baroda

Singhpur Branch

Plot No. 684, Singhpur Chauraha, Singhpur, Dist . Kanpur Nagar Pin-208017

167. Bank of Baroda

Yashoda Nagar Branch

128/132, " Y " " I " Block,

Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur Pin - 208011

168. Bank of Baroda

RawatpurGaon Branch

1059, Ganesh Nagar, Rawatpur Gaon ,

Kanpur Pin- 208019

169. Bank of Baroda

Rura Branch

StationRoad, Rura, Dist . Rambai Nagar, Pin-209303 1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013/ PHALGUNA 25, 1934

170. Bank of Baroda

Jagaipurva Branch

51 B ( 4B) , Pokharpur, Lalbangla , Kanpur, Pin- 208007

171 . Bank of Baroda

Maudaha Branch

Near Bus Stand ,Tehsil Road , Maudaha , Post Ragaul , Dist. Hamirpur Pin- 210507

172. Bank of Baroda

Rania Branch

Opp . Rania Police Station , Post Rania , Dist. Ramabai Nagar Pin - 209304

173. Bank of Baroda

Medical College Branch

1908, Shivaji Nagar, Medical College Road , Jhansi Pin- 284001

174. Bank of Baroda

Kalpi Branch

407/349 , Turnerganj , Kalpi , Dist. Jalaun Pin - 285204

175. Bank of Baroda

Imliha Branch

Plot No. 7 , Shrinagar, Imliha, Chaubepur, Post Tatyaganj , Dist . Kanpur Nagar , Pin-209217

176. Bank of Baroda

J23 , HIG, Word Bank Barra, Karhi 80 Ft . Road , Kanpur Pin -208027

177. Bank of Baroda

Antiya Talab Branch

1385, Sharda Hills Colony, New Basti , Jhansi , Pin - 284001

178 . Bank of Baroda

Ratanlal Nagar Branch 572 , Block RN , Yojna No. 2 , Ratan Lal Nagar, Kanpur- 208022

179. Bank of Baroda

Lakhanpur Branch

15, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur Pin - 208024

180. Bank of Baroda

Kalyanpur Branch

Raj Complex, G C2 , Panki Main Marg, AvasVikas , Kalyanpur, Kanpur , Pin - 208017

181 . Bank of Baroda

Mid Corporate Branch

Radiance Town, 7/119 , Swaroop Nagar, Near Arya Nagar Chowk , Kanpur Pin-208002

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

182. Bank of Baroda

Vinoba Nagar Branch 127/443 , ' S ' Block, Juhi , VinobaNagar, Kanpur , Pin - 208014

183. Bank of Baroda

Balaisa Branch

Dakghar - Ajamgarh , Block Palhani Teh .Ajamgarh , ZilaAjamgarh , Uttar Pradesh Pin - 276001

Bank of Baroda

184.

Chamanganj Branch

Place- Chamanganj Bazaar, Village- Karamdanda , Post- Gauhana Block -Malikpuri , Tehsil - Malikpuri , Dist. Faizabad , Uttar Pradesh Pin - 224127

185 . Bank of Baroda

Civil Lines Basti Branch Road -Malviya Road , Place - Navyug Medical Center Pvt . Ltd. , Post- Basti , Dist. Basti , Pin - 272001

186. Bank of Baroda

Devkali Branch

Bypass Crossing , Post - Faizabad . Dist . Faizabad , Uttar Pradesh Pin-224001

187. Bank of Baroda

Ghosi Branch

Building - Mirza Jamalpur , Road- Main Road , Place - Majwara Road , Post-Ghosi . Block - Ghosi , Dist . - Ghosi , Dist. Mau , Uttar Pradesh , Pin- 275305

188. Bank of Baroda

Kaisarganj Branch

Near Siate bank of India Kaisarganj Road , Bahraich Road , Post- Kaisarganj , Tehsil , - Kaisarganj . Dist.- Baharaich , Uttar Pradesh Pin- 271903

189. Bank of Baroda

Payagpur Branch Near Payagpur, Bus Stop , Post-Payagpur, Block &-Payagpur, Tehsil - Baharaich , Uttar Pradesh Pin- 271871

190. Bank of Baroda

Rani Mau Branch

Post- Rani Mau Bhatti , Block - Mawai Tehsil - Rudauli , Dist . Faizabad Uttar Pradesh , Pin- 225408 1837

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Bank of Baroda

191.

Rasra Branch

Building -A.P. Tower, Road- Baliya Road ,

Place- Near Bhagat Singh Chauraha, Block-Rasra , Tehsil- Rasra , Dist . - Baliya, Uttar Pradesh Pin -221712

Bank of Baroda

192.

Palia Kalan Branch

Sampoorna Nagar, Bypass Road , Palia Kalan , Dist . Lakhimpur

Pin-262902

Bank of Baroda

193 .

Transport Commissioner's Office Branch

Transport Commissioner's Office , Near Shahid Smarak, Tehri Kothi , Lucknow -226001

Bank of Baroda

194.

Vibhuti Khand Branch

V-23 , Vibhuti Khand , Gomati Nagar, Lucknow- 226010

Bank of Baroda

195.

Asset Recovery Management Branch

Baroda House, V- 23 , Vibhuti Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow- 226010

Bank of Baroda

196.

Bakshi Ka Talab Branch

Sitapur Highway, Bakshi Ka Talab , Lucknow- 227202

Bank of Baroda

197.

Sidhauli Branch

Mishrikh Road , Sidhauli , Dist .- Sitapur

Pin- 261303

Bank of Baroda

198.

Mohanlal Ganj Branch

Main Raibareilly Road , Mau , Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow - 227305

Bank of Baroda

199.

292/132, Katra Azambegh , Victoria Street , Nakkhas Chowk , Lucknow- 226003

Bank of Baroda

200.

C-13/ 110 , Rajaji Puram ,

Lucknow- 226017

Bank of Baroda

201 .

VikasNagar Branch

301/3 , Sector- 9 , Vikas Nagar, Lucknow - 226022

Bank of Baroda

202.

Chinhat Branch , Main Dewa Road , Maitiyari

Chauraha, Chinhat, Lucknow - 227015

Bank of Baroda

203.

Mohann Road Branch

Dr. Shakuntala Mishra Rehabilitation

University, Budheshwar Mandir Chauraha, Mohann Road , Lucknow - 226017

Bank of Baroda

204.

Malihabad Branch

Village-Malihabad, PO- Malihabad,

Dist . -Lucknow, Pin - 227111

Bank of Baroda

205.

SarojiniNagar

578/698-A, Luxman Nursery -Gauri Bazar, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow -226008

Bank of Baroda

206.

Banthara Branch

Village- Banthara, Lucknow- Kanpur Road,

Lucknow - 227101

Bank of Baroda

207.

Jankipuram Extension Branch

Mukut Trade Centre , Gole Chauraha, CP- 1 , Sector -5 , Jankipuram Extension, Lucknow - 226021

Bank of Baroda

208.

Daliganj Branch

493/72, Pannalal Road , Daliganj ,

Lucknow - 226021

Bank of Baroda

209.

Biswan Branch

85 -A, Thawai Tola, Biswan- Sitapur Road , Biswan, Dist.- Sitapur, Pin - 261201

210. Bank of Baroda

Balamau Branch

Opp. Post Office, Lucknow Hardoi Road , Balamau Dist. - Hardoi, Pin- 241126

Bank of Baroda

211.

GolaGokarnnath Branch .

Sri Laxmi Niwas , Near Sri Ram Mandir, Lakhimpur Road, Gola Gokarnnath Dist. - Lakhimpur, Pin - 268202

Bank of Baroda

212.

Old Sitapur Branch

251 - A, City Station Road , Kot Old Sitapur, Pin - 262802

Bank of Baroda

213.

Fatehpur Branch

Moh Bazar, Munshiganj , Fatehpur Dist.- Barabanki , Pin - 225305

Bank of Baroda

214.

Bhitaria Branch.

Near Petrol Pump , Bhitaria, Dist.-Barabanki , Pin - 225409

Bank of Baroda

215.

Raniganj Branch

Raniganj , Dist.- Pratapgarh , U.P. Pin- 230304 1838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

216 . Bank of Baroda

Karchhana Branch

Karchhana , Dist . - Pratapgarh . U.P.

Pin- 212301

217. Bank of Baroda

Sirathu Branch

Dhata Road , Sirathu , Dist.- Kaushambi

U.P. - 212217

218. Bank of Baroda

George Town Branch

68/6C/ IC , CY, Chintamani Road, George Town , Dist . - Allahabad Pin-211002

219. Bank of Baroda

Jasra Branch

Vill& PO . - Jasra , Dist.- Allahabad , Pin- 212107

220. Bank of Baroda

Mauaima Branch

TownArea Road , Mauaima , Dist. -Allahabad , Pin - 212501

221. Bank of Baroda

VikasNagar Branch

Dist. Dehradun, Uttarakhand -248001

222. Bank of Baroda

Jhunsi Branch

9/102 , Avas Vikas Colony,Yojna-3 , Jhunsi , Allahabad - 211205

223. Bank of Baroda

Phaphamau Branch

56/15 , A/2 , Shri Ganga Complex , Phaphamau , Tehsil- Soraon , Allahabad,

Pin- 211013

224. Bank of Baroda

Faizabad Road Branch

173 , Ba Sahodapur ( West ), Pratapgarh

U.P. -230001

225. Bank of Baroda

Koraon Branch

Vill& Post - Koraon , Dist . - Allahabad

Pin- 212306

226. Bank of Baroda

Sahson Branch

Vill & Post- Sahson , Dist . - Allahabad

Pin- 221507

227. Bank of Baroda

Mama Bhanja ka Talab Branch Vill -Mama Bhanja ka Talab, Post-Naini , Allahabad - 211008

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

228. Bank of Baroda

Mumfordganj Branch

268A , Stanley Road , Mumfordganj , Allahabad- 211002

229. Bank of Baroda

Padila Mahadev Branch

Vill -Padila, Mauza - Jetwardih , Pargana & Tehsil -Soraon , Dist . -Allahabad U.P. - 212502

230. Bank of Baroda

Rajrooppur Branch 683 , Rajrooppur, Allahabad . U.P. Pin- 211011

231 . Bank of Baroda

Teliyarganj Branch

B -6 , Axad Market , Teliyarganj , Allahabad- U.P. -211004

'B' Region

232. Bank of Baroda

New Nasik Kalwan Road Dindori , Nasik-422202 Maharashtra

233. Bank of Baroda

Laxmi Bldg . Main Road , Usmanabad - 413501 , Maharashtra

234. Bank of Baroda Regional Office , Plot No. 120 , N3 Sidco , Aurangabad- 431005 , Maharashtra

235. Bank of Baroda

Plot No. 104 , CTS No. 16035 behind Telephone Office , Sahakar Nagar , Aurangabad-431005, Maharashtra

236. Bank of Baroda

Dwarka Circle branch

Time Square Complex, Ground floor, Near Dwarka Circle, Mumbai Agra High way, Nasik - 422011 ,. Maharashtra

237 . Bank of Baroda

Madhugandha Complex, Trimbakdas Patel Nagar, Near Devi Mandir , Paithan 431107 , Dist . Aurangabad , Maharashtra

238. Bank of Baroda

Gangapur Branch , Opp Police Quarters , Lasur Naka, Gangapur- 431109 , Maharashtra

239. Bank of Baroda

Po . Sakuri Tal Rahata -423107 Dist. Ahamadnagar , Maharashtra

240. Bank of Baroda

PlotNo.A1 ,Ground Floor, Plot No. AI , CTS: 2113/ K/2, E-Ward, Ruikar Colony, Kolhapur-416005, Maharashtra 1839

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Bank of Baroda

255.

Bank of Baroda

241 .

Ballarpur Paper Industries

Dist. Chandrapur -442701 , Maharashtra Sangrul Phata, Koparde , Kolhapur- 416204 Maharashtra

256. BankofBaroda

Bank of Baroda

242.

Plot No. 177 Trimurti Nagar Pratap Nagar, Ring Road, Nagpur- 440025 , Maharashtra

C. S. No. 2082 , Plot No. 51 , Jaysingrao Park , Kagal-416216 , Maharashtra

257.

Bank of Baroda

243.

Bank of Baroda Indira Market Road, Wardha-442001 , Maharashtra

Aniket Shoping Centre , Khed Dapoli Road , Dist: Ratnagiri , Khed- 415709 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

258.

Bank of Baroda

244.

Kannamwar Square , Virani Talkies Road Vani-445304, Dist Yawatmal , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

259.

F - 119, Bhawani Palace Building Near Govt . Rest House , Salaiwada, Sawantwadi -416510, Maharashtra

Shop No. E 1,2,3 F 1,2,3 Nagar Parishad Bhavan , MainRoad , Amravati - 444906 , Maharashtra Bank of Baroda

245.

Bank of Baroda

260.

Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Takiya Varad Tumsar Highway, Bhandara -441904, Maharashtra Afonso Residency, Ground Floor, Shop No. 456, St. Cruz Main Road , Taleigao , Goa-403002, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

261.

Bank of Baroda

246.

Saikrupa, House No. 1256 , Ground Floor, Tilak Path, Gadhinglaj -416502, Maharashtra

Plot No. 1 , Lane No. 23 , Op Vidarbha Coop Society Near Bus Stop Amravati Road Achalpur Camp Paratwada -444805 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

247.

Bank of Baroda

262.

Sayantara Complex, E- Ward, Near Vivekanand College, Tarabai Park, Dist . Kolhapur - 461003, Maharashtra

Plot No. 13 , Raghuvir Society, Main Road Amravati Sai Nagar , Amravati - 444701 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

248.

Bank of Baroda

263.

Hattargi Complex, Bazaar Peth , Main Road,Gargoti , Dist. Kolhapur-416209, Maharashtra .

Plot No. 22, Ward No. 8 , Main Road, Thakre Chowk Deoli -442401 , Dist: Wardha , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

264.

Bank of Baroda

249.

Plot No. 52, Suyoug Nagar, Narendra Nagar, Ring Road, Nagpur -440022 , Maharashtra Plot No. 6,7 Shyam Nagar Manish Nagar Belatrodi Road, Nagpur - 440015 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

265.

250. Bank of Baroda

159/1 King Square Opp Medi Point Aundh Shop No. 19-20, S. No. 158/2/1 , Pune-411007 , Maharashtra

Prathamesh Raja Plot No. 201 /A Untkhana Chowk, Main Road, Medical Chowk Nagpur-440009, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

266.

Bank of Baroda

251 .

Kachare Classic CTS 1081 , S.No. 18 /A/ 1A/ 1 / 1 / 1 Erandavana , Pune -411029 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

267.

Shop No. 5 , 6, 7, 8 Upper Ground Floor , Paras Plaza II , Rishad Washim Highway, Washim-444505 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

252.

S. No. 38 , Dhankawadi , Pune Satara Road , Pune- 411043, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

268.

PlotNo. 260 , Nara Ringh Road, Near BPL Pump, Jaripatka -440014, Maharashtra

S.No. 1690- Pune Nasik Road Bhosari , Pune-411039, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

253.

Bank of Baroda

269.

Malad Tal Baramati Dist Pune -413102 , Maharashtra

Plot No. 1153 Near Hudkeshwar Chowk , Ganaraj Hall, Ring Road, Manewada-440034, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

270.

Bank of Baroda

254.

The Sovergen Shop No. 1 , 2 Kalyani Nagar Pune- 411006, Maharashtra

RajatArked, Plot No. 51 MID C wadi , T Point Nagpur-440023 , Maharashtra

8704713-7 1840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART 11--SEC . 3 (ii) ]

271. Bank of Baroda

286. Bank of Baroda

Dhuri Branch

Kornark, Indrau 114-117 Near Konark Puram Kondhwa, Pune- 411045 , Maharashtra

272 . Bank of Baroda

Dhuri Pind Road , Near BDO Office, Dhuri , Punjab -148024

287. Bank of Baroda

Manali Apts , Dehanukar Colony Kothrud, Pune 411038 , Maharashtra

Mahilpur Branch

273. Bank of Baroda

Near Bus Stand , Mahilpur, Distt . Hoshiarpur, Punjab - 146105

288. Bank of Baroda

Sanas Plaza , A 10 Sansun Nagar - Talegaon Dabhade -410587, Maharashtra

Kotkapura Branch

274. Bank of Baroda

MainMoga Road, Near Kotkapura Bus Stand, Kotkapura, District- Faridkot, Punjab- 151204

289.

Near National Petro , Pune Solapur Road, Bhigwan- 413132, Maharashtra

275. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Mansa Branch

Gaushala Market , Gaushala Road, Mansa, Punjab- 151505

Riddhi Siddhi Aprts, 120, AB TP No. 545, sub Plot No. 28 Sinhgad Road , Pune - 411030, Maharashtra

290. Bank of Baroda

Mukerian Branch

276. Bank of Baroda

Venus Garden , Plot No. 14/1 Kharadi , Pune- 411014, Maharashtra

Ward No. 1, Adarsh Nagar, Mukerian, District-Hoshiarpur, Mukeri , Punjab- 144211

291.

277.

Bank of Baroda Muktsar Branch New Grain Market , Muktsar, Punjab - 152026

292.

Bank of Baroda Shop No. 2, S No. 90, Lakshya Deep Palace A Wing Pimpale Soudagar-411027, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda RoparBranch

278. Bank of Baroda

SCO 32, Beant Singh , Aman Nagar, Bela Road, Roop Nagar, Ropar, Punjab - 140001

293.

Kudale Sai Samruddhi , S. No. 30/1 , Sinhagad Road, Manik Baug -411051 , Maharashtra

279. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Sunder Nagar Ludhiana Branch 70, Feet Main Road , Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana- 141007, Punjab

1171 Brahmanshahi , Near Civil Hospital Wai Satara- 412803 , Maharashtra

294.

280. Bank of Baroda

Ambika Nagar , Opp. Temple, Pune Solapur Highway, Indapur- 413106 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda Tanda Branch Ward No. 7 , Near Shimla Pahari Road , Tanda Urmar, District- Hoshiarpur, Punjab- 144203

295.

281. Bank of Baroda Raviwar Peth , Near Chatrapati Shivaji Statute Phaltan Dist Satara- 415523 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda ARMB Branch SCO 62/63, Third Floor, Sector 17B, Bank Square, Chandigarh - 160017

282.

296.

Bank of Baroda

BharatSikshan Prasarak Mandal Barshi Sholapur Road, North Solapur Wadala- 413222 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda Sante Majra Branch SCF 29, Shivalik City, Sector 127, Sante Majra , Mohali , Punjab- 140307

297.

283. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Dholeta Branch V& PO Dholeta, Block Phillaur, Punjab - 144418 4139 Drone Lane Prasannadatta Road, Barshi , Dist. Solapur-413401 , Maharashtra

298 .

284. Bank of Baroda

Shop No. 3 , 4 , 5, 6 Boyana Vista Plot No 58 Vimannagar Pune - 411014, Maharashra

Bank of Baroda Gandhran Branch V & PO Gandhran , Block Shahkot, Punjab- 144040

299.

285.

Bank of Baroda Madhpur Branch V& PO Madhpur, Block Samrala Dist . Ludhiana, Punjab- 141114

Bank of Baroda Sector 59 Mohali Branch SCF 53 , Phase 5 , Sector 59, Sas Nagar, Mohali , Punjab-160059 1841

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934,

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

300. Bank of Baroda Morinda Branch 599 , Sugar Mill, Morinda, District : Roop Nagar, Punjab - 140101

Bank of Baroda

301.

Punjab , J & K Region Ist Floor , 24 , Vijay Nagar , Football Chowk, Jalandhar - 144001 , Punjab

302. Bank of Baroda CBD Belapur Branch ,CCI ,Gr . Floor, Plot No. 3A Sector- 10, CBD Belapur , Navi Mumbai -400614, Maharashtra

303. Bank of Baroda Tisgaon Naka Branch Balaji Aptt. Poona Link Road , Kalyan East, Kalyan- 421306, Maharashtra

304. Bank of Baroda Ulhas Nagar Sector 4 Branch AboveMahadev Dept. Stores , Ist floor, Near Vinus Cinema , Ulhas Nagar -421004 Dist . Thane , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

305.

Dombivali ( W) Branch Nr. Swami Vivekanand School , Dindayal Cross Road, Dombivli (W) -421 202, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

306.

NRI Branch 3rd Floor, Bank of Baroda Bldg . 10/12 Mumbai Samachar Marg , Fort , Mumbai - 400023 , Maharashtra

307. Bank of Baroda PB B Branch 10/12Mumbai Samachar Marg , Fort , Mumbai -400023 , Maharashtra

308. Bank of Baroda Bandra Kurla Complex Branch C-26, G-Block , Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra ( E) , Mumbai -400 051 , Maharashtra

309. Bank of Baroda CFS Ballard Pier Branch 1st Flr, Walchand Hirachand Marg , Ballard Pier, Mumbai -400001 , Maharashtra

310. Bank of Baroda CFS Fort Branch 4thFloor, Bank of Baroda Bldg . , 10/12Mumabi Samachar Marg , Fort , Mumbai -400023 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

311 .

Kharghar Branch Shop No. 8 , 9,10,11,12 , Shri Balaji Krupa Co. op.Society Section - 20 , Plot No. 194, Khargher , Navi Mumbai -410210, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

312:

Mira Road Branch

LordPlaza 1st floor, Nr. Rassaz Multiplex, Mira Road E, Dist. Thane-401107 , Maharashtra

BankofBaroda

313.

Thakur Village Branch

Shop 20/21/22/23 ,Gr. Floor, Krishna Vasant Sagar Thakur Village Kandivli E, Mumbai-400101 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

314.

Mind Space Branch 2/3 Kemp Plaza, Chincholi Bunder, MaladW, Mumbai -400064 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

315.

Bhayender ( E) Branch

Kailash Darshan , 1st floor, Geeta Nagar, Pathak Rd . Bhayander W, Dist. Thane -401101 , Maharashtra

316. Bank of Baroda Nalasopara ( W) Branch 41 Smaypada, Nalasopara W, Dist . Thane, Maharashtra

317. Bank of Baroda Airoli Branch Shop No. 1 to 4, Ground Floor, Yash Residency, Plot No.6 Sector - 6 , Airoli , Navi Mumbai Pin- 400708 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

318.

Jogeshwari ( W) Branch SV Rd, Jogeshwari ( W) , Mumbai -400102 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

319.

Kopar Khairane Branch Krishna Tower, Plot No. 17, Sector- 14. Kopar Khairane , Navi Mumbai , Maharashtra

320. Bank of Baroda BadlapurBranch Siddhivinayak Apt . Station Road, Kulgaon , Badlapur ( East ) -421504 , Maharashtra

321 . Bank of Baroda Sanpada Branch Elegant Coop . Hsg , Soc . , Plot No. 18D , Sector 14 Sanpada- 400705 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

322.

Virar(W) Branch Gr. Floor, Shop No. 3/11 , Suyash Bldg, Saraswati Baug, Viva College Rd . Virar (W) Dist . Thane-401303, Maharashtra

323 . Bank of Baroda Vasai (W) Branch 1st floor, Anita Chamber, Nr Guruwara Ambadi Rd . Vasai W-401202 , Maharashtra 1842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART 11-SEC. 3(ii) ]

324. Bank of Baroda

334.

Seawood Branch Shop No. 5 To 8 Dhara Complex Plot No. 3 and 4 Sector 44a, Seawood (W), NaviMumbai- 400706, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda Nerual (E) Branch Shop No. 4 , 5 , 6A & B, Centurion Office & Shopping Complex , Plot No. 88-91 , Sector 19 -A, Nerual (E) , Navi Mumbai -400706, Maharashtra

325.

335.

Bank of Baroda Uthalsar Naka Branch Pushapamangal Complex Bildg No. 1, LBS Marg, Uthalasar Naka , Thane W- 400601 , Maharashtra

326. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Gorai Branch Bunglow Plot No. 155/160 , Gorai Shimpoli Rd. Gorai Borivali (W) , Mumbai -400091 , Maharashtra

336.

Central Avenue Powai Branch Flat No. 1 , A-4 To A- 6 Cy Press Chs Ltd. Hiranandani Garden Powai , Mumbai -400076, Maharashtra

327. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Sunder Nagar Branch Gr. Floor , Rajasthan Samelan Edu Trust , New Education Compound , S V Rd. Goregaon (W) Mumabi -400064 , Maharashtra

337. Bank of Baroda Khadakpada Branch 3 , Niraj Park , Nr. Mohan Pride, Khadakpada Chowk, Kalyan ( W) -421301 , Maharashtra

338.

Lokhandwala Branch RoyalAccrd 4, Ground & 1st flr, 120 FtRoad BD Marg, Lokhandwala Complex Andheri (W) , Mumbai-400053 , Maharashtra

328. Bank of Baroda

Alibag Branch

Bank of Baroda Boisar (W) Branch 101 to 106, First Floor, Oswal Empire Bldg. 'G' , Mahavir Market, Boisur Tarapur Rd. Dist . Thane, Boisur ( W) -401501 , Maharashtra

339.

301 Krishna Mahal Bldg. Near Mahesh Talkies , Opp Big Splash Hotel , Chendhare, Alibag -402201 , Maharashtra

329.

Bank of Baroda Vijaynagari Branch Shop No. 13 to 18 , Green Acre Phase I , Near Vijayanagari Housing Complex, Waghbil Kavesar, Ghodbunder Rd .

Thane ( W) 400615 , Maharashtra

340.

Bank of Baroda Mahavir Nagar Branch Sanjay Dani Bldg . Next to Datta Mandir, Dahanukar Wadi , Kandivli (W) , Mumbai -400067 , Maharashtra

330. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Mulund(E) Branch Shop No. 1 & 2 Vinayak Blessings , 90FtRoad, Gavanpada, Mulund ( E) , Mumbai -400081 , Maharashtra

Vallabh Baug Lane Branch Shop No. 4 , 5& 6 , Skiffle Bldg . No. 143 , Ghatkopar ( East) Mumbai - 400077 , Maharashtra 341.

331 . Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Manda Titwala Branch Shop No. 7 to 9 Shriram Plaza , Ganesh Mandir Road , Taluka Kalyan , Dist. Thane-421605 , Maharashtra

342.

Bhivandi Branch Shop No.11-12-13 , Near Sumaria Electronics , Next to Giriraj Balaji Banquet Hall , Anjur Phata, Bhiwandi , Dist . Thane - 421308 , Maharashtra

332. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Ulhas Nagar- 5 Branch Sai Plaza, Opp Bahagwan Hospital , Old Bus Stop , Sector 5 , Ulhas Nagar - 421005 , Maharashtra

343.

KarjatBranch Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Mandal , Shivaji Chowk , Near Bajar Peth , Karjat Dist . Raigad-410201 , Maharashtra

333. Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda Vashind Branch Durvankur, Opp BSNL Telephone Office , Sri Ram Nagar, Tal - Shahapur- 421604 , Maharashtra

344.

Nilje Branch

Shop No. 1 , 2 & 3 , Shakuntala Residency, Lodha Heaven , Dombivali Kalyan Sheel Phata , Nilje-421204, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda Flower Valley Branch ZG 04 , Flower Valley Complex, Opp Jupiter Hospital , Near Apollo Pharmacy, Eastern Express Highway, Thane- 400601 , Maharashtra 1843

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Bank of Baroda

357.

Bank of Baroda

345.

VakolaBranch

Nalasopara (E) Branch

KaranA, Shop No. 1 to 6 Majithia Park, Gala Nagar, Nalasopara E, Dist . Thane , 401203 , Maharastra

Shree Kailash Co- op Hsg. Sos . Ltd. Nehru Road Vakola Bridge ,Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400055 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

346.

Bank of Baroda

358.

Kausa Mumbra Branch

Sainath Road Branch

5& 6, Dost Apartment, Old Mumbai Pune Road, Kausa, Dist Thane-400612 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

18, Patel Shopping Centre, Near Subway, Sainath Road, Malad (W) , Mumbai -400064, Maharashtra

347.

Memonwada Branch

Bank of Baroda

359.

LBS Marg Kurla Branch

Bank ofBaroda Bldg . 93, Memonwada Road, Near MinaraMasjid, Mumbai-400035, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda .

348.

5 Solanki Apartment, LBS Marg, Kurla (West) Mumbai-400070, Maharashtra

MinaraMasjid Branch

Bank of Baroda

360.

Kanjur Marg Branch

38, Mohmmedali Road , Al - Haj Zakaria Aghadi Chowk, Mumbai - 400003 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

349.

Morland Road Branch

CST No. 115, B/ 1 , Shop No. LBS Marg, Near Railway Station Kanjur Marg -400028 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

361 .

Gulmarg Apartment, YMCA, Mumbai -400008 , Maharashtra

Manpada Branch

Bank of Baroda

350.

Mustafa Bazaar Branch

Aai Bungalow, Near Star Colony, Manpada Road, Dombivle (E) , DistThane-421204 , Maharashtra

Sant Savta Marg , Byculla (E) , Mumbai-400010 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

362.

Bank of Baroda

351 .

Indian Oil Nagar Branch

Mahim Branch

80, L.J. Road, Mahim West, Mumbai- 400016 , Maharashtra

Shop No. 1 to 8 , Rubin Bldg No. 9, Premsagar CHS, Mankhurd Govandi Link Road, Indian Oil Nagar, Govandi Mumbai -400043, Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

352.

Sewree Branch

363. Bank of Baroda

Rabale Branch

Unit No. 9 Regal Udyog Bhavan AD Marg Sewri Mumbai -400015 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

353.

P/ 51 / 5 , TTC Industrial Area , Rabale MIDC , Near Bhushan Hotel , Navi Mumbai-400701 , Maharashtra

Null Bazaar Branch

Bank of Baroda

364.

Shop No. 29 , Next to Colombo Stroes , Erskine Road, Null Bazaar, Mumbai -400003 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

354.

Ambarnath Branch 3Plot No.45 , T.A. Bldg . Station Rd . Ambarnath( W) -421501 , Maharashtra Oshivara Link Road Branch

Bank of Baroda

365.

Neral Branch

Shop No. 2, Noor Mahal , Opp Farooq High School , S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (W) , Mumbai- 400102, Maharashtra

Juna Bazarpeth , Near Ram Mandir, Neral , Taluka- Karjat, Dist. Raigad- 410101 , Maharashtra Bank of Baroda

355 .

Bank of Baroda

366.

Seven Bungalow, Versova Branch

Andheri (E ) Branch

Umaji House ,Ground Floor, Telli Park Rd . Andheri (E),Mumbai -400069 , Maharashtra GoldCrown , J. P. Road, Seven Bungalow, Picnic Cottage , Andheri West, Mumbai -400061 , Maharashtra

Bank of Baroda

367.

Bank of Baroda

356.

DayadraBranch

Pali Road Branch

Near Masjid Building , Main Road , Dayadra , Dist.Bharuch

Kakad Apt . , Pali Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai -400050 , Maharashtra 1844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

368. Bank of Baroda

Aliyabada Branch Bank of Baroda Bldg . Bus Stand Road Nr. Bus Stand, Aliyab , Dist , Jamnagar

369. Bank of Baroda Bhesan Branch Bhensali. Via. Vigra, Village Bhensali Dist. Bharuch

370. Bank of Baroda DesalparBranch Bank of Baroda Bldg . Bus Stand Road , Nr. Bus Stand Desalpur , Dist . Bhuj

371 . Bank of Baroda Hansot Branch Sai Complex Near Reliance Petrol Pump, Ankleshwar Road, Hansot Dist . Bharuch

372. Bank of Baroda Nizampura Branch 2, 3 , A Sahyog Complex, Nizampur, Kamalkunj Society Fateganj , Dist . Baroda, Gujarat

373. Bank of Baroda

Kamrej Char Rasta Branch Village-Navagam, Taluka - Kamrej , Dist . Surat

374. Bank of Baroda Parivar Char Rasta Branch Vasu Estate Bldg . Nr. Ambe Petrol Pump Parivar Char Rasta, Dabhoi Waghodia Ring Road Dist . Baroda

375. Bank of Baroda Darbar Chokdi Branch Omkara Residency, Sun City Road Majalpur, Baroda, Gujarat

376. Bank of Baroda Bhensali Branch Bhensali , Vagra, Village -Bhensali , Bharuch , Gujarat,

377. Bank of Baroda Pij Branch C. T. Patel Mahila Utkarsha Kendra C/ o , Pij Kelvani Mandal Pij , Nadiad Village-Navagam , Taluka-Kamrej Dist . Surat

378. Bank of Baroda Tankara Branch Sadguru Market , Ist floor, Shop No. 1 to 4 Jabalpur- Tankara Cross Road Rajkot Morbi State HighwayTankara- Rajkot, Gujarat

379. Bank of Baroda Botad Branch Meghani Chambers , 1st floor , Shop No. 1-17 , Padiyad Road , Haveli Chowk, Botad Dist. Bhavnagar

380. Bank of Baroda

Tarapur Branch First Floor, Laxmi Plaza, Nr. Mahi Canal Colony, Tarapur,Anand

[ PART 11--SEC . 3 (ii) ]

381 . Bank of Baroda SamapurBranch

Samopore Sanskruti Bhavan , Navsari Dandi MainRoad Nr. Dhudaria Falia Samapur Ta .Jalalpore Dist. Navsari

382. Bank of Baroda

Sevalia Branch Lalaji Complex , Ahmedabad Indore Highway, Sevalia, Thasra , Kheda , Gujarat

383 . Bank of Baroda Kalana Branch

Teta Cable India (P) Compound, TaraNano Plant Road Opp . Charodi Railway Station, Kalana

384. Bank of Baroda

Bhiloda Branch Opp . Sahkar Jin , Idar Road , TA Bhiloda Dist Sabarkantha

385. Bank of Baroda

AdipurBranch PlotNo. 85 , Ground floor, Ward No. 5A , Ram Baug Hospital Road, Dist. Kutch

386. Bank of Baroda Mahudha Branch Nagar Seva Sadan At & PO Mahudha , Kheda, Gujarat

387. Bank of Baroda New Ranip Branch 15-18 , Grd, floor , Shlok Residency Opp . Aalok Residency, 80ft Ring Rd . Ahmedabad

388. Bank of Baroda Ghastlodiya Branch Grd. flr, Shop No. 65-70 Devnandan Complex Chanakyapuri Over Bridge , Ahmedabad

389. Bank of Baroda Kathwada Branch DiyaMangal Arcade , Shop No. 6 , 7, 8 , 9 & Shed- 1 Divya Mangal Corp. Kathwada Char Rasta Kathwada

390. Bank of Baroda Asoj Branch Panchayat Bldg . Savli Road , Asoj

391 . Bank of Baroda Bhatiya Branch Main Bazar, Post Office , Bhatiya Dist . Jamnagar

392. Bank of Baroda

Puna Branch Plot No. 12, 13 Puna , Khumbharia Road , Surat

393 . Bank of Baroda Dhanera Branch Balaji Plaza , Dhanera Banaskantha [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1845

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

394. Bank ofBaroda

New VIP Road Branch Shree Avenue New VIP Road KareliBaug

Bank ofBaroda

395.

Chansad Branch Panchayat Bldg , Chansad

396. Bank ofBaroda

Rakholi Branch

1stfloor, Ratan Complex Sayle Road, Dist . Silvasa Dadar& Nagar Haweli

Bank ofBaroda

397.

Visavadar Branch

Opp . Gathani Charitable Trust Hospital Bus Station Road Viasavadar, Dist . Junagad

398. Bank ofBaroda

Rajula Branch

Shiv Shakti Shopping Centre Shop No. 25 to 28 , Jafrabad Rd. Rajula Dist . Amreli

399. Bank ofBaroda

Dhari Branch Shrinathji Arcade, 1st Floor Shop No. 16-18, Amreli Road Opp . ST Bus Road Dhari , Dist. Amreli

400. Bank ofBaroda

Gadhshisha Branch

Nr. Patidar Wadi Nava Yas , Shethia Chowk Gadhshisha , Dist . Kutch

401 . Bank ofBaroda

Prantij Branch

LIC of India Bldg, Approach Road, Prantij , Distt. Sabarkantha

Bank ofBaroda

402.

Himmatnagar Branch

Mehtapura Circle, Vijapur-Himmatnagar Road Himmatnagar.

403. Bank ofBaroda

ODE Branch

Ram Kutir Banglow Nr. ODE Urban Co- op Bank Ltd. Main Bazar, ODE DistAnand

404. Bank ofBaroda

Vallabh Vidyanagar Road Branch Nr. Divine DiningHall , Besides Prathana Vihar Complex Anand Vidya Nagar Road Anand

Bank ofBaroda

405.

Atali Branch

Bank Falia , At. & PO Atali Tal ,Vagra, Gujarat

406. Bank ofBaroda

Welfare Hosp . Chowkdi Branch

Plot No. 1 , Aman Park, Dahej by pass Road, Jambusar Chokdi , Dist . Bharuch

407. Bank ofBaroda

Karodara Char Rasta Branch

Shop No. 8 , 9 , 10, 11 Satkar Complex , AT & PO.Kadodara Dist. Surat

Bank ofBaroda

408.

Vesu Bharthana Rd . Surat Branch Soham Squre, New VIP Road , Bharthana -Althan Road Bharthan , Tehsil , Choryasi Dist . Surat

409. Bank ofBaroda

Hanjer Chamber Surat Branch

1stfloor, Hanjar Chamber, ZampaBazar Salabatpura , Head PostOffice Tehsil-Choryasi , Dist- Surat

Bank ofBaroda

410.

Salapose Road Branch

AlifComplex , Salapas Road Nr. ReliefCinema, General PostOffice , Ahmedabad

Bank ofBaroda

411.

Bazar Chowk Branch Zakaria Aghadi Hall Bldg . Bazar Chowk, Dhoraji Rajkot, Gujarat

412. Bank ofBaroda

Jsmiyatpura Branch

Inland ofContainer Corp. of India Ltd. P.O. Jamuyatpura, Nr.Khodiyar Railway Station , TA& Dist. Gandhinagar 1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

413. Bank ofBaroda

Adada Village, Adada

Adada Branch DistNavsari

414. Bank ofBaroda

MID Corporate Branch

2nd floor, Bank of Baroda Towers Law Garden, Ellisbridge Dist Ahmedabad

415. Bank ofBarod

Bhesan Branch

At . Bhesan , Via- Rander Tal.Choryasi , Post . Bhesan Dist Surat

416. Bank ofBaroda

Limbdi Branch Samrudhdh Complex 1stfloor, Green Chowk Station Road , Nr . Luhar- Suthar Wadi Limbdi - 363421 Dist . Surendranagar

417. Bank ofBaroda

Ambali Branch

Opp .Bagaidol Dodh Utpadad Mandali Ltd. At.Bagaidol , PO-Ambali , Tehsil- Godhra , Dist . Panchmahal

418. Bank of Baroda

TalajaBranch Five Star Complex, 1st floor Station Road Talaja- 364140

419. Bank ofBaroda

Palanpur Patia Branch G/2-5, Modern Shoppe Palanpur Patia , Rander Road , Tal-Choryasi , Surat - 3950 17

420. Bank of Baroda

Naranpur Pasayta Branch Swami Narayan Temple ( Ladies) Naranpar Pasayta , - 370429

421. Bank of Baroda

Kavitha Branch Kavitha Seva Sarkari Mandal Bldg . Post. Kavitha , Dist . Bharuch

422. Bank of Baroda

University Rd Branch

Nakshtra Complex 3 , 150 feet Ring Road PostOff. -University Road Dist. Rajkot Nr . Raiya Telephone Exchange

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

423. Bank ofBaroda

Becharaji Branch

Opp.Sukhadiya Samajni Wadi , Nr. Ice Factory, Post-Becharaji

424. Bank ofBaroda

NetrangBranch EssarPetrol Punp Compund Nr. Jin Bazar, Post Netrang Dist. Bharuch

425. Bank of Baroda Sarsa Branch Indumati Estate Bldg . Nr. Bus Stand , At. & PO , Sarsa Dist Anand Pin- 388365

426. Bank ofBaroda GotriRoad Branch 1-5 , Senate Square Opp. Gangotri Complex Gotri Road P.O. Gotri , Dev Block Baroda , Dist . Baroda

427. Bank ofBaroda

Dhandhuka Branch Faruk Talkies , Lato Bazar Dhandhuka , Dist . Ahmedabad Pin-382460

' C' Region

428. Bank of Baroda

Alwaye Branch , Lourde Centre , Sub Jail Road, Alwaye, Emakulum Dist . Kerala - 683101

429. Bank ofBaroda

Adoor Branch, Santosh Building , M.C. Road , Adoor , Pathanamthitta , Dist . - 691523 ( Kerala )

430. Bank ofBaroda

Panampilly Nagar Branch , 28/94 , Panampilly Avenue , Panampılly Nagar, Cochin - 682036

431. Bank of Baroda

Vadakkenchery Branch, IV - 287 - F, Mannarkudy Building . 1st Floor, Thrissur Road, Vadakkencherry, Palakkad Dist . 678683

432. Bank of Baroda

North Paravur Branch , R.K.G.Building , Potten Street , K.M.K. Junction , North Paravur, Ernakulum Dist . - 683 513

433. Bank ofBaroda Konni Branch , Kutty's Complex , PostOffice Road , Konni , Pathanamthitta - 689691 1847

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Bank ofBaroda

434.

Hotel Krishna Building , Court Road, Manjeri - 676 121

Bank of Baroda

435.

Sarna Centre , Jubilee Road, Thalassery, Kannur Dist - 670 101

Bank ofBaroda

436.

OttapalamBranch , 1stFloor, Modern Tower, T.B. Road Junction Ottapalam - 679 101 , Pallakad District , Kerala

Bank ofBaroda

437.

Kakkanad Branch , Sree Narayana Samskarika- SamithyBldg. Ground Floor, Opp . Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulum - 682030

Bank ofBaroda

438.

Chengannur Branch , Parampil Building , M.C. Road, Chengnnur, Alappuzha Dist . 689121

Bank ofBaroda

439.

Kottarakara Branch , Opposite Ware House , Pilamon P.O. , Kottarakara, Quilon Dist -691531

Bank ofBaroda

440.

Ist Floor, 23/447 , Vyapara Bhavan, Kattakayam Road, Palai , Lottayam Dist. - 686575.

Bank ofBaroda

441.

12/716 , N.S.S. Karayogam Shopping Complex , Ashtamichira , Dist . Trichur Pin- 680731 , Kerala

Bank ofBaroda

442.

P.B.No.335 , Mangalam Towers , Opp. Town Bus Stand, Palakkad- 678014

Bank ofBaroda

443.

Pullazhi Branch , Olarikara junction ,

Thrissur - 680912 ,

Bank ofBaroda

444.

Peramangalam, Thrissur - 680 545

Bank ofBaroda

445.

FortBranch, Karimpanal Archade , East Fort , Thiruvananthapuram- 695 023 ,

Bank ofBaroda

446.

Udma Branch. fortland Tourist Building , Main Road, Udma , Kasaragod Dist . - 671319

87090/13-8

Bank ofBaroda

447.

Edathua, Alappuzha District - 689 573

Bank ofBaroda

448.

Kanhangad, Kasaragod District - 671315

Bank ofBaroda

449.

Vyttila Branch, Near Welcare Hospital , SARoad, Vyttila, Ernakulam.

Bank ofBaroda

450.

Regional Office (NES ) , Bhangagarh, Guwahati , Assam

Bank ofBaroda

451.

ATRoad Branch

Opp. Vishal Mega Mart, Guwahati, Assam

Bank ofBaroda

452.

ShillongBranch, Police Bazar, Shillong , Meghalaya

453. Bank ofBaroda,

GenNextBranch ,

DN- 14, Vishnu Apartment, Sector 5 Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700091

Bank ofBaroda

454.

Teghoria Branch , Yamunotri Apartment,

VIPRoad, Tegharia

Bank ofBaroda

455.

Sodepur Branch, Station Road, Sodepur

DT 24PGS (N)

Bank ofBaroda

456.

Kestopur Branch ,

Block AC 93 A, Prafulla Kanan, Kestopur, Kolkata 700101

Bank ofBaroda

457.

GangtokBranch, M.G.. Road,

Gangtok -737101 Sikkim

Bank ofBaroda

458.

Darjeeling Branch, Robertson Road , Darjeeling

Bank ofBaroda

459.

Pattamundai Branch ,

1st floor Above Mishra Auto Vill-Beltal, Pattamundai (Orissa ) 754235

Bank ofBaroda

460

SonepurBranch ,

1st floor, Pravas Lodge Bldg . MainRoad , Sonepur, ( Orrisa) 767017

Bank ofBaroda

461.

Jagatsinghpur Branch,

1st floor, Above Shreeram Cement Store Cuttuk-Machhagaon Road, Jagatsinghpur ( Orrissa) 754103 1848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

462. Bank ofBaroda

ChatarpurBranch, Opposite Co - Operative Bank MainRoad, Chatarpur

Dist:Ganjam (Orissa) -731020

463. Bank ofBaroda

Kantabhanji Branch, 1st Floor, Radheyrukamani Complex . NearAnnapurna Hotel , Dist- Bolangar, Kantabhanji (Orissa) -767039

464. Bank ofBaroda

Sundergarh Branch, 147/04 , Opp P.W.D Rest House , Sundernagar , Mandi Sundernagar (Orissa) -75002

465. Bank ofBaroda

Patnagarh Branch , Ground floor, College Road Patnagarh ( Orissa) -767025

466. Bank ofBaroda

Mehtab Road, Cuttack Branch, Near Sagarsangam Cinema Mehtab Road, Cuttack, (Orissa )-753012

467. Bank ofBaroda

Bhanjnagar Branch , 1st floor, holding no - 193 , Ward No- 9, Red Cross Street , Bhanjnagar , Dist-Ghanjam ( Orissa)-761126

468. Bank ofBaroda

CDA Cuttack Branch ,

Plot No. CM 2B 1st Floor, Sec - 7 New Market, Near Police Station , CDA, Cuttack (Orissa) -753014

469. Bank ofBaroda

Phulbani Branch ,

Phulbani , Ram Mandir Road, Hatapda, Kandhmal ( Orissa ) 762001

470 . Bank of Baroda

Barpalli Branch,

Opp . Boys High School , At PO Barpalli , Dist Bargarh ( Orissa)-767023

471 . Bank of Baroda

Rayagada Branch ,

Sai Mandir Road, New Colony, Rayagada (Orissa ) -765001

472. Bank ofBaroda

Deogarh Branch ,

Kargil Chowk, Deogarh Dist , Deogarh ( Orissa ) -768108

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

473. Bank ofBaroda

KaranjiaBranch

Manikchhak , At P.O. Karanjia , Dist: Mayurbhanj , Karnjia ( Orissa ) 757037

474. Bank ofBaroda

Kesinga Branch Near Chiranjib Talkies , Main RoadAt . Po. kesinga, Dist . Kalhandi (Orissa ) 66012

475. Bank ofBaroda

Naupada Branch At Rajapur, Naupada Block , Dist -Nuapada (Orissa) 766105

476. Bank ofBaroda

Gudiakteni Branch Gudiakteni , Chhak, P.O. Balaram Prasad, Dhekanal (Orissa) 759019

477. Bank ofBaroda

Dungurpalli Branch AtP.O. Dungurpalli , Ma Dist- Subarnapur ( Orissa)

478. Bank of Baroda

PDA Colonly, Plot No. 122, Pilerne , Goa:403114

479. Bank ofBaroda

Shetye Pride , Ground Floor, Sonar Peth , Bicholim , Goa: 403504

480. State Bank of India

Regional Business Office (Region - 1 ) Administrative Office Building 1, New Cantt Road,

Dehradun 248001

481. State Bank of India Regional Business Office ( Region - 2 ) Administrative Office Building 1. New Cantt Road Dehradun - 248001

482. State Bank of India

Regional Business Office (Region - 3 ) Devi Road Kotdwar , Kotdwar- 246149

483. State Bank of India

Regional Business Office ( Region - 4) Administrative Office Building 1, New Cantt Road Dehradun- 248001

484. State Bank of India

Regional Business Office ( Region - 8 ) Administrative Office Building 1, New Cantt Road Dehradun - 248001 1849

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

State Bank of India

485.

Regional Business Office (Region- 9 )

Administrative Office Building

1, New Cantt Road Dehradun -248001 .

State Bank of India

486.

CashAdministrative Cell

4, Convent Road Dehradun - 248001

487. State Bank of India Stress Asset Reconciliation Branch 91/2, Dharmpur Dehradun - 248001

State Bank of India

488.

Retail asset Central Processing Centre

Administrative Office Building 1, New Cantt Road Dehradun - 248001

State Bank of India

489.

Small &Medium Enterprise City Credit Centre 4, Convent Road Dehradun - 248001

State Bank of India

490.

Centralized Clearing Processing Centre

4, Convent Road Dehradun- 248001 .

State Bank of India

491.

DocumentArchieval Centre

OmniBuilding, Titan Street Mohabewala Dehradun - 248001

State Bank of India

492.

Rasmeccc- cum-Sarc

Sector- 5 Branch Primises

BhelRanipur

Haridwar - 249403

State Bank of India

493.

Rural Central Processing Centre

RBO- 5 Premises Kusumkheda

Haldwani - 263139

State Bank of India

494.

Rural Central Processing Centre MainBranch Premises CivilLines Roorkee - 247667

State Bank of India

495.

Rural Central Processing Centre

GasAgency Road Kichchha - 263148

State Bank of India

496.

RuralCentral Processing Centre

Chamunda Complex

Ramnagar Road Kashipur - 244713

State Bank of India

497.

NRI Branch 4, Convent Road Dehradun- 248001

State Bank of India

498.

Nehru Colony Branch C-24, Nehru Colony Dehradun- 248001

State Bank of India

499.

Shimla Bye Pass Branch Sevala Kalan, Shimla Road Dehradun - 248017

State Bank of India

500.

GMS Road Branch 26/9, Vivek Vihar Pocket-3 Dehradun - 248001

State Bank of India

501.

EC Road Branch 2, Old Survey Road Dehradun - 248001

State Bank of India

502.

Connaught Place Branch

37, Taigor Villa , Chakrata Road

Dehradun- 248001

State Bank of India

503.

Mussorie Road Branch

Makkawala , P. O. Bhagwantpur Dehradun - 248009

State Bank of India

504.

RajpurBranch 228/1 Rajpur Dehradun - 248009

State Bank of India

505.

DL Road Branch

1, D LRoad Dehradun- 248001

506. State Bank of India Nashvila Road Branch 1, Neshvila Road Dehradun - 248001

State Bank of India

507.

Nathuawala Branch

Gujjarwala Chowk, Nathuawala

Dehradun - 248008

508. State Bank of India Harrawala Branch Vill. & P. O. Harrawala Dehradun- 248160

509. State Bank of India Kargi Grant Branch 92, Kargi Grant Dehradun - 248001 1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

510. State Bank of India

Majri Grant (Lal Tappad) Branch Birla Power Solation, Block Doiwala

Dehradun - 248140

511. State Bank of India

Raiwala Branch

Raiwala , Block Doiwala

Dehradun - 249205

512. State Bank of India

Raiwala Military Station Branch

Raiwala, Block Doiwala

Dehradun- 249205

513. State Bank of India

Sahaspur Branch

Block Sahaspur , P.O. Vikas Nagar

Dehradun - 248197

514. State Bank of India

Balli Branch

Vill.& P. O. Balli (VIA Dugadda )

Pauri - 246127

515. State Bank of India

Deviokhal Branch

P. O. Dabri

Pauri -246189

516. State Bank of India

GB Pant Engineering College Branch

Vill. & P. O.Ghurdauri

Pauri - 246194

517, State Bank of India

Devprayag Branch

Baah Bazar, P. O. Devprayag

Devprayag - 249301

518. State Bank of India

Maithan Branch

P. O. Maithan, Teh-Gairsain

Chamoli - 246486

519. State Bank of India

Simli Bazar Branch

P. O. Simli , Teh - Karnprayag

Chamoli - 246474

520. State Bank of India

Moradabad Road Branch

Near Design Centre

Kashipur- 244713

521. State Bank of India

Khatima Pilbhit Road Branch

P. O. Khatima

Khatima - 262308

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

522. State Bank of India

Dhikuli ( Ramnagar) Branch

P. O. Ramnagar Ramnagar- 244175

523. State Bank of India

Halduchaur Branch

MainMarket Halduchaur

Nainital - 262404

524. State Bank of India

Kaladhungi Branch

MainMarket Kaladhungi

Haldwani - 263140

525. State Bank of India

Pirumadra Branch

Tehsil - Ramnagar Ramnagar- 244715

526. State Bank of India

Mukhani Branch

Mukhani Chowk

Haldwani - 263139

527. State Bank of India

Tedhi Puliya Branch

Nainital Road

Haldwani - 263139

528. State Bank of India

Kosi Branch

Ranikhet Road Kosi Almora - 263667

529 . State Bank of India

Bhikiy Asain Branch

MainRoad Bhikiy Asain

Almora - 263667

530. State Bank of India

Lala Bazar Branch

P.O. Lala Bazar

Almora - 263601

531. State Bank of India

Pali Gunditya Branch

P.O. Gunditya

Almora - 263623

532. State Bank of India

Paltanjali Yogpeeth Sansthan Branch

Haridwar-Rurkee Rajmarg

Haridwar- 249405

533. State Bank of India

Landhaura Branch

Railway Road Landhaura Haridwar- 247664 1851

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

534. State Bank of India

Vill. & P.O. Iqbalpur

Iqbalpur Kamelpur Branch Haridwar- 247668

State Bank of India

535.

Thapli Chauras (Kirti Nagar ) Branch Thapli Chauras Kirti Nagar (TEHRI)-249161

State Bank of India

536.

Joshiyara Branch

Near Vikas Bhawan , Joshiyara Uttarkashi - 249193

State Bank of India

537.

CAC, Meerut Cantt .

Distt . Meerut- 250001

State Bank of India

538.

Sadar, Meerut Cantt . Distt. Meerut- 250001

State Bank of India

539.

SportsGoods Complex .

Distt .Meerut-250005

State Bank of India

540.

Garh Road

Distt . Meerut- 250004

State Bank of India

541 .

Distt. Meerut 250002 IIMT, Ganga Nagar

542. State Bank of India

RCPC , Meerut Distt. Meerut- 250002

543. State Bank of India

RBO , Meerut Distt . Meerut- 250002

State Bank of India

544.

SMECCC SabunGodam, Distt. Meerut -250005

State Bank of India

545.

CAC , Ghaziabad Distt . Ghaziabad - 201001

546. State Bank of India Sanjay Nagar, Distt . Ghaziabad 201001

547. State Bank of India Nehru Nagar, Distt . Ghaziabad-201001

State Bank of India

548.

New Arya Nagar, Distt . Ghaziabad-201001

549. State Bank of India

Vaishali Distt. Ghaziabad- 201012

State Bank of India

550.

LalKuan, Distt. Ghaziabad-201009

State Bank of India

551 .

AgarwalMandi

Distt. Baghpat-250601

State Bank of India

552.

RCPC , Hapur Distt. Hapur- 245101

553. State Bank of India

RCPC , Baraut, Distt. Baghpat- 250611

State Bank of India

554.

Khekra

Distt. Baghpat-250101

555. State Bank of India

RBO , Ghaziabad

Distt . Ghaziabad-201001

State Bank of India

556.

Crossing Republic , Distt. Ghaziabad-201009

State Bank of India

557.

Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram.

Distt . Ghaziabad- 201012

State Bank of India

558.

Shahpur Jat, Distt. Hapur - 201206

559. State Bank of India Shastrinagar

Distt . Ghaziabad- 201002

560. State Bank of India UN Distt. Shamli-247778

561. State Bank of India Mansoorpur Distt.Muzaffarnagar- 251203

562. State Bank of India RCPC , Muzaffarnagar Distt .Muzaffarnagar- 251001

563. State Bank of India RCPC , Shamli Distt. Shamli - 247776

564. State Bank of India RBO , Muzaffarnagar Distt.Muzaffarnagar - 251001 1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

565. State Bank of India

Chhapar Distt . Muzaffarnagar- 251307

566. State Bank of India Jalalabad Distt. Muzaffarnagar- 247772

567 . State Bank of India Mundet Khadar, Distt. Shamli -247778

568 . State Bank of India

Chutmalpur, Distt . Saharanpur- 247662

569. State Bank of India Nanauta, Distt . Saharanpur - 247452

570. State Bank of India

RCPC , Saharanpur Distt . Saharanpur - 247001

571 . State Bank of India

RBO , Saharanpur Distt . Saharanpur- 247001

572. State Bank of India

Gagalheri Distt . Saharanpur- 247769

573 . State Bank of India Transport Nagar , Distt . Saharanpur- 247001

574. State Bank of India Janakpuri , Saharanpur , Distt. Saharanpur - 247001

575. State Bank of India

Ramdaspur Nangal , Distt. Saharanpur - 247551

576. State Bank of India RCPC , Deoband, Distt . Saharanpur - 247554

577 . State Bank of India Sector44 , Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201303

578. State Bank of India CAC, Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201301

579. State Bank of India Shikarpur, Distt. Bulandshahr - 202395

580. State Bank of India Sector- 7 , Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201301

581. State Bank of India Sector- 11 , Noida , Distt . Gautam Budh Nagar- 201301

[PART II -SEC . 3( ii ) ]

582. State Bank of India

Sector-35 , Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201303

583. State Bank of India

Bisrakh Jalalpur Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201301

584. State Bank of India

Sector - 48 , Noida , Distt.Gautam Budh Nagar- 201303

585. State Bank of India Sector- 63 , Noida , Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201309

586. State Bank of India

Sector- 55 , Noida , Distt.Gautam Budh Nagar - 201307

587. State Bank of India

Sector - 126 , Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201309

588 . State Bank of India

Sector - 30 , Noida , Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201301

589. State Bank of India

RCPC , Bulandshahar Distt. Bulandshahar- 203001

590. State Bank of India RCPC , Anoopshahr Distt. Bulandshahar- 202390

591. State Bank of India Rabupura, Distt . Gautam Budh Nagar- 203209

592. State Bank of India Atta Chowk , Noida , Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 203201

593. State Bank of India Sector-39 , Noida , Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201307

594. State Bank of India RBO , Noida , Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201301

595. State Bank of India SARB , 1 F Partapur, Distt. Meerut - 250003

596. State Bank of India RASMECCC , A -36 , Sector - 26 , Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar- 201301

597. State Bank of India

RASMECCC , Kutchery Road, Distt. Saharanpur - 247001 1853

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

State Bank of India

598.

RACPC , Garh Road,

Camp:AdminOffice

Distt. Meerut-250001

State Bank of India

599.

SMECCC , Sabun Godam,

Distt. Meerut-250002

State Bank of India

600.

RACPC , New Arya Nagar ,

Distt. Ghaziabad -201001

State Bank of India

601.

SMECCC, Indl . Area BSR Road, Ghaziabad

Distt . Ghaziabad-201009

Mumbai North

Bank of India

602.

Dahisar Branch

Lukhi Empire, Ground Floor,

S.V. Road, Opp . Dahisar Police Station, Dahisar (East) , Mumbai - 400068

Bank of India

603.

Ashokvan Branch ,

Siddhivinayak CHS Ltd. , Off. Shiv Vallabh Road , Ashokvan , Borivali (East) , Mumbai -400 066

Bank of India

604.

Jogeshwari (East) Branch

Ground Floor,

Shanta Mangesh Apartment , Hindu Friends Society Road, Saraswati Baug , Jogeshwari (East ) , Mumbai - 400060

Bank of India

605.

Jogeshwari (West) Branch

FlexcelPark, Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Near 24 Carat Multiplex , Jogeshwari (West ) , Mumbai - 400 102

Bank of India

606.

Kurla Branch

Milestone Business Point , CST No. 327 , LBS Marg , Opp . Fauziya Hospital , Kurla (West) , Mumbai - 400078

Agra

Bank of India

607.

Shamshabad Branch

21 , Gopalpura , Agra- Shamshabad Road, Shamshabad , Dist- Agra, UttarPradesh , Pin -283 125

Bank ofIndia

608.

Seeganpur Branch

Major S.D.Medical Campus , Vill. Seeganpur, Bewar Road, Dist- Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh , Pin - 209 601

Bank ofIndia

609.

Rohta Branch

71, Diamond City, Gwalior Road, Rohta, Dist -Agra , Uttar Pradesh, Pin - 282 009

Pune

Bank of India

610.

Vaduj Branch

"Safari ", GP.No.414, C. S. No. 464, Court Road , At& Po -Vaduj , Taluka -Khatav, Dist: Satara - 415 506

Bank of India

611 .

Kasegaon Branch

"Retharekar Complex " S. No. 2845, At& Po . Kasegaon , Taluka: Walwa, Dist- Sangli - 415404

Bank of India

612.

Bhilawadi Station Branch

"Chitale Dairy Campus " , At& Po - Bhilawadi Station , Takuka - Palus , Dist- Sangli -416303

1. Bhopal

Bank of India

613 .

Tara Dewaniya Branch

Block/Tehsil Fanda Dist-Bhopal(M.Ρ. )- 462036

Bank of India

614.

Datia Branch,

Ratan Bhavan ,

Civil Lines Road , Near Pitambrapeeth, Datia (M.P. )- 475661

Bank of India

615.

BairagarhBranch

New B -51 /524 , Kala Chowk, MainRoad , Bairagarh , Dist- Bhopal (M.Ρ. ) - 462030

Bank of India

616.

Ganjbasoda Branch

Bajaj Tower, Subhash Chowk , Station Road, Ganjbasoda, Dist - Vidisa (M.Ρ. ) - 464221 1854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

2. Navi Mumbai

617. Bank ofIndia

Virar(E) Branch

Ridhi - Sidhi Residancy, First Floor, Opp. Parekh Industrial Estate , Veer SaverkarMarg , Virar (E) , Dist- Thane - 401 303

3. Ujjain

618. Bank ofIndia

Namli Branch

NearPolice Station , Namli , Dist- Ratlam ( Μ.Ρ. ) - 457222

619. Bank of India

Pipliya Mandi Branch

Marketing Society, Manasa Road , PipliyaMandi, Dist-Mandsour (M.P.) - 458664

620. Bank ofIndia

Sita Mau Branch Ranawat Bhawan , Mandsour Road, Sita Mau , Dist- Mandsour ( M.P. ) -458990

621. Bank of India

Narwar Branch

Ujjain-Dewas Main Road, Vell& Po . Narwar, The - Ujjain , Dist - Ujjain ( M.P. ) -456664

4. Amritsar

622. Bank of India

ZonalOffice , SCO- 128 NagpalTower- 1, NearVishal MeghaMart, RanjitAvenue, Amritsar- 143 001

5.New Delhi

623. Bank of India

Prashant Vihar Branch E-6, Prashant Vihar, NewDelhi - 110085

624. Bank of India

Meera Bagh Branch A-6, MeeraBagh , New Delhi - 110087

625. Bank ofIndia

Dwarka (Sector- 7) Branch A-67 to A- 70 , Palam Extension, RamphalChowk, Sector-7 , Dwarka, NewDelhi

626. Bank of India

West PatelNagar Branch 7/16 , West Patel Nagar , New Delhi - 110008

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

627. Bank of India

KhampurBranch

MandirQali Gali , Plot No. 5, Khampur , Delhi - 110036

628. Bank of India

Budhanpur Branch

V& P.O.Budhanpur & Majra Dabas , Near Main Bus Stand , Delhi - 110081

629.

Sultanpur Branch

Bank of India House No. 48 , Sultanpur, New Delhi - 30

Bank of India 630.

Shalimar Branch AE- 90 , Shalimar Bagh , New Delhi - 88

631 . Bank ofIndia

BudhpurBranch Village Budhpur ( Bijiapur) New Delhi - 110036

Bank of India 632.

Jamia Milia Eslamiya Branch Jamia University Campus , MaulanaMohammad Ali Johar Marg , Masjid Lane, New Delhi- 25

6.Nagpur

633. Bank ofIndia Narkhed Branch PlotNo. 326/2,3 Ward No. 16 , Bazar Chowk , Dist- Nagpur, Maharashtra -441 304

634. Bank of India Samudrapur Branch Plot No. 5, Vidya Vikas Colony , Sarvey No. 43/2 , Samudrapur, Dist- Wardha , Maharashtra - 442 305

635. Bank ofIndia Moudsa Branch

Ward No. 5 , Bhandara Road, Moudsa Dist- Nagpur, Maharashtra - 441 104

7. Chandigarh

636. Bank ofIndia

Gurgaon Sector 40 Branch DSS 84-85 ] Sector40 , Gurgaon, Dist. Gurgaon - 122001 1855

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013 /फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

637. Bank ofIndia

Sector 47 Branch SCO 113 , Sector 47 -C, Chandigarh - 160047

Bank of India

638.

Kullu Branch

First Floor, Hotel Nest , MainBus Terminal (ISBT) Sarwari , Kullu, Distt. -Kullu, Himachal Pradesh- 175 101-

Bank of India

639.

PalampurBranch

Shop No. 52-53 , First Floor, Grand Plaza, Dharamshala Road, Palampur, Distt. -Kangra , Pin - 176061

640. Bank ofIndia

KalkaBranch

Near Saini Dhaba , NH 22 , (Chandigarh-Shimla Highway) Kalka, Distt. -Panchkukla , Haryana -133 002

Bank of India

641.

Ladwa Branch Indri Chowk , Ladwa , Dist-Kurukshetra , Haryana -136132

Bank of India

642.

Naraingarh Branch

WardNo.13 , Chandigarh Nahan Road, Naraingarh, Distt.- Ambala, Haryana - 134 203

Bank ofIndia

643.

Fatehabad Branch

Ground Floor, Dhingra Motors , Opp.BhunaCrossing , G.T. Road, Fatehabad, Haryana - 125 050

Bank of India

644.

Sohna Road Gurgaon Branch

Unit No.14-15-16 , Ground Floor, JMDGalleria Mall, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon(Haryana) -122 001

Bank of India

645.

HamirpurBranch

Ground Floor, Antariksh Mall , WardNo. 2, Gandhi Chowk, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh - 177001

646. Bank ofIndia

Manpura Branch

Main Market , Manpura, Distt. - Solan, Himachal Pradesh - 173 205

87040/ 13-9

647. Bank of India

Delhi Road Hissar Branch

Ground Floor, Luxmi Plaza , Dabra Chowk , OldDelhi Road , Hissar, Haryana -125005

648. Bank of India Mahendragarh Branch

Ground Floor, Sunariya Royal Palace, Near Tao Tula Ram Chowk, Dadri Road, WardNo. 2,

Mahendragarh (Haryana ) - 123 029

Bank of India

649.

Taraori Branch Shop No. 190-191 , NewAnaj Mandi, Tararoi , Distt. - Karnal Haryana -132 116

8. Pune

Bank of India

650.

Kedgaon Branch ,

GateNo. 13 , Ward No. 6 , A/ P Kedgaon , Taluka Daund, Near Gram Panchayat , Near Police Station , Distt. Pune-412 203

651. Bank of India

Ambad Industrial Estate Branch , AnandApartments , Plot No. 4, S. No. 302/1 , Ambad -Cidco Link Road, Uttamnagar, Nashik-422009

652. Bank of India

Lasur Station Branch , Plot No. 391, Shivaji Maidan, A/P Lasur station , Tal. Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad- 423702

Bank of India

653.

Rahuri Branch , Guldagad Complex, Pragati Vidyalay Road, S. No. 417/2/4 & 417/2/3/2 , Plot No. 1 & 2, A/P& Tal . Rahuri ,

Dist. Ahmednagar 413 705

654. BankofIndia KarveNagar Branch, Shriniwas Kapil Vastu , S. No. 1/15/1 , CTS No. 694, Hingne Budruk, Karve Nagar, Pune-411 052

Bank of India

655.

ManjriBranch,

Shop No. 26 to 29,

S.No. 93/1B/ 1 , Chourang Smit Shilp , Manjri (Bk) Pune-412307

Bank ofIndia

656.

Rajur(Ganpati) Branch,

Plot No. 795, Jalna- Jalgaon Road (SH222) , At& Post-Rajur, Tal-Bhokerdan, Dist. Jalna -431 203 d 1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

657. Bank of India

Sandip Foundation Branch, Trimbak Road, A/P Mahiravani , Taluka& District NASHIK-422213

658. Bank ofIndia

Satara Road Branch , Opp.Bharati Vidyapeeth . Kadam Plaza, ' Shraddhaneketan ' . Plot No. X+ Al , Survey No. 7/1 , Katraj , Pune Satara Road, Pune-411046

659. Bank of India

Shendra Industrial Estate Branch , GatNo. 326 , Near Jagtap Petrol Pump, Opp. Shendra MIDC , Kumbhephal Village, Tal& Distt . Aurangabad - 431027

660. Bank of India

MAEER Rajbaug Branch ( Loni Kalbhor) , GatNo. 140, Kadamwak Wasti Rajbaug , Vishwashanti Gurukul Educational Complex, Loni Kalbhor, Tal . Haveli , Dist. Pune-412 201

661. Bank ofIndia

Shrirampur Branch , WardNo. 6,Narayan Complex , K.V. Road, At & Post Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar -413 709

662. Bank of India

STES Ambegaon Bk Branch , New Institutional Building No. 1 , Sinhgad Technical Education Society's Campus , Survey No. 10, Ambegaon Bk. , Pune-411041

9. Bhubaneswar

663. Bank of India

Pokhariput Branch , Plot No. 400(P) , Gandamunda Square , Pokhariput , Jagamara Road, Khandafiri , Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khorda, Orissa -751030

664. Bank ofIndia Bijayachandrapur Branch, Plot No. 485 , Khata No. 48 , At-Bijayachandrapur , P.O.- Atharabanki , Paradeep , Dist.- Jagatsinghpur , Orissa - 754 120

665. Bank of India

Boudh Branch , Plot No. 1659 , Ward No. 7 , At.- Boudh (Market Sahi ) PO.- Boudh , Dist.- Boudh, Orissa - 762014

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

666. Bank of India

Khorda Branch , PlotNo. 648/1168 , Khata No. 1062/4150, Mouza, Jajarsingh , Godi Pokhari New Colony, Main Road, Dist.- Khords , Orissa - 752 055

667. Bank of India

Phulbani Branch , PlotNo. 149 , Near Block Office, Mouza-Jiringapada, At/Post- Phulbani , Distt.- Kandhamal , Orissa- 762001

668. Bank ofIndia

Khariar Branch , Holding No. 825 , Ward No. 06 , Mouza-Khariar , At/Post- Khariar , Distt. -Nuapada, Orissa - 766107

669, Bank ofIndia Chhatrapur Branch , Khata No. 192 , Plot No. 627 , Mz. -Abhimayupur, Main Road , At/Post- Chhatrapur, Distt.-Ganjam, Orissa- 761020

670. Bank of India SonepurBranch , Khata No. 1673 , Plot No. 1782 , NearAmbedkar Chowk , Sonepur Town , Distt.- Subarnapur , Orissa- 767017

671. Bank of India

Nawarangpur Branch , Plot No. 62/71 , MZ.- Chamariguda , At/Post/Distt. - Nawarangpur, Orissa-764059

10. Rajasthan

672. Bank of India Dantli Branch , Village & Post - Dantli , GonerRoad, Via.- Kanota, Tal.- Sanganer Dist.-Jaipur- 303012 ( Rajasthan)

11. Kolhapur

673. Bank ofIndia

KoregaonBranch , "Chaitanya Building " , G. P. No. 129/9/6 Κ, Rahimatpur Road, A/P. Koregaon, Tal.- Koregaon , Dist.- Satara - 415 501 1857

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Bank of India

674.

Dahiwadi Branch,

"Rajhans Plaza " , S.No. 730/ 1A, Phaltan Chowk, A/P- Dahiwadi, Tal.- Man, Dist.- Satara - 415508

12. Mumbai South

Bank ofIndia

675.

Lower Parel Branch, CST No. -156, Urmi Estate -95, Ganapat Rao Kadam Marg, LowerParel (W), Mumbai-400013

12. Kanpur

676. Bank of India GhatampurBranch , Kanpur Road, P.O. Ghatampur, U. P. - 209206

Bank of India

677.

ChaudgaraBranch, Bindki Road, P.O. Manhar , Chaudgara, U. P. -212 665

Bank of India

678 .

Geetanagar Branch, 117/378 , O Block, Geetanagar, Kanpur- 208025

State Bank of Patiala

679.

Ahmedabad Main Branch Vasupunjya Chamber Ashram Rd . Ahmadabad-380014

680. State Bank ofPatiala Ahmedabad Mani Nagar 25 - Sita Ram Sadan Shah Alam Roza : Ahmedabad - 380 022

State Bank of Patiala

681.

Ahmedabad Subhash Bridge Ashray House , Ground Floor Opp.Collector'sO Near Gandhi Ashram Subhash Bridge

682. State Bank of Patiala PlotNo. 20 Vrindavan-Complex Sector-9 Gandhidham - 370 201 (Gujrat )

State Bank ofPatiala

683.

8-14, Krishna Con - Arch- 2 1stFloor Tagore Road Near Virani Chowk Rajkot-360 002 (Gujrat )

684. State Bank ofPatiala

KK.Tower

RingRoad Opp. Sub Jail Surat-395002

State Bank ofPatiala

685.

Sheetal Shopping Square

BhatarRoad Turning Point Nanpura Surat-395007

State Bank of Patiala

686.

Shop No. 15 to 19 Tirupati Plaza Vapi -396191 (Gujrat)

State Bank ofPatiala

687.

82, Hill Rd . Bandra, Bombay Teh.Bombay-400050

688. State Bank ofPatiala Wode House Road

Lalit Bhavan , 37, Nathalal Parekh Marg

Colaba Mumbai

689. State Bank of Patiala

Plot No.3 , Ramdass Tower Kalpatru HSGGajanan Mandir To Cidco Road Pundlik Nagar , Garkheda Mukundwadi

State Bank ofPatiala

690.

Vidya Corner SuperMarket BhigwanRoad MIDC Baramati -413133

691. State Bank ofPatiala Kolhapur 14, Surve Colony Tara Bai Park -416003 (Maharashtra )

692. State Bank ofPatiala BOCL Refinery Complex , Mahul, Mumbai

693. State Bank ofPatiala Mulund Kumar Co. Op . Housing Society Ltd. Mahada Colony, Mulund (E)-400081

694. State Bank of Patiala Z- 7 APMC COMPX Dana Bunder Vashi , New Bombay P.O. Navi Mumbai-400 705

695. State Bank of Patiala 2, Khorana Bhawan Central Avenue Nagpur-440018

State Bank of Patiala

696.

Plot No. 28 , Shop No. 6 , 7 , 8 and 9 Bhoomi Tower, Sector-4 Kharghar, Navi Mumbai -401 210 (Maharashtra ) 1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934

697. State Bank of Patiala

Varruchi Marg

FreeGanj , Ujjain Teh. Ujjain-456001 (Μ.Ρ. )

698. State Bank ofPatiala

24, Tanishq Heights MTNL Road Near Rupali Cinema Circle Panvel-410 206 (Maharashtra)

BRANCHES OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA , MUMBAI ZONE

Regional Office - I

Sr. No. Branch Name/Address

699. State Bank of Patiala Ahmedabad Main Branch , Vasupunjya Chamber, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380014

700. State Bank ofPatiala PrimePlaza, Opposite Ravji Bhai Tower, Krishmabaug, ManiNagar, Ahmedabad

701. StateBank of Patiala Dadar Co -Operative Housing Society Ltd. , SharadAshram , Bhawani Shankar Road, Dadar,Mumbai -400028

702. State Bank of Patiala

37 , Lalit Building, Nathalal Parekh Road , Kolaba, Bode House Road Branch , Mumbai -400001 (Maharashtra)

703. State Bank ofPatiala ShopNo. -4, Mahapalika Market, Link Road, Mith Chowki , Maiad( West) , Mumbai - 400064 (Maharashtra)

704. State Bank ofPatiala

K.K. Tower, Ring Road, Surat Main Branch, Opposite Sub Jail , Surat- 395 002

705. State Bank ofPatiala Anita Accord Shop No.- 1-5 , Akurli Road, Mahada Layout , Lokhand wala, Kandivali ( East ) , Mumbai -400 101

[ PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

Regional Office- III

Sr. No. Branch Name/Address

706. State Bank of Patiala Shop No.- 1 , 2 , 3 , Poonam Plaza, Civil Lines, Near Akashvani Square , R. B. I. Road , Nagpur -440001 (Maharashtra )

707. State Bank of Patiala PlotNo.- 66, Bhagya Nagar, Near S.T. Office, Samarjit Nagar, Aurangabad - 431001 (Maharashtra)

708. State Bank of Patiala

Shop No.- 2, Ground Floor, Manratna Business Park , Junction of Derasar & Tilak Road , GhatKopar ( East ) , Mumbai -400007 (Maharashtra )

709. State Bank of Patiala Shop No. - 5-8 , Ganesh Krupa , R. H. B. Road, Mulund ( West ) , Mumbai - 400 080 (Maharashtra )

710. State Bank of Patiala PlotNo. - 3 , Ramdass Tower , Kalpa Taru Housing , GajananMandir to Cidco Road , Aurangabad

711. State Bank of Patiala Dilkush, Near Nagar Palika Garden , Maspusa , Tehsil Maspusa Goa-403 507

712. State Bank of Patiala N-45/C.B. - 1/6/4 , Nasik PostOffice Didco , Tehsil Nasik - 422001

713. State Bank of Patiala Cidco-Ambad Link Road , Upendar Nagar, Didco-Nasik Pin-422009 1859

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

714. State Bank of Patiala

No. - 1 , 2, 3, Adam Court Bander Road, Pune - 411045

715. State Bank ofPatiala SarafaBazar, Opposite Dhoot Niwas, Nanded-431604

716. State Bank of Patiala Krishnace , Sangvi Kesari Road, Aundh, Pune - 411007

Branches under Zonal Office. Mumbai

717. State Bank of Patiala BlockNo.- 1, GaliNo. - 2, SEEPZ , Andheri ( East ), Mumbai - 400096

718. StateBank ofPatiala 2, Khurana Bhawan , Central Avenue, Nagpur - 440018

719. State Bank of Patiala

5-2-134,

First Floor, R. P. Road, Secundrabad, Hyderabad

Branches under Patiala Zonal Office

Regional Office - I

State Bank ofPatiala

720.

Village: Jalalpur

P.O.:Bahadurgarh

Tehsil & Dist.: Patiala

PIN: 147 021

Regional Office - III

S. No. Postal Address

State Bank of Patiala

721.

Thuliwal Road, Vill. & PO: Hamidi , Tehsil & Distt. - Barnala (Punjab) Pin:-148 025

State Bank ofPatiala Mana Patti Road, 722. V. & P. O.: Chhahar Tehsil: Sunam, Distt. Sangrur, Pin-148035 (Punjab)

State Bank ofPatiala

723. CurrencyManagement Branch, SCO-4, Sai market Complex LowerMall , Sai market, Patiala- 147001 Distt.: Patiala (Punjab)

Branches under Bathinda Zonal Office

Regional Office -

724. State Bank ofPatiala

V. & P. O.: Sito Gunno

Tehsil: Abohar

Distt.: Fazilka (Punjab)

PIN: 152 116

State Bank ofPatiala

725.

V. & P.O. Arniwala Sheikh Subhan,

Tehsil & Dist .: Fazilka

PIN: 152124 (Punjab)

Regional Office- II

726. State Bank of Patiala

Maharaja Aggarsen Marg ,

WardNo.: 10, Sadul Shahar - 335062 Dist.: Sriganga Nagar (Rajasthan )

Branches under Jalandhar Zonal Office

RegionalOffice - II

StateBank of Patiala

727.

Near Railway Station ,

V.& P. O.: Jhako Lahri

Teh.&Dist.: Pathankot (Punjab )

PIN- 145025

Regional Office - III

State Bank of Patiala

728.

Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana - 141 001 (Punjab)

Regional Office - IV

729. State Bank ofPatiala MainRoad, Village: Rakri , P.O .: Datarpur, Teh.:Mukerian Distt.:Hoshiarpur (Punjab) PIN: 144 222

730. State Bank ofPatiala National Highway Bari Brahmana - 181133 Near Primary Health Centre WardNo. -1 , Teh&Dist.: Samba ( J& K)

731. State Bank ofPatiala SikhNational College, Banga- 144505 Dist.:Nawanshahar (Punjab ) 1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

Branches under Chandigarh Zonal Office

732. State Bank ofPatiala CurrencyManagement Cell , SCO 125-126 Sector 17C Chandigarh-160017

Branches under Haryana Zonal Office

Regional Office - I

733. State Bank ofPatiala

Haryana State Electricity Board, Sector-6, HVPNL Building Shakti Bhavan Panch kula- 134109 Dist.: Panchkula (Haryana)

Regional Office- III

State Bank ofPatiala

V. & P.O .: Jallopur Teh .: Ratia

734. Dist.: Fatehabad (Haryana) PIN: 125051

735. State Bank of Patiala

V. & P.O.: Rajli Teh. & Dist .: Hissar - 125 121 (Haryana)

736. State Bank of Patiala

Panchkula Naraiangarh Bypass Road, Vill.& P.O.: Barwala Teh & Distt .: Panchkula- 134 118 (Haryana)

737. State Bank ofPatiala

CurrencyManagement Cell, SCO: 414, Sector: 8, Panchkula - 134109 Dist.: Panchkula (Haryana)

Branches under Delhi Zonal Office

Regional Office - I

738. State Bank ofPatiala S. D. Girls Senior Sec . School, Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar , New Delhi 110008

739. State Bank of Patiala Khasara No. 74/31 , Karnal Road, Opp. Swami Shardha Nand College , Alipur New Delhi 100036

Regional Office - III

740. State Bank of Patiala St. John College, M.G Road Agra - 282002 Uttar Pradesh

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Branches under Mumbai Zonal Office

Regional Office - II ( Chennai )

741 . State Bank of Patiala

Star ofBombay Hotel Complex ,

Bandoorwell, Kankanady, Manglore ( Karnataka )

742. State Bank ofPatiala

109, Vakil New Street Madurai- 625 001 (Tamilnadu)

743. State Bank ofPatiala

No. 20-114/3

R.B.Nagar, Shamshabad, Distt: Rangareddy

Andhra Pradesh

744. State Bank of Patiala

54, H.S.R. Lay out

Sector-VI,

17thCross ,

12thMain , Banglore-560 102

745. State Bank of Patiala

21/6 , Sukh Niwas , Kamaraj Street Tambaram ( West) Chennai (Tamilnadu)

746. State Bank ofPatiala

Bharatiyar Road , Papainaicken Palayam, Luxmi Mills Junction Road, Coimbtore- 641037

Mid Corporate Branch

747. State Bank of Patiala Mid Corporate Branch OrbitMall, A. B. Road , Indore

New Regional Offices

748. StateBank of Patiala RegionalOffice, 11 Gopinath Marg , M. I. Road, Jaipur - 302 001 (Rajasthan)

State Bank of Patiala

749. Regional Office , Rajgarh Road , Solan- 173 212 (Himachal Pradesh)

750. State Bank ofPatiala Regional Office, SBOP Kangra Branch , Dharmshala Road, NearCollege Chowk , Kangra -176001 Himachal Pradesh 1861 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934.

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( il) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government , hereby appoints Shri Tara Chand Jhalani , (Date of Birth: 02-01-1957) , Special Assistant, Punjab National Bank, as Workmen Employee Director on the Board ofDirectors of Punjab National Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of his taking over the charge of the post or until he ceases to be an Workmen Employee of Punjab National Bank or until further orders , whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/7/2012-BO- I ]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

का.आ. 594.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों ) का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा 3 (ज ) एवं (3 - क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री कृष्ण सेठी ( जन्म तिथिः 10-05-1954 ) को उनकी नियुक्ति की अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

(राजस्व विभाग)

[फा. सं. 6/ 10/2012- बीओ -1 ]

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव (सीमाशुल्क , केंद्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क व सेवा कर आयुक्त का कार्यालय , हैदराबाद -1 आयुक्तालय )

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013

हैदराबाद , 1 मार्च , 2013

सं. 01 /2013-कस ( एनटी)

S. O. 594. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section 3 ( h ) and (3 -A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings ) ,Act, 1970/1980 read with sub- clause ( 1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Pro- visions) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Krishan Sethi (DoB : 10-05-1954) , as part- time Non- official Director on the Board of Directors of Central Bank of India , for a period of three years , from the date of notification of his appointment or until further or- ders, whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 6/ 10/2012-BO- I]

का.आ. 596.-वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली द्वारा जारी अधिसूचना सं. 33/94- कस ( एन टी ) दिनांक 01-07-1994 यथा संशोधित एवं सीमाशुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और अधिसूचना सं. 83/2004- कस्टम्स ( एन टी ) दिनांक 30-06-2004 के तहत मै. , आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य के मेदक जिला , वर्गल मण्डल के सिंगाइपल्ली गाँव को सीमाशुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा स्वीकृत 100% निर्यात आधारित उपक्रमों के गठन के सीमित प्रयोजन के लिए भंडागारण क्षेत्र के रूप में घोषित करता हूँ ।

VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.

[फा. सी. सं. VIII/20/01 /2013- कस/तक. - 1/ हैदराबाद Ⅰ ] नई दिल्ली , 8 मार्च , 2013

एस. एन. साहा, आयुक्त

(Department of Revenue)

(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD- ICOMMISSIONERATE)

Hyderabad, the 1st March , 2013

(No. 01/2013 - Cus N.T. )

का.आ. 595.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 9 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) और ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा 3 के खंड ( ङ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के विशेष सहायक श्री तारा चंद झलानी ( जन्म तिथि: 02-01-1957 ) को पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष कीअवधि के लिए अथवा पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के कर्मकार कर्मचारी के रूप में उनके पदभार छोड़ देने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में कर्मकार कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 6/7/2012 - बीओ -1 ]

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th March , 2013

S.O. 596. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 ofthe Customs Act , 1962 delegated by Notification No. 33/94 -Cus (N.T. ) dated 01-07-1994 as amended and Notification No. 83/2004- Cus (N.T. ) dated 30-06-2004 issued by the Ministry of Fiannce , Department of Revenue, New Delhi , I hereby declare Singaipally village ' of Wargal Mandal , Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, as a warehousing station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 , for the limited purpose of setting up of 100% Export Oriented Undertakings as approved by the Government of India .

[F. C. No. VIII/ 20/01/2013 -Cus/ Tech.I/Hyd . I ]

S. N. SAHA , Commissioner S. O. 595.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( e) of Sub -section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings )Act , 1970/1980 read with Sub- clause ( 1 ) & (2) of Clause 9 ofthe 1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

( कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त )

जयपुर, 6 मार्च 2013 सं. 10/2012-13

का.आ. 597. आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सीए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उप- धारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2012-13 एवं आगे के लिये कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " इंडियन स्टूडेंट कल्चर सोसायटी , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।

2. बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उप- खंड (23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांक:मुआआआआआ/( मु.)/जय/ 10( 23 सी ) ( vi ) /12-13/7113 ]

अतुलेश जिंदल, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX)

Jaipur , the 6th March , 2013

No. 10/ 2012-13

S. O. 597.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - clause ( vi ) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax , Jaipur hereby approves " Indian Student Culture Society, Jaipur " for the purpose of said Section for A. Y. 2012-13 & onwards .

2. Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub- clause ( vi) of clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 .

[No. CCIT/ JPR/Addl . CIT ( Hqrs . )/ 10 ( 23C) ( vi ) /2012-13/7113 ] ATULESH JINDAL , Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

(केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च , 2013

सं. 19/2013

का.आ. 598. आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 138 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क ) के उप - खंड ( ii ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा निदेशक, वित्तीय आसूचना इकाई भारत ( एफआईयू- इंड ) , वित्त मंत्रालय को उक्त उप-खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ विनिर्दिष्ट करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/38 /2013-आ.क.नि.- II ] ऋचो रस्तोगी , अवर सचिव ( आयकर निर्धारण- II )

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi , the 12th March , 2013

No. 19/2013

S. O. 598. In pursuance of sub - clause ( ii ) of clause (a) ofsub-section ( 1 ) of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 , the Central Government hereby specifies Director, Financial Intelligence Unit India ( FIU - IND ) , Ministry of Finance for the purpose of the said sub - clause .

[F. No. 225 /38 /2013 - ITA- II ] RICHARASTOGI , Under Secy. (ПА - ІІ )

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सीपीवी प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 1 मार्च , 2013

का.आ. 599.- राजनयिक और कांसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री हंस राज , सहायक को 1-3-2013 से भारत के सह- उच्चायोग , मोमबासा में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2006 ]

आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर )

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ( CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi , the 1st March , 2013

S.O. 599. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act , 1948 ( 41 of 1948) , the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Hans Raj , Assistant in Assistant High Commission, Mombasa , to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 1st , March , 2013 .

[No. T. 4330/01/2006]

R. K. PERINDIA , Under Secy. ( Consular)

योजना आयोग

( भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण ) नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च, 2013

का.आ. 600 , केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, एतद्वारा योजना आयोग के सम्बद्ध कार्यालय भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण ( यू आई डी ए आई ) के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों , जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक 1863.

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है:-

(4) के अनुसरण में, एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन सिम्हाद्रि सुपर थर्मल पावर प्रोजेक्ट , पो.आ. एनटीपीसी-सिम्हाद्रि , विशाखापट्टनम , आंध्र प्रदेश-531020 कार्यालय को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं. 11017/4/2010- ভিदी ] 1. भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , एस सी ओ - 139-141 , सेक्टर -17 - सी, चन्डीगढ़ -160017 (यूटी. )

रीता आचार्य , संयुक्त सचिव 2. भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , दिल्ली , 28 जनपथ हौटल , जनपथ , नई दिल्ली-110001

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013 3. भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , झारखंड रांची, प्रथम तल , रियाडा केंद्रीय कार्यालय भवन , नामकुम औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , लोवाडीह , रांची-834010

4. भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , लखनऊ , टी.सी./46- V , तीसरा तल , विभूति खंड , गोमती नगर , लखनऊ-226010

S. O. 601- In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) ofRule 10 oftheOfficial Language ( Use for Official Purposes ofthe Union ) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Simhadri Super Thermal Power Project, P.O. NTPC-Simhadri, Visakhapatnam , Andhra Pradesh - 531020 under the administrative control of NTPC Ltd. , New Delhi , the 80% staffwhereof have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

[सं. 14011 /02/2012 - हिन्दी ]

[No. 1.1017/4/2010-Hindi ]

एस. डी. शर्मा , सहायक महानिदेशक

RITA ACHARYA, Jt. Secy.

PLANNING COMMISSION

परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग

(UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA)

मुंबई , 26 फरवरी , 2013

New Delhi , the 5th March , 2013

S. O. 600.-In pursuance of Sub -Rule (4) ofRule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes ofthe Union ) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following Regional Offices of the Unique Identification Authority of India , Planning Commission , more than 80% of the officers/ staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:-

का.आ. 602.-सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अप्राधिकृत ) अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , विभाग के सक्षम प्राधिकारी प्रशासनिक अधिकारी- III , भाभा परमाणु अनुसंधान केन्द्र , विशाखापट्टनम परियोजना , जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी है, को भाभा परमाणु अनुसंधान केन्द्र, विशाखापट्टनम परियोजना के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण के तहत विशाखापट्टनम में खरीदे गए , पट्टे अथवा भाड़े पर लिए गए परिसर के संदर्भ में उपरोक्त अधिनियम के उ‌द्देश्य हेतु संपदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करते हैं ।

1. Unique Identification Authority of India , Regional Office, Chandigarh , SCO - 139-141 , Sector- 17-C, Chandigarh (UT) -160017

[ सं. 5/2 ( 19 )/2010 - एसयूएस/2834 ]

ए. सुकुमारन , अवर सचिव 2. Unique Identification Authority of India , Regional Office . Delhi , 28 , Janpath Hotel , Janpath , NewDelhi - 110001

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Mumbai , the 26th February, 2013 3. Unique Identification Authority of India , Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi , 1st Floor, RIADA Central OfficeBuilding , Namkum , Industrial Area , Lowadih, Ranchi -834010

4. Unique Identification Authority of India , Regional Office, Lucknow, T.C./46-V, 3rd Floor, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar , Lucknow - 226010

[No. 14011 /02/2012-Hindi ]

S. D. SHARMA, Assistant Director General

विद्युत मंत्रालय

S.O. 602. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 ofthe Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ), the Competent Authority in the Department appoints the Administrative Officer- III, BhabhaAtomic Research Centre , Visakhapatnam Project , a Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be the EstateOfficer forthe purposes of the said Act in respect of the premises purehased, leased or rented in Visakhapatnam under the administrative control of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Visakhapatnam Project.

नई दिल्ली , 28 फरवरी , 2013

[No. 5/2 ( 19)/2010- SUS/ 28341

A. SUKUMARAN , Under Secy.

का.आ. 601. केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम

87040 /13-10 1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (दूरसंबार विभाग )

(Department of Telecommunications) (राजभाषा प्रभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च , 2013

(O. L. SECTION) New Delhi , the 6th March , 2013

का.आ. 603.-केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 (यथा- संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 (4 ) के अनुसरण में , संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय , दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है ।

S.O. 603-In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of Ministry of Communications and I.T. , Department of Telecommunications whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi .

1. कार्यालय , मुख्य- महाप्रबन्धक , पूर्वी दूरसंचार क्षेत्र, कोलकाता-700 073

1. ChiefGeneral Manager , Eastern Telecom Region Kolkata -700073 .

[सं. ई-11016/ 1/2009 - रा.भा. ] भारत भूषण कौरा , संयुक्त सचिव

[No. E- 11016/ 1 /2009-O.L . ] BHARAT BHUSHAN KAURA , Jt . Secy .

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली , 27 फरवरी , 2013

का.आ. 604. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्रम

स्थापित तिथि

संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1.

31 जनवरी , 2013 आई एस 16024 : 2013/आई एस ओ 8454 : 2007 सिगरेट-सिगरेट के धुंए में वाष्प प्रविस्था में कार्बन मोनोऑक्साइड ज्ञात करना- एन.डी. आई. आर. पद्धति

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चेन्नई, मुम्बई , चण्डीगढ़ तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूत्वनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ एफएडी/जी-128 ] डॉ. आर. के. बजाज , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि ) 1865

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMERCONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

NewDelhi, the 27th February, 2013

S.O. 604. In pursuance ofClause (b) of sub -rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it:

SCHEDULE

Date ofEstablished

No. and Year of

Sl. No. No. and Year ofthe Indian Standards Established

Indian Standards, if any Superseded bythe New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

31 January, 2013 1. IS16024: 2013/ISO 8454: 2007 Cigarettes- Determination of Carbon Monoxide in the Vapour Phase ofCigarette Smoke-NDIR Method

Copies of this Standard are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref. FAD/G- 128 ]

Dr. R. K. BAJAJ , Scientist ' F ' and Head ( Food &Agri . )

नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च, 2013

का.आ. 605.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या ,

संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि

संशोधन की संख्या

औरतिथि

वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

तत्काल प्रभाव से 1.

संशोधन संख्या

2फरवरी 2013

आई एस 13664 : 1993 थैला भंडारण गोदामों के लिए पोलिपैलेट- विशिष्टि

संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे , परवाणु , देहरादून तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ टीईडी/जी-16]

पी.सी. जोशी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( टीईडी ) 1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 4th March , 2013

S.O. 605. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that Amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. No.year andtitle of the Indian Standards

No. and year ofthe

amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Amendment No.2

Withimmediate effect 1. IS 13664: 1993 Ploy- pallets for bag storage godowns-Specification

Feb. 2013

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Parwanoo, Dehradun, Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref. TED/G- 16]

P. C. JOSHI , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Transport Engg.)

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च , 2013

का.आ. 606.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उपविनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम लाइसेंस संख्या संख्या

भा मा /भाग/खण्ड/वर्ष स्वीकृति करने की लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता तिथि, वर्ष/माह

सं.

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

(5)

(6) (7) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) 1. 3918777 4-02-2013 सागर केबल इण्डस्ट्रीज,

भा. मा. 694: 1990 ई 35 एम आय डी सी,

1100 वो तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए पी वी सी रोधित

जलगांव-425003

केबल

महाराष्ट्र ।

2 3918878 4-02-2013 उजाला स्विचेस एन्ड

1100 वो तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी भा. मा. 694: 1990 डिवायसेस प्रा.लि.,

वोल्टता के लिए पी वी सी रोधित

हिमालया इण्डस्ट्रीयल कंप्लेक्स , केबल

एस वी सं. 433 ,

शेड सं. 5 और 6 , चिंचघर,

कुदुस , तालुका वाडा ,

जिला ठाणे-421312

महाराष्ट्र ।

[सं. केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13 : 11 ]

ए. एस. जामखिंडीकर, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एम डी एम- III ) ) 1867

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 5th March, 2013

S. O. 606. In pursuance ofsub- regulation (5) ofthe regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given inthe following schedule:

Year

ISNo. Part Sec .

Product

Name &Address (factory) ofthe Party

Grant Date

Licence No.

SL No.

(9)

(7) (8)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

1990

694 :

IS

Sagar Cable Industries

4-02-2013

1. 3918777

Pvc insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100 v

E-35, MIDC Jalgaon-425003 Maharashtra

1990

694:

IS

4-02-2013

3918878

2

Ujala Switches & Devices Pvt. Ltd.

Pvc insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100 v

Himalaya Indl Complex, SV No. 433 , Shed No. 5 & 6 Chinchghar, Kudus Taluka Wada, Distt. Thane-421312 Maharashtra

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

A. S. JAMKHINDIKAR, Scientist ' F ' & Head ( MDM - III)

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2013

का.आ. 607.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में , भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 6 अगस्त 2011 को प्रकाशित पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 4 अगस्त 2011 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2054 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में , " श्री वी. के. पवार , वरिष्ठ प्रचालन प्रबंधक , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पश्चिमी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, गौरीदढ़ " शब्दों के स्थान पर " श्री डी.के. सिंह , सामग्री प्रबंधक , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पश्चिमी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स " , पोस्ट बाक्स नं. 1007 , मोरवी रोड , गौरीदड़ , जिला राजकोट-360030 " शब्द रखे जाएंगे ।

यह अधिसूचना जारी होने पर लागू होगा ।

[सं. आर -25011/9/2007- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 11th March, 2013

S. O. 607-In pursuance ofclause (a) ofSection 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments inthe notification ofthe Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S. O. 2054 dated 4th August, 2011 , published inthe Gazette of India on 6th August , 2011 :-

In the said notificaiton,

for the words " Shri V. K. Pawar, Senior Operations Manager , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Western Region Pipelines , Gauridad,the words " Shri D. K. Singh, Materials Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Western Region Pipelines , Post Box No. 1007 , Morvi Road, Gauridad, Distt . Rajkot- 360030 (Gujarat) " shall be substituted.

Thismodification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R- 25011 /9/2007-O.R. -I ]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2013

का.आ. 608.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. 702 ( अ ) तारीख 28 मार्च , 2012 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य की तहसील : आरंग, जिला रायपुर की भूमि में, पारादीप- सम्बलपुर - रायपुर - राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ सभी संबंधित भू- स्वामी को तारीख 8 सितम्बर 2012 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ।

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है , कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त हो कर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील-आरंग

जिला रायपुर

राज्य-छत्तीसगढ़

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं. गांव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वर्ग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

गोईन्दा

1415/2

00

27

10

[सं. आर-25011/21/2010- ओ आर -1 ]

पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th March , 2013

S. O. 608.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 702(E) dated 28th March , 2012 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land in Tehsil-Arang , District-Raipur, in Chhattisgarh, State , specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip ( Orissa ) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 8th September , 2012 .

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted his report to the Central Government .

And whereas , the Central Government has after considering the said report , decided to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline .

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , Central Government hereby directs the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on date of publication ofthis declaration , in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

1869

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

State : Chhattisgarh

District: Raipur

Tehsil:Arang

Area

Khasara No.

Name ofthe Village

Sl . No.

Sq.Mtr.

Are

Hectare

6

5

4

3

2

10

27

00

1415/2

Goinda

1

[No. R- 25011 /21 /2010- OR -I ]

PAWAN KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च , 2013

का.आ. 609. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम का गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. 700 ( अ ) तारीख 28 मार्च 2012 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य की तहसील जैजैपुर , जिला जांजगीर- चांपा की भूमि में, पारादीप - सम्बलपुर - रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ सभी संबंधित भू- स्वामी को तारीख । सितम्बर 2012 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ।

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है, कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य-छत्तीसगढ़

जिला जांजगीर-चांपा

तहसील-जैजैपुर

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सं.

गांव का नाम

क्रम सं.

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

एयर

6

5

4

3

2

46

08

00

910

कोटेतरा

1

77

14

00

1358/2

2 कुटराबोड

10

00

00

1358/1

50

02

00

1523 1870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

 1     2                     3                4
3       हसौद                 1696             00
4                            107              00
        तुषार
                             111              00
                             16               00
                             115              00
                             109              00
                             116              00
                             18               00
5      गलगलाडीह              715/ 1 म         00
6      देवरघटा               874              00
                             841              00
                             843              00
                             844, 845         00
                             846/1            00
                             846/2            00
                             846/3            00
                             850              00
                             849              00
                             868              00
                             869              00
                             856              00
7      नंदेली ( महाल नंबर -1 ) 662            00
                             667              00

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) )

 5              6
06              94
09              72
 11             70
05              00
07              92
06              12
00              87
 12             00
10              80
12              82
00              10
02              00
02              00
01              00
01              50
02              00
01              50
05              26
02              95
01              20
00              75
04             43
00              93

[सं. आर-25011 /28 /2010 - ओ आर -1 ]

पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th March , 2013

S. O. 609.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 700( E) dated 28th March 2012 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil -Jaijaipur, District-Janjgir Champa in Chhattisgarh , State , specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi ( Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

Andwhereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 1st September 2012.

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 ofthe said Act , submitted his report tothe Central Government;

Andwhereas , the Central Government has after considering the said report , decided to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby adcquired for laying the pipeline.

1871

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 16, 2013 /फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Central Government hereby directs the right of user in the said land shall instead ofvesting in the Central Government, vest on date ofpublication ofthis declaration , in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District: Janjgir Champa

Tehsil : Jajaipur

Khasara No.

Name ofthe Village

Sl . No.

Hectare

4

3

2

1

00

910

Kotetara

1

00

1358/2

Kutrabod

2

00

1358/1

00

1523

00

1696

Hasaud

3

00

107

4

Tushar

00

111

00

16

00

115

00

109

00

116

00

18

00

715/ 1M

5

Galgaladih

00

874

6

Devarghata

00

841

00

843

00

844,845

00

846/1

00

846/2

00

846/3

00

850

00

849

00

868

00

869

00

856

00

662

7

Nandeli (Mahal Number- 1 )

00

667

870 G8/ 13-11

State: Chhattisgarh

Area

Are

Sq.mtr.

6

5

46

08

77

14

10

00

50

02

94

06

72

09

70

11

00

05

92

07

12

06

87

00

00

12

80

10

82

10

1280

00

00

02

00

02

00

01

50

01

00

02

50

01

26

05

95

02

20

01

75

00

43

04.

93

00

[No. R-25011 /28/2010-OR - 1 ]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

3. Brief facts are -

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2013

4. Ithas been stated by A.R. Sri Abhishal Srivastava ofthe claimantthat the claimant has expired and the LRs of thdeceased workman has not authorized him to file any Authority letter in case on their behalf. Therefore , no evidence has been produced on behalf of the workman by theLRs .

5. Therefore this is a case where after exchange of pleadings the LRs on behalf of the deceased worker have failed to prove the pleadings filed by the claimant .

का.आ. 610.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 कां 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011 /50/2008- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

6. Therefore , it cannot be held the demand of the Secretary United Trade Union Congress for treating the period from 04-02-95 to 24-03-04 as duty and release of salary / allowances for the said period in respect of Sri Jai Parkash Sharma , Watchman is just and legal .

New Delhi , the 15th February, 2013

7. Therefore , the reference is decided in favour ofthe management and against the Union.

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 15 फरवरी , 2013 S.O. 610. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North Central Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2013 .

[No. L-41011 /50/2008 - IR (B- I) ] Β . Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 611.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेशवर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 62/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

[सं. एल -12012/93/2008- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी Industrial Dispute No. 28 of 2009

New Delhi , the 15th February, 2013 Between--

The Secretary, United Trade Union Congress , ( UPO) 107/76 Jawahar Nagar , Kanpur.

S.O. 611.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.62/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 15-2-2013 .

And The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway Jhansi .

[No. L - 12012/93/2008 - IR (B- I ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer AWARD

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR 1. Central Government vide notification no . L -41011/ 50/2008 / IR - B - 1 dated 22-05-09 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer, C.GI.T.- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 62/2008 Dateof Passing Award - 29th January, 2013 2. Whether the demand of the Secretary, United Trade Union Congress ( UP) Kanpur for treating the period from 4-2-95 to 24-3-04 as duty and release of salary and allowances or the said period in respect of Sri Jai Prakash Sharma , Watchman , Chief Section Engineer is legal and justified ? To what relief is the concerned workman entitled?

1873

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Between:

TheAsst. General Manager ,

Government and the Government made the present reference. He is thus entitled to get full back wages and reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from 30-9-2004.

State Bank of India ,

Bapujinagar Branch,

.... 1st Party-Management

Dist. Khurda, Bhubaneswar, (Orissa)

And

....2nd Party-Workman

Theirworkman Sri BhagyadharMallick, Qr . No. VR-5/ 1 , Kharvela Nagar , Unit-3 , Bhubaneswar. (Orissa )

Appearances :

Forthe 1st Party- Management

Shri Alok Das , Authorized Representative

None

Forthe 2nd Party- Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred the present dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of India and their workman under clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide Letter No. I - 12012/93/2008 - IR(BI) , dated 6-10-2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication to the followingeffect:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Main Branch , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Bhagyadhar Mallick w.e.f. 30-9-2004 without complying the provisions of the I.D. Act , 1947 is legal and justified ? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled" ?

3. The 1st Party- Management in its reply through written statement has stated that the present dispute is misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party- workman had already raised a similar dispute along with 124 other workers through the State Bank of India Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Bhubaneswar challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st Party-Management . In the said dispute the failure report was sent by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central ), Bhubaneswarto the Ministry ofLabour who in turn referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is pending before this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007. The name ofthe 2nd Party- workman is appearing at St. No. 49 in Annexure-Ato the said reference . Thus , raising a commondispute for same cause ofaction and again raising individual dispute for same relief is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and amounts to multiplicity of litigation. TheAsst. Labour Commissioner ( Central ) while conciliating the individual disputes disregarded the direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) not to take any further action on the separate disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of action. The allegation of the 2nd Party- workman that he had joined the Bank on 6-10-1987 and he was discontinued from service on 30-9-2004 is not correct . He was engaged intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to exigencies of work. When his services were no more required he was not engaged further. It is further denied that he was performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty and to the best of satisfaction of the Authority . The 2nd Party- workman has neither completed several years of continuous service in the Bank nor he has completed 240 days ofcontinuous service in any calendar yearprecedingthe date ofhis alleged termination . In order to give an opportunity for permanent absorption to the ex- temporary employees/daily wagers in the Bank in view of the various settlements entered into between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management ofthe State Bank of India all eligible persons were called for interview. The 2nd Party- workman was also called for interview in the year 1990 and 1993. But he was not found successful hence could not be appointed in the Bank. The Union or the 2nd Party - workman has never challenged the implementation of the settlement which has now gained finality. It is further submitted that some of the wait- listed candidates , who could not be absorbed in the Bank's service due to expiry of the panel on 31 st March , 1997 , filedWrit Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. But the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by a common order dated 2.The 2nd Party- Workman has filed his statement of claim alleging that he had joined his services as a Messenger on6-10-1987 after succeeding in interview. He was assured to get permanent appointment order after one year or on completion of 240 days ' work in a calendar year , butdespite completion of several years of continuous satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days' work in each year he was not regularized, instead terminated and refused employment from 30-9-2004 by the 1st Party- Management without any written communication or payment of compensation . The 1st Party -Management in refusing employment to him violated all principles ofnatural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. He therefore brought the matter into the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. of the State Bank of India , L.H.O. , Bhubaneswar. But on hearing nothing, he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) vide his letter dated 25-2-2005. Conciliation proceedings were started, but they failed and thereupon a failure report was submitted to the 1874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

                                                                                                        [PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii ) )
     15-5-1998 passed in O. J.C. No. 2787/1997 dismissed a batch
     ofWrit Petitions and upheld the action of the Management            8.The name ofthe 2nd party- workman appears at Sl .
     ofthe Bank. This order of the Hon 'ble High Court was also    No. 49 in Annexure - A to the above reference . In both the
     upheldby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No.     cases the matter of disengagement or so called
     CC- 3082/1999 . Hence the above matter has attained finality  retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the
     and cannot be re- agitated . Since the services of Sri Mallick other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re-
     had been terminated much before the year 2004 his claim      employment. But challenge has been made more specifically
     has become stale by raising the dispute after ten years . It is against the termination of service ofthe 2nd Party-workman
     a settled principle of law that delay destroys the right to  in the present case while in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 prayer has
    remedy. Thus the present dispute is liable to be rejected on  been made with regard to consideration of the case of 125
    the above grounds.                                            workmen for re - employment as per Section 25- H of the
         4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues      Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, in the latter case the
    were framed:-                                                 workmen have submitted or virtually surrendered to their
    ISSUES                                                        cessation of employment or alleged termination , whereas
                                                                  in the present case they have challenged their termination
          1. Whether the present reference of the individual     on facts and law. Virtually, in the present case validity and
         workmanduring the pendency of the I.D. Case No.          legality of the alleged termination has to be tested at the
         andjustified ? 7/2007 before this Tribunal on the same issue is legal alter of facts and legal propositions . Therefore it cannot be
                                                                  said that the issues involved in both the cases are same.
         2.Whether the workman has worked for 240 days as        This case can proceed despite pendency of I.D. Case No.
         required under Section 25- F of the Industrial          7/2007 and the present reference by the individual workman
        Disputes Act ?                                           pending for adjudication is maintainable being legal and
         3. Whether the action of the Management of State       justified. This issue is therefore decided in the affirmative
                                                                 and against the 1st Party- Management .
        Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch ,                 ISSUE NO. 2
        Bhubaneswar in terminating services of Shri
        Bhagyadhar Mallick with effect from 30-9-2004 is fair, legal and justified ? 9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party- workman
                                                                has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service
        4. Towhat relief is the workman concerned entitled ?    during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date
        5. The 2nd Party - workman despite giving sufficient    ofhis alleged termination or disengagement from service
  opportunity did not adduce any evidence either oral or        lies on him , but the 2nd Party- workman has not adduced
  documentary in support of his claim and willingly kept        any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his
  himselfout ofthe proceedings at the stage of evidence by      contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim
  absenting himself or his Union representative.               thathe hadjoined the service on 6-10-1987 and worked till
                                                               30-9-2004 on temporary/ casual/daily wage basis , but he
       6. The 1st Party-Management has adduced the oral        has not filed any certificate or reliable document showing
 evidence of Shri Abhay Kumar Das as M.W. - 1 and filed        the break - up of year - wise service rendered by him under
 documents marked as Ext. -A to Ext. - J in refutation of the  the 1st Party- Management during the above period. The
 claim of the 2nd Party -workman .                             1stParty-Management, on the other hand, has alleged that
                        FINDINGS                               the 2nd Party-workman was engaged intermittently on
 ISSUE NO.1                                                    temporary/daily wage basis due to exigencies of work and
         7.Aspecificplea has been raised by the 1st Party-     he had never completed 240 days continuous service in a
Management that a group of 125 employees including the         calendar year . M.W. - 1 Shri Abhay Kumar Das in his
2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in      statement before the Court has stated that " The disputant
 I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same relief wasworking intermittently for few days in our Branch on
which is pending for adjudication. The dispute as referred    dailywagebasis in exigencies......He had not completed
to in I.D. Case No_ 7/2007 is given below for comparison      240 days of continuous and uninterrupted service
with the dispute in the present case -                        preceding the alleged date of the termination " . He has
                                                              denied the allegation that the workman was discontinued
      Whether the action ofthe Management of State Bank       from service with effect from 30-9-2004, but has stated that
      of India , Orissa Circle , Bhubaneswar in not           " In fact the workman has never worked after 1997 " . The
      considering the case of 125 workmen whose details       2nd Party-workman has to disprove the evidence led by
      are in Annexure- A for re - employment as per Section   the 1 st Party- Management, but he has not come before the
      25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and     Court to give evidence. Atemporary or daily wage worker
     justified ? Ifnot, what relief the workmen are entitled to? has no right to claim reinstatement and particularly when
                                                             such an employee had not worked for 240 days continuously

1875 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th February, 2013 during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date ofhis so-called termination. Thus he is not entitled to get benefit of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This issue is hereby decided against the 2nd Party- workman for failing to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged termination from service.

S.O. 612.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.03/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ChitradurgaGrameena Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-2-2013 .

ISSUE NO.3

[No. L- 12012/ 169/2004- IR (B- I )] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE DATED: 22nd January, 2013 Present: Shri S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer C. R. No. 03/2005

IParty

Sh. H Somashekara , S/o Sh . Hanumanthappa , C/oG H Palaiah, 'Shivalaya ', CKPura Extension, Behind Old Vyshali Nursing Home, CHITRADURGA.

IIParty

The Chairman, ChitradurgaGramina Bank, HeadOffice , P B No. 70, VP Extension, CHITRADURGA- 577501.

IParty:

Appearances Shri S V Shastri Advocate

10. Since the 2nd Party-workman could not prove that he had rendered 240 days continuous service under the 1st Party -Management during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged termination, he is not entitled for re - employment even in case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination. Moreover, he was a temporary/casual/ daily wage employee . His services can be terminated at any time without assigning any cause by the 1st Party- Management . He has no legal right to be retained in service for the extended period, ifhe was appointed for a certain period or when no time is specified. The 2nd Party- workman has not filed any letter of appointment or proof of having rendered service under the Ist Party- Management for a specified period against a regular post. The 1st Party- Management has further alleged that in time of exigencies only the 2nd Party-workman was employed. It means that with the end of exigencies his job also came to an end. In view of the matter the action of the management of State Bank of India , Main Branch , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Bhagyadhar Mallick with effect from 30-9-2004 his termination is fair, legal and justified. This issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative and against the 2nd Party -workman.

II Party :

ISSUE NO.4

Shri B C Prabhakar Advocate AWARD

11. In view of the findings recorded above under Issues No. 2 and 3 , the 2nd Party- workman is not entitled to any reliefwhatsoever claimed.

12.Reference is answered accordingly. JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Sub - section (2A) ofthe Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L- 12012/ 169/2004- IR(B- I) dated 10-12-2004 for adjudication on the following schedule:

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी , 2013

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management ofChitradurga Grameena Bank is justified in dismissing Sri H. Somasekhara from the services of the bank ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

का.आ. 612.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का-14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चित्रादुर्गा ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को18-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR 03/2005 when notices were issued to both the sides they entered their appearance through their respective Advocates and claim statement of the I Party came to be filed on 23-2-2005, whereas the counter statement of the II Party came to be filed on 25-8-2005 .

[सं. एल -12012/169/2004- आई आर ( बी- I) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी 1876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

3. After completion of the pleadings having regard to the certain allegations made by the I Party touching the fairness ofthe Domestic Enquiry my learned predecessor while framing a Preliminary Issue as to Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by the II Party is fair and proper ?, after receiving the evidence of Enquiry Officer in the Domestic Enquiry as MW 1 for the management and exhibiting Ex M- 1 to Ex . M- 22 and also of the I party workman as WW 1 after hearing the arguments addressed by the learned advocates for both sides by order. dated 13-9-2006 answered the Preliminary Issue in the Affirmative holding that the Domestic Enquiry as Fair and Proper , the I party workman lead his evidence on victimization , discrimination in punishment and being not gainfully employed after his dismissal from the service of the II Party bank the points that now remains for my consideration are:

Point No.1 : Whether the I party demonstrates the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer holding the charges as proved is perverse?

Point No.2 : If not , whether he demonstrate that he has been unnecessarily victimized, discriminated in imposing punishment and that the punishment imposed for the alleged misconduct is excessive ?

Point No. 3 : What order?

which is produced at Ex M - 3 the DA being not satisfied of the said reply appointing Sh . S Rajashekaraiah as Enquiry Officer and Sh. P V Kondappa as Presenting Officer the copies ofwhich are produced at Ex M-4 and Ex M - 5 ordered for holding the Domestic Enquiry. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority substituted Sh. K Rajashekarappa, Manager at Head Office as the Presenting Officer in the place of Sh . P V Kondappa by his order dated 27-08-1999 the copy ofwhich is produced at Ex . M-6. Then the Enquiry Officer observing the formalities of preliminary hearing while recording the evidence of Sh . G C Thimanna , Sh . Kantharaj , Sh . V Thippeswamy, Sh. A V Vijayakumar as MW 1 to 4 and exhibiting 12 documents as Ex . ME - 1 to Ex . ME- 12 and the evidence given by the CSE/ 1 Party and exhibiting one document as DEx - 1 for him after receiving the written briefs from the Presenting Officer and the Defence Representative submitted his enquiry finding dated 14-10-2000 which is produced at Ex M- 10 holding the CSE/ I Party as guilty of charge . Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority while forwarding the copy of the Enquiry Report and affording him an opportunity of hearing passed the order of Dismissal dated 8-07-2003 which is produced at Ex M - 18. Then on appeal being preferred to the Board Directors, Chitradurga Gramina Bank through his appeal Memo dated 8-10-2003 the Appellate Authority after affording the opportunity ofhearing by detailed order dated 4-11-2003 dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. Then on I party raising . the dispute before ALC( C ) , Hubli on its failure the Central Government made this reference for adjudication.

4. It is borne out from the records/ Enquiry File that while the I party workman was working as Clerk- cum- Cashier at Yarabally Branch of the II Party Bank on a complaint filedby Sh . V Kantaraj , S / o Virupakshappa , SB Accountholder No. 185 at Yarabally Branch on 29-10-1998 which is at Ex . ME - 8 alleging that towards his loan account he had remitted an amount of₹ 15,000.00 on 25-6-1998 and a sum of ₹ 10,000.00 on 3-7-1998 and on the previous day i.e. 28-10-1998 when he came to the bank and approached the Manager to know the remaining balance to be paid by him with an intention to clear off the same he learnt from him the amount of ₹ 15,000.00 and ₹10,000.00 remitted by him on 25-06-1998 and 3-07-1998 respectively being not credited to his loan account for which he had counter foils , the II Party bank issued him a letter of suspension dated 2- 11-1998 the copy of which is produced at Ex . M - 1 and then after getting the internal inspection got made through MW 1 , Sh . G C Thimmanna , issued him charge sheet dated 8-12- 1998 the copy of which is produced at Ex M - 2 alleging that he who received 15,000.00 on 25-06-1998 and 10,000.00 on 03-07-1998 remitted for credit to VSL( B ) 11 / 97-98 of Sh . V Kantharaju , S/ o Virupakshappa, Yarabally Village retaining them till 16-07-1998 and 29-10-1998 respectively without remitting to his loan account temporarily misappropriated the said amounts and thereby committed misconduct as per regulation 19 within the meaning of Regulation of 30( 2 ) of Chitradurga Gramina Bank Staff Service Regulations , 1982. Then on a reply of bare denial dated 18-01-1999 by the 1 Party the copy of

5. The grievance ofthe I party in his claim statement onthe finding of the Enquiry Officer is that when in the so called complaint filed by Sh . Kantharaju dated 29-10-1998/ Ex ME - 8 since his name was not disclosed as the person receiving the amounts in question taking another complaint from him on 03-11-1998 which is produced at Ex M - 10 he has been falsely implicated . It is further contended though it is admittedby the insanagement witnesses on the counter foils of the challans produced at Ex . ME - 2 and Ex . ME -3 regarding alleged remittances of ₹ 15,000.00 and 10,000.00 the dates of remittance/ receipt is not visible the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the same remittances/ receipts were dated 25-06-1998 and 3-7-1998 respectively is perverse therefore , the charge of temporary misappropriation by him being the cashier at the relevant time. It is not in dispute the entries ( filling up of the gap ) appearing in Ex ME - 2 and ME- 3 and corresponding remittance challan at Ex ME - 11 and Ex MF - 12 are being in the hand writing of the CSE/ I Party himself. As per the bank seal on Ex ME - 11 and Ex ME - 12 the remittances of 15,000.00 and 10,490.00 corresponding to counter foils at Ex ME -2 and Ex ME - 3 have been made on 16-07-1998 and 29-10-1998 respectively. The I party wants totake the benefit of invisibility of the dates on the counter foils and initial of recipient instead of full signature wants 1877

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

absolutely I find no reason to say or hold the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer charge being proved is perverse. In the result, I arrive at conclusion of answering Point No.1 in the Negative.

6. Absolutely no cogent evidence is brought on record by the I Party any staff of the Bank temporarily misappropriating the customers money being imposedwith punishment lesser than the punishment of dismissal imposed against him and he also failed to place on record any evidence he being singled out and victimized in the instant case.On the other hand as laid down by the Apex Court in the case ofJanatha Bazaar (South Canara Whole Sale Stores Ltd) etc Appeallants vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukara 'Sangha - Respondents reported inAIR 2000 SC 3129 fact thatmisappropriation is for small or large amounts or that past record ofemployee is unblemished is irrelevant when charge ofbreach of trust and misappropriation is proved against him . Therefore , in the instant case as far as the first remittance in question of 15,000.00 made on 25-06-1998 was remittedto the Bank on 16-7-1998 before the same had not come to the notice of customer whereas the second remittance of 10,000 made on 3-07-1998 only when customer came to know of it on 28-10-1998 he made it good by getting it remitted on the following day i.e. , 29-10-1998 through his friend Sh. A V Ramaprasad. Therefore though this act on the part of CSE/I Party amounts to temporary misappropriation of the customers money the same cannot be viewed leniently to interfere in the punishment imposed by the management dismissing him from service under Section 11 Aofthe Industrial Dispute Act , 1947. Under the circumstances I also arrive at conclusion of answering Point No. 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the management of Chitradurga Gramina Bank is justified in dismissing Sh. H Somashekara from the Bank andthat he is not entitle for any reliefs .

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE- I

List of witnesses examined before this Tribunal on Domestic Enquiry :

MW 1 - Sh. S Rajashekaraiah , Enquiry Officer

WW 1 - Sh . H Somashekar,

Documents exhibited before this Tribunal on Domestic Enquiry:

Ex.M-1 Orderof suspension dated 2-11-1998

Charge Sheet dated 8-12-1998 Ex.M- 2

Explanation dated 18-01-1999 Ex.M-3

Ex.M-4 Letter of Appointment of Enquiry Officer dated 22-02-99

Ex.M-5 Letter of Appointment of Presenting Officer dated 22-02-99 .

this tribunal to believe that the remittances were not made on the alleged dates 25-06-1998 and 3-07-1998 as such the finding of the Enquiry Officer that he temporarily misappropriated those amounts till 16-07-1998 and 29-10-1998 respectively is perverse . When admittedly the Yerabally Branch was comprising of the Manager Sh . V Thippeswamy, himself (CSE) as Clerk-cum-Cashier and one Sub- staff alone and he admits that the handwriting ofthe counter foils as well as remittance challans in Ex ME- 2, 3 , 11 and 12 are of himself and even it is proved that the initials appearing on these counter foils and challans belongs to him the non -visibility ofdates on the respective counter foils can be attributed to him only and even it can be said that with a view to retain the said amount for some time he might have put the seal without visibility of the dates . Though the management witnesses have admitted that the cashier receiving the amount has to put his full signature on the counter foils issued to the customer, the counter foils in the instant case are bearing only the initials this cannot absolve the CSE from his responsibility because it is wrong committed by him. When the officials in the Branch acquainted with his handwriting and initials unequivocally deposed in the enquiry the handwriting on the counter foils and the remittance challan as well as the initial in the seal of the bank appearing on them belongs to the CSE/I Party and he failed to rebut the same absolutely I find no error being committed by the Enquiry Officer the CSE/I Party who was Clerk- cum- Cashier of Yerabally Branch of the II party on 25-6-1998 and 3-7-1998 received 15,000.00 and 10,000.00 respectively towards the loan account of Sh . V Kantharaju and passed counter foils on the very day produced at Ex ME- 2 and Ex ME- 3 and retained the first remittance of ₹.15,000.00 made on 25-06-1998 till 16-07-1998 and only after the account holder complained on 29-10-1998 he managed to make good the remittance of 10,000.00 made on 3-7-1998 remitting a sum of ₹ 10,490.00 through his friend Sh . A V Ramaprasad . Whenas per the evidence of CSE/I Party himself the staffing pattern of Yerabally Branch at the relevant time was 1 + 1 + 1 , One Manager , One Clerk and Sub - staff when he himself admit that the handwriting in the counter foils and remittance challans (Ex ME - 2 , 3 , 11 and 12) are of himself and the cashier who receives the amount puts the seal and signature , only because he has put the seal in such a fashion the date could not be seen he cannot escape his liability or attribute anything against any of the other staff in the Bank and he himself has to owe the responsibility of non- visibility of the dates on the counter foils at Ex ME- 2 and ME- 3. A suggestion appears to have been made on behalf ofthe CSE that there is possibility of someone else putting. the seal and initial resembling his initial on the counter foil is possible without highlighting that there was anyone who was after him to falsely implicate him. Therefore , inthe Domestic Enquiry held by the II Party management the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer was more than sufficient to say that the charge is proved. Therefore , 1878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

Ex.M-6 Letter dated 27-09-1999 of the Second Party

Ex.M-7 Letter dated 27-05-1999

Ex.M-8 Notice ofEnquiry

Ex.M-9 Enquiry Proceedings

Ex.M - 10 Exhibits marked on behalf of Management (12inNo.)

Ex.M- 11 Exhibits marked on behalf of First Party ( 1 in no.)

Ex.M- 12 Written arguments submitted by the Presenting Officer

Ex.M- 13 Written arguments submitted by the Defence Representative

Ex.M- 14 Miscellaneous Papers

Ex.M - 15 Report and Findings dated 14-10-2000

Ex.M - 16 Letter dated 20-10-2000 of the second party

Ex.M - 17 Objection to the Enquiry Report of first party dated 09-11-2000

Ex. M- 18 Order of dismissal dated 08-07-2003

Ex.M- 19 Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority

Ex.M -20 Letter dated 19-08-2003

Ex.M- 21 Appeal dated 8-10-2003

Ex.M- 22 Order or Appellate Authority

List of witnesses examined before this Tribunal on Victimization and Unemployment:

MW 2 Sh. PV Kondappa , Manager , IR Section

WW1 Sh . H Somashekar,

Documents exhibited on victimization and unemployment :

Ex . M -23 Memorandum of imputation of lapse dated 2-7-2004 issued to Sri B. S. Shivakumaraswamy

Ex. M -24 Copy of the Proceedings of the Chairman dated 2-7-2004

Ex .M- 25 Copy of the Explanation letter dated 21-7-2004 submitted by Sri B S Shivakumaraswamy to the imputation of lapse .

Ex.M-26 Copy of the Punishment Order dated 21-9-2004 issued to Sri B S Shivakumaraswamy imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for three months without cumulative effect

Ex.M-27 Copy of the letter dated 2-5-2003 issued to SriMC Nijaguna

Ex.M- 28 Copy of the Explanation Letter dated 19-5-2003 ofSri Nijaguna

Ex.M-29 Copy of the letter dated 13-8-2003 issued to Sri Nijaguna in respect of the violation of CircularGuidelines .

Ex.M-30 Warning letter dated 26-8-2004 issued to Sri Nijaguna warning him for violating the Circular Guidelines .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

Ex.M -31 Charge Sheet dated 6-7-1993 issued to Mr. Rafeek Ahamed Pasha

Ex.M -32 Personal Hearing proceedings held before the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority dated 7-12-1994 .

Ex.M-33 Letter dated 7-12-1994 submitted by Mr. Pasha to the Disciplinary Authority.

Ex.M- 34 Orders of the Disciplinary Authority along with Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority dated 8-12-1994

Ex.M -35 Proceedings of the Chairman dated 7-6-1991 .

Ex.M-36 Proceedings of the Chairman dated 21-9-1992 .

Ex.M-37 Charge Sheet dated 7-1-1993 issued to Sri H Somashekar .

Ex.M -38 Charge sheet dated 7-4-1993 issued to Sri H Somashekar .

Ex.M-39 Proceedings of the Chairman dated 29-10-1993 .

Ex.M -40 Proceedings of the Chairman dated 5-7-1993 .

Ex.M-41 Proceedings of the Chairman dated 7-1-1994 .

Ex.W-1 Reply of Sh . Nijaguna Dated 12-09-2003

Ex.W-2 Show Cause Notice issued to Sh. Rafeeq

Copy of Charge Sheet dated 6-07-1993 Ex.W-3

List of witnesses examined in the Domestic Enquiry:

MW 1 - Sh . G C Thimanna

MW 2 - Sh . Kantharaj

MW 3 - Sh . V Thippeswamy

MW 4 - Sh . AV Vijayajkumar

DW 1 - Sh . H Somasekhara

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management before the Enquiry Officer :

MEx- 1- Ledger sheet Folio no . 162993 (VSL -B - 11 /97-98 )

MEx-2- Representation dated 29-10-98 of V Kantharaj

MEx-3- Request for lean/ OD facility dtd . 18-6-98 ( F.18 )

MEx-4 Letter of request for loan ( CGBF - 18 ) dtd . 16-1-98

MFx-5- KDR - 123 /95-96 deposit receipt ( No. 0955778 )

MEx-6- Pronate dtd . 18-6-98 of V SI . ( B ) -11/97 ( Yerabally Br.)

MEx-7- Special Report dtd. 29-10-98 of G V Thimanna

MEx-8- Statement dtd. 3-11-98 by V Kantharaj

MEx-9- Counter foil did. 3-7-98 by VSL- 11 / 97 for Rs. 10,000 ofYerabally Branch .

MEx- 10- Counter foil dtd. 25-6-98 for Rs . 5,000 ofYerabally Br. relating to VSL - 11 / 97

MEx- 11- Loan Challan dtd . 16-7-98 for Rs . 15000 (VSL ( B ) - 11/97)

MEx- 12- Loan Challan dtd. 16-7-98 for Rs . 10490 (VSI ( B ) - 11/97)

DFx- 1- Specimen signature register copy Page No. 15 1879

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 20 फरवरी , 2013

L- 17012/ 16/2005 - IR(M) Dated 19-04-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Sr. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) , LIC , Asansol in dismissing Sri . Dilip Kumar Pramanik, Watchman from service w.e.f. 31-1-2005 is justified? Ifnot, what relief he is entitled to?" का,आ. 613.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम आसनसोल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/16/2005- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 20th February, 2013

Onreceipt ofthe Order No. L- 17012/16/2005 - IR(M) dated 19-04-2006 of the above mentioned reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute , a reference case No. 06 of 2006was registered on 01-05-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

S.O. 613.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . LIC Asansol and their workman,which was receivedby the Central Government on 5-2-2013 .

Since the workman is already dead and no substitution petition has been filed on behalf of the workman , it appears that none is interested to proceed with the case . So the case is closed and accordingly a " No Dispute" Award is passed.

[No. L- 17012/16/2005 - IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ORDER

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present: Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer

Letan award be and same is passed in terms of the above finding as No Dispute existing . Send the two copies ofthe award to the Ministry of Labour and Employment , Government of India, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

REFERENCE NO . 06 OF 2006

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 20 फरवरी , 2013

Parties: Industrial Dispute between the Management of Sr. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) , LIC, Asansol

Vrs.

Their Workman

Repersentatives:

Sri Madhab Banerjee , Advocate

For the Management:

का.आ. 614.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स आई बी पी कं. लिमिटेड अब इंडियन ऑयल कं. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नं. । मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

None Forthe union (Workman):

[सं. एल-30012/35/2006- आई आर ( एम ) ] State: West Bengal

LIC

Industry:

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

Datedthe 20-11-2012

NewDelhi , the 20th February, 2013 AWARD

S.O. 614. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2007) ofthe Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.

870 97/13-12 1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

No.- 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . IBP Co. Ltd. , Now Indian Oil Company Ltd, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2013 .

[No. L-30012/35/2006- IR(M) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI

Present : Justice G. S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT - 1/ 20 OF 2007

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of IBP Co. Ltd.

regularization and permanency advised the workman to submit quotations for the works the workman was attending to . He had no alternative but to act upon the advice ofthe first party in order to save his employment . The workman thereafter submitted quotations for the work under the name of M/ s . Vaishali Multi Services . The first party then terminated his services w.e.f. 1-12-2005by its letter dtd . 1-10-2005 and 28-10-2005 addressed to M/ s . Vaishali Multi Services . According to the statement of claim the workman is a workman as defined under Section 2( S) of the Act. The so called contract agreements and paper made arrangements made at the instance of the first party were sham, bogus , nominal and a mere comouflage to deprive the workman of the benefits which were available to him as a regular workman . The workman has , therefore, prayed that he be declared as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act and the first party be directed to reinstate him w.e.f. 10-12-2005 with full back wages and all consequential benefits .

Now

IndianOil Company Ltd.

And

Their Workman (G.K. Chavan)

Appearances:

Forthe first party:

Shri D.B. Mondkar , Adv.

Forthe second party workman: Shri J.P. Sawant , Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 21st day of Janurary, 2013

AWARD

3.According to the written statement the second party is neither a workman nor the first party is his employer andthere is absolutely no employer - employee relationship between the two . The second party was engaged as a contractor purely on contract basis and the contract came to an end as per the terms of the contract . The non - renewal of the contract cannot be termed as retrenchment as envisaged under Section 25 - F of the Act . As per the terms ofthe contract the second party was required to engage contract labour in view of different nature of jobs and the second party was accordingly executing the contract jobs through contract labour deployed by him. It is stated in the contract that there shall be no employer -employee relationship between the second party and the first party or between the contract labour and the first party . The first party has, therefore , prayed that the claim of the second party be dismissed .

4. The second party has filed rejoinder wherein he has reiterated his stand.

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The terms ofreference given in the schedule are as follows:

5. The second party has filed his affidavit and he has been cross examined by learned counsel for the first party. The first party has filed affidavit of Tapas Kumar Mandal , Assistant Manager (Plant ) and he has been cross examined by learned counsel for the second. party.

Whether Shri G.K. Chavan is a workman under ID Act? If so , whether his termination by the management of IBPCo. Ltd.w.e.f. 1-12-2005 is legal andjust? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to?

6. Heard Shri J.P. Sawant learned counsel for the second Pary and Shri D.B. Mondkar learned counsel for the first party.

2.According to the statement of claim filed by the workman G.K. Chavan he was employed by the first party in January 1991 to attend to its work in connection with banking, postage , sealing of tank lorries and pasting of labels at its office at Panewadi , Manmad, Dist . Nasik, Maharashtra . The workman was attending to the work of permanent nature and he was in continuous service . The workman was paid his remuneration. The workman repeatedly requested the first party to make him permanent butthe first party in order to deprive him of his claim for

7. The second party G.K. Chavan in his cross examination has stated that he is a graduate and he can read andwrite English . He has stated that he was appointed by Ex . W- 1 . It is clear from the perusal of Ex. W- 1 that this relates to appointment as a contractor . Ex . W- 12 also relates to appointment of contractor. Ex. W- 3 is extension of contract. The second party states .

1881

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

"The Company extended my contract period again and again . Ex . W-4 to Ex . W- 15 are the letters received byme from the first party. This is correct that I was awarded work on contract basis by three different letters of the first party. The three works were of different nature".

Present: Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.GI.T. - cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

The second party has also admitted.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 49/2012

Date ofPassing Order- 24th January, 2013 "This is correct that I gave my quotations before allotment of the work to me" .

Between:

It is thus clear from the statement of the second party himselfthat he was a contractor and not an employee ofthe first party.

1. M/s . Arun Construction, Sub-Contractor of M/ s . G.S. Atwal , At. Kanehipur, Po. Jajpur Road, Dist. Jajpur-755 019 (Orissa).

2. M/s . G.S. Atwal , Contractor of

Sukinda Chromite Mines ,

At./Po. Kalarangiatta,

Ps . Kaliapani , Jajpur .

8.There is nothing on the record to show that there existed any employer- employee relationship between the secondparty and the first party. It is crystal clear from the statement of the second party himself that he was not a workman and that he was a contractor . The second party has not been terminated by the first party and it is the contract which has been terminated.

..... 1st Party-Managements .

And

9. In view ofthe above discussion it becomes clear that the second party is not entitled to any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

Shri Dhana Tudu ,

At. Karkhari , Po. Moruabil ,

JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013

PS . Kankadahada, Dist . Dhenkanal , Orissa.

....2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

For the 1st Party -Managements

None

Forthe 2nd Party-Workman

None

ORDER

का.आ.615.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स अरूण कोन्ट्रक्टर सब कोन्ट्रक्टर मैसर्स जी एस अटवाल कोन्ट्रक्टर सुकिन्डा क्रोमाइट माइन्स जजपुर उडीसा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/13/2011- आई आर (एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

Inthe present case which is fixed today for filing of statement of claim and for further orders , the 2nd Party- workmanwas required to file statement of claim , but neither the 2nd Party- workman has appeared nor filed any statement of claim .

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2013

S.O. 615. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Arun Contractor Sub Contractor of M/ s . G.S. Atwal Contractor of Sukinda Chromite Mines Jajpur (Orissa) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2013 .

2. It is pertinent to mention here that the present reference was received in this Tribunal on 4-5-2012. In the order of reference itself, the parties raising the dispute were called upon to file a statement ofclaim complete with relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of order of reference , but the 2nd Party-workman did not file the same . Inorderto give him further chance a notice under registered post was sent to him on 27-9-2012 , but the 2nd Party- workman did not respond to it . Hence a further notice was issued through speed post on 3-1-2013 to the 2nd Party- workman to file statement of claim , but that notice too was not complied with by the 2nd Party - workman and no statement of claim was filed till today. Therefore a [No. L-29012/ 13/2011 - IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

1882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 61/2002

Date of Passing Award - 17th January, 2013

Between:

M/ s . Kay Pee Enterprises , Mine Owner of Thakurani Iron Ore Mines , P.B. No. 3 , At./Po . Barbil , Dist. Keonjhar(Orissa) , Keonjhar- 758035

.... 1st Party - Management reasonable presumption is to be drawn either to have settled the dispute amicably with the Management or the 2nd Party-workman is not interested in prosecuting his case any further . It has also to be mentioned that without any pleadings and counter pleadings no case can be adjudicated by a legal forum. Aperiod of more than eight months has expired from the date ofreceipt of the reference in this Tribunal and the 2nd Party - workman has not responded even to the notices issued by this Tribunal to appear and prosecute his case . Therefore it will be a futile attempt to keep the case pending any more. It wouldbe proper under these circumstances to pass a no- dispute award in the present reference. Accordingly a no dispute award is passed.

(And)

3.The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013

Their workmen represented through the General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union , Po . Barbil, Keonjhar.

....2nd Party-Union

Appearances :

None

For the 1st Party-Management .

ShriB.S. Pati,

For the 2nd Party-Union

General Secretary.

का.आ. 616.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स के पी इन्टरप्राइजेज खदान मालिक ठकुरानी आयरन ओर माइन्स क्योंझर, उड़ीसा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

AWARD

[सं. एल-29012/107/2001- आई आर (एम ) एवम् सं. एल-29011/97/2001- आई आर ( एम ) ]

जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013

These two cases have been referred to this Tribunal by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide their letter No. L- 29012 / 107 / 2001 - IR( M ) dated 2-5-2002 and Letter No. L-29011-97/2001 - IR( M) dated 2-5-2002 for adjudication of industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of Thakurani Iron OreMines , M/ s. Kay Pee Enterprises , P.B. No. 3 At./Po . Barbil , Distt . Keonjhar and their workmen in respect ofthe matter shown under the schedule of the letter of reference which is reproduced below and is alike in both the cases.

Whether the demand ofNorth Orissa Workers Union thatthe workmen ( list enclosed) should be reinstated with full back wages is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?

S.O. 616. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 61/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Kay Pee Enterprises , Mine Owner of Thakurani Iron Ore Mines Keonjhar (Orissa) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2013.

[No. L- 29012/ 107/2001 - IR(M)

&

No. L-29011/97/2001 - IR(M) ]

2.Later a corrigendum was received in I.D. Case No. 62/2002 vide letter of even No. dated 03-10-2002 making modification in the schedule of the letter of reference of the above case in the following words: --

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

"Whether the demand of North Orissa Workers ' Union for reinstatement of workman with full back wages w.e.f. 1-9-1999 ( list enclosed) is legal and justifed? If so what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

Present : Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar

3. Since both the cases involve similar dispute between the same parties with same allegations , my learned

                                                                                                            1883
 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934
predecessor vide order dated 13-8-2003 has clubbed I.D.    the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central ) , Barbil and
CaseNo. 62/2002 with I.D. Case No. 61/2002. Hence both      forwarded a copy of the same to the Assistant Labour
                                                           Commissioner(Central ), Rourkela and the Regional Labour
the cases are taken up together for passing award. It is   Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar. Having received
 also worth while to mention that after passing the above   no communication the disputant workmen made a
 order , I.D. Case No. 61/2002 only proceeded further for   representation on 10-4-2002 to the Chief Labour
 adjudication and evidence of the parties was recorded in   Commissioner (Central), New Delhi for redressal oftheir
 I. D. Case No. 61/2002 only.                               grievance who in turn directed Regional Labour
      4. It seems that the Ministry under some              Commissioner(Central) , Bhubaneswar to admit the dispute
 misconception has referred one and the same dispute twice   into conciliation. During the conciliation proceedings the
 under two orders of reference . However both the cases      1st Party-Management appeared once. Therefore the
 are taken together treating them one and the same case .    conciliation proceedings ended in failure and after
                                                             submission of failure report the Government referredthe
       5. The General Secretary of the 2nd Party- Union      dispute for adjudication to this Tribuanl . Thus the action
 espousing the cause of the disputant workman has stated     ofthe Management in terminating the services of the
  in his statement of claim that Thakurani Iron Mines is a   disputant workmen from 1-9-1999 is illegal and arbitary
  mines which was leased out to M/ s . Kay Pee Enterprises   and inviolation of the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes
  as its owner who subsequently appointed the disputant      Act. Thedisputant workmen had worked with the 1st Party-
  workmen(as per list enclosed) for the purpose of mining    Management continuously for more than ten years without
  activities in the said mines . During the course of their  any break. Therefore the disputant workmen may be
  employment the 1st Party-Management served individual       reinstated in their service with full back wages with effect
  noties on the disputant workmen on 24-6-1999 under          from 1-9-1999.
   section 25 -N of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter        6.The 1st Party-Management in its written statement
  the disputant workmen approached the Keonjhar Mines         has stated that it had made an application to the
  and Forest Workers Union , Barbil to prevent the            Government seeking permission to retrench the workers
  Management from illegal retrenchment of the workmen         ofThakurani Mines on 24-6-1999 as the mines had became
  from1-10-1999 . The aforesaid Union took up the matter      less operative.Meanwhile the workers ofThakurani mines
  before the appropriate Authority pleading that there was    submitted their resignation letters individually as they felt
   sufficient mineral deposits in the said mines . Hence      that their earnings willdrop . Subsequently there was a
   untimely retrenchment of the entire poor tribal workmen is change in the decision and the workers were advised to
   not required . After hearing of the parties the Government  reconsider their resignations , but they did not listen to
   refused to accord permission for retrenchment as was        the advice of the 1st Party- Management and after
   informed by the said Union. After refusal of the Government consultation with the operating Union decided to pursue
   to accord permission for retrenchment, the 1st Party-       their resignations . The operating Union i.e. the Keonjhar
   management hatched a mischievous plan to implement its     Mines and Forest Workers Union representing the
   evil design to get rid of the disputant workmen and some-  workmen also insisted for acceptance of their resignations
   how induced the disputant workmen through one of the        and entered into an agreement regarding terms and
   office bearer of the Union and managed to take the          conditions for acceptance of resignations on 25-8-1999 .
    signature/left thumb impression ( L.T.I. ) of the disputant Subsequently the resignations were accepted under
   workmen on some written papers on 30-8-1999 without         pressure fromthe workmen and the Union and payment of
   explaining the contents of the same , simultaneously paying all dues including gratuity etc. 'was made to the workers
    some amount to the workmen for maintenance of their
    family members during the idle period of the mines . The   from 30-8-1999. Later, on 1-9-1999 permission to retrench
    disputant workmen being illiterate put their thumb         the workmen was not grantedby the Government of India,
    impressions on those papers after getting assurance from   Ministry ofLabour. After receiving full and final payment
    the 1st Party-Management that they would be engaged in     workers never complained nor wanted resignations tobe
    the minesby March, 2000 when the mines would be re-         withdrawn. It has been admitted by the Union in their
    opened for operation . In between the period commencing     petition that workers have resigned from their work and
    from 30-8-1999 and ending in March , 2000 the 1st Party-    they have been paid their admissible dues . Therefore the
    Management had sublet the operation of Mines to one         claim of the 2nd party- Union is fabricated, illegal and
     SESSA- GOA without knowledge of the disputant              untenable in law. It is a clear case ofvoluntary resignation,
     workmen . When the Mines resumed its operation in March,   not of retrenchment .
    2000 and the crusher plant has restarted the disputant            7.After filing of the written statement and xerox copies
    workmenapproached the 1st Party- Management for work,       of the resignation letters of the disputant workmen as
     but they were refused work in the Mines and at crusher      requisitioned, the 1st Party- Management appeared on few
     plant, instead they employed new outside workers for the   dates and from 23-1-2006 onwards they disappeared
     work which is going on . Being deprived of their           despite sending notices through ordinary as well as
     employment the disputant workmen filed a complaint before   registered posts: Hence the case was set exparte against

1884

                       THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934                      [PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)]
                                                                                                        ==
    predecessor. them by order dated 12-11-2007 passed by my learned evidence in support of their claim and averments made in
                                                                the statement of claim . The General Secretary of the 2nd
          8. The 2nd Party - Union has filed three affidavits in Party-Union has filed his own affidavit substantiating the
    evidence , two by the disputant workmen named as            allegations made in the statement of claim .
    Shri Mahendra Chhatar and Shri Ratnakar Naik and one
    by the General Secretary of the 2nd Party -Union                  12. It is an admitted fact that the Government of
    Shri Bhawani Shankar Pati .                                 India has refused permission for closure of the Mines and
                                                                consequently retrenchment of the disputant workmen .
         9. The dispute raised in this case is with regard to   Sub-Section (7) of Section 25 - N ofthe Industrial Disputes
    the legality and justification of demand of North Orissa   Actsays:-
   WorkersUnion for reinstatement of workmen with full back
   wageswith effect from 1-9-1999. As per list enclosed by           Where no application for permission under sub-
   the Ministry there are 107 employees who are involved in     section ( 1 ) is made , or where the permission for any
   the present case. The allegation of the 2nd Party - Union is retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall
   thatthe disputant workment had been working under the       be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice
   1st Party-Management for more than last 10 years without    of retrenchment was given to the workman and the
   any break. However they were served with individual         workman shall be entitled to allthe benefits under any law
   notices dated 24-6-1999 by the 1st Party- Management        him. for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to
   under section 25 - N of the Industrial Disputes Act for
   retrenchement oftheir services with effect from 1-10-1999 .
  Butwhen the Government of India refused permission to              13. Sub - section ( 6 ) of Section 25-0 of the aforsaid
   retrench , the 1st Party - Management had hatched a plan   Actalso makes the same provision deeming the closure of
   to get resignations from the disputant workmen with false   the undertakings as illegal and making the workmen
  promise by getting their signature/ thumb impression on      entitled to all benefits under any law for the time being in
   some written papers and paying some amount for              force as if the undertaking had not been closed down.
  maintence . They were not explained the contents of the            14. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of
  written papers . They were also assured for re - engagement Himachal Pradesh given in the case of " Ravi Dutt and
   in the Mines by March, 2000 when the mines would be        Others And- State of H.P. & Others " [ 2008-111 - L.L.J.-
  reopened for operation . The 1st Party- Management after    795 (HP) ] has been relied upon the 2nd Party- Union which
  getting their induced resignations had sublet the operation lays down that " Employer - engaging more than 100
  of the Mines . When the Mines resumed its operation in      workmen in factory- Prior permission for closure, before
  March, 2000 and the crusher plant was started the           entering into settlement with individual workmen for their
  disputantworkmen approached the 1st Party- Management       retrenchment, not sought   No closure possible without
  for work in the Mines. But they were refused employment     complying Sections 25 - N and 25 - O- Settlement arrived at
  in the Mines as the 1st Party- Management had employed      inviolation ofsaid sections , held not binding on workmen" .
 going on. new workers in their place . The work in the Mines is still
                                                                    15.This ruling fully applies to the facts of this case,
       10. The 1st Party - Management has admitted that       more-so on face of the allegations that the resignations
 the Government of India had not granted permission to        from the disputant workmen were obtained by playing
  retrench the disputant workmen vide letter dated 1st        fraud and misrepresentation with false assurance .
 Sept. 1999 , but before refusal ofpermission the disputant   Therefore the demand of the North Orissa Workers Union
 workmen had tendered their resignations and got payment     with regard to reinstatement of the disputant workmen
 of all dues including gratuityetc. The workers were         with effect from 1-9-1999 is held to be legal and justified.
 advised to reconsider their resignations , but they persued The disputant workmen are therefore held entitled to the
 their resignations . Therefore they are not entitled to the benefits flowing under section 25-0 of the Industrial
 claimed as it is a clear ofvoluntary resignation and there is DisputesAct and they will be deemed to be in continuous
 no question of retrenchment .                               employement of the 1st Party- Management . They shall
                                                             also be entitled to get Rs . 1.50 lacs each as compensations
       11. It is pertinent to mention here that the 1st Party- in lieu ofback wages . The amount which had been received
Management did not choose to contest the case and the        by the disputant workmen towards compensation and
 casewas ordered to proceed exparte against it. Hence the    other dues will be adjusted in their future wages .
 allegations made by the 1st Party- Management regarding          16. The reference is answered accordingly.
voluntary tendering of resignations by the disputant
workmen cannot be accepted in view of the strong                  17. A copy of this award may be placed on the
opposition made by the disputant workmen . Two of the        record of I.D. Case No. 62/2002 .
disputant workmen named as Shri Ratnakar Naik and
Shri Mahendra Chhatar have filed their affidavits in                              J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

1885

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013

service, which demand was not conceded to . Ultimately he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since the Council contested his claim , conciliation proceedings ended into failure . On consideration of failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L- 42012/36/99- 1R(DU), New Delhi dated 22-07-1999 with following terms:

का.आ. 617. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चेयरमैन-कम-डिप्टी सिक्रेट्री , सी.एस.आई.आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether action of the management of CSIR canteen at PUSA in terminating the services of Shri Prabhat Chand Rana is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " [सं. एल-42012/36/1999- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 20th February, 2013

S.O. 617.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the The Chairman-Cum-Dy. Secretary, C.S.I.R and their workmen , received by the Central Governmenton 15-02-2013.

[No. L-42012/36/ 1999 - IR (DU )] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , KARKARDOOMA, COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

2.Claim statement was filed by the canteen manager , namely, Shri Prabhat Chand Rana pleading that he was appointed by the Council vide order dated 10-06-1994 . His designation as manager of Canteen was window dressing. He worked as clerk in various capacities , such as in preparation of bills , overtime allowance , maintenance of documents , bringing milk and eatables etc. He had also performed duties of cashier, accounts clerk, counter clerk inthe canteen . He was paid Rs. 3000.00 per month towards hiswages . He served the canteen to the best of his abilities . Canteen is an industry under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) . His services were abruptly terminated by the Council on 26-08-98 , without according opportunity of being heard. His termination amnounts to retrenchment under provisions of the Act . Provisions of the Act were not followed. Hence his termination order is illegal and uncalled for. He is unemployed since the date of termination of his services. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full backwages.

ID No. 30/2011

:

Workman

Sh . Prabhat Chand Rana S/o Late Sh . Khale Singh R/o A- 1/ 317 , Madhu Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059

Versus

The Chairman-cum -Dy. Secretary, C.S.I.R. , Complex Building, Pusa (Area Karol Bagh) ,

...Management

New Delhi - 110055

AWARD

A canteen manager was appointed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (in short the Council) on contractual basis vide order dated 10-06-1994 , His contract of employment was extended from time to time. Hisservices were dispensed with vide memorandum dated 26-08-1998 . Aggrieved by that act of the Council , the canteen manager raised a demand for reinstatement in

3. Claim was demurred by the Council pleading that it is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j ) of the Act . Council is engaged in maintenance and management of laboratories work shops , institutes and organizations to further scientific and industrial research . Claimant is not a workman under section 2 (s) ofthe Act . It has been pleaded that he was appointed on contractual basis for a period of six months on consolidated amount of Rs. 3000.00 per month. It has been denied that his designation as canteen manager was a window dressing . Hiscontract of employment was extended from 13-12-1994 to 12-12-1995 . It was further extended from 13-02-1995 to 21-12-1996. Thereafter, he was hired as a supervisor with effect from 01-01-1997 through contractual agency, namely, M/ s National Placement Services . His services were terminated, vide letter dated 26-08-1998 on recommendations of Canteen Welfare Committee . It has been disputed that provisions of the Act were to be complied with by the Council before dispensing with his services . The council claims that Shri Rana is not entitled to any relief, much less the relief of reinstatement in service withcontinuity and full back wages .

1886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

any calling, service , employment , handicraft , or industrial.occupation or avocation of workmen ;

4. Vide order No.Z - 22019/6/2007 - IR(C- II ) New Delhi dated 11-02-2008 , case was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II , New Delhi for adjudication by the appropriate Government. It was retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.Z - 22019/6/2007 - IR( C- II ) , New Delhi , dated 30-03-2011 , bythe appropriate Government .

5. Claimant has examined himself in support ofhis claim Shri Naresh Kumar entered the witness box to testify facts on behalf of the Council . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

6.Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Roop Ram, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant. Shri Kapil Sharma , authorised representative , presented facts on behalf of the council . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:--

9. The definition of " industry " is both exhaustive and inclusive. It is in two parts . The first part says that it "means any business, trade , undertaking , manufacture or calling ofemployers " and then goes to say that it " includes any calling, service , employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman . " Thus one part defined it from the stand point of the employer, and the other part from the stand point of the employees. The first part of the definition gives the statutory meaning of the industry, whereas the second part deliberately refers to several other items of industry and bring them in the definition in an inclusive way. The first part ofthe definition determines any industry by reference to occupation of employers in respect of certain activities viz . , business , trade, undertaking , manufacture or calling . The second part views the matter from the angle of employees and is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes . By this part of the definition any calling, employment, handicraft , industrial occupation or avocation of workmen is included in the concept of industry. This partgives extended connotation .

7. At the outset , Shri Sharma argued that the Council is engaged in research in the field of science and technology. It does not carry out any commercial or business activities . Since functions of the Council are outside the purview of profit motive , hence it is not an industry within the meaning of Section (j ) of the Act . He argued that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Contra to it, Shri Roop Ram claims that the Council performs systematic activities with the co- operation of its employees for production of service to the public at large . According to him, non existence of profitmaking motive or any other gainful object is irrelevant consideration for determining whether the Council is an industry or not.

10. Gloss was put on the definition of word " industry" by the High Courts and the Apex Court time and again . The question as to what is " industry " has continuouslybaffled and perplexed the courts A graph of the cases decided by the Apex Court , if plotted on the background of the expression used in two parts of the definition of " Industry " , would represent rather a zig zag curve. There have been various judicial ventures in this rather volatile area of law. The decided cases show that the efforts were made to evolve test by reference to characteristics regarded as essential for constituting an activity as an " Industry " . Various cases would show that the Apex Court has been guided more by empirical rather than a strictly analytical approach . Most of the decision have centered around the expression " undertaking " used inthe definition . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board( 1978 Lab . I.C. 778 ) the Apex Court reviewed the earlier decisions on interpretation of the wide words encompassed in the definition and formulated positive and negative principles for identifying " industry " as enacted by clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Act . It wouldbe expedient to reproduce the authoritative pronouncement of the Court, in the very words set out in the majority decision , handed down by Justice Krishna lyer , which are extracted thus:

8. As emerged out of records , the Council is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is an autonomous body under the department of Scientific and Industrial Research , Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India , New Delhi . It is engaged in research in various fields of science and technology. It is headed by the Prime Minister as its President . It is administered by an officer designated as Director General under the guidance of a statutory body, which formulates bye laws , rules and regulations , besides other policy decisions . There are 40 laboratories and institutions engaged in research and development activities and each constituent laboratory is headed and administered by a Director. With these facts in mind, it would be ascertained whether the Council is an industry within the meaning of definition contained in section (j ) of the Act. For sake of convenience , definition of the term ' industry' enacted in the Act , is extracted thus:

" I. " industry " as defined in as defined in S.2 (j ) and explained in Banerji ( AIR 1953 S.C.58 ) has a wide import.

" industry " means any business , trade , undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes

(a)Where ( i ) systematic activity, (ii ) organizedby Co- operation between employer and employee 1887

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
        (thedirect and substantial element is chimerical )
         (iii) for the production and/or distribution of
         goods and services calculated to satisfy human
         wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but
         inclusive of material things or services geared to
         celestial bliss i.e. making , on a large scale prasad
         or foods) prima facie , there is an " industry " in
         thatenterprise.
         (b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective
         is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint,
         private or other sector.
         (c) The true focus is functional and the decisive
         test is the nature of the activity with special
         emphasis on the employer-employee relations .
         (d) If the organization is a trade or business it
         does not cease to be one because of philanthropy
          animating the undertaking .
       II . Although Section 2 (j ) uses words of the widest
          amplitude in its two limbs , the re- meaning cannot
          be magnified to overreach itself.
          (a) " Undertaking " must suffer a contextual and
          associational shrinkage as explained in Banerjee
          and in this judgement, so also , service , calling
          and the like . This yields the inference that all
          organized activity possessing the triple elements
           in 1 ( supra) , although not trade or business , may
          still be' industry' provided the nature of activity,
          viz . the employer - employee basis , bears
          resemblance to what we find in trade or business .
           This takes into the fold " industry' undertaking ,
          calling and services , adventures , " analogous to
           the carrying on the trade or business " . All
           features , other than the methodology of carrying
           on the activity viz in organizing the co - operation
           between employer and employee , may be
          dissimilar. Itdoes not matter, if on the employment
           terms there is analogy.
       III . Application of these guidelines should not short
           of their logical reach by invocation of creeds ,
           cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense
           of motivation for or resultant of the economic
           operations . The ideology of the Act being
           industrial peace , regulation and resolution of
           industrial disputes between employer and
           workmen , the range of their statutory ideology
           must inform the reach of the statutory definition.
           Nothing less , nothing more .
           (a) The consequences are ( i ) profession, (ii ) clubs
           (iii ) education institutions , ( iv) co- operatives
           (v) research institutes , (vi ) charitable projects and

870 95/ 13-13

  (vii ) other kindered adventures, ifthey fulfil the
  triple tests listed in 1 (supra ), cannot be exempted
  from the scope of Section 2 (j )..
  (b) A restricted category of professions , clubs ,
  Co-operatives and even gurukulas and little
  research labs may qualify for exemption if in
  simple ventures , substantially, and going by the
  dominant nature criterion , substantively no
  employees are entertained but in menial matter,
  marginal employees are hired without destroying
  the non employee character ofthe unit.
  (c) If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ
  themselves , free or for small honoraria or like
   return , mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose
   or cause , such as lawyers volunteering to run a
   free legal services clinic or doctors serving in
   their spare hours in a free medical centre or
   ashramites working at the bidding ofthe holiness ,
   divinity or like central personality, and the
   services are supplied free or at nominal cost and
   those who serve are not engaged for
   remuneration or on the basis of master and servant
   relationship , then , the institution is not an
   industry even if stray servants , manual or
   technical , are hired. Such eleemosynary or like
   undertakings alone are exempt not other
   generosity, compassion , developmental passion
   orproject.
IV. The dominant nature test :
   (a)Where a complex of activities, some ofwhich
   qualify for exemption , other not, involves
    employees on the total undertaking , some of
   whom are not " workmen " as in the University of
    Delhi case (AIR 1963 S.C.1873 ) or some
    departments are not productive of goods and
    services if isolated, even then, the predominant
    nature of the services and the integrated nature
    of the departments as explained in the
    Corporation ofNagpur (AIR 1960 S.C.657 ) will be
    the true test . The whole undertaking will be
    industry although those who are not " workmen "
    by definition may not benefit by the status .
    (b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses ,
    sovereign functions , strictly understood (alone)
    qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities
    or economic adventures undertaking by govt . or
    statutory bodies .
    (c) Even in department discharging sovereign
     functions , if there are units which are industries
     and they are substantially severable, then they
     canbe considered to come within S. 2(j ).

1888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may remove from the scope of the all categories which otherwise maybe coveredthereby.

V. We overrule Safdarjung ( AIR 1970 S.C.1407 ), Solicitors case (AIR 1962 S.C. 1080), Gymkhana (AIR 1968 S.C. 554), Delhi University(AIR 1963 S.C.1873 ) , Dhanraj Giriji Hospital ( AIR 1975 SC 2032) and other rulings whose ratio runs counter to the principles enunciated above , and the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha ( AIR 1960 SC 610 ) is hereby rehabilitated. "

11. Principles laid down in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra) hold ground . Therefore , the controversy raised will be adjudicated in view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the precedent referred above. The Council agitates that it is not an industry. The view pointheld by the Council is that no profit motive activities are being carried on by it . No business is being run , hence the Council cannot be termed as an " industry " . Except the facts referred above , the Council nowhere projects any other factors to lay emphasis on the fact that it is not an 'industry' . Contra to it the claimant agitates that the Council is an ' industry' .

12. Whether research activities would fall within the ambit ofmaterial services to the society ? Legal precedents on the topic would enlighten us . In Ahmedabad Textile Industry's Research Association [ 1960 (2) LLJ 720 ] the association was established to carry on research with respect to the textile industry with a view to secure greater efficiency, rationalization and reduction of cost , which were " material services " to the textile industry hence the association answered the definition of industry. But in Safdarjung Hospital case ( supra) it was not held to be an industry because it was a non - profit making body and its workwas in the nature of training , research and treatment . In Indian Standard Institute [ 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ 33 ] the Apex Court suggested that in order to be recognized as an undertaking analogous to trade or business , the activity must be an economical activity in the sense that it is productive of material goods or material services . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( supra ), the Apex Court laid down that an activity systematically or habitually undertaken for production or distribution of goods for rendering material services to the community at large or a part of such community with the help of employees is an undertaking . An ' industry' thus was said to involve cooperation between the employer and employees for the object of satisfying material human needs but not for oneself nor for pleasure nor necessity for profit . Lack of business and profit motive or capital investment would not take out an activity from the sweep of ' industry' , if other conditions are satisfied . It is the

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

activity in question which attracts the definition and absence of investment of any capital or the fact that the activity is conducted for profit motive or not , would not make material difference . Conversely mere existence of profit motive will not necessarily convert the activity into " industry" if other tests are not satisfied.

13. One may project that the Council carry out sovereign functions hence it cannot be termed as an industry. Therefore it is expedient to know as to what are regal and sovereign functions of the State which may qualify for exemption from the ambit of the definition of word " industry "? Regal powers of the State has acquired a definite connotation , which can be described as "administration ofjustice , maintenance of order, repression ofcrime, security ofborders from external aggression and legislative powers , as among the primary and inalienable functions ofa Constitutional Government " . In Corporation ofCity of Nagpur [ 1960 ( 1 ) L LJ 523 ] the Apex Court observed that it could not have been in contemplation of the legislature to bring in the regal functions of the State withinthedefinition of " industry " and to conferjurisdiction on Industrial Tribunal to decide disputes in respect thereof.. The activities of the Government which can be properly described as regal or sovereign activities , are therefore, outside the scope of industry. In Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 251 ] the Supreme Court adumberated the test: can such activity be carried on by a private individual or group of individuals? The answer to this is : if a business oractivity could not be carried on by a private individual or group of individuals , it could not be an industry, while ifitcould be , it might fall within the scope of " industry " . This test was reiterated in Corporation of City ofNagpur (supra) but rejected in Gymkhana Club [ 1967 ( 11 ) LL 7201 . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) the Apex Court observed " *** sovereign functions , strictly understood , ( alone ) qualify for exemption , not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies . Even in departments discharging sovereign functions , if there are units, which are " industry " and they are substantially severable, they can be considered to come within Section 2(j ) " . In Chief Conservator of Forests [ 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 1223 ] the above proposition was reiterated where in it was observed " *** evenwithin the wider circle of sovereign function , there may be an inner circle encompassing some units which could be considered as " industry " , if substantially severable" .

14. In Physical Research Laboratory [ 1997 ( 2 ) LLJ 625 ] the Apex Court held that the Physical Research Laboratory is not an ' industry' because it is not engaged in an activity which can neither be called business , trade or manufacturing nor it is an undertaking analogous to business or trade . It is not engaged in commercial or industrial activity and cannot be described as an economic -1889

 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
                                                             the sweep of industry, if other conditions are satisfied.
venture or commercial enterprise as it is not its objective The Council deals in scientific and industrial research,
to produce and discharge services which would satisfy       whichactivitydoes not fall within the ambit of sovereign
wants and needs of consumer community . It is not            functions . Sovereign functions would be administrations
 rendering any services to others . It is engaged in pure    ofjustice, maintenance of order , repression of crime,
 research in space science.                                  security of boarders from external aggression and
       15. While reaching the conclusion , referred above,   legislative powers of the State. It could not be said that
 the Apex Court relied observations made in Bangalore        services were being rendered by the Council as welfare
 Water Supply (supra) with respect to research institutes,   activitiesofthe State . Consequently, the above activities
 which observations are extracted thus:                      donot fallwithin the ambit of regal functions ofthe State .
                                                             There is no doubt that the Council carries out systematic
       "Does research involve collaboration between           activities and its employees do not belong to such
       employer and employee ? It does . The employer is      categorywhich renders their services voluntarily without
       the institution , the employees are the scientists,    any remuneration . Therefore, it is emerging that triple test,
       para -scientists and other personnel . Is scientific   referred above, stood satisfied and activities of the
        research service? Undoubtedly it is. Its discoveries  Council fall within the ambit of industry as defined in
       are valuable contributions to the wealth of the        section 2(j ) ofthe Act. Objection raised by Shri Sharma is
        nation. Such discoveries may be sold for a heavy      brushedaside.
        price in the industrial or other markets.Technology         17. There is other facet of the coin . The Apex Court
       hasto be paid for and technological inventions and
        innovations may be patented and sold. In our           ruled in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
        scientific and technological age nothing has more     (supra) that sovereign functions alone qualify for
        cash value , as intangible goods and invaluable        exemption and not the welfare activities or economic
        services , than discoveries . For intance , the        adventures undertaken by the government or statutory
        discoveries of Thomas Alva Edison made him             bodies . Even in departments discharging sovereign
         fabulously rich. It has been said that his brain had  functions, if there are units , which are " industry " and
         the highest cash value in history for he made the     they are substantially severable , they can be considered
        world vibrate with the miraculous discovery of         to come within the ambit of section 2 (j ) of the Act . The
         recorded sound. Unlike most inventors , he did not    above proposition was reaffirmed in Chief Conservator
         havetowait to get his reward in heaven; he received   ofForests (supra) where in it was ruled that even within
         itmunificently on this gratified and grateful earth,   the wider circle of sovereign function , there may be an
         thanks to conversion ofhis inventions into , money     inner circle encompassing some units which could be
          a plenty. Research benefits industry. Even though a   consideredas" industry " , ifsubstantially severable . When
          research institute may be a separate entity           the above propositions are applied to the present
         disconnected from the many industries which            controversy, it is evident that the departmental canteen
          funded the institute itself, it can be regardedas an  run by the Council is severable from its activities of
         Organisation, propelled by systematic activity,        scientific and industrial research. Systematic activities
         modelled on co-operation between employer and          withco-operation of labour are undertaken in the canteen
          employee and calculated to throw up discoveries        for the purpose of rendering material services to the
          and inventions and useful solutions which benefit      community at large or part of community with the help of
           individual industries and the nation in terms of      its employees. Therefore, assuming that the council is not
          goods and services and wealth. It follows that         an industry, even then activities being carried on in the
          research institutes, albeit run without profit- motive, canteen falls within the ambit of industry as defined by
           are industries" .                                     section 2(j ) of the Act. On that count too, submissions
                                                                 advanced on behalf of the Council are discarded.
          16. Now, I would turn to the facts of the present            18. In his affidavit, Ex. WWI /A, claimant presents
     controversy. As claimed by Shri Sharma, the Council         that he used to perform duties of clerk/ cashier and milk
     nowhere carries out its functions for profit motive         vendorwhen he used to purchase milk for the canteen . He
     activities. It is not a disputed proposition that the Council has no power to appoint anybody. He could not issue
      is engaged in scientific and industrial research . It carries charge sheet to anybody. No financial powers were
     onactivities systematically for rendering material services  available to him. His designation ofcanteen manager was
     tothe community at large or part ofsuch community with       window dressing. In fact, he was a workman , Contra to it,
     thehelp ofits employees . Co- operation between employer     Shri Naresh Kumar unfolds in his affidavit Ex.MWI /A ,
     and employee exists in object ofrendering material services  tendered as evidence, that the claimant was performing
      to the community. Lack of business and profit motive or     supervisoryduties. He details that he was not a workman .
      capital investment would not take out the activity from

1890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

19. In order to appreciate facts, it would be expedient to consider definition of the term 'workman' . The term "workman" has been defined by section 2(s ) of the Act, which definition is reproduced thus:

actually employed in an industry but also those who have been discharged, dismissed or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial dispute , and whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has lead to thatdispute, would fall within the ambit of the definition. In other words , the second category of persons included in the definition would fall in the ambit of the definition, only for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute and for no other purposes. Therefore, date of reference is relevant and in case a person falls within the definition of workman on that day, the Tribunal would be vested with jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction would not cease merely because subsequently the workman ceases to be workman .

" (s )Workman means any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) , or the Army Act 1950(46 of 1950) or the NavyAct, 1957 (62 of 1957), or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii) who is , employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

( iv) who , being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him , functions mainly of a managerial nature;

21. For an employee in an industryto be a workman under this definition , it is manifest that he must be employed to do skilled or unskilled manual work , supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. If the work done by an employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a workman . The specification of the four types of work obviously is intended to lay down that an employee is to become a workman only if he is employed to do work of one of those types , while there may be employees who , not doing any such work , would be out ofthe scope of the word ' workman' , without having resort to the exceptions . It cannot be held that every employee ofan industry was to be a workman except those mentioned in the four exceptions as in that case these four classifications need not have been mentioned in the definition and a workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in cases where he wascovered by one of the exceptions.

22. In cases where an employee is employed to do purely skilled or unskilled manual work, or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work there would be no difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the appropriate classification . Frequently, however, an employee is required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases , it would be necessary to determine under which classification he will fall for the purpose of finding out whether he does not go out of the definition of 'workman' under the exceptions . The principle is now well settled that, for this purpose , a workman must be help to be employed to do that work which is the main work he is required to do even though he may incidentally doing othertype ofwork.

20. The first part of the definition gives statutory meaning of the term workman . This part of the definition determines a workman by reference to a person (including an apprentice) employed in an " industry " to do any manual , unskilled, skilled, technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward . This part determines what a " workman " means . The second part is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes . By this part of the definition , person ( i ) who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with anindustrial dispute , or ( ii ) whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute, for the purposes of any proceedings under the Act in relation to such industrial dispute , have been included in the definition of " workman " . This part gives extended connotation to the expression " workman " . The third part specifically excludes the categories of persons specified in clauses ( i) to ( iv) of this sub-section . The third part connotes that even if a person satisfies the requirements ofany ofthe first two parts but if he falls in any of the four categories in the third part, he shall be excluded from the definition of ' workman ' . Not only the persons who are

23.The words'managerial or administrative capacity' have not been defined in the Act , therefore have to be interpreted in their ordinary sense . In an establishment, a person may be in a managerial capacity or administrative, ifthe work assigned to him require a degree of initiative command and control which are usually associated with the position of managerial or administrative capacity. In 1891

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

deciding such a question , one has to consider the functions and duties assigned to the person . Several tests , laid down by the Apex Court in Prem Sagar ( 1964 (1 ) LLJ 47) for deciding the question as to whether a person is employed in managerial capacity, are as follows:

automatic plant . Many machines run automatically on power. They do not have to be run by human energy. Their running and functioning has to be watched and repaired if anything goes wrong . A person who attends to such machines may either do technical or manual work within the meaning of section 2 (s ) of the Act . But he does not do supervisory work merely because he looks after the machine. The essence of supervisory nature of work under section 2(s ) of the Act is the supervision by one person over the work of another. See Blue Star Ltd. [ 1975 (1) FLR 102 ] .

" It is difficult to lay down exhaustively all the tests which can be reasonably applied in deciding this question as several considerations would naturally be relevant in dealing with this problem . It may be inquired whether the person had a power to operate on the bank account or could he make payments to third parties and enter into agreements with them on behalf ofthe employers , was he entitled to represent the employer to the world at large in regard to the dealings of the employer with strangers , did he have authority to supervise the work of the clerks employed in the establishment , did he have control and charge of the correspondence , could he make commitments on behalf of the employer, could he grant leave to the members of the staff and hold disciplinary proceedings against them, has he power to appoint members of the staff or punish them; these and similar other tests may be usefully applied in determining the question about the status of an employee ..."

26. A person can be said to be a supervisor if there are persons working under him , over whose work he has to keep a watch. In other words , he is that person who examines and keeps a watch over the work of his subordinates and if they err in any way, corrects them. Itis his duty to see that the work in any industrial unit is done in accordance with the manual , if there is one, or in accordance with the usual procedure . It is not his function to bring about any innovation . It is not his function to take any managerial decision but it is his duty to see that the persons over whom he is supposed to supervise the work assigned to them , they work according to rules and regulations . The central concept of supervision is the fact that there are certain persons working under him. The essence of supervisory work is the supervision by one person over the work of others , For exercising supervisory powers , it may often be necessary that the supervisor himself must have technical expertise, otherwise he may not be in a position to exercise proper supervision of the workmen handling sophisticated plants and machines , Asupervisor need not be a manager or an administrator, He can be a workman so long as he took not exceed the wage limit of Rs . 1600.00 per month and irrespective of his salary, is not a workman who is to discharge functions mainly of managerlal nature by reason of the duties attachedto his office or powers vested in him .

24.Operation ofbank account , controlling of staff, carrying on correspondence, disbursing salary and convening meetings , were held to be managerial jobs in Sunil Kumar Ghosh [ 1978 (37) FLR 247 ] . The mere fact that the employee was designated as a manager or that he represented the management in prior adjudication proceedings cannot by itself prove that he was performing ' managerial duties ' within the meaning of section 2 ( s )( ii ) or 2(s )( iii ) of the Act . Reliance can be placed on precedent P.A.S. Press [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 792 ] . For determination of such a question , no abstract or rigid formula san be employed. His main and substantial work is to be looked into . Reference can be made 10 precedent in the management of Scindia Potteries [ 1974 (29 ) FLR 325 ] . In order to take an employee out of definition of 'workman' , it is necessary to show that he is employed , in fact and in substance , mainly in a managerial of administrative capacity. See Syndicate Bank Ltd. [ 1966 ( 11 ) LLLJ 1941 and Ved Prakash Gupta ( 1984 Lab . 1.C. 658 ) .

27. A person cannot be said to be working in a supervisory capacity merely because he used to supervise a person who helps him in doing the work , which he himself is to perform . For instance , a clerk who has been given the assistance of the peon cannot be said to be working in a supervisory capacity. When one talks of a person working as supervisor, one understands it to mean a person who is watching the work being done by others to see that it is being done properly. See Mathur Aviation [ 1977 ( 11 ) LLJ 225 ] . Thus in determining the status of an employee , his designation is not decisive . What determines the status is the consideration of the nature of his duties and functions assigned to him . A supervisor should gefupy a position of command or decision and should be authorised to act in certain matters within the limits of his authority without the sanction of the manager 25.Merely performing some supervisory duties will not take out an employee out of the ambit of definition of workman . The word ' supervision' means to aversee or to look after. Supervision which is relevant in this connection is the supervision done by an employee in a higher position over the employees in the lower position . Supervision may be in relation to the work or in relation to the person . The word ' supervisory ' as used in section 2 (s) of the Act does not relate to supervision of an 1892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

(g) To be carefully stored in storage racks or to be laid on the shelves for re - service, or other supervisors . In the absence of precise and positive evidence to prove the exact nature of work which the employee was performing , it cannot be held that he was doing administrative or supervisory work.

(h) In case of tiffin room or smaller canteens where lesser number of articles of crockery/ cutlery are involved , washing , cleaning , sterilization , operations may be carried out with the help of one wash sink (with running water) plus a couple ofBuckets , Tubs etc.

(i) The last one hour , before closing hours of the canteen , should be utilized for cleaning all utensils , kitchenware , shelves , racks , flooring , sinks , basins etc. to keep them ready for use for the next day.

Maintenance of personal hygiene of canteen (ii) workers:

28. When efforts are made to appreciate facts on above lines , it came to light that in appointment letter Ex . WW1 / 2 , designation of the claimant has been mentioned as canteen manager. It has been detailed therein that he will have to perform duties of manager of departmental canteen in government office as prescribed from time to time . To know as to what duties were to be performed by the claimant , it would be expedient to recall that all benefits available to Central Government employees have been extended to the employees to non -statutory departmental canteens and tiffin room vide O.M. No. 12/ 5/ 96-Dir. (C) dated 29-1-92 . Presently 1352 registered canteens and tiffin rooms are functioning in various offices of the Central Government, all over India and the claimant was engaged as canteen manager in one of such canteens . Office of the Director of Canteens in the Department of Personnel & Training is the nodal office in respect of such canteens . O.M.No.3/6/2007- Dir . (C) dated 6th May, 2011 details classification of posts of such non- statutory canteens . O. M.No.15 /3/ 1992-Dir. ( C) dated 22-2-1993 details guidelines for maintenance of hygiene in such canteens , which are extracted thus :

"(i ) Drill for cleaning crockery / Cutleryetc.

(a) Physical examination of canteen workers in order to inspect that the workers do take regular and proper hair cuts , keep their nails trimmed and clean, they do not have any sign of a skin disease or a symptom of ailments of the alimentary canal , initially on joining of service and thereafter as and when required . Regular medical examination of the canteen workers may be arranged to be done through the Medical Officer of the Department/Office , or through any other Medical Agency. Payment if any, required to be made for this purpose , will be made by the Department/ Office.

(a) Collection of used crockery / cutlery from dining tables to a decided spot in the washing room .

(a) Gloves and Head caps should be provided to the canteen workers engaged in cooking etc." (b) Removal of left over food from the plates into a receptable/container and passing them on to wash sink No. 1 .

(c) Rinsing of crockery / cutlery articles individually under running water in wash sink No. 1 and passing them on to wash sink No. 2 .

(d) 'Treating them with a wet cloth/ puff with a touch of detergent powder and placing them individually under the running water in wash sink No. 2 and passing them for sterilization .

(e) Sterilization The washed articles of crockery cutlery may either be passed through an electric sterilizer or by dipping through wash sink No. 3 containing a light solution of potassium permanganate or equivalent to be changed frequently and placing them on a titled top to drain out the excess water.

29. For functioning of a non - statutory departmental canteens , steps are to be taken cleanliness of main hall/ dining hall , kitchen , store - room , furniture and crockery etc, besides personal hygiene of employees . Care has to be taken for quality of crockery and conditions of the furniture . Suggestion / complaint book is to be kept, besides display ofmenu with rates . Employees are to wear proper uniform . Drinking water facility, first aid box for canteen employees and fire - safety measures are to be provided . It is also to be taken note of that cash book , ledger, stock register ( raw - material ) , stock register ( furniture /crockery) and sales register are properly maintained . General level of discipline is to be maintained amongst serving staff/ bearers . Manager canteen is responsible to ensure quality of eatable , sanitary conditions , personal hygiene of canteen employees , besides smooth running of the canteen , as emerge out of instruction issued in that regard from time to time .

(f) Wipe them dry with a clean towel . Examine if any portion of articles of the crockery has got chipped off or there is a crack , remove it immediately to a decided place for a systematic replacement .

30. Now it would be considered as to what functions were performed by the claimant ? Whether he performed 1893

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the record that the claimant used to perform much part of the duties himself with the assistance of 9 employees , who were working under him . On the other hand , it had come over the record that the claimant used to assign duties to his subordinates on holidays as well . He used to depuțe them for performance of overtime work in case of exigencies . Amount of manual work he used to perform was ancillary to his duties as manager canteen . The mere fact that he put forward proposals for grant of overtime allowance would not being his case within the ambit of manual work. Consequently, it is evident that nothing had come over the record to conclude that substantial duties ofthe claimant were of manual and clerical in nature .

32. To sum up , principal and main duties of the claimant as Manager emerged as follows:

-General control and supervision over the canteen workers.

-Allocation of work to his subordinates Instructing them to prepare snacks , tea , breakfast and lunch for the employees of the Council .

-Guide his workers as to how they are to perform their duties .

-Assign duties to them in case of exigencies Report on performance of the workers under him to his superiors.

-Take decision for purchase of goods from the market.

-Make suggestions to the authorities regarding possible improvement in services provided by the canteen staff.

clerical work or performed supervisory duties ? For an answer , I have to turn to the facts . Besides ocular facts , claimant had proved a few documents . Documents proved by the claimant give meaning to ocular facts detailed by him. I will appreciate those documents one by one . Ex.WW1 /5 bring it over the record that a bill for Rs . 588.00 wasforwarded by Shri Rana for approval of expenditure and payment thereof. In the same manner , Ex.MW1/6 highlights that a sum of Rs . 8000.00 was asked for by Shri Rana for purchase of articles from Kendriya Bhandar/ Super Bazar. Ex. WW 1/7 tells that a sum of Rs . 6000.00 was demanded by Shri Rana for purchase of articles from Kendriya Bazar /Super Bazar . Ex . WW1 /8 points out that Shri Rana forwarded claim of 5 employees for overtime allowance for duties performed on 25-04-1998 . Those 5 employees were halwai , coupon clerk, bearers and wash boy. He approved grant of overtime allowance in favour of4 employees for performing duties on 08-07-98 , which fact emerge out of Ex. WW1 /9 . Case for grant of overtime allowance to 7 employees was made by Shri Rana in Ex . WW1 /10 . Ex . WW1 / 11 make out that Shri Rana estimated cost of one piece of burfi , one piece of dhokla, onepiece ofBritannia merricake , one salt biscuit, one vada, mineral water and marie biscuit, besides tea at Rs . 17.00 and estimated cost of above snacks and tea for 1100 persons at Rs . 18,700.00 . He made a proposal for sanction of Rs . 18,700.00 , which was accepted by the authorities . Ex . WW1 / 12 highlights that Shri Rana forwarded claim of 5 employees for grant of overtime allowance for duties performed on 05-07-1997. In the same manner, he forwarded claim of 3 employees for grant of overtime allowance for two hours each on 07-07-1997 and 08-07-1997 . He forwarded claim of 4 employees for grant of overtime allowance for duties performed on 12th and 13th July, 1997, as emerge out of Ex . WW1 / 14. Ex . WW1/ 15, Ex . WW1 /16, Ex .WW1 /17 , Ex . WW1 / 18 and Ex . WW1 / 19 make out that Shri Rana has forwarded claim of employees for grant of overtime allowance for duties performed on 14-07-1997 , 15-07-1997,19-07-1997,20-07-1997,21-07-1997,22-07-1997, 26-07-1997, 27-07-1997,27-07-1998, 28-07-1998 , 30-07-1998 and 31-07-1998. Ex.WW1 / 19 enlists staff working under him as a halwai, tea maker, three bearers , one wash boy, one safaiwala, one coupon clerk and one counter clerk, in whose favour he had recommended overtime allowance forwork performed for 5 days in July 1998. Proposals put forward by Shri Rana were generally accepted by the authorities .

33. On analysis of entire facts , it is evident that duties performed by the claimant is combination of supervisory work of two types , as manager canteen , he used to supervice work of his subordinates in preparation oftea , coffee , snacks and inch . At the same time , he used to issue directions to then , as to how the work was to be performed and recommend allocation of work as well as grant ofovertime to his subordinates . The central concept of supervisory duties stood established in the case since the claimant was responsible for smooth running of the canteen, with the help of employees , working under him. Nature of duties performed by the claimant make it clear that he was a supervisor. It is not a disputed proposition that the claimant was drawing much more than Rs . 1600.00 permonth. Consequently, it is crystal clear that the claimant was performing mainly supervisory duties . He falls within the ambit of clause (iv) ofthe second limb of the definition of workman , as enacted by section 2( s) of the Act . These reasons persuade me to conclude that Shri Rana was not a workman within the meaning section 2(s) of the Act .

31. From duties entrusted to the claimant, it is to be ascertained as to whether main and substantial work which he did was not of supervisory nature ? As detailed above, there were 9 employees who used to work under him in the canteen. Can it be said that with the assistance of 9 employees , claimant was carrying out his mariual duties? Answer lies in the negative . No evidence has come over 1894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

कमिश्नर (हैन्डीक्राफ्ट ) एवं अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 244/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/136/1998- आई आर (डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव 34. The Tribunal is the creature of the Act , hence its jurisdiction is circumscribed by the Act . Its adjudication must , therefore be confined to the perimeter of the provisions of the Act. As per the schetne of the Act , the Tribunal has to determine the dispute referred to it. Section 10 (4) of the Act permits the Tribunal to decide only disputes or points referred to it and matters incidental thereto . Thus , the Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference. For articulation of an industrial dispute, its adjudication is to be confined only to:

NewDelhi , the20th February, 2013 ( a) the points specified in the reference, and

(b) the matters incidental thereto .

S.O. 618 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 244/ 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the The Development Commissioner ( Handicraft ) & Others and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-02-2013 .

[No. 1-42012/ 136/ 1998 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy. ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR . R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX , DELHI

1.D. No. 244/2011

Shri Charan Singh S/ o Sh . Govind Ram, Vill . Semri , Post Chhata , Mathura (UP)

35. The words ' incidental thereto ' occurring in section 10 (4) of the Act do not have the same meaning as the words 'appearing to be connected with or relevant to " used by the legislature in clauses (b ) , (c ) and ( d) of Section 10 (1 ) of the Act. The matters covered by the latter expression must be specifically referred for adjudication while the matter covered by former expression need not be specifically referred or they can be adjudicated upon as a part ofthe ma dispute . For instance , on an industrial dispute being referred to if, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether on the facts placed before it , an 'industrial dispute ' within the meaning of section 2(k) has really arisen , or the concerned persons are ' workmen ' as defined in section 2( s ) or a particular undertaking is an ' industry' within the meaning of section 2 (j ) of the Act or such industry is a live indtistry or a closed industry. Such questions can be validly examined and adjudicated upon by the Tribunal as matters incidental to the points of dispute , specified in the order of reference . Therefore , above question raised by the Council is adjudicated by the Tribunal being incidental to the points specified in the reference order.

....Workman

Versus

1. The Development Commissioner (Handicraft ), Govt . of India/ Ministry of Textiles , WestBlock - 7, R K. Puram , NewDelhi.

2. The Deputy Director ( Arts & Crafts) , FieldAdministrative Cell , Govt. of India/Ministry of Textiles, Varanasi (U.P. )

36. Since the claimant does not fall within the ambit ofthe definition of workman , provisions of the Act are not applicable to him . Appropriate Government was not competent to form an opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the Council and the claimant . When making the reference is itself incompetent , reference order does not give jurisdiction to this Tribunal to entertain it for adjudication . Claimant cannot held entitled to any relief by this Tribunal . Issues referred above do not qualify for adjudication . Consequently, this Tribunal refrains its hands from adjudicating the issues . An award is passed in favour ofthe Council and against the claimant . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 28-01-2013

3. The Asstt . Director ( Arts & Crafts ) Crapet Weaving Training- cum- Service Centre , Govt. of India/ Ministry of Textiles , 23, Indira Nagar, Bareilly ( U.P. )

Dr. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer

Managements

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013

AWARD

Carpet Weaving Training Centres ( in short the Centre) function under the Development Commissioner का.आ.618. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डवलपमेन्ट 1895 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1947 ( in short the Act ) . He presents that since his termination amounts to retrenchment, he ought to have been given one months ' notice or wages in lieu thereof, besides retrenchment compensation . Since termination of his service was violative of provisions of the Act, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full backwages.

5. Claim was demurred by the Center pleading that the claimant was engaged as a daily wager as per requirement from time to time between September 1983 and December 1985. He never completed 240 days continuous service in a calendar year. Provisions of section 25 -F ofthe Actwere not applicable to him . Under the scheme, he was not entitled for one month notice or pay in lieu thereof. No retrenchment compensation was paid to him. There is no case in favour of the claimant for reinstatement in service . Hisclaim may be dismissed being devoid of merits , pleads the Center.

(Handicrafts) , Ministry of Textile, Government of India, New Delhi . There are six regions , namely, northern , central , western , southern , eastern and north eastern , which are headed by Development Commissioner (Handicraft ) . In a region , several Centres function . One such Centre used to function at Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, wherein Shri Charan Singh was engaged as watchman in case of exigencies from September 1983 to August 1985. When he was not engaged any further by the said Centre , Charan Singhconceived that action as retrenchment ofhis services. He raised a demand for reinstatement in service , which demand was not conceded to . Aggrieved by the said act, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since his claim was contested by and on behalf of the Centre, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure report , submitted by the Conciliation Officer, appropriate Government referredthe dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kanpur, for adjudication vide order No. L-42012/ 136/98 - IR (DU), New Delhi dated 30-11-98 with following terms:

6.On pleadings, followings were settled:

(i) Whether there is no privity ofcontract between the claimant and the management?

(ii) As in terms ofreference.

"Whether the action of the management of Carpet Weaving Training Centre in terminating the services of Shri Charan Singh is legal andjustified ? If not , to whatrelief the workman is entitled to?"

(iii) Relief.

7.Vide order No. L-42012/ 136/98 - IR (DU), New Delhi dated 12-10-2007, case was transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 , New Delhi , for adjudication by the appropriate Government .

2.Vide award dated 2-8-2006, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kanpur , formed an opinion that the reference order lacked in material particulars , since date of termination was not mentioned therein . It opined that schedule of reference order was vague in nature . Keeping thatambiguity in mind , the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kanpur , answered the reference as unarticulable.

8. On the strength of order No. Z- 22019 /6/2007/IR (C-II), New Delhi dated 30-03-2011 , case was transferredto this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government.

3. The appropriate Government was again approached by Shri Charan Singh and on consideration of entire facts , the dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kanpur, for adjudication , vide order No. L- 42012/ 136/98 - IR (DU) , New Delhi dated 16-01-2007 with following terms:

9. Claimant entered the witness box to substantiate his claim . Shri Bhuvanender Singh , Assistant Director (Handicrafts) unfolded facts to defend the claim. No other witness was examined by either ofthe parties..

"Whether the action of the management of Carpet Weaving Training Centre in terminating the services ofShri Charan Singh with effect from 01-01-1985, is legal andjustified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

10. Shri V.K. Sharma , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant. Shri Gyaneshwar, authorized representative, presented his point of view on behalf of the Centre . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

Issue No.1

11. Shri Gyaneshwar argued that the claimant was engaged as a daily wager in case ofexigencies . He was not appointed against a regular post . Therefore , claimant nowhere became an employee ofthe Centre.Accordingto 4. Claim statement was filed by Shri Charan Singh pleading therein that he was appointed as chowkidar on 01-10-1983 after due selection by the Center. He was assured of being made regular on the post of chowkidar in due course . Certificate dated 01-10-1983 contains that assurance .Hiswages were paid at the rate of Rs. 240.00 per month. He served continuously till 31-12-1984. He rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in a calendar year. Termination of his services was contrary to the provisions of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

870 G5/ 13-14 1896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC.:3(ii )]

he concedes that his signatures do appear on Ex.WWI / M5 to Ex . WW1 /M17 .

him, there was no privity of contract between the Center and the claimant . Contra to it, Shri Sharma agitates that the claimant was appointed as a watchman on the strength of letter Ex . WW1 /M2 . He served the Centre continuously for more than 240 days in every calendar year. He presents thatclaim made by the Center to the effect that there was no privity of contract between the parties , is unfounded.

15. Shri Bhuvaneshwar Singh unfolds that the claimant was engaged by the Center as a daily wager from time to time, in case of exigencies . Ex . MW1 / 1 details the period for which he was engaged . No appointment order was issued in favour of the claimant by the Center. No termination letter was also issued. In Ex. MW1 / 1 , period of his engagement was detailed by him after going through attendance register and muster roll . He presents that a regular watchman was therein service of the Center.

16. In order to establish that he was appointedby the Centre, claimant placed reliance on Ex . WW1 /M2 . He deposed that this certificate was issued at the time of his appointment, by the Centre . Consequently, it is apparent thatthe claimant relies on this document as his appointment letter. It becomes expedient to construe contents of this document, which are reproduced thus:

CERTIFICATE

Certified that Shri Charan Singh , S / o Shri Govind Ram , resident of Village Semri , Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Prades , is appointed on the post of watchmen , at Rs.240 per month as wages ; which post is lying vacant in Carpet Weaving and Training Center , Chhata, Mathura. In future, he will be regularised on the post.

12. Whether relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties ? For an answer to this proposition , it is to be appreciated as to how a contract of service is entered into . The relationship of employer and employee is constituted by a contract, express or implied between employer and employee . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty undertaken. A contract of employment may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed and when there has , in fact, been employment of the kind usually performed by the employees . Any such inference, however, is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation between the parties concerned was on a charitable footing or the parties were relations or partners or were directors of a limited company which employed no staff. While the employee , at the time, whenhis services were engaged , need not have known the identity of his employer, there must have been some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .

Sd/-

(M.K. Jain)

CarpetTraining Officer

CarpetWeaving and Training Center,

Chhata , District Mathura

Date: 01-10-1983

13.As detailedby the claimant , he was appointedby the Center on 1-10-1983 . Appointment letter Ex . WW1 /M2 wasissued in his favour. Shri Bhuvanender Singh deposed that the claimant was engaged as a daily wager watchman from time to time in exigencies . Ex . MW1 / 1 presents the period for which he was engaged by the Center. From facts unfolded by the claimant and those detailed by Shri Bhuvenender Singh , it came to light that the claimant was engaged by the Center for the first time in October 1983 . When claimant was taken in employment by the Centre , relationship of employer and employee stood established between the parties . In such a situation , it does not lie in the mouth of the Center to assert that there was no privity of contract; between the parties . Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the claimant and against the Centre . IssueNo.2

17. As projected above , claimant presents that Ex.WW1 /M2 was issued when he was appointed on the postof chowkidar. Contents of Ex . WW1 / M2 make it clear that the issuing authority opted not to refer it as an appointment letter . As is evident , scale of the post of watchman has not been mentioned . Furthermore , terms and conditions of appointment are not detailed therein . Document Ex .WW1 /M2 bring it to the light of the day that an assurance was given to the claimant for his regularisation in due course of time . Appointment letter generally does not contain such stipulations . Claimant was not put on probation, which fact also pins it down. All these facts lead to an inference that Ex . WWI /M2 does not satisfy standards of it being an appointment letter. Evidently itisfabricated one .

18. Exhibit WW1 / M3 has also been relied by the claimant to establish that he served the Centre from 14. In his affidavit , Ex. WW1 /A , claimant details that he continuously served the Center from 01-10-1983 to 31-12-1984 . His services were terminated on 01-01-1985 . During course of his cross examination , he presents that certificate Ex. WW1 /M2 was issued in his favour on 01-10- 1983, the date when was appointed in service by the Center. He further presents that certificate Ex . WW1 / M3 was also issued in his favour. During course of cross examination , 1897 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

find out whether the workman actually worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment .

21. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [ 1970 (2) LLJ 306] , Apex Court announced that when a workman renders continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar months , he is deemed to have completed one years service in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce observations made by the Apex Court in that regard, which are extracted thus:

01-10-1983 till 31-12-1984 . When this document is scanned, it came to light that the word ' continuously ' was added subsequently in this document. The word ' continuous' ] overwrites word ' watchman" partially. In this certificate , it has been pointed out that the work of the claimant was satisfactory. It was further written therein that he was paid wages@ Rs.240.00 per month. When scrutinized it emerges that Ex . WW1 /M3 purports to be a service /experience certificate. In this document too pay scale, in which claimant was paid his wages , has not been mentioned . At the end of this document words "Pay Rs.240 per month hasbeen added. On prima facie appearance, this document is found to be fabricated one .

"Under Section 25 -B a workman who during the period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed to have completed One year's service in the industry. Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find outwhether the workman had actuallyworked for not less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment . These provisions of law do not show that a workman after satisfying the test under Section 25-B has further to show that he has worked during all the period he has been in the service of the employer for 240 days in the year".

19. Ex. WW1 /M5 to Ex . WW1 /M17 are the documents on which claimant admits his signatures . When these documents are scrutinised , it came to light that these documents were signed by Shri M.K. Jain . Signatures of Shri M.K. Jain appearing on these documents are compared with signatures , which appear on EX.WW1 /M2 and Ex.WWI /M3 . On comparison, it is observed that signatures , appearing on Ex. WW1 /M1 to Ex. WW1 /M3 , were recorded by someone else other than Shri M.K. Jain . In view of above reasons , these documents are discarded from consideration .

22. When the workman concerned fails to establish that he worked for atleast 240 days in the year, he cannot claim protection against termination of his services in order to seek regularization of his services on monthly salary with benefits like pension , gratuity etc. Interruption of service occurred during the course ofjob has to be included in uninterrupted services . Fiction under Section 25 -B of theActwill operate ifworkmen has actually worked for240 days in a calendar year. The explanation appended to Section 25 - B of the Act specifically includes the days on which workman was laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with full wages , or he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out ofand in the course of his employment and in the case ofa female, maternity leave , under the expression actually worked' used under sub - section 2 of Section 25 - B of the Act. Question for consideration comes as to whether the words actually worked would not include holidays , Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid. Apex Court was comprehended with such a proposition in AmericanExpress Banking Corporation [ 1985 (2 ) LLJ 539] . It was ruled therein that the expression 'actually worked under the employer' . cannot mean those days only when theworkman worked with hammer, sickle or pen , but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for Which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute, standing 'orders etc. Court ruled that Sundays and other days , would be comprehended in the words ' actucl work ' and its 20. Whether the claimant has been able to establish that he rendered continuous service with the Centre ? For an answer facts deposed by him are to be appreciated. Before adverting to this exercise , it is expedient to know as to what phrase " continuous service " means . As statue tells , " continuous service " has been defined by Section 25-B of the Act . Under sub- section ( 1 ) of the said section , "continuous service for a period " may comprise of two period viz. (i ) uninterrupted service, and (ii ) interrupted service on account of (a) sickness, (b) authorized leave , (c) an accident, ( d) a strike which is not legal , ( e) a lock- out , and (f) a cessation of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman , shall be included in the "continuous service. " sub- section (2) of the said section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in " continuous service " within the meaning of clause (1 ) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo ( 1968 Lab.I.C.1180) it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub- section (2) furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the section . The idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days ofservice , then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act . Consequently, an enquiry has to be made to 1898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

countenanced the contention of the employer that only days which are mentioned in the explanation shouldbe taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number ofdays on which the workmen had actually worked though he had not so worked and no other days . The court observed that the explanation is only clarificatory , as all explanations are, and cannot be used to limit the expanse of the main provision. Precedent in Lalappa Lingappa [ 1981 ( 1 ) LJ 308 ] was distinguished by the Apex Court in the case referred above . The precedent was followed in Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. [ 1986 ( 1 ) LLJ 34] . Thus , it is crystal clear from the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be included in computing continuous service under Section 25 -B ofthe Act .

23. In the light of above law, an enquiry would be made as to whether the claimant could establish that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in preceding twelve month from the date of his disengagement . To carry out this exercise , evidence is to be scanned . When documents Ex . WW1/6 and Ex . WW1 /6 (originals ofwhich were brought over the record as Ex . WW1 /M3 and Ex . WW1 / 2 respectively ) are discarded, only ocular facts remain to be considered . Claimant detailed self serving words to the effect that he served the Centre from 1-10-1983 to 31-12-1984. His self serving words nowhere find any support. Contrato it, documents Ex . WW1 /M5 to Ex. WW1/ M17 were put to him during the course of his cross- examination. Through these vouchers , payments were released in favour of the claimant from time to time These documents negate his claim of continuous service with the Centre from1-10-83 to 31-12-1984 . Facts, detailed by Shri Bhuvenender Singh, give joit to the ocular facts detailed bythe claimant. He declares that certificate Ex.MWI/ I was prepared by him , wherein details of the period for which claimant worked with the Centre have been enumerated . Thisdocument was not dispelled by the claimant , when Shri Bhuvenender Singh was grilled . Shri Bhuvanender Singh projects that while detailing the period for which the claimantworked with , the Centre , he had taken into account records such as attendance register and monthly muster roll . When Ex.MW1 / 1 is reconciled with contents of Ex.WWI /M4 to Ex. WW1 /M17 , it came to light that the claimant worked with the Centre upto August 1985 and not upto 31-12-1984 . Claimant worked for a total period of 118 neither from August 1985 till September 1984. He worked for 185 days from August 1984 till September 1983 . Therefore, it emerged over the record that in neither of the calendar year , the claimant had worked for 240 days with the Centre . Ocular facts , which are in contradiction of above documents , are not given any weight . Since continuous service of one year had not been rendered by the claimant with the Centre , he is not entitled for protection of provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act . Neither notice nor pay in lieu there was to be given to the claimant. His claim

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

for retrenchment compensation has not ripened . Therefore, itdoes not lie in the mouth of the claimant to assert that termination of his services is violative of provisions of Section 25F of the Act .

24.It is not a case of the claimant that there were juniors to him , whose services were retained when he was allegedly bade fare well on . 1-01-1985 . For want ofevidence inthat regard , it is clear that provisions of Section 25G, of the Act were not to be complied with. It is also not his case that after termination of his service need for casual engagement arose with the Centre . No evidence as brought to project that after his retrenchment , the Centre employed anyone in casual capacity, without offering him an opportunity for re - employment . Under these circumstantes , provisions of Section 25H of the Act also have no application. Action of the Centre does not offend the provisions of the Act , hence its legality and justifiability have not come under the clouds . Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the Centre and against the claimant. Relief

25. As detailed above , the claimant had not been able to establish that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his termination of his services . He could not establish that at any point of time he rendered continuous service of one year with the Centre . As such , claimant has not been able to acquire status of an industrial employee to seek benefit under the provisions of the Act . Section 25 - F of the Act makes it apparent that in order to seek benefit under the said provision , an employee should render atleast 240days continuous service in a calendar year. As the claimant had not rendered any continuous service of one year with the Centre in any of the calendar years , provisions of Section 25 - F does not come into operation . He had not adduced any evidence to this effect that any junior to him was working, when his services were dispensed with . In such a situation , provisions of Section 25 -G of the Act also does not come into play. No evidence worth name has been brought that the Centre ever engaged someone else in the jobofchowkidar, after termination of his service . As such , provisions of Section 25 II of the Act also does not apply. In view of reasons detailed above , it is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. Action of the Centre in not engaging the services of the claimant any further is legal and justified . Claim put forward is liable to be dismissed. His claim is brushed aside . An award is passed infavour of the Centre and against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer

Dated: 21-01-2013 1899

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 20 फरवरी, 2013

का.आ. 619, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर , इंडिया गर्वन्मैन्ट, नियोडामिन्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न. -1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 245/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-16011 /09/2007- आई आर (डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013

of India decided to corporatize functions of nine units (including India Govt . Mint, Noida) to a wholly owned company viz . Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (in short the Corporation), which came into existence with effect from 13-01-2006. Posts of Assistant Grade III were sanctioned by the Government of India in pay scale of Rs . 800-1150 , which scale was revised to Rs . 2650-4000 with effect from 01-01-1996 . Post ofAssistant Grade III is next promotional post to the post ofmazdoor . A few of the Assistant Grade III , officiating to the post ofAssistant Grade II , were being paid in the scale ofAssistant Grade III by the Mint . They raised a dispute for grant of equal pay to that of the post of Assistant Grade II on the principle of ' equal pay for equal work' . Dispute was referred for adjudication to this Tribunal , which was registered as an industrial dispute No. 29 of 1991. The Tribunal commanded the Mint to grant them pay in the scale meant for Assistant Grade II , vide its award dated 16-3-1998 .

S.O. 619. In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 245/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial - Tribunal-cum Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the General Manager, India Govt . Noida Mint , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-02-2013.

[No. L- 16011/09/2007 - IR(DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

2. After enforcement of award dated 16-3-1998. various Assistant Grade III employees filed cases before variousTribunals for grant of similar benefits, which cases were allowed in their favour. OA No. 507 of 2003 was granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal ( in short the CAT) vide its order dated 05-11-2003 , wherein 30 employees posted as Assistant Grade III were held entitled tobe paid in the scale of Rs . 950-1400 . instead of Rs . 850- 1150. OA No. 318 of 2006 was also granted by the CAT vide its order dated 28-11-2006 wherein applicants were granted pay in the scale of Rs . 950-1400 from the date of their appointment , but arrears were confined to three years before filing the petition.

I.D. NO . 245/2011

The General Secretary, Noida Mint Shramik Sangh (Regd) , D-2, Sector - I , Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P. )

....Workman

3. Labour Court Applications were also moved, whichwere registered as LCA 19 of 2003 , 15 of2004 sand 18 of 2006. LCA No. 19 of 2003 was granted in favour of the claimants vide order dated 11-7-2005 , while LCA 15 of 2004 was granted vide order dated 12-7-2005 . However, LCA 18 of2006 was rejected by the Tribunal , vide its order dated 26-03-2007.

Versus

The General Manager,

India Government Noida Mint, Gautam Buth Nager (U.P. )

.....Management

AWARD

4. Inspired by results of litigations , Noida Mint Shramik Sangh (Regd. ) ( hereinafter referred to as the union), raised demand on the Corporation for grant of financial up -gradation in favour of 15 mazdoors under Assured Career Progression Scheme in the pay scale meant for Assistant Grade II instead of Assistant Grade III , the next post in hierarchy avaliable for promotion . The demand wasnot conceded to by the Corporation . Aggrieved by that act of the Corporation , the union raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since the Corporation contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into failure . On consideration of failure report , submitted by the Conciliation Officer , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II , New Delhi , for adjudication , IndiaGovernment Mint, Noida (herein after referred to as the Mint) , was established in the year 1988 under the Ministry ofFinance , Government of India, New Delhi . Some posts of mazdoor were sanctioned in the Mint and their recruitment and promotion were to be governed by the India Government Mint Noida ( Unclassified Industrial Cadre Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules ). In the year 2006, Government 1900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013/PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

vide order No. L - 16011 /9/2007- IR ( DU), New Delhi dated 10-03-2008 with following terms:

"Whether the demand ofNoida Mint Shramik Sangh for grant of first financial up -gradation benefit under the ACP Scheme to the mazdoors in the Grade of Assistant Grade III with pay scale of Rs . 3050-4590 by the management of India Government Noida Mint is legal and justified? It yes , to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

been disputed that the claimants were appointed as mazdoor, in accordance with the Recruitment Rules , Next promotional post made for them is Assistant Grade III ( non Tradesmen) , which carried scale of Rs . 800-1150 ( revised to Rs . 2650-4000). ACP Scheme was introduced by the Government of India , vide OM dated 09-08-1999 to mitigate hardship in case of acute stagnation either in cadre or in an isolated post . It was decided to grant financial up- gradation in ACP Scheme to the employees on completion of 12 and 24 years of service , subject to conditions stipulated therein . Two financial up- gradations were to be given in entire service , which shall be counted against regularpromotion . Since claimants could not get promotion due to non availability of posts in higher grade , they were granted financial up-gradation and placed in the pay scale ofRs . 2650-4500 on completion of 12 years of service , vide orders No. NM/ 140/ 1 /35 ( 3 )/2000-Admn./935 dated03-10- 2000 , NM/ 140/ 1 /35 (3 ) /2002-Admn./1512 dated 14-01-2003 and NM/ 140 /1 /35 ( 3 ) /2007-Admn . 841 dated 19-09-2007.

5. Claim statement was filed by the union on behalf of 15 claimants , namely S/ Shri Sarya Kumar, Sahid Hussain , Harinder Kumar, Kailash Chand , Vinod Kumar, RavinderKumar, Pawan Kumar, Rajesh Bhardwaj , Anil Goel , S.S. Ojha , SD Arya , Chhatterpal and Manoj Rai , pleading therein that claimants are working as Mondoor in the Mint. Next higher grade for promotion , in accordance to the existing hierarchy, is Assistant Grade III in pay scale of Rs . 3050-4590 . Claimants could not get any promotion. They are entitled to financial up -gradation under ACP in accordance with rule 7 of the ACPS Rules , 1999. As per rule 7, their financial up -gradation under the scheme shall be given in the next higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in a cadre/ category to the post without creating new post for the purpose . Since they are working as mazdoor , their next higher grade and hierarchy is Assistant Grade III , which carries a pay scale of Rs . 3050- 4590.

6. The union pleads that the Mint granted ACP to the claimants vide order No. NM/140/ 1 /35 (3 )/2002/Admn./ 5/2 dated 14-01-03 and No. NM/ 140/ 1/35/2000(Admn. ) 935 dated 03-10-2000 in the scale of Rs . 2650-4000 . The union projects that the said scale of pay nowhere exists under the Recruitment Rules . Claimants are entitled for grant of ACP in the scale of Rs . 3050-4590, which is pay scale for Assistant Grade III . The union claims that an award may be passed in their favour directing the Corporation to grant them ACP in the scale of Rs . 3050-4590 applicable to AssistantGrade III , serving the Corporation , from the date of grant ofACP to them , as aforesaid.

8.The Corporation pleads that 37 workmen holding posts of Assistant Grade III raised an industrial dispute , which was registered as ID No. 29 of 1991 by this Tribunal. Workmen therein raised a claim for grant of pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 ( revised to Rs . 3050-4590) instead of scale of Rs. 800-1150 ( revised to Rs . 2650-4000 ) in comparison to the Assistant Grade III employed at Mumbai Mint . The Tribunal vide its award dated 16-03-1998 allowed claim of those workmen to be paid in the scale of Rs. 950-1400 (revised to Rs . 3500-4590 ) from the date of their respective appointment in the Mint . Appeal filed by the Mint was lost on technical grounds . Thereafter, various Tribunals were approached by the workmen working as Assistant Grade III , for grant of similar benefits . CAT granted indulgence to the workmen in two petitions and Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II , New Delhi , also allowed two petitions under section 33 - C ( 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) and one petition under section 33 - C ( 2 ) of the Act was dismissed by the Tribunal . Thus it is obvious that the Tribunals have passed different orders , based on facts and circumstances of the case .

9. Financial up -gradation under ACP Scheme cannot be granted in. a scale higher than the next promotional grade . Claimants are working as mazdoor. Next promotional post to the post of mazdoor is the post of Assistant Grade III , which is in the pay scale of Rs . 2650-4000 . ACP was rightly granted to them in the scale of Rs . 2650-4000 . Their claim for grant of ACP in the scale of Rs . 3050-4590 is unfounded . Their clairı may be dismissed , being devoid ofmerits , pleads the Corporation .

7. The Corporation resisted the claim pleading that the Mint is situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh . According to the Corporation , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute , since the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow /Kanpur, can only exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the matter. It has been pleaded that the Mint was established in the year 1988 , under the Ministry of Finance , Government of India, New Delhi . It is a modern mint unlike other three mints located at Mumbai , Hyderabad and Kolkata . At the time of establishment of the Mint , Government of India sanctioned some posts of mazdoor, for those posts Recruitment Rules were notified on 18-11-1988 . Subsequently, the Mint was Corporatized and the Corporation came into existence on 13-01-2006. It has not

10. Vide order No. Z - 22019/ 6/2001 - IR ( C - II ), New Delhi dated 30-03-2011 , case was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government .

1901

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

behind this is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour practices . What imparts to the dispute ofa workman the character of an " industrial dispute" is that it affects the right of the workman as a class . But by way of extension of definition of industrial dispute, by insertion of Section 2A of the Act, the dispute of an individual workman connected with or arising out of the discharge, dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination of his service by his employer has been brought within the ambit of theAct.

11. The union abandoned the proceedings with effect from 15-12-2011 and opted to abstain away from adjudicatory process . The Tribunal was constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957 , vide its order dated 06-02- 2012 and evidence of the union was closed. The union had earlier tendered affidavit of Shri Ram Ashish Prasad as evidence . However, Shri Prasad opted not to enter the witness box again and as such no opportunity could be afforded to the Corporation to purify contents of his affidavit by an ordeal of cross examination . Therefore , affidavitEx. WWI /A , filed by Shri Prasad, cannot be read against the Corporation .

12. Shri J.P. Sharma , authorized representative, presented that counter affidavit of Shri Abhishek Srivastava may be read as evidence on behalf of the Corporation . No opportunity could be given to the union to purify contents of that affidavit by way of cross examination , since the union had abstained from the adjudicatory process .

13. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri J.P. Sharma, authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the Corporation. None came forward to present facts on behalf of the union . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

15. For adjudication of industrial disputes the appropriate Government is empowered to constitute Labour Courts , Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals . Sub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 7 ofthe Act empowers the appropriate Government to constitute one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act . Sub -section ( 1 ) of section 7A of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act . In the same manner sub- section ( 1 ) of section 7B of the Act empowers the Central Government to constitute one or more National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes which , in the opinion of the Central Government involve questions ofnational importance or are of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in , or affected by, such disputes . Therefore , the aforesaid provisions make it clear that for constitution of Labour Courts , Industrial Tribunais and National Tribunals , the appropriate Government or the Central Government, as the case may be , has not to take into consideration the territory for which Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals or National Tribunals are to be constituted. Labour Courts are constituted for adjudication ofdisputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act. An Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate any dispute relating to any matter whether specified in the Second Schedule or Third Schedule appended to the Act and such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act . National Tribunat can be constituted to adjudicate an industrial dispute involving questions of national importance or of such a nature in which industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely tobe interested in or affected by such disputes . Therefore, it is evident that territorial jurisdiction criteria for constitution of Labour Courts , Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals have not been provided under theAct.

14. At the outset, Shri Sharma argued that since the claimants are working in the Mint at Noida , this Tribunal is incompetent to entertain the dispute for adjudication . According to him , it was the Tribunal at Lucknow /Kanpur who can enter into the adjudicatory process . In order to appreciate submissions made by Shri Sharma, it is expedient to have a glance on provisions of the Act . The scheme of the Act shows that it aims at settlement of all industrial disputes arising between capital and labour by peaceful methods and through machinery of conciliation , arbitration and if necessaryby compulsory adjudication . The object of the Act is to protect workman against victimization by the employer and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The Act, however, does not provide for any set of social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests . Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial adjudication , keeping in view the social and economic conditions , the needs of the workmen , the requirement of the industry, social justice , relative interests of the parties and common good. These norms have given rights to the industrial employees what may be called industrial rights , as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining . This tool is resorted to between an employer or group of employers and a bonafide labour union . Policy

16. Clause (c ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 10 ofthe Act empowers the appropriate Government to refer a 1902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]

dated 05-07-1999 . Financial benefit under the scheme shall be final and no pay fixation benefit shall accrue at the time ofregular promotion , i.e. posting against functional post in the higher grade . The scheme contemplates merely placing of an incumbent in the higher pay scale/grant of financial benefit only and shall not amount to actual functional promotion of the employees .

19. Extract of the scheme , referred above, makes it clear that financial up- gradation is to be granted to an employee in next higher grade in accordance to the existing hierarchy in cadre/ category of post. Therefore , question would emerge as to whether what is the next higher grade in existing hierarchy to the post of mazdoor ? Answer to this proposition has been provided by the Recruitment Rules . Recruitment Rules make it clear that the next post higher grade in existing hierarchy to the post of mazdoor is the scale of Rs.800-1150 ( pre - revised) meant for Assistant Grade III (Machine Assistant/ non Tradesmen) . As projected by the parties , scale of Rs.850-1150 was revised to Rs.2650-4000, on acceptance of recommendations ofthe Fifth Central Pay Commission , by the Government of India.

dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute as specifed in the Second Schedule to a Labour Court for adjudication . In the same manner clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 10 empowers the appropriate Government to refer a dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relating to the dispute , whether it relates to any matter specified under the Second Schedule or Third Schedule to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Sub - section ( IA) of Section 10 of the Act empowers the Central Government to refer any dispute which involves a question of national importance or in which industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested or affected for adjudication to a National Tribunal . Therefore , the provisions of Section 10 of the Act , which empowers the appropriate Government or the Central Government , as the case may be , to refer a dispute to a Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal , or National Tribunal , nowhere make a reference to territorial jurisdiction of such courts or Tribunals . Consequently it is evident that for adjudication of a dispute by this Tribunal , territorial constraints are not over it . The objection taken by the Corporation does not bear any substance .

17. As projected by the union , claimants are working as mazdoor with the Mint . This fact is also not disputed by Shri Srivastava in his affidavit dated 05-08-2008 . Admittedly, no promotion could be granted to the claimants on account of non availability of posts . Government of India considered recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission and announced ACP sheme for its employees vide OM No. 35034/ 1 / 97 -Estt . (D), dated 09-08-99 . Scheme proposed to mitigate hardship in cases of acute stagnation either in cadre or in an isolated post. Government decided to grant two financial upgradation under the scheme to Group B , C and D employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service , subject to fulfilment ofprescribed conditions. Isolated posts ofGroup A, B , C and D categories , who have no promotional avenues, are also qualifying for similar benefits on the pattern indicated under the scheme . However , casual employees with temporary status , ad hoc and contract employees are not to qualify for the benefit under the scheme.

18. Financial up -gradation under the scheme is to be given in next higher grade , in accordance with existing hierarchy for the cadre or category ofpost without creating new post . However in case of isolated posts , in the absence ofdefined hierarchical grades , financial up - gradation is to be given in the immediately next higher ( standard/ccmmon ) pay scale as indicated in Annexure II , appended to the shedule . Financial up - gradation under the scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. On grant of ungradation under the scheme, pay of an employee shall be fixed under the provisions of FR 22 ( I ) ( A) ( i) subject to minimum financial benefit of Rs . 100 as per IM No. 1 /6/97 -Pay - 1

20. Award dated 16-03-1998 was passed by the Tribunal in industrial dispute registered as I.D. No.29/1991 . Theappropriate Government referred the dispute projecting as to whether action of the management in keeping the Tradesmen(Workman) Grade II in the pay scale of Rs.800- 1150 as against Rs.950-1400 given to such workmen of India Government Mint , Mumbai is justified. While adjudicating the dispute , referred above , the Tribunal was concerned with duties performed by tradesmen Grade III in the Mint as well as Tradesmen Grade III in India Government Mint , Musnbai . The Tribunal concluded that pay scales of Tradesmen Grade II and Grade III were clubbed in the scale of Rs.950-1400 for the employees working at India Government Mint , Mumbai , while pay scales for the Tradesmen Grade II and III in the Mint were not clubbed . Since no steps were taken by the Mint to establish that the duties performed by the Tradesmen Grade III in the Mint were distinct and different than the duties performed by the Tradesmen Grade II at India Government Mint, Mumbai , the Tribunal was of the view that the Mint cannot be allowed to discriminate the Tradesmen Grade III in the matter of their pay since their counter parts at India Government Mint , Mumbai , were getting wages in the sale of Rs.950-1400 . In view ofthese propositions , the Tribunal commanded that workmen , working under Tradesmen Grade III at the Mint , shall be given pay scale of Rs.950- 1400 from their respective dates of appointment in the Mint . Consequently, these facts make it apparent that the award was passed on the proposition that Tradesmen Grade III in the Mint were performing same duties as performed by Tradesmen Grade III in India Government Mint , Mumbai . To remove discrimination , the award was passed in favour ofthe claimants therein .

1903

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Constitution. Construing provisions of that Act, Supreme Court inAudrey D'Costa ( 1987( 1 ) LLJ 536] pronounced that theAct does not permit the management to pay to a section of its employees , doing the same work or work similar in nature, lower pay contrary to the provisions of section 4( 1) of the Act only because it is not able to pay equal remuneration to all . The Court further observed that the applicability ofthe Act does not depend upon the financial ability of the management to pay equal remuneration as providedby it.

25. In deciding whether the work is the same or is broadly the same, the Authority should take a broad view and also adopt a broad approach in ascertaining whether any dirfferences are ofpractical importance because from the subject of ' similar work ' implies difference in detail . Actual duties performed should be looked into and not those that are theoretically possible . Elaborating the concept of"equal pay for equal work" and its application, the Apex Court in Randhir Singh (Supra) observes as follows:-

21. When present controversy is gauged in the light of facts which led the Tribunal to pass the award , referred above, it emerges over the record that facts are not identical . The Tribural nowhere upgraded pay scale for Assistant Grade III,when it passed the award, referred above . It simply ordered that Assistant Grade III working in the Mint cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay scales than those who are working at India Government Mint , Mumbai . Therefore, for seeking parity in scale ofpay, it is expedient that the person should work as Assistant Grade III in the Mint. By grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, mazdoor is not promoted to the Post ofAssistant Grade- III . He performs the job of mazdoor and is granted financial up-gradation in next higher grade available in the hierarchy of promotion . Therefore , it is apparent that the next grade available in the hierarchy of promotion remains the same, viz . Rs.2650-4000 . It was not at all changed on the strength ofthe award referred above . Without reaching the position ofAssistant Grade III , claimants cannot agitate that they are performing duties ofAssistant Grade III with the Mint and to be paid at par with the Assistant Grade III working at India Government Mint , Mumbai . Results reached in above Labour Court Applications reaffirm above conclusion, since it were adjudicated on factual situations , detailed therein.

"Where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter oftheir pay merely because they belong to different departments . of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers , duties and responsibilities of the posts held by theni vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same *** and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade . The higher qualification for higher grade, which may be either academic qualification or experience based on length of service , reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of " equal pay for equal work" would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be appliedto them" .

22.There is other facet of the coin . Doctrine of " equal pay for equal work " has been enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution as one of the directive principles ofthe State policy, requiring the State to secure " equal pay for equal work " for both , men and women . This constitutional goal is capable of attainment through constitutional remedies by way of enforcement of constitutional rights , declares the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh [ 1982 ( 1 ) LLJ 344 ] . In G. Sreenivasa Rao [ 1989(2) LLJ 149] , the Apex Court announced that right to " equal pay for equal work " is an accompaniment ofthe equality, clause enshrined in Article 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India . Nevertheless , abstract doctrine of " equal pay for equal work " cannot be read in Article 14. Reasonable classification, based on intelligible criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved , is permissible.

23. In Grih Kalyak Kendra Workers Union [ 1991 ( 1 ) LLJ 349 ] Apex Court had gone to the extent of saying that " equal pay for equal work " has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard tothe constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was pronounced therein that it has ceased to be a judge made law as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of State providing equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similarly placed employees of the State . The principles does not apply to the State only but also applies to the State instrumentalities.

26. In Delhi Veterinary Association (AIR 1984 SC 1221 ), the Supreme Court ruled that apart from the nature ofwork, the pay structure should reflect many other values and observed that the employer should follow certain basic principles in fixing the pay scales of various posts and cadres in the Government service . The degree ofskill , strain of work , experience involved , training required , responsibility undertaken , mental and physical requirements , disagreeableness ofthe task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involved are, according to the Third Pay Commission, some of the relevant factors which should betaken into consideration in fixing pay scales . The method of recruitment, the level at which the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre , minimum educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of 24. In 1976, Equal Remuneration Act , 1976 was enacted to implement provisions of Article 39 (d ) of the

87040713-15 1904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II--SEC. 3 (ii )]

promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors , announced the Court.

claimants did not reach the position of Assistant Grade III on grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme . They still serve as mazdoor even after getting financial upgradation . There is no wholesale identity in their position quaposition ofAssistantGrade III , working in Government of India Mint, Mumbai Therefore , it does not lie in the mouth of the union to agitate that the claimants are entitled to equal pay at par with Assistant Grade III . Their case is not worth consideration on the doctrine of ' equal pay for equalwork'.

27. In JP Chaurasia [ 1989 ( 1 ) LLJ 309 ] , the Apex Court, elaborating the same theme , ruled that apart from the nature of work or volume of the work done the other relevant factors to be taken into account , are ' evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts' . In Hari Narain Bhowal [ 1995 ( II ) LLJ 328 ] , the Apex Court pronounced that the principle of " equal pay for equal work " can be enforcedwhen claiming persons satisfy the Court that not onlythe nature of work is identical but in all other respects they belong to the same class and there is no apparent reason to treat " equals as unequals " .

31. In view of above reasons , it is apparent that the claim put forward by the union is unwarranted . There is no substance in the claim . Consequently, claim is brushed aside. An award is passed in favour of the Corporation and against the claimants /claimant union . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 04-01-2013 Dr. R.K , YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013 28. In RamAshray Yadav [ 1996 ( II) LLJ . 92] , the Apex Court observed that principle of " equal pay for equal work " will not apply where qualification prescribed , mode of recruitment and the nature of duties are different for regular employees and a temporary employee . The claim of temporary Investigator- cum- Computer for payment of salary at par with the regular Investigator- cum-Computer wasdiscarded by the Court in the said case . However classification of officers into two groups , namely, deputationist and non- deputationist , for paying different rates of special pay was held to be not permissible under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution , as it did not bear any rational relation to the objects of the classification. See M.P. Singh (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 485) .

का.आ. 620. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दी कमिशनर , एम.सी.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय न. ! , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42011 /33/2010- आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th February, 2013

S.O. 620.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2010 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the The Commissioner (MCD) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-02-2013 .

[No. L -42011 /33/2010- IR(DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , KARKARDOO MA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

29. In Surjit Singh [ 2009 ( 123 ) FLR 38 ] Apex Court was confronted with the proposition as to whether the persons employed as daily wagers in different capacities by Public Health Department of State of Punjab were entitled for " equal pay for equal work " to that of the employees who were appointed against regular posts , by following process of recruitment . It was ruled therein that grant of benefit of doctrine of " equal pay for equal work " depends upon a large number of factors , including equal work, equal value, source and manner of appointment , equal identify of group and wholesale or complete identity with the employee with whom equality is claimed . The same threads of thoughts were there in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [ 2009 ( 123 ) FLR 525 ] wherein the Apex Court ruled that similarity in the designation or nature or quantum ofwork isnot determinative of equality in the matter ofpay scales . Itwas emphasized that the Court has to consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications , the nature of work , the value thereof, responsibilities , reliability, experience , confidentiality, functional need , etc. In other words , the equality clause canbe invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesale identity between the holders of two posts .

ID No. 44/2010

Shri Rajesh Kumar, S/ o Shri Rameshwar Dass ,

30.To claim equal pay for equal work, a claimant has to establish wholesale identity between the holder of the two posts .At the cost of repetition , it is concluded that the 1905 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

R/ o House No. C-4A/8C, Janakpuri , New Delhi- 110058

....Claimant

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi , Town Hall , Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006

AWARD

AConservancy Ground Jamadar joined service with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referredto as the Corporation ) as a daily wager on 13-3-86. He worked on that post upto 17-11-87 . He was selected for the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector, on which post he joined on 18-11-87 . He was regularized by the Corporation on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector . On 29-5-2007 he was promoted to the post of Sanitary inspector and works as such with the Corporation .

3. Claim statement was filed by the Conservancy Ground Jamadar, who was subsequently recruited as Assistant Sanitary Inspector, namely, Shri Rajesh Kumar pleading therein that he joined as Conservancy Ground Jamadar on daily wages with the Corporation on 03-06-86. Heworked as Assistant Sanitary Inspector from 03-06-86 to 17-11-87 . On 18-11-87 he was appointed as Assistant Sanitary Inspector on regular basis . His counter parts , working as daily wagers, were treated regular employees and given pay and allowances for the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector. The Corporation employed Mombir Singh as beldar on 16-06-81 , who worked as Assistant Sanitały Inspector w.e.f. 23-02-83 . He was regularized on thepost ofAssistant Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 23-2-83 . He is also entitled for regularization on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 03-06-86 . He claims that an award may be passed commanding the Corporation to regularize hisservices as Assistant Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 03-06-86 and to grant him wages with consequential benefits of that post.

4.Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading that the dispute has not been espoused by a recognized union , hence it has not acquired status of an industrial dispute . It has been claimed that on account of non espousal ofthe claim by a recognized union , the reference is incompetent . The Corporation presents that the claimant joined as Conservancy Ground Jamadar on 13-03-86 . He applied for the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector. on which post he was selected and appointed . He joined as Assistant Sanitary Inspector on 18-11-87. Since he was recruited to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector and joined as such , his claim for regularization to that post w.e.f. 03-06-86 is uncalled for. A claim has been made that grievances raised by Shri Rajesh Kumar are untenable, being devoid of merits .

5. On pleadings of the parties following issues were settled:

1. Whether reference is bad for non espousal by a recognized union in the establishment ofthe management ?

2. As in terms of reference .

3. relief.

6. Claimant entered the witness box to substantiate hisclaim statement . No evidence was adduced on behalf ofthe Corporation .

2.The Corporation follows a policy ofregularization, in phased manner, of its employees who are engaged on daily wages . One Kamal Singh was engaged by the Corporation as a Conservancy Ground Jamadar. He worked on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector , in diverted capacity. He was subsequently regularized on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector by the Corporation . In the same manner . Mombir Singh , who was engaged as a beldar, worked as Assistant Sanitary Inspector in diverted capacity. He raised ademand for regularization on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector. When Corporation refuted his claim , he raised an industrial dispute , which dispute was referred to an Industrial Tribunal , constituted by Government ofN.C.T. Delhi . The Tribunal adjudicated that dispute in favour of Mombir Singh. Treating cases of Kamal Singh and Mombir Singh as precedents , Conservancy Ground Jamadar , who was recruited as Assistant Sanitary Inspector on 18-11-87 and promoted as Sanitary Inspector on 29-5-2007, made a representation to the Corporation for his regularization on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 03.06-1986 . His representation was declined . He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . The Corporation refuted his claim before that forum and as such conciliation proceedings failed. Failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government . On consideration of failure report, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide Order No. L 420 11 /33/2010-1 R ( DU) New Delhi dated 17-9-2010, with following terms of reference:

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Surender Bhardwaj , authorized representative advanced arguments onbehalfofthe claimant, Shri Vishwajit Mangla, authorised representative , presented facts on behalf of the Corporation . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management ofMunicipal Corporation of Delhi in not regularizing the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Asstt . Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 03-06-1986 with all consequential benefits /promotion etc. is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 1906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Issue No.1

phrase " employer and workmen " , the plural may include singular on either side or any permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including the feminine . In order, therefore , to determine as to whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an " an industrial dispute' or not , itmust first be determined . whether the workman concerned orworkmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of clause ( s) of section 2 of the Act . Here in the case, the Corporation does not dispute that Shri Rajesh Kumar is a workman within the meaning of clause ( s ) of Section 2 of theAct.

8. At the outset, it is pointed out that the clainant absented from the proceedings with effect from 13.02.2010 and opted not to join it. Since the claimant remained away from adjudicatory process , matter was proceeded under Rule 22 of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to establish thathis dispute was espousedby a union or considerable number ofworkmen in the establishment of the Corporation . In view of the above findings , the Tribunal refrained its hands from adjudicatory process , concluding that the dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute . An award was , accordingly, passed on 09-02-2011 .

9. When the claimant approached the Tribunal again with an application , award dated 09-02-2011 was set aside vide order dated 4-07-2011.

10. Projecting facts , Shri Mangla argued that the claimant has not been able to establish that his dispute was espoused by a union in the establishment of the Corporation .According to him , the dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute . Contra to it , Shri Bhardwaj presents that in meeting dated 22-04-2011 , Municipal Employees Union passed a resolution and took up the cause ofthe claimant . He presents that it does not lie in the mouth of the Corporation to claim that it is an individual dispute . For an answer to the proposition raised by the Corporation , it is expedient to consider definition of the term ' industrialdispute' . Section 2 ( k ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) , defines " industrial dispute ' as follows:

13. The object of the Act is to protect workman against victimization by the employer and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The Act, however, does not provide for any set of social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests . Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial adjudication , keeping in view the social and economic conditions , the needs of the workmen , the requirement of the industry, social justice , relative interests of the parties and common good . These norms have given rights to the industrial employees what may be called industrial rights , as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining. Thistool .is resorted to between an employer or group of employers and a bonafide labour union . Policy behind this is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour practices . What imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of an " industrial dispute " is that it affects the right of the workman as a class .

" industrial dispute " means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen , or between workmen and workmen , which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour , of any person . "

11. The definition of " Industrial dispute " referred above , can be divided into four parts , viz . ( i ) factum of dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz. ( a ) employers and employers , (b) employer and workmen , or ( c) workmen and workmen , ( 3 ) subject matter of the dispute , which should be connected with - ( i ) employment or non employment , or ( ii ) terms of employment , or ( iii ) condition of labour of any person , and (4 ) it should relate to an " industry" .

14. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of " industrial dispute " in Limakuchi Tea Estate [ 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500 ] and ruled that the expression " any person " in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such limitation and qualification as arise from the context , the two crucial limitations are ( i) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute ( as indicated in the first two parts ofthe definition clause ) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2 ) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for whose employment, non employment , terms of employment or conditions of labour, as case may be , the parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest . Where workman raised a dispute as against their employment , the person regarding whose employment , non employer, terms of employment or conditions of labour , thedispute is raised need not be strictly speaking " workman " within the meaning of the Act , butmust be one in whose employment , non employer, terms ofemployment , or conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest . The observations made by the Apex Court are to be extracted thus :

12. The definition of " industrial dispute " is worded in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the meaning given to word " workman " it would seem to include all " employers " , all " employments " and all " workmen " , whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be . Therefore , except in the case where there can be a dispute between the employers and employers and workmen and workmen , one of the parties to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of employees . The first point, therefore , to be noted , perhaps self evident , is that the

"We also agred with the expression " any person " is not co extensive with any workman , particular or

                                                                                                                 1907
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]                 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
     otherwise , equal with other , that the crucial test is laid thereon that (1 ) a dispute between the employer and a
     one of community of interest and the person             singleworkman cannot be an industrial dispute, (2) it cannot
     regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in     be per-se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is
     whose employment, non employment , terms of             taken up by a trade union or a number of workmen . In
     employment, conditions of labour (as the case may       Dharampal Prem Chand [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 668 ] it was commanded
      be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or        bythe Apex Court that a dispute raised by a single workman
      substantial interest . Whether such direct or          cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported
      substantial interest has been established in a          either by his union or in the absence of a union by
                                                              substantial number of workmen . Same law was laid in the
      particular case will depend on its facts and
      circumstances . "                                       case of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt .) Limited [ 1970 ( 1 )
                                                              LLJ 132 ]. However in Western India Match Company [ 1970
      15. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1958    (II ) LLJ 256] , the Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona
(2) LLJ 660 ] Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute     Kuchi Tea Estate's case [ 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500 ] and ruled that a
need not be a dispute between the employer and his            dispute relating to " any person becomes a dispute where
workman and that the definition of the expression             the person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose
"industrial dispute " is wide enough to cater a dispute raised employment, non employment , terms of employment or
by theemployer's workman with regard to non employment        conditions of labour, the parties , dispute for a direct or
of others , who may not be employed as workman at the          substantial interest " .
 relevant time . The Apex Court in Bombay Union of
 Journalist [ 1961 ( II ) LLJ 436 ] has observed that in each        17. What a substantial or considerable number of
 case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has       workmen would be in a given case , depend on particular
 acquired the character of an industrial dispute , the test is facts of the case . The fact that an " industrial dispute " , is
 whether at the date of reference, the dispute was taken up    supported by other workmen will have to be established
 as submitted by the union of the workmen of the employer      either in the form of a resolution of the union of which
 against whom , the dispute is raised by an individual        workman may be member or of the workmen themselves
 workman or by an appreciable number of workmen . In order ,   who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the
 therefore, to convert an individual dispute into an industrial mere fact that a general union , at whose instance an
 dispute, it has to be established that it has been taken up   " industrial dispute " concerning an individual workman is
 by the union of employees of the establishment or by an       referred for adjudication . has on its roll a few of the workmen
 appreciable number of the employees of the establishment .    of the establishment as its members , it cannot be inferred
 As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is     that the individual dispute has been converted into an "
 concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally          industrial dispute " . The Tribunal has therefore , to consider
 presents little difficulty, since such workmen who are        the question as to how many of the fellow workman actually
  members of such unions generally have a continuity of        espoused the cause of the concerned workman by
 interest with an individual employee who is one of their      participating in the particular resolution of the union . In
  fellow workman. But difficulty arise when the cause of a     the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal , it
  workman , in a particular establishment is sponsored by a     cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the
  union which is not of the workmen of that establishment      character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not
  but is one of which membership is open to workmen of          acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute .
  their establishment as well as in that industry. In such a   Nevertheless , in order to make a dispute an industrial
  case a union which has only microscopic number of the         dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a
  workmen as its member , cannot sponsor any dispute arising    resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen .
  between the workmen and the management . A                    Whatis necessary is that there should be some express or
   representative character of the union has to be gathered     collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of
   from the strength of the actual number of co -workers        the workmen treating the cause of the individual workman
  sponsoring the dispute . The mere fact that a substantial     as their own cause . Law to this effect was laid in
  number of workmen of the establishment in which the           P.Somasundrameran [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 558 ] .
   concerned workman was employee were also members of                18. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is
  the union would not constitute sponsorship . It must be        a registered trade union or a recognized trade union . Once
   shown that they were connected together and arrived at       it isshown that a body of substantial number of workmen
   an understanding by a resolution or by other means and        either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored
   collectively submitted the dispute.                           the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an
         16. The expression " industrial disputes " has been     industrial dispute . In Pardeep Lamp Works [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ
   construed by the Apex Court to include individual disputes ,  507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were
   because of the scheme of the Act . In Raghu Nath Gopal        filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual
   Patvardhan [ 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 27 ] the Apex Court ruled as to   workmen themselves But their case was subsequently
   what dispute can be called as an industrial dispute . It was  taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co-

1908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16,2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

extracted thus:

workmen , if not a majority of them. Since this union was not registered or recognized , the workmen elected five representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed workmen . Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized union does not mean that they were not " industrial dispute" .

It is unanmously resolved to contest the industrial dispute in favour of Shri Rajesh Kumar. S'o Shri Rameshwar Dass , a member of this union , who is working as Sanitary Inspector with the management ofMCD and posted in Ward No. 148. Najafgarh Zone . Delhi for securing his regularization in service on post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector with retrospective effect 03-06-1986 with all consequential benefits either monetary or no - monetary, which case isnow pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1. Delhi .

22. When contents of Resolution dated 22-04-2011 are construed , it emerged that the Municipal Employees Union expressed collective will to espouse cause of the claimant inApril 2011. On the date of Resolution . the dispute waspending adjudication before this Tribunal . Such an espousal should be on the date of reference and not on a subsequent date . Therefore validity of the reference is not atall affected by the Resolution dated 22-04-2011 . This Resolution will not give life to the dispute , by giving it status of an industrial dispute. Resolution of any other union has not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal . Forwant of evidence , the Tribunal cannot consider as to howmany of the fellow workmen actually espoused the cause of the claimant . On the date of reference . Consequently, it is clear that the dispute is an individual dispute and it cannot give any jurisdiction to this Tribunal to adjudicate it. The issue is answered in favour of the Corporation and against the claimant .

Issue Nos . 2 & 3

19. It isnot expedient that same union should remain incharge of that dispute till its adjudication . The dispute may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment, through a particular union for making such a dispute an " industrial dispute " , while the workman may be represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section 36 of theAct by a member of executive or office bearer of altogether another union . The crux of the matter is that the dispute should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or conducted onlyby a registered trade union . Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would notaffect the maintainability of the order of reference . Law tothis effect was laid by the High Court ofOrissa in Gammon India Limited [ 1974 ( II) LLJ 34] . For ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an individual dispute , the test is whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an appreciable number of the workman . In other words , the validity of the reference of an industrial dispute mustbe judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made to a precedent in Western India Match Co. Ltd. [ 1970 ( II) LLJ 256] .

23. Since the claimant has not been able to establish that an ' industrial dispute ' existed , under these circumstances , this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Act, to adjudicate the reference sent by the appropriate Government. For want ofjurisdiction , the Tribunal refrains its hands from adjudication of the dispute , so referred. In view of the findings on Issue No. 1 , it is concluded that reference , is not competent . This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it. Reference is answered accordingly. Award, so passed , maybe sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 29-01-2013

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2013

20. A long line of decisions , handed down by the Apex Court, had established that an individual dispute could not per se be an industrial dispute , but could become one if it was taken up by a trade union or a considerable number of workmen of the establishment . This position of law created hardship for individual workmen , who were discharged, dismissed, retrenched or whose services were otherwiseterminated when they could not find support by a union or any appreciable number of workman to espouse their cause . Section 2A was engrafted in the Act by the Amendment Act of 1965 and it has to be read as an extension of the definition of industrial dispute contained in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act . Thus by way of extension of definition of industrial dispute by insertion of section 2A of the Act , the dispute of an individual workman connected with or arising out of his discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination of his service by his employer has been brought within the ambit of the Act .

का.आ. 621. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मैट लाइफ इंडिया इंश्योरेंश कम्पनी लिमिटेड, बंगलौर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम 21. Now, I would turn to the facts . Resolution dated 22-04-2011 passedby the Municipal Employees Union , was placed over record by the claimant , contents of which are 1909

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -17012/ 12/2012- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Met Life India Insurance Company Limited in terminating the services of Sh . K. Durai , Financial Planning Consultant w.e.f. 28-05-2009 is legal and justified? To what reliefthe workman is entitled to ? "

NewDelhi, the 20th February, 2013

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 39/2012 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their claim and counter statement as the case may be .

3. Points for consideration are :

(i) Whether termination of services of Sh . K. Durai , Financial Planning Consultant with effect from 28-05-2009 is legal and justified?

S.O. 621. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in ralation to the management of M/s . Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. , Bangalore and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-02-2013 .

(ii) To what relief the workman is entitled to ?

[No. L- 17012/ 12/2012- IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

4. No evidence has been adduced by the petitioner who is at default to appear.

ANNEXURE

Points (i) & ( ii )

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wedesday, the 31st January, 2013

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 39/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of M/s . Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. and their Workman )

Between

: Petitioner/ 1st Party

Sh . K. Durai

Though the petitioner was served with notice and did appear initially, during and further adjournments given for further proceedings , he did not appear contest the dispute . Respondent entered appearance engaging a counsel . Needless to say no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate the referred claim that termination of his services as Financial Planning Consultant w.e.f. 28-5-2009 by the management ofM/s . MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. whether is legal and justified. When the petitioner wishes the court to believe that his termination of services is not legal and justified , it is for the petitioner ( I Party) to disharge the said burden. By defaulting to appear and contest the dispute by adducing evidence , petitioner has not succeeded in proving his claim . The ID is therefore dismissed for default holding that his termination of services is only legal and justified andthat the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Villupuram District

5.The reference is answered accordingly.

Vs.

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Respondent/2nd Party

Witnesses Examined:

: None

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

The Chief Executive Officer : M/s . Met Life India Insurance Company Limited Bangalore-560004

: None

For the 2nd Party/Management

Appearance:

Documents marked

Forthe 1st Party/Petitioner : Sh . M.V. Seshadhari , Advocate

On the side of the Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/Management :

Date

Description

Ex. No.

Sh. V. T. Narendiran, Advocate

Nil

AWARD

On the side ofthe Management

Date

Description

Ex. No.

Nil

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 17012/ 12 /2012-1R (M) dated 28-06-2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

1910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALG 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2013

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Western Jharia Zone of Mohuda Area in not promoting S / Sri Srikant Pasi and 26 others from Cat . II to Cat . V is legal , reasonable and Justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date? "

का.आ. 622.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न. - 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/286/02- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013

S.O. 622. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 44 of 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s . BCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-02-2013 .

[No. L-20012/286 /2002- IR ( C - I ) ] M.K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT DHANBAD

Present : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 44 of 2003

Parties Employer in relation to the management of Mohuda Coal Washery, Western Washery Zone , Mohuda, BCCL and their workmen .

Appearances :

2. The case of the workmen Sri Srikant Pasi and 26 others as sponsored by the Union concerned is that the workmen concerned were originally appointed as permanent Category- 1 General Mazdoor in the years 1986, 1987 , 1989 etc. S/ Sri Badal Chandra Das and 6 others junior to those workinien were regularised as Cat . II Electrical Helper as per the office orderdt.12/ 16-6-99 . Promotion/regularisation from Cat. I to Cat . II has the only criteria of the Seniority whereas the confirmation of the person in acting position is only criteria for the regularisation . The workmen along with Sri Badal Ch. Das and 6 others were working as helper to the Fitter Operator. They not only protested and represented to the Management against the illegal and arbitrary promotion/ regularisation of Sri Badal Chandra Das and 6 others as Electrical Helper Cat.II rather they also demanded for the same w.e.f. 12/ 16-3-1999 with consequential benefits with their seniority as contrasted with that of Badal Chandra Das and 6 others . At that time, the management assured them of all the aforesaid demands , but it did not consider their case , and illegally and arbitrarily promoted S/Sri Badal Chandra Das and 6 otherjuniors to the vacant posts of Cat . V workmen in the month of Aug. Sept. , 2002 , showing them as senior to their workmen , without referring their name to D.P.C. for dueconsideration of their promotion . The representation ofthe workmen and the Union about it were without any effect , then the Union raised the Industrial Dispute about itbefore the A.L.C. (C) Dhanbad, but the same failed due to adamant attitude of the management , resulting in the reference for an adjudication . The action of the management concerned in promoting S / Sri Srikant Pasi and 26 others from Cat . IIto Cat . V is neither legal nor justified.

Onbehalf of the workmen Mr. R. K. Prasad , Rep . of the workmen

No rejoinder whatsoever filed by the Union/workmen to the written statement of the mangement .

Onbehalf of the management Mr. U. N. Lal , Ld . Adv .

State : Jharkhand

: Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th January, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )(d) of the l.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/286/2002- IR (C - I ) dt . 28-05-2003 .

3. In challenge to it , the contra pleading of the management concerned with specific denials is that in fact the workmen S/ Sri Srikant Pasi and 26 others were appointed and posted in Category I as General Mazdoor ondifferent dates/years , i.e. , in the years 1986 , 1987 , 1990, 1991 and 1992. They have been working since the date of their joining duties accordingly as per the job assignedto them . Sri Badal Chandra Das and six others also appointed asGeneral Mazdoor in Category- I were performing thejob ofthe Electrical Helper. As per available vacancies and as per Cadre Scheme circulated by JBCCI through CIL, Calcutta, they were regularised as Helper in Category- 11 1911 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934:

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Mr. R. K. Prasad, the Union Representative for the workman, submits that these workmen , who are Fitter Helper, are senior to Sri Badal Chandra Das and six others as admitted by the management , and are still working in the Category II , but their Juniors noted above have been given double promotion as reqularisation from Cat . II to Cat. V without any documentary of the Cadre Scheme thereof so the claim of the workmen is quite legally just andjustified.

as per the Office Order No. 525 dt . 12/ 16-3-1999 .After some time on availability of vacancies , S/Sri Srikant Pasi & 26 others were promoted/ regularised on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (to be referred as DPC) to the post ofCategory- II Helper as per the Office Order No. WWZ/PD /PROM/ 2000/827 dt . - 17/ 18-4-2000 of the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Western Washery Zone, Mohuda . Promotion from one post to another is effected as per availability of vacancies by considering the departmental candidates according to the provisions of the Cadre Scheme circulated by JBCCI . Likewise , promotion is effected on availability of higher posts and on the recommendation of the DPC duly approved by the Cadre Controlling Authority. There is no such policy for giving automatic promotion from one grade to another . The promotions have been rightly allowed to the workmen concerned after the posts were vacant in Cat. II from the date of reporting for duty to the promoted post. The promotions are not allowed retrospectively, otherwise , it would adversely affect the Natural justice and Industrial Relation of the Industry. The claim of the workmen/union has no justification for it , as it affects the other senior employees in the industry in the matter of growth as per Cadre Scheme in the Company. The workmen are not entitled to get any relief.

The statement of WWI Thakur Pd. Mahato , reveals that he was appointed on 14-10-89 (as evident from the Final Seniority Listdt . 21-6-95 Ext . W. 1/1 Ext . M1 / 1 ) is at present workingas Asstt . Fitter Operator after his promotion form Cat . I to Cat . Il in mechanical disciple on 18-4-2000( as per office order dt. 7/8-11-2010 , Ext . W. 2) but hisjunior colleagues Badal Chandra Das , Samiran Chatterjee and T. K. Mahatha , whose appointment dates are 30-9-92 ( Samiran's 7-10-92 ) and 15-1-90 respectively were given Cat . II on 16-3-1990 in mechanical side , discriminating him, there has been vacancies since 2005 in theGrade of the Fitter Operator; though admittedly some persons senior to him are still in Category II . WW2, Jamaluddin , one of the workmen , states that he is working asHelper to the Operator in Mechanical Department . To him, all the 27 workmen including him are in the list of the Seniority with their appointment dates ; the category V has vacancies ; all the workmen were promoted to Cat . II from Cat. 1 ; they have been interviewed by the D.P.C. for promotion from Cat . Il to Cat. V three months prior to his deposition (on 29-1-2008) ; admittedly promotion is effected on vacancies as per Cadre Scheme, but the Junior wee promoted in the year 1999 which was protested by them; and that only four persons are senior to him as noted in the list ofthe Reference .

4. The management in its rejoinder categorically pleaded that the persons concerned working as Electrical Helper were considered for the said post by the D.P.C. , and were allowed promotion to the next higher grade as per norms of the Company. The promotions are given as perthejob contents and available vacancies as per Cadre Scheme of the CIL without any supersession . The allegation of the workmen is baseless , because both the groups ofworkers were not performing the same nature of job, so it is incomparable in the matter of growth opportunity. S /Shri Badal Chandra Das and 6 others were working as Electrical Helper with the Electricians . As such they were rightly and legally promoted even to the next higher Grade in Category- 11 as per the office order no. 827 dt. 17/18-4-2000 on the recommendation ofthe D.P.C. None assured the workmen for retrospective promotion beyond the Company'sPromotion Policy and cadre scheme. The case of the workmen would be considerable for further growth against available vacancies as per Cadre Scheme subject to the fulfillment of the norms of promotion . Thus the demand of the workmen is unsustainable as unreasonable .

FINDINGS WITH REASONING

6. On the other hand, Mr. U. N. Lal , the Ld. Counsel for the management has to contend that all the workmen joined in Category I in 1986-92 as General Mazdoor but Sri Badal Chandra Das and six others were appointed in Cat . I during 1989-92 on the Electrical Side, so they were regularised from Cat . I to Cat . Il as Electrical Helper as per the Office Orderdt . 21/16 March , 99 (Ext . M5 / 1 ) in continuation ofthe office order dt . 5/6-3-99 Ext . M. 5) and their paywas fixed at the nearest stae, after availability of vacancies, the cases of workmen Sri Kant Pasi and 26 other on consideration of the D.P.C. (Departmental Promotion Committee ) were promoted to Cat . II helper, by keeping them on probation for one year, and they were allowed promotion benefits . Mr. Lal , the Ld . Advocate for the Management further submits that promotion from one category to another is effected through the D.P.C. , so the claim ofthewerkmen for promotion from Cat . II to Cat. V being contrary to the Rule as per Cadre Scheme is not justified.

5. In this reference case , WWI Thakur Pd . Mahato, WW2 Jamaluddin in behalf of the Union , and MWI Vivekanand Dubey, the Office Supdt. , MW2 Β.Β. Upadhayaya, Sr. Manager (Pers ), and MW3 Ajit Kumar Singh, Personnel Manager, for the management have been examined.

Accordingto MWI Vivekanand Dubey, the Office Supdt. workmen Srikant Pasi and 26 others were appointed

870 G5 /13-16 1912

                       THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/ PHALGUNA 25, 1934                      [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
     in the year 1989-1990 also in 1991 ; Some of them were      particular discipline . Since the workmen had no requisite
     appointed in Washery and some had joined on transfer        experience in the Electrical Helper job, so they were not
     from other units, so a Seniority List of these workmen was  considered for regularisation as Electrical Helper Cat. II in
     prepared as Ext. M. 1 which appears to be provisional one   March , 1999 ; as such the claim of the workmen is
    dt. 25-5-95; and another Seniority List dt. 21-5-95 has been unjustified.
    marked Ext . M. 1/1 . When there was a vacancy in Electrical
    Cadre inthe Coal Washery, seven persons as per Ext. M. 2          8. Ascertaining the appointment of these workmen
    were regularised from Cat. I to Cat. II in the month of      asGeneral Mazdoor Cat. I in the years 1986 , 1987, 1989,
    March, 1999 and workmen Sri Srikant Pasi and 26 others      1990 and 1992 in their respective years. Out of them Badal
    were promoted to Cat. II from Cat. I as per their list      Chandra Das and 6 others were regularised as Helper in
   (Ext. M. 3) and the Office Orderdt. 17/ 18-4-2000 ( Ext . M. 4) Cat. II as per office order No. 463 dt. 6-3-1999 ( Ext . M. 5)
    these workmen were promoted on the recommendation of        and theywere given their assignments as the Fitter Helper
    the D.P.C.   and out of them four persons to Cat . V        (Cat. II ) as per the office orderdt. 16-3-1999 ( Ext . M. 5/1 ) .
    accordingly such as persons Naresh Das and Pitambhar        Bythat regularisation, the aforesaid 7 workmen were given
   Das under Sl . Nos . 33 & 37 respectively being SC as per    the higher scale at the available stage and their pay was
   the aforesaid Seniority List ( Ext . M. 1) in addition to those fixed but no incremental benefits was given to them as per
   persons who had left or died; as such none of the workmen    policy of the Management but the management as per the
   has been superseded in the matter of promotion ; hence       office order dt. 18-4-2000 ( Ext. M. 4 ) has given these
   the demand of the workmen is not justified. Admittedly      workmen Srikant Pasi and 26 others their promotion to
   Badal Chandra Das junior to the workmen was working as      Cat. Il as Helper in the year 2002 ; they were promoted
   Helper and he was regularised and for the first time,       against the permanent vacancies at the relevant time
   promoted in the year 1999 and at the relevant time the      through the D.P.C. on account of being the cadre post and
   designation of Jamaluddin and 26 others were Operator        fitment was given to the workmen by providing one
   Helper. Badal Chandra Das was working as a Lathe Helper     increment after their said promotion and they were
   since the date ofhis appointment and Mr. S.B. Prasad , the  subsequently promotedto Cat . IV, V as per the Cadre
   then Engineer had prepared a notesheet for his              Scheme through the D.P.C. Since as per Cadre Scheme,
  the concerned workmen. regularisation and at last the witness justified the claim of thepromotion is awarded to the workman as per available
                                                               vacancies through D.P.C. but the claim of these workmen
        7. Whereas the statement of MW 2 B.B. Upadhaya         for their promotion from Cat . II to Cat . V being illegal is
  Sr. Manager ( Personnel ) transpires the appointment of      unjustified, because promotion from Cat . IV to V happens
  these workmen between 1986 to 1992 as Gen. Mazdoor           as per Cadre Scheme in Coal Washery Cadre. The witness
  Cat. I, but so far as the Badal Chandra Das and 6 other     MW. 3 has expressed his ignorance of the fact whether
  employees were regularised as Electrical Helper in Cat. II  any documents of appointment of Proful Kumar Shayınal
  in 1999 but they were not promoted. According to the         and others in Cat. V on 4-2-2008 has been filed in this case
 witness the General Mazdoor is the designation and the       or not the fact is beyond the pleading of Union. The
  employee who gathered experience in a particular            Witness ( MW. 3 ) has firmly established that those who
 discipline/job , his career growth as Cat. II and onwards is had knowledge of maintenance of an operation of the
  regularised as per respective cadre scheme in which he      machine were regularised in Cat. V but others unacquanited
  has acquired experience . Sri Badal Chandra Das and 6       with the operation of the Machine were promoted to Cat. IV through D.P.C.
  others got experience in Electrical Helper job, so they were
  confirmed/ regularised as Helper Electrical Cadre II . Other
 General Mazdoors / the workmen were subsequently                  9. After hearing the argument of both the Ld .
 promoted in their respective trade against vacancies on      Representative for the Union and Ld. Advocate for the
 the recommendation of the D. P.C. so they were promoted     Management and on the perusal ofthe materials available
 in Cat . II in the 2002. In this instant case there is no case of on the case record , i find that these workmen were never
 supersession of the workmen as the aforesaid Badal          superseded by Badal Chandra Das and 6 others in the
 Chandra Das and 6 others were regularised in which no       same category because Bada ! Chandra Das and 6 others
 fitment benefits of promotion is given rather on their      wereworking on the Flectrical Side since their appointment
 regularisation , they are placed in regularised category at whereas the workmen worked as Welder Helper or Fitter
 the nearest next slab. At present the concerned workmen     Helper in the different discipline and accordingly these
 have been subsequently promoted in due course of time       workmen Srikant Pasi and others have been promoted as
 in higher grade and designation against vacancies on the    Cat. II Helper from their Cat . I General Mazdoor in the
 recommendation of D.P.C. and the approval of the            year 2000. These workmen's claim for direct promotion
Competent Authority over it. Cadre Scheme is a document     from Cat . II to Cat . V is unsustainable , in view of cadre
which regulates the career growth of an employee in a        scheme and the policy of the Company. Therefore, the
                                                             Reference is responded as such:

1913 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

It is held that the action of the management of Western Jharia Zone of Mahuda Area in not promoting S/ Shri Srikant Pasi and 27 others from Cat . II to Cat . V is quite legal , reasonable and justified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief from any date , as they have been duly promoted to their category concerned against permanent vacancies available at the relevant time as per the Cadre Scheme of the Company.

Let the copy of the Award may be forwarded to the Ministry of Labour & Employment , Government of India for information and needful .

"Whether the action of the management of Chief Workshop Manager , EMU Workshop. Western Railway, Mahalaxmi , Mumbai in not granting the seniority to S /Shri Badelal and 9 others is justified If not , to what relief S / Shri Badelal and 9 others are entitled to ?"

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2013

का.आ. 623.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41011/17/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013

2. According to the statement of claim submitted by Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad the ten workmen joined the services of the Western Railway, EMU Workshop , Mahalaxmi , Mumbai as Khalasis on dates as mentioned in para no . 2 of the statement of claim. The Mahalaxmi Workshop directly appointed about 151 khaląsis in the year 1990 ignoring the seniority of the ten workmen and several other khalasis . Some of the aggrieved khalasis challenged the seniority list prepared by the first party in the Central Administrative Tribunal , Mumbai Bendh vide O.A. No. 890/93 wherein it was held that the applicants were entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment arid they were also entitled to be regularised from the date ofscreening of directly appointed khalásis i.e. from 1-9-1990 and they were also entitled for seniority from that date. The ten workmen are also entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment and are entitled to regularisation from 1-9-1990.

S.O. 623. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2006) ofthe Cent .Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-02-2013 .

[No. L-41011 /17/2005 - IR (B- I ) ] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 ,

MUMBAI

Present

Justice G. S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 1 /23 of 2006

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Western Riilway EMU Workshop

3.According to the written statement there is a delay of eleven years in challenging the seniority list of 14-7-1993 and , therefore , reference is barred. The ten workmen have not approached the Central Administrative Tribunal to escape limitation clause of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985. The judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal is not applicable in this case and the Central Administrative Tribunal has not granted seniority from the date of initial appointment . The ten workmen have not impleaded those who will be affected and whose seniority will be pushed down on account of re- fixing the seniority and , therefore , this reference is not maintainable on account of non -joinder of necessary parties. The ten workmen are not entitled to seniority from the date oftheir initial appointment . It is, therefore , prayed that the reference be dismissed with costs .

And

Their workmen (Badelal and 9 others)

Appearances :

ForWestern Railway : Ms. Fernandes , Adv.

: Mr. M.B. Anchan , Adv.

For the Union

4. The union has filed affidavit of Jeevan Singh Adhikari who has been cross examined by learned counsel for the first party and the first party has filed affidavit of Mrs. Manisha Walavalkar who has been cross examined by learned counsel for the union .

: Maharashtra

State

Mumbai , dated the 24th day of January, 2013

5. Heard Mr. M B. Anchan learned counsel for the union and Ms. Fernandes learned counsel for the management .

1914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/ PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

Reference No. CGIT- 1 /49 of 2007

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India AND

TheirWorkman ( Liladhar S. Tawade )

Appearances:

For the State Bank of India : Shri Nadkarni, Adv.

For the workman

6. The witness of the union hs admitted that the seniority list was prepared in 1993. It is also an admitted position that some employees approached Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1993 itself but the ten workmen did not . The seniority list of 1993 is now being challenged in the present reference which has been made by orderdt. 10-08-2006. According to the written statement there is a delay of eleven years in raising the dispute. This assertion of the first party has not been controverted by the union. The union has not offered any explanation whatsoever for the long delay.

State : Shri Umesh Nabar, Adv. : Maharashtra Mumbai , dated the 22nd day of January 2013 . AWARD

7. Though the Act does not provide a period of limitation for raising a dispute under Section 10 of the Act but if, on account of delay, a dispute has become stale or ceases to exist, the reference should be rejected. Lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well . Since in this case the reference itself is stale being belated it is not maintainable and it has to be rejected on this ground alone . I am supported by (2000) 2 SCC 455 and 2006(3) LLJ492.

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

8. In view of the above discussion the ten workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Award is passed accordingly. JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2013

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Mumbai is justified and proper in terminating the services of Shri Liladhar S. Tawade, by way of voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 18-11-1995 ? If not , then what relief the workman is entitled to?

का.आ. 624.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/19/2007- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] बी.एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 21st February, 2013

S.O. 624. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 49/2007 ) of the Cent. Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government 21-02-2013 . on

[No. L- 12012/ 19/2007 - IR (B- I ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , MUMBAI

2. According to the statement of claim filed by the second party workman he joined State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank ) as Canteen Boy- cum- Hamal w.e.f. 10-11-1984. He was designated as Messenger w.e.f. 18-3-1994. He had a clean and unblemished service record for more than 10 years. However, due to sickness he could not resume duties on or after 18-11-1995 . On advice from his superiors he submitted an application dt. 12-1-1996 requesting the Bank to employ his wife in his place. The Bank did not consider the above application favourably and referred the case of the workman to Chief Medical Officer of the Bank for constitution of a Medical Board to examine the fitness ofthe workman. The workman approached the Medical Board as advised . The workman thereafter was under continuous treatment at J. J. Hospital . The workman was found fit by the Medical Board on and from 5-9-2003 and accordingly a certificate to that effect wasforwarded by the Medical Board to the ChiefMedical Officer. The Chief Medical Officer in turn by letter dt. 5-9-2003 informed the Bank that the workman was fit to resume duties as per the medical report submitted by the MedicalBoard. When the workman approached the Bank , the Bank did not allow him to resume duties . The workman was, therefore, constrained to raise industrial dispute challenging his illegal termination from service. The workman has prayed that he be reinstated with full back wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits,

Present: Justice G.S. Saraf, Presiding Officer

3. According to the written statement the workman was irregular in attendance and was remaining absent 1915

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934,

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4. Theworkman has filed rejoinderwherein he has reiterated his stand.

5. The workman has filed his affidavit and he has been cross- examined by learned counsel for the Bank and the Bank has filed affidavit of Ravindranath Mahadeo Desai who has been cross examined by learned counsel for the workman .

6. Heard Shri Nadkarni on behalf of the Bank and Shri Umesh Nabar on behalf of the second party workman.

7. There are two letters , namely, the letter dt. 27-2-1997 which is Ex. - M-5 and the letter dt. 16-10-1997 which is Ex. M-7 which are vital for deciding the present controversy. Both letters are admitted documents . The letter Ex.M- 5 is said to be a notice given in fulfillment of the provisions contained in clause 17 (a ) of the Memorandum of Settlement dt . 10-4-1989 , while the letter EX. M-7 is a letter whereby the Bank has informed the workman that it is deemed that he has voluntarily retired from service .

8. It will be pertinent to quote clause 17 (a ) of the Memorandum of Settlementdt.10-4-1989 here which runs as under:

Whenan employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days , without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally/ subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India orwhen the management is reasonably satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of the notice , stating inter alia the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention ofjoining duties and furnishing necessary evidence , where available . Unless the employce reports for duty within 30 days ofthe notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining duties , the employee will be deemed to have võluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudiceto the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service .

9. Clause 17(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dt. 10-4-1989 requires that:

unauthorisedly quite frequently. Till 12-10-1995 the workman was unauthorisedly absent on loss of pay for 1500 days . Thereafter he did not attend office from 18-11-1995 . A chargesheetdt. 25-3-1996 was issued tothe workman for the misconduct ofremaining unauthorisedly absent . However , the enquiry remained inconclusive. On 12-1-1996, the workman submitted an application wherein he stated that he was suffering from giddiness and loss of memory for the past six months and he requested the Bank to employ his wife in his place . In view of the aforesaid letter the case of the workman was referred to the Chief MedicalOfficer of the Bank for constitution of Medical Board for his examination . Accordingly a Medical Board was constituted at J. J. Hospital and the workman was examined by the Board on 19-8-1996 . The workman was asked to submit psychiatrist's opinion but the workman did not comply with this . He was then advised by the Bank to report for duty within three days vide memorandum dt . 27-02-1997. The workman replied to the above memorandum vide his letter dt . 12-3-1997 in which he stated that he was examined by the Medical Board in the previous month . He also stated that he was unable to resume his duties as he was having weakness . The Bank subsequently received communication dt . 25-4-1997from J.J.Hospital that the workman did not submit the psychiatrist opinion . The Bank waited for a considerable period for the workman to resume his duties and finally advised him vide letter dt.16-10-1997 that since did he not attend the office by 12-4-1997 the Bank considered that he had voluntarily retired from the Bank's service . This letter was sent by registered-AD but it was returned undelivered . According to the written statement the Bank's action is based on clause 17( a ) of the Bipartite Settlementdt.10-4-1989 . Despite the Bank treating the workman as having voluntarily retired the workman again approached Bank's ChiefMedical Officer on 29-7-2003 and the ChiefMedical Officer wrote to the Superintendent, J.J. Hospital , Mumbai vide letterdt. 29-7-2003 for constituting a Medical Board for examining the workman. Obviously there was a communication gap and the Chief Medical Officer of the Bank was not aware of the Bank's letter dt . 16-10-1997 whereby the workman was deemed to have voluntarily retired from Bank's service . The Chief Medical Officer vide letter dt. 5-9-2003 forwarded to the Bank a copy ofcertificate dt. 5-9-2003 issued by J.J. Hospital certifying that the workman was fit to resume his duties . Armed with this certificate the workman requested the Bank to allow him to resume duty vide his letter dt . 18-5-2004. The Bank advised the workman by letter dt. 21-5-2004 that since he was deemed to have retired voluntarily the question of allowing him to resume duties did not arise . Thereafter the workman has raised this dispute. The Bank has prayed that the reference be answered in its favour as the action of the Bank in treating the workman as having voluntarily retired isjustified and proper.

1916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013 (a)A notice be given to the workman calling upon him to report for duties within 30 days of the date ofnotice.

(b) The grounds for coming to the conclusion that workman has no intention of resuming the duties must be stated in the notice .

(c)Necessary evidence be furnished where available.

S.O. 625. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 33 of 2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-02-2013 .

10. The question is that whether the Bank has fulfilled the above three requirements as stated in clause 17(a) ofthe Memorandum of Settlementdt. 10-4-1989 while giving notice Ex. M - 5 to the workman.

11. Notice Ex. M -5 runs as under :

[No. L-20012 /572/2000 - IR (C- I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

यह पाया गया है कि आप काम से अनधिकृत रूप से दिनांक 18-11-95 से अनुपस्थित हैं । आपको अतः सूचित किया जाता है कि... के प्राप्ति के

तीन दिनों के भीतर काम पर उपस्थित रहे तथा आपके अनुपस्थित

के कारणों का स्पष्टीकरण दें ।

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO. 2) AT DHANDBD

Present : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer.

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Reference No. 33 of 2002

Parties : Employer in relation to the management of Lodna Colliery ofM/s . BCCL and their workmen.

Appearances :

12. In the notice Ex. M-5 the time given to the workman for resuming his duties is three days whereas under clause 17(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dt. 10-4-1989 the workman should have been called upon to report for duties within 30 days of the date of the notice. Asper clause 17 (a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-4-1989 the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention to join duties have to be stated but in the Notice Ex.M -5 no such grounds have been stated .

Onbehalf ofthe Workman Mr. B.B. Pandey, Ld. Adv.

Onbehalf of the Management : Mr. D. K. Verma,. d. Adv. 13. It is thus clear that the notice Ex.M - 5 is not in conformity with the provisions of clause 17 (a) of the Memorandum of Settlementdt. 10-4-1989 and consequently the letter Ex.M -7 is wholly improper and unjustified.

14. For the reasons stated above it is held that the action of the Bank is improper and unjustified.

State : Jharkhand : Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 7th January, 2013 AWARD

15. However, looking to the entire conduct of the workman and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter I do not find fit to award back wages to the workman .

16. The Bank is, therefore, directed to reinstate the workman Liladhar S. Tawade within two months from the date of this Award .

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/572/2000 - JR ( C - I) dt. 4-4-2002 .

SCHEDULE

Award is passed accordingly. JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh to the management of Lodna Colliery of M/ s . BCCL that Shri Dinanath Pandey, the dependant son of workman Shri Nanhak Pandey should get benefit of employment on compassionate ground is proper and justified ? If so, to what benefit the said dependant of workman is entitled ? " का.आ. 625.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम मंत्रालय सं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 33/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/572/2000- आई आर (सी-1 ) ] एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी

2. The case ofpetitioner as sponsored by the Union concerned is that petitioner Dinanath Pandey, the dependant son of worker Nanhak Pandey the Mining Sirdarat Lodna Colliery of M/s . BCCL after his death in harness on 9-4-1989 , had duly applied as sponsored in 1917

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the year 1990 for an employment as per provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement IV. He had been solely dependant son on his father's earning. The management was too reluctantto provide him his employment, arbitrarily adopting harassing attitude right from beginning, for it, so he is entitled to employment with back wages etc. as per clause 9.4.2. of NCWA IV applicable at the relevant time.

The worker in its rejoinder with specific denial has pleaded that the provision of the NCWA relates to employment to the dependant of an employee died in harness just help his family to cope up with sudden crisis due to his death must be expeditiously followed. At present, the crisis has increased at lot due to the lingering attitude of the management , which is more liable than the Union/petitioner for the delay.

tohave submitted his application for it with all the relevant papers . When the management returned his application for submitting more particulars as per their requirement, he also complied the instructions ofthe management but even thenthe management did not provide him any employment as perthe regret letter treated 29-04/3-5-99 (Ext. W. 1 ) issued bytheManager, Lodna Colliery to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner appears to have immediately raised the Industrial dispute before the ALC concerned for reconciliation which finally resulted in the Reference . According to the petitioner, as per the Minutes of Discussiondt . 24 & 25 Jan. , 1995 held between the Management and the Union concerned (Ext . W. 4) , under its item No. 118 (at page 17) related to his employment as the dependant of Late Nanhak Pandey, Mining Sardar, Lodna Colliery which refers to calling for the details , checking ofthe LTC and Service Excerpts , and clarification from the widow and if necessary , for an affidavit ; Still the petitioner is unemployed and there is no earning male member in his family; as such his claim is alleged to be justified. The petitioner has proved his original Matriculation Certificate and the photocopy of the Service Excerpt ofhis decased Father Nanhak Pandey as Ext . W.2 andW. 5 respectively. It is remarkable to note here thatthe Service Excerpt of Ex- employee Nanhak Pandey bears the name of the petitioner as one of the three sons of the deceased employee .

3. Whereas the contra pleading ofthe Management with categorical denial is that the present Industrial Dispute raised in 1998 by the Union after lapse of 10 years . It is stale one . The demand for employment in a Public Sector Undertaking is not an Industrial Dispute u/s 2 (k ) ofhe I.D. Act. Petitioner Dinanath Pandey is not a workman as defined u/s 2 (s ) of the Act . No Employer- Employee relationship exists between both the parties . So the present I.D. is unmaintainable in law and facts . It is also alleged that None immediately applied for employment after the demise ofthe workman , though his wife delayedly applied for employment ofthe petitioner Dinanath Pandey as her son . the applicant was directedto complete the papers on detection of second irregularities at scrutiny of the papers , but he failed to rectify it . The employment under the provision of NCWA is not a legal right enfarciable by any one at any time . Thus the petitioner is not entitled to get employment in M/sBCCL .

5. On consideration of the unrebutted evidence , oral and documentary of the petitioner , it stands out crystal clear that the petitioner has been all along putting his claim for his employment under clause 9.4.2 . ofthe National Coal WagesAgreement- IV on account of the demise ofhis father Late Nanhak Pandey, the Ex- Mining Sirdar ofthe Colliery, forwhich the management appears to be quite responsible . The Regret Letter of the management (Ext . W. 1) can not legally immune the management from the liability as dictated under the relevant provision of the N.C.W.A. concerned, the Regret Letter nowhere justifies itself any thing as a reason for his non -employment .

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances , the Reference is responded as such:

The management in its rejoinder has alleged that the wife of Late Nanhak Pandey applied for employment of petitioner Dinanath Pandey after a long delay without sufficient papers . When the management pointed out irregularities in the paper submitted by him , but the applicant failed to rectify it . As such the demand of the Union for employment of Sri Dinanath Pandey is neither legal nor justified.

FINDING WITH REASONING

It is held that the demand of Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh to the management of Lodna Colliery of M/s . BCCL for the employment of Shri Dinanath Pandey, the dependant son of the workman Nanhak Pandey on compassionate ground is quite proper and justified . The petitioner is therefore entitled to the employment as the dependant son of Ex -employee Nanhak Pandey who died in harness .

4. In this case , WWI Dinanath Pandey , the applicant himself for the Union but in spite of more than sufficient opportunities , the management has failed to produce any witness on its behalf, so the evidence ofthe management was closed on 24-7-2012 , hence it came for hearing argument .

The management concerned is directed to comply with the Award within two months from the date of its receipt following it publication by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment in the Gazette of India .

KISHORI RAM , PresidingOfficer Onperusal of the oral and documentary evidence of WWI Dinanath Pandey, I find that petitioner Dinanath Pandey as the dependant son of deceased employee Late Nanak Pandey had submitted an application to the management for his employment on compassionate ground after the death of his father in harness (Ext . W. 3 , the death Certificate ofNanahak Pandey) . The petitioner has claimed 1918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2013

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/444/2000- IR ( C - I ) , dated 12-02-2001.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action by the management of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , Kusunda Area of retiring from service Shri Sarju Paswan workman with effectfrom 2-7-2000 is justified and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? י

का.आ. 626.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/444/2000- आई आर (सी-1 ) ]

एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013

S.O. 626. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-02-2013 .

[No. L-20012/444/2000- IR(C-I)] M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 Reference No. 40 of 2001

2. The case of the sponsoring Union- National Coal Workers Congress for workman Sarajoo Paswan is that the work " KUSUNDA CHHETRA wrongly typed in lindi in place of Kustore Chhetra of B.C.C.L.. as no Kusunda Chhetra mentioned in the I.D. nor there is the management comment, about it so it is corrigible by the Tribunal . At the initial appointment of the workman , his age was recorded as 22 years as on 28-8-1972 or date of birth as 28-8-1950 as also recorded in his FORM ' B ' Register, a statutory Record maintained under the Mines Act , 1952 and Rules thereunder as a token of proof, thef workman affixed his L.T.I. at the appropriate place of the said Form ' B ' . The BCCL Management issued him his Identity Card in the year 1973 bearing his photograph and service particulars which also contains his aforsaid age / Date of birth under the signature ofthe colliery officials . In the year 1993 , he was sent to for Periodical Medical Examination held as per provision of theMines Rules , 1955. But subsequently the management of Alkusa Colliery illegally and unfairly changed his date ofbirth from 28-8-1950 to 04-07-1940 without any notice. The workman also protested to the management , even orally as well , yet it was ineffective . In the year 1987 , the Service Excerpt known as " SEVA ABHILEKH " issued to theworkman also bore his date of birth as 28-8-1950 . So he returned it after keeping its one copy as per prevalent practice and guideline . But the management wrongly and illegally superannuated him on 2-7-2000 10 years early as per his actual date of birth recorded in the statutory Record and carried over till 1993. Thus the action of the management as to it is unjustified .

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe Workman : Mr. S. C. Gaur, Ld . Adv.

Onbehalf ofthe Management : Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld . Adv.

State : Jharkhand

3. The Union in its rejoinder categorically denying the allegation of the management , has pleaded that the matter as to change of the workman's date of birth was pending and kept on lingering by the management, so the I.D. raised finally in 1998. Whether the age assessment, if any, relates to the workmen or any other workman of the same name is answerable at perusal of the record filed by theemployer.

Industry: Coal

Dhanbad , the 15th January, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following .

4.Whenthe pleaded case of the management is that the industrial dispute raised by the Union of lesser mumber of workmen at the fag end of the service of the workman is unmaintainable . The Reference though relates to Kustore Area of BCCL , yet mentions Kusunda Area as not in its term , so it is not liable to adjudicated in absence ofits appropriate correction by the Ministry. The workman 1919

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Sarju Paswan was a permanenet employee as Drill Bit Sha repener of Alkusa Colliery under Kustore Area of BCCL. Hisdate of birth ( D.o.B. ) was recorded as 22 years in the Form ' B ' . Register at the time of his appointment on 28-8-1972 . On his representation about his wrongly recorded date of birth (DoB), so far its correction based on his age assessment by the Medical Board, he was sent to the Medical Board for it which determined his age as 46 years as on 4-7-86 which meant his such date of birth (DoB) as 4-7-40. As per the Implementation Instruction No. 76 ofJ.B.C.C.I. , the age once assessed by the Medical Board on the request of the workman is final and binding. Accordingly the age assessed by the Medical Board was recorded in Form ' B ' Register, Identity Card Register and other records of the Company and on that basis, the workman retiredat his superannuation w.e.f. 2-7-2000. Thus the workman is not entitled to any grievance about it.

The Management in its rejoinder denied the allegation of the Union/workman and alleged that the workman as admitted by himself to have been sent to MedicalBoard on his own request. So the action of the management as referred in the terms of the Reference is justified and legal .

FINDING WITH REASONING

5. In this reference , WWI Sarju Paswan , the workman himslef for the Union and MWI Shiv Shankar Prasad, P. O.'sClerk, Alkusa Colliery for the management have been examined .

original one, the age of the workman was 22 years as on 28- 8-72, the date ofcommencement ofhis employment, but as per the letter no . 17.12 dt. 10-7-1986 ofpersonnel Manager , Bhagabandh Area to the Agent, Alkusa Colliery concerning the age determined by the Age Determination Committee atArea level bearing the name ofthe workman Sarju Paswan under its Sl . No. 36 indicating his age 46 years as on 4-7- 1986 (Ext . M.2 ) . In pursuance to the aforesaid Age Determination, the age of the workman was entered into the Form -B Register as 46 years in the pen and signature of Shri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, the Head Clerk but without date (Ext.M.1 /1 ) . According to the Age determination of the workman as per the aforesaid letter of the Personnel Manager concerned, the superannuation of the workman fell on 4-7-2000, so he consequently retired, which was quite correct; as such the claim of the workman for the correction ofhis age has been alleged as unjustified. Though the witness (MW.I ) has stated his ignorance of the aforesaid entry ofthe determined age ofthe workman under the initial of the aforesaid Head Clerk Shubir Kr. Sinha at whose order as the Manager , the Agent or the Personnel Manager has only the power to rectify the Form ' B ' Register but not others ; it has been ascertained by the Management's witness the aforesaid age determination by the aforesaid Committee to have been held by Area wise and it was prevously done by the Apex Board but now it wasbeing determined by the Age Determination Committee area wise concerned . The witness ( MW.I ) has denied and alteration into the date of birth of the workman in any circumstances as per the 1.1 . No. 76 of 1988 can not be brought about (voluntarly stated I. I. is always variable ) and likewise presuperannuation of the workman ten years earlier than his real retirement has also been denied .

7. Mr. S. C. Gaur, the Learned Counsel for the Union/ workman submits that as par oral and documentary evidence of the workman , he was appointed in Alkusa Colliery under Kustore Area of M/s . BCCL on 28-7-1972 indicating his date of birth (DoB) as 22 years as evidence from his service Excerpt and Identity Card ( Extt . W.I and W.2) respectively, despite his representation for correction ofsame discrepancy in his date of birth ( DoB ) since 1993 (Ext . W.3 ) , the management suo- motto illegally superannuated him in July, 2000 ten years prior to his actual retirement. In reference to Annexure 1 ( A) ( IV) to the Implementation Instruction ( 1.1 . ) No. 76 of 1988 as contended by Mr. Gaur that sums as under :

(iv) Illiterate

The statement of WWI Sarju Paswan , the workman himselfreveals that as per his Service Excerptdt. 8-6-1987 his age was recorded as 22 years on 28-7-1972 while he wasappointed in Alkusa Area as apparent from his Service Excerpt (Ext . W. 1) as also noted in his I.D. Card (Ext . W.2) received by him in the same year. According to him, a direction of the management to him for his appearance before theMedical Board in the year 1986 is wrong . In the year 1993 wrong enteries of his date of birth (DoB ) came to his knowledge , he represented to the Management concerned which was received in the office of Alkusa Colliery on 31-7-1993 for the correction of date of birth (Ext .W-2) but even then he was prematurely retired ten years two months earlier. Admittedly the workman had not filed any application about it at the time of his appointment inthe year 1972. The workman has denied the suggestion of the management that he had requested the management to recrod the same date of birth , as recorded earlier as the Medical Board has assessed his more age . The workman has stated not to have been referred to the Medical Board for assessment of his age .

" In the case of appointees not covered under the foregoing clause, the date of birth will be determined bythe CollieryMedical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as producedby the appointee date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances ." 6. On the other hand the statement of MWI Shiv Shankar Pd . , the P. O.'s Clerk Alkusa Colliery transpries that as per the original Form B Register concerning the workman ( Ext.M.1 ) . the authenticated copy substituted the

8709713-17 1920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

9. Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances ofthis case , the Award is responded as such :-

It is held that the action by the management of BCCL , Kusunda (read as Kustore ) Area of retiring Shri Sarju Paswan , the workman from service w.e.f. 2-7- 2000 is quite justified and legal . Hence the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Relying upon the authority : 2005 (3 ) JLJR 2009 , Awaadh Singh Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. ( DB) ( 1995) Supp . (2) SHC 598 , BCCL Vs. Presiding Officer& others referred wherein with reference to I. I. No. 76 ofM/ s . BCCL, it has been held ' in the case ofappointees who have passed matriculation or equivalent examination the date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth the same can not be altered under any circumstances question of sending of anapplication to the Med. Examination did not arise : (Para 6,9 & 10).

Let a copy of the Award be forwarded to the Ministry ofLabour & Employment , Government of India, New Delhi for information and needful .

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2013 8.Whereas the contention of Mr. D. K. Verma, the Ld. Adv. for the management is that in the instant case the workman has no documentary proof of his date ofbirth , as he istotally illiterate who has claimed to be 22 years old as on 28-8-72 , the date of his appointment as noted in his Service Excerpt and Identity Card ( Extt . W.1 & W.2 resprectively) :- so at raising the issue of his age , he was referred to the Medical Board which assessed his age 46 years as on 4-7-1986 and according to which he rightly superannuated on 4-7-2000 (Ext . M. 1 and M. 1/1 ) as entered in the Form-B register of the employees under his LTI respectively.

का.आ. 627. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 07/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/70/2011- आई आर (सी-1 ) ] एम . के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013 On thoughtful consideration of the materials available on the case record, I find the very representation dt. 31-6-1993 of the workman ( Ext . W.3 ) underlines 'he is repeatedly sent for medical in order to harrase him ' rebuts his oral evidence that he was never sent to the Medical Board for assessment of his age . The annexure - l to Implementation Instruction , No. 76 under ( B ) ( ii ) reads as such :

'Wherever there is no variation in records , such cases will not be re - opened unless there is a vary glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management . The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Age Determination Committee/Medical Board . '

S.O. 627. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 07/2012 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No.2 , Dhanbad , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-02-2013 .

[No. L-20012/70/2011 - IR (C- I ) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 Reference No. 07 of 2012 Theaforesaid provision of I. I. No. 76 empowers the management after being satisfied on the merits of the case as very glaring and apparent wrong entry will take appropriate action for correction of date of birth through Age Determination Committee/Medical Board . In the reference , as per the statement of the workman for the claim of his superannuation based on his 22 years on the date ofhis joining , his retirement ought to have been 2010 after 38 years which appears to be palpably wrong entry of his age. But as per the age of the workman as determined 46 years by the Age Determination Committee on 4-7-1986 after 14 years ofhis date ofjoining, his real age was fixed 32 years , according to which his superannuation after 28 years of his service comes to the year 2000 after completing his 60 years of his age . There is not any doubt as to his factual age of the illiterate workman as 32 years old on the date of appointment.

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their Lodna Area of workman.

1921

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfofthe workman Mr. Raghunandan Rai , UnionRepresentative

Onbehalfofthe management :

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No.2 , Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on20-02-2013 .

Mr. Samrendra Sinha, Ld. Adv.

[No. L- 20012/71 /2011 - IR (CM- 1) ] State: Jharkhand

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer Industry: Coal

ANNEXURE

Dhanbad, the 23rd January, 2013

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/70/2011 - IR (CM- I) , dated 20-12-2011.

SCHEDULE

Reference No. 08 of2012

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of E. J. Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

"Whether the action of the management of Jealgora Colliery of M/ s BCCL in regularising Md. Allauddin as Carpenter is fair and justified ? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

On behalfofthe workman :Mr. Raghunandan Rai , Union Representative

Onbehalf ofthe management : Mr. Samrendra Sinha , Ld. Adv.

State: Jharkhand

2. Shri Raghunandan Rai the Union Representative for the workman Md. Allauddin and Mr. Samrendra Sinha , Ld. Advocate for the management are present but no rejoinder filed on behalf of the workman . The Union Representative submits for the closure of the case on account ofthe fact that the workman is not willing to contest the case .

Industry: Coal

Dhanbad, the 23rd January, 2013

AWARD

The present Reference relates to an issue of not regularising the workman. Since the workman is quite unwilling to contest the case , so no longer industrial dispute exists . Hence , the case is closed and accordingly, an order of no industrial dispute existent is passed.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2013

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L- 20012/ 71 /2011 - IR (CM- I) , dated 22-12-2011 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Incline Mine M/ s BCCL in not regularising Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh as Tyndale is fair and justified ? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

का.आ. 628.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 08/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/71 /2011- आई आर ( सीएम-1 ) ]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013

2. Mr. Raghunandan Rai the Union Representative for the workman Sanjay Kumar Singh , Tyndale and Mr. D. K. Verma , the Ld. Advocate for the management of Sudamdih Incline Mine of M/ s BCCL are present, but no written statement Rejoinder filed in behalf of the management .

The Union Representative submits for the closure of the case on the ground that since the workman has joined S.O. 628. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2012) 1922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

Dated. 28th January, 2013 another service, he is not willing to contest the case- the case ofhis regularisation.

AWARD

In view of the submission of the Union Representative for the workman, I find no Industrial Dispute exists ; hence, the case is closed and accordingly, an order of no industrial dispute existent is passed.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2013

ByOrder No.1-20012/346/ 1990- IR (C -I), dt.11-04-1991, the Central Government in the Ministry of labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 629.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. । धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the management of M /s BCCL in relation to the Kusunda Colliery in Area No. VI is justified in denying the benefit of employment of dependent under para 9.4.1 & 9.4.3 of NCWA - III to Shri Kapileshwar Chatterjee Ex - Bill Clerk? If not to what reliefhe is entitled? "

[सं. एल-20012/346/1990- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013

2.After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed. They filed their claim statement. and rejoinder. The case of the workman is during his job under the management, he became ill and he was referred to dispensaries and was recovered and finally he became permanently disabled and his case referred to the Apex Medical Board and as such his dependant to get an employment . On the other handthe management in his counter says that the workman has not been permanently disabled. He does not have the certificate from Apex Medical Board of permanent disability and as such his dependant has been rightly denied thejob.

S.O. 629. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 31/1991) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No.1 , Dhanbad , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on14-02-2013.

[No. L-20012/346/ 1990- IR (C- I) ] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

3.The workman filed documents , examined himself. But from the side of management no one has been examined. Of course the management has cross examined the workman , The workman has failed to file document that he is unfit. The workman during his cross examinationi has stated the following lines which will decide the issue .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/ S 10( 1 ) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 31 of 1991

4.During the cross examination of WW- 1 namely Sri Kapileshwer Chatterjee is stated that " I was never declaredunfit nor fit by any doctor. It is a fact that my claim isunjustified and that, I am trying securing employment for my dependant after my retirement by dubious means " .

Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Colliery ofM/ s . B. C. C. L.

AND.

5. This being the clear admission ofthe workman , he has no claim over the management nor he has any case before the Tribunal .

Theirworkmen

Present: - Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran , Presiding officer

Appearances:

6. Ihold that the management, denying the benefit of employment ofdependent of Sri Kapileshwar Chatterjee Ex-Bill Clerk under para 9.4.1 and 9.4.3 is legal andjustified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

For the Employers .: None

Hence the award is answered against the workman.

For the workman : None

This is my award.

State :- Jharkhand

Industry: - Coal

R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer 1923 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of the management of Govindpur Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in not providing dependant employment to Smt . Munia Devi , W/o Late Manoj Kumar Rajwar is justified and legal ? Ifnot, towhat relief is the dependant wife of the concerned workman entitled. ?"

का.आ. 630.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/07 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/102/2006- आई आर ( सीएम-I) एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February , 2013

2. The case of the sponsoring union for petitioner Smt. MuniaDevi in brief is that Late Manoj Kumar Rajwar having I.Card No. 52, CMPF A/c No. KTS/ 16/ 576 was employed inGovindpur Colliery under Govindpur Area No. III ofM/s. BCCL . He died in harness on 1-2-1998 . His service excerpt bears the names of his family members:petitioner wifeMunia Devi , Mother Smt. Samia Kamin, two younger brothers Sanoj Kumar Rajwar and Rajendra Rajwar.After death ofthe workman, his only dependant wife MuniaDevi , the petitioner, entitled to employment in his place on compassionateground as per the relevant provision ofthe NCWA, has been illegally denied her employment, disregarding her repeated requests amounting to unbecoming ofa fair management so much so the Industrial Dispute resulted in the reference for an adjudication.

S.O. 630. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2013.

[No. L-20012/102/2006- IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

Further pleading of the Union is that the mother of LateManoj Kumar Rajwar was self-employed and his two aforesaid younger brothers had/have no objection as submitted to the management about the employment ofhis dependant wife petitioner. The denial of the management tothe employment ofthe petitioner is unjustified and illegal.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 12 of2007

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of GovindpurArea No. III of M/s . BCCL and theirworkman .

3. The Union concerned in its rejoinder with categoricaldenials has stated that the management did not pay attention to the repeated representations of the petitioner Munia Devi for her employment as well as for payment oflegal dues as per N.C.W.A. Employment as per N.C.W.A. is a service condition obtained by Argeement and it has no prescribed time limit, nor enforceable without natural agreement with the Union . There is no stipulation oftime for such application. The management did not act overthe application the claimant had submitted along with relevant documents.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfof the workman : Mr. R. K. Prasad,

Rep. oftheworkman.

Onbehalfofthe management : Mr. U. N. Lal,

Ld. Adv.

Industry: Coal

State: Jharkhand

Dhanbad, the 21st January, 2013

AWARD

4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the management is that Manoj Rajwar was appointed on 12-6-1996, anddied on 12-1-1998 . The 2nd day ofDecember , 1973 eas recored his date of birth (DOB) Petitioner Smt . MuniaDevi had submitted her claim for her employment via her deceased husband as per NCWA at that point of time . The Union after eight years of the death of the concerned workman raised the Industrial Dispute before the A.L.C. ( C) , Dhanbad, in which the management submitted the details ofCase No. GC/2006/724dt. 27/30-3- 2006. The Employment should have been claimed immediately, as the employment paper is required to be submitted within 18 months of the death of the concerned workman. The claim of the union for employment of the The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/ 102/2006- IR (CM-I) dated 1-03-2007.

1924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

petitioner is baseless and illegal , as it was not submitted within stipulatedtime so the action of the management is quite fair and reasonable in not providing an employment tothe petitioner Munia Devi in lack ofher any claim petition at required at time with supportive documents in proforma etc.

5.The management in its rejoinder full of categorical denial has pleaded that the family consists of wife and dependant children only. The claimant did not submit any claim as petition/application in prescribed format supported with valid documents for getting compassionate employment as per the provision ofNCWA then prevalent . The present claim is incorrect, so not any relief is admissible to the claim at this stage as per policy of the Company.

FINDINGWITH THE REASONING

7.Whereas according to MWI Nagendra Yadav, the Sr. Officer ( Pers ) , Govindpur Area admittedly workman Late Manoj Kr . Rajwar died on 01-02-1998 but she did not apply for her employment in the year ; the management submitted its replydt. 13-03-2006 in the I.D. before the Conciliation Officer ( Ext.M.1 ) ; Shri Gaya Singh , the Area Personnel Manager, Govindpur Area as per his letter dt . 27-3-07 (Ext.M.1 / 1 ) had submitted his comments in respect ofthe dispute which was raised by the Union in the year 2006 after eight years of the death of the workman. He (MWI) has to assert that even no application was filed by the petitioner at the time of industrial dispute nor she applied for it within time as per the provisions of NCWA and the policy of the Company, so her claim for employment was not correct. It is an admitted fact that the NCWA does not provide for the time limit for the application of the petitioner for her employment rather the Implementation Instruction concered does so .

6. In this case WWI Munia Devi , the petitioner herself, for the Union concerned and MWI Nagendra Yadav, Sr. Officer (Personnel) , Govindpur Area for the management have been examined.

Reply upon the Ruling:---(2007) 2 SSC ( L & S) 951 (DB), Mohan Mahato Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. Mr. R. K. Prasad, the Union Representative has submitted that the illiterate petitioner who is the dependent wife Late Manoj Kumar Rajwar, the Miner Loader at Govindpur Colliery had been representing all along as per Ext . W.1 series ( in the year 1998 , 1999, 2002 and 2003 ) for her employment in place ofher husband after his death on 12-01-1998 ( Ext . W.3); even on the supply of prescribed from , when she applied thereupon( Ext .W.2 series ) duly before the management in the year 2005 for her employment on compassionate ground, she was not provided any employment by the management on the ground that her case was belated, which is contrary to the provision of NCWA - V. Further submitted on his behalf that compassionate appointment under the terms of binding settlement with workman as held in the aforesaid cited case is quite proper for those. who fulfil conditions precedent thereunder have a right to obtain appointment on that score which emanated from the settlement itself; though the settlement did not provide any limitation period for applying for compassionate appointment, circular issued by the employer prescribing a limitation period with a power of relaxation should be strictly complied with and he read keeping in view of settlement that is the period of limiation should be reasonable . So the ratio -decidendi of the Hon'ble Apex Court applies to this case .

The statement of Munia Devi ( WWI ) reveals that her husband Late Manoj Kr. Rajwar, Miner Loader at Govindpur Colliery of M/s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, died on1-2-1998 at Central Hospital , Dhanbad , while he was in service; he died issueless,but leaving her as the only legal married wife dependent upon him , so despite her best efforts and representation from the year 1998 to 2002 the proformaApplication Form was not supplied to her for her employment, then she had applied on plain paper several times for her employment ; thereafter when Proforma Application Form on the letter of the Union concerned was supplied , she applied on it along with all the relevant documents Certificates , Verification Form and Attestation Form duly filled with her photographs duly attested by Baghmara and the details of Family Members signed by Gram Panchyat, Mukhiya and others on 24-12-2005 for her employment , even then the management did not offer her any employment . Hence the reference was raised by the Union. Proving her applicationsdt. 20-2-1998 , 21-9-1998 , 17-3-1999, 18-10-2004 and 10-3-2003, firstly four under her LTI and lastly through Union represented to the Management through Certificates of posting as Ext . W.1 series , her own application for employment on prescribed form etc. under her RTI as Ext. W. 2 series , her application with Verification Roll and the photocopy of the death Certificate ofher husband as Ext. W.3 , and Family Certificate along with the Family Affidavit as Ext.W- 4 series , the petitioner hadjustified for her employment in place of her deceased husband in the colliery concerned. She (WWI) has denied her application in the year 2005 after the death ofher husband and not having submitted the Form for her employment within 18 months from the death of her husband which amounted to the regret of the management inthe year 2002.

9. In response to it the contention of Mr. U. N. Lal, the Ld . Adv. for the management is that none of the application of the petitioner was received in the office of the management for her such employment and as per the statement of MWI Late workman Manoj Kumar Rajwar , M/LoaderatGovindpur Colliery since 12-06-1996, expired on 01-02-1998 , thereafter petitioner did not apply for employment but in the I.D. raised by the Union to that effect , the Project Officer had submitted his details 1925 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम मंत्रालय-2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/11 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/46/2010- आई आर ( सीएम- I) ] एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013 (Ext.M.1) and (Ext . M1 /1 ) before the ALC(C) , Dhanbad and the I.D. was raised in the year 2006 after eight years of the death of the workman, so as per the policy of the Company, i.e. , the Management's letter dt. 6/24-1-2004 to the concerned authorities that ' no application for dependant employment will be entertained after eighteen months from the date of death or disablement, as such the action ofthe management concerned towards the petitioner as per the provisions of NCWA read with the aforesaid Company'spolicy is alleged to be legal andjustified.

S.O. 631. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2013 .

[No. L-20012/46/2010- IR (CM- I)] M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 13 of 2011

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

10. In the instant case on the consideration of materials of both the parties as adduced before me , the very admission of the petitioner that all her letters/ applications have been prepared by her Union Leader Netaji affirms none of her applications through Certificate ofPosting nor her application on the precribed form with its enclosuredt . 24-12-2005 (Ext . W.2 series ) has any proof ofits receipt in the office of the management at the relevant time; likewise , the Institution of the Reference Case/I.D . in the year 2006 after eight years of the death of her husband prima facie appears to be beyond the reasonable time in accordance with the policy ofthe Company dt. and NCWA-X concerned but the NCWA- V admittedly provides for no limitation for the employment of such dependant , though it should be reasonable as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Mohan Mahato Vs. C.C.L. & others as cited above . The NCWA - V under clause 9.3.2. provides for the employment to one dependant of the workman dying in harness read with clause 9.5.0 in case of the female dependant subject to her age limits as under its clause 9.3.4 . Under these circumstances it stand quite evident that the management was not justified in denial to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground on the ground of limitation or her non- application on the prescribed form. Therefore, it is awarded as such ;-

Onbehalfofthe workman :None

Onbehalfofthe management : Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld. Adv.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Theactionofthe management ofGovindpur Colliery ofM/ s BCCL in not providing dependant employment to Smt. Munia Devi , W/ o Late Manoj Kumar Rajwar is unjustified and illegal . The dependant wife ofthe concerned workman is entitled to her employment on compassionate ground in place of her deceased husband.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st January, 2013 AWARD

The management is directed to implement the Award withintwo months from the date of its receipt following its publication in the Gazette of India. Let a copy of the Award be forwarded to the Ministry of Labour , Government of India, New Delhi for information and needful .

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/46/2010- IR (CM-I), dated 29-03-2011 .

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2013

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 631.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच ,

"Whether the action of the management of Kuiya Colliery M/ s BCCL in dismissing Sri Raj Kishor Rajwar, M/Loader for the services ofthe Company 1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

videorder dated 6/8-10-2005 is justified and fair. To what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ? "

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 2.Neither Representative for Union Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad ( Jharkhand) nor workman Raj Kishor Rajwar appeared nor any written statement on his behalf filed despite four Regd . notices to the Secretary of the said Union . Mr. D. K. Verma, the Ld . Advocate for the management of Bastacolla Area of M/ s BCCL ispresent.

Reference No. 21 of 2011

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfof the workman

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Area M/ s . BCCL and their workman . : Mr. R. R. Ram Rep. ofUnion

Onbehalfof the management : Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld . Adv.

State : Jharkhand

Perused the case record . I find that the case has all along been pending for filing written statement on behalf of the Representative Union/ workman, for which fourRegd. noticesdt. 3-4-2011 , 31-10-2011 ,6-2-2011 and 21-3-2012 were issued to the aforesaid union on its address noted in the Reference Case , even then neither the Union nor the workman appeared nor any written statement of the workman filed till now. The conduct ofthe Union as well as of the workman in this case, which is related to an issue of the dismissal of the workman appears to be disinterestedness in pursuing the case .

Industry: Coal

Dhanbad , the 14th January, 2013 Under these circumstances , no industrial dispute prime facie exists . Hence , the case is closed and accordingly, an Award of no I. D. is passed.

AWARD

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2013

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L -20012/ 118/2010- IR( CM- I), dated 28-07-2011

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 632.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम मंत्रालय-2, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/11 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Bararee Colliery of M/ s BCCL in dismissing Sri Ramjanam Dome, Ex- Sweeper from the services of the Company isjustified and fair . To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

[सं. एल-20012/ 118/2010- आई आर ( सीएम- I) एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013

2.Neither any representative for Bahujan Mazdoor Union nor workman Ramjanam Dome, Ex - Sweeper appeared nor written statement on his behalf fileddespite four Regd. notices issued to the aforesaid Union on its addresses noted in the Reference Mr. D. K. Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the management is present .

S.O. 632. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-2-2013 .

[No. L-20012/ 118/2010- IR (CM- I) ]

Perused the case record, it appears to be related to an issue about the dismissal of the workman from the service ofthe Company. But the conduct of the workman and that ofMr. R. R. Ram the Union Representative shows none of them is interested in pursuing the case for final adjudication . Under these circumstances , the case is closed and accordingly, an Award of no industrial dispute existent is passed accordingly.

M. K. SINGH , Section Officer

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer 1927 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2013

24-01-1994, his explanation was called since he remained absent for42days during the period June 1993 to November 1993. Since he was irregular in attending to his duties during the period 01.02.1995 to 28.02.1995, he was advisedto improve his attendance vide letter dated 07.03.1995 . Не optednot to improve his attendance and absented himself for a period of 125 days during the period April 1996 to March 1997. He was charge sheeted and punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year was awarded vide order dated 26-08-97 .

का.आ. 633.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयर इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 228/11 ) कने प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/50/2002- आई आर ( सी-I) ] एम. के. सिंह , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2013

S.O. 633.- In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 228/11 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court No.1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2013.

[No. L- 11012/50/2002- IR (C-I) ]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

2.Despite award of punishment, the handyman did not improve and continued to remain absent from duties frequently. He was again found absenting for 326 days during the period April 1997, to November 1998. Charge sheet dated29-12-1998 was served. He submitted his reply on6-01-1999wherein he expressed regret for his absence from duties . An enquiry was constituted. He admitted charges before the Enquiry Committee . Enquiry Committee recorded findings against him . Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings and served notice calling upon him to explain as to why punishment of dismissal from service should not be awarded to him . He submitted his reply dated 24-05-1999. On consideration of his reply, punishment of' dismissal from service' was awarded to him , vide order dated 16-07-1999 . Aggrieved by the said order, he raised a demand for reinstatement, which was not concededto . Ultimately he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation officer. Since the Airlines contested his claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a failure . On consideration of report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, theappropriate Government referred the disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order L- 11012/ 50/2002- IR(CI). New Delhi dated 10-3-2003 with following terms:

I. D. No. 228/2011

Shri Naresh Kumar Bagri

S/o Sh.Babu Lal , 3, Atur Rehman Lane , CivilLine,NewDelhi-54

"Whether the action ofthe management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on Shri Naresh KumarBagri , ex- Handyman vide orderdated 16-07-1999 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

...Workman

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , M/ s . Air India Ltd. , 5thFloor, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001

Management

AWARD

3. Claim statement was filed by the Handyman (Safai) , namely, Shri , Naresh Kumar Bagri , pleading that he was employed by theAirlines on 30-11-1992 . His serviceswere confirmed on 06-01-1993 . The Airlines is an industrial establishment and governed by provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act, 1946. His service conditions are covered by Certified Standing Orders.He projects thatwhenever, he sought leave for absence from duties, either he informed his superiors in advance or submitted proper leave application alongwith medical certificates.His leaves were sanctioned by the Airlines . However, any leave , availed by him without sanction from the authorities would attract only minor penalty. With mala fide intention, the Airlines served charge sheet on him and constituted domestic enquiry. He was kept in dark and Ahandyman (safai ) in catering/cabin services was appointed by Air India ( in short the Airlines ) on 30-11-1992 . His services were confirmed on 1-06-1993 . Immediately after confirmation ofhis services , the handyman started remaining absent from his duties . Vide letter dated

870 Ga /13-18 1928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

procedure of enquiry was not explained to him . Enquiry conducted was not fair. Reasonable opportunity of being heardwas denied to him . He was also kept in dark as to his right ofhaving legal assistance . Enquiry was conducted in English and his signatures were obtained on the proceedings . He remained ignorant of his rights during enquiry proceedings . Abruptly, he was informed that his services have been dismissed. Order ofdismissal is illegal . Onlyminorpenalty could be imposed on him for his absence fromduties .He presents that order ofdismissal from service maybe set aside, reinstating him in service with continuity and full back wages .

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

relief. His claim may be dismissed , being devoid of merits , pleads the Airlines .

5. In rejoinder, claimant reiterated facts pleaded in the claim statement .

6.Onpleadings of the parties , following issues were settled my learned predecessor:

(i)As in terms of reference .

( ii) Relief.

7.Vide order dated 29-08-2011 , following preliminary issue was settled:

(a) Whether enquiry conducted by the Airlines was proper and fair?

8.Vide order No.Z - 22019/ 6 /2007 - IR (C- II ) , New Delhi dated 30-03-2011 , case was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government .

9. Claimant absented himself from putting in appearancebefore this Tribunal on 4-10-2011 , 21-11-2011 and 7-12-2011 . Matter was proceeded under rule 22 of Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957 and affidavit of Shri K.S. Verma was taken over the record as evidence on behalf of the Airlines . Evidence of the claimant was closed onthe preliminary issue .

10. On consideration of the facts unfolded by Shri Verma in his affidavit dated 21-11-2011 and record of enquiry, this Tribunal concluded that the enquiry conducted against the claimant was fair and proper, vide itsorder dated 7-12-2011 . Preliminary issue was answered infavour of the Airlines and against the claimant.

11. Arguments were heard at the bar. Claimant advanced arguments in person . Shri V.P. Gaur, authorized representative, presented facts on behalf of the Airlines . I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on remaining issues involved in the controversy are as follows .

4.Claim was demurred by the Airlines pleading that after confirmation in service , claimant started absenting himself from his duties . He remained absent for a total period of 14 days from June to November 1993. His explanation was called on 24-01-94 . He was again found irregular for period from 01-02-1995 to 28-02-1995 , hence advised vide letter dated 17-03-1995 to improve his attendance, failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him . Despite warning served , he again absented himself from his duties for a period of 15 days from April 1996 to March 1997. Charge sheet dated 25-07-1997 was served upon him . After enquiry, punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year was awarded to him vide order dated 26-08-1997 . He showed total disregard to his duties and again absented himself for a period of 326 days from April 1997 to November 1998. Charge sheet dated 29-12-1998 was served upon him. His reply dated 01-06-1999 was not found satisfactory. Enquiry Committee was constituted vide order dated 12-01-1999 to enquire into charges levelled against him . He appeared before the Enquiry Committee and told that he did not wish to engage a defence counsel . He ultimately admitted the charges before the Enquiry Committee . However , in abundant caution, Enquiry committee examined the witness andgave opportunity to the claimant to cross -examine him. He opted not to produce any witness in his defence . Full opportunity was given to defend himself. Enquiry Committee submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority, who forwarded a copy of it to the claimant calling upon him to explain as to why punishment of dismissal from service should not be awarded to him . Claimant submitted his reply dated 24-05-99. On consideration of reply and his past record, the Competent Authority awarded punishment ofdismissal from service . Approval application was moved before the National Industrial Tribunal , Mumbai under Section 33 ( 2)(b ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) . Vide award dated 11-03-2004, Tribunal approved order of his dismissal . The Airlines projects that in view of these facts , claimant cannot urge that punishment of dismissal from service was uncalled for. The Airlines presents that there was inordinate delay in raising the reference . Claimant is not entitled to any Issue No.1

12.Prior to introduction of Section 11A of the Act , adjudicatory powers of the Tribunal were articulated in Buckingham & Carnatak Company [ 1951 (2) LLJ 814 ] . Four standards were delineated by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the above case to render managerial right of taking disciplinary action vulnerable, namely, ( i) where there is awant ofbonafides or (ii) when it is a case of victimization or unfair labour practice or violation of the principles of natural justice, or ( iii) when there is basic error of facts , or (iv) whenthere has been a perverse finding on the materials. Thisarticulation was adopted by the Apex Court with slight modification in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited [ 1958 1929

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

employer had held no enquiry at all before the dismissal and, therefore , adduced evidence to justify its action before the Tribunal, which decision was upheld. The Apex Court discardedthe plea on behalf of the workman that since no enquiry at all had been held by the employer, it had no right to adduce evidence to justify its stand before the Tribunal . InRitz Theatre [ 1962 ( II) LLJ 498] it was ruledbythe Supreme Court that the Tribunal would be justified to go to the merits of the case and decide for itself on the basis of the evidence adduced whether the charges have indeed been made out. It announced that it would neither be fair to the management nor fair to the workman himself in such a case that the Tribunal should refuse to take the evidence and thereby drive the management to pass through the whole process of holding the enquiry all over again. Reference canalso be made to the precedent in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961 (11 ) LLJ 644].

15. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company [ 1972 (1 ) LLJ 180] , Apex Court considered the catena ofdecisions over the subject and laid down the following principles:

(1 ) LLJ 260] , without any acknowledgement to the precedent inBuckingham & Carnatic case (supra), wherein it was. ruled that the power of the management to direct its own internal administration and discipline was not unlimited and liable to be interfered with by industrial adjudication when a dispute arises to see whether termination ofservices of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. However, it was announced that the jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the managerial prerogative oftaking disciplinary action is not of appellate nature as the legislature has not chosen to confer, such jurisdiction upon it. Hence Tribunal could not substitute its ownjudgement for that of the management. The Court laid down that in the following circumstances an industrial adjudicator can interfere with the disciplinary action taken by the employer: ( 1) when there is want of good faith, (2) whenthere was victimization or unfair labour practice, (3) when the management had been guilty of a basic error or violationofthe principles ofnatural justice, or (4) when on the materials, the finding was completely baseless or perverse.

"(1) If no domestic enquiry had been held by the management, or if the management makes it clear that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that mayhave been heldby it, it is entitled to straightaway adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action . The Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence so adduced before it, on merits , and give a decision thereon . In such a case , it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not relyon it.

(2) Ifa domestic enquiry had been held, it is open to the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry heldby it, in the first instance , and alternatively and withoutprejudice to its plea that the enquiry is proper and binding , simultaneously adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action . In such a case no inference can be drawn , without anything more , that the management has given up the enquiry conducted by it.

13. Enunciation (1 ) and (2) , referred above, are addressed to the bonafides of the employer in initiating the action and inflicting the punishment, while postulates (3) and (4) are addressed to domestic enquiry. Therefore , an employer is required to act bonafide in initiating disciplinary action as well as in inflicting the punishment. In initiating the action, the alleged act of misconduct should not be a ruse for something else , such as the trade union activities of the workman or employers dislike of him for somepersonal reasons . The action should not be motivated by vindictiveness or ulterior purpose , so as to smack for victimization or unfair labour practice. Likewise in the matter ofinflicting punishment, the employer should act fairly. In case punishment awarded is so shockingly disproportionate to the act of the misconduct , as no reasonable man would ever impose that itself may lead to an inference of malafides , victimization or unfair labour practice. In holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer must comply with the rules of natural justice . He must not be a biased person and give reasonable opportunity to both sides for being heard. His findings should not be baseless orperverse.

(3) When the management relies on the enquiry conducted by it, and also simultaneously adduces evidence before the Tribunal , without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance , to consider whether the enquiry proceedings conductedby the management, are valid and proper. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings have been held properly and are valid, the question of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits , no longer survives . It is only when the holds that the enquiry proceedings have not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to 14.InRamswarth Sinha ( 1954 L.A.C. 697) the Labour Appellate Tribunal recognized the right of the management to ask for permission to adduce evidence before the Tribunal tojustify its action in a " no enquiry " case . Following that proposition theApex Court equated the cases of " defective enquiry" with " no enquiry" cases and ruled that in either cases, the tribunal have jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case on the basis of evidence adduced before it by the parties.Reference can be made to the precedent in Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [ 1965 (2) LLJ 162 ] where the 1930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

                                                                                                 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
    dealwith themerits ofthe dispute and in such a case
     it has to consider the évidence adduced before itby          the proceedings have been held properly and the
    the management and decide the matter on the basis             findings recorded therein are also proper.
     of such evidence .
                                                                 (6) Ifthe emplover relies only on the domestic enquiry
    (4) Whenthe domestic enquiry has been held by the             and does not simultaneously lead additional
    management and the management relies on the same,            evidence or ask for an opportunity during the
     it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try     pendency of the proceedings to adduce such
    the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary        evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider
    issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce              the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the
    evidence before the Tribunal , if the finding on the         finding recorded therein and decide the matter. If the
    preliminary issue is against the management .                Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not
    However , elaborate and cumbersome the procedure             beenheld properly, it is not its function to invite suo
    may be , under such circumstances , it is open to the        moto the employer to adduce evidence before itto
                                                                justify the action taken by it.
   Tribunal todeal , in the first instance, as a preliminary
    issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its          (7) The above principles apply to the proceedings
    finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the        before the Tribunal , which have come before it either
    management , then no additional evidence need be            on a reference under Section 10 or by way of an
    cited by the management. But, if the finding on the         application under Section 33 of theAct .
   preliminary issue is against the management, the
   Tribunal will have to give the employer an                   16. Keeping in view the proposition laid by the Apex
   opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give  Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company (supra) ,
   a similar opportunity to the employee to lead          the Parliament inserted section 11 - A in the Act, which came
   evidence contra , as the request to adduce evidence    into force w.e.f. 15th of December, 1971. In the statement of
   had been made by the management to the Tribunal        stated: objects and reasons for inserting section 11 - A , it was
   during the course of the proceedings and before the
  trial has come to an end. When the preliminary issue         " In Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and
   is decided against the management and the latter            Anotber Vs. Their Workmen ( AIR 1958 S.C. 130 at
   leads evidence before the Tribunal , the position,           p.138 ) , the Supreme Court , while considering the
   under such circumstances , will be , that the               Tribunal's power to interfere with the management's
  management is deprived of the benefit of having the          decision to dismiss , discharge or terminate the
   finding of the domestic tribunal being accepted as          services of a workman, has observed that in case of
  prima facie proof of the alleged misconduct. Onthe           dismissal on misconduct , the Tribunal does not act
  other hand, the management will have to prove, by            asa court of appeal and substitute its own judgment
  adducing proper evidence , that the workman is guilty        for that ofthe management and that the Tribunal will
  ofmisconduct and that the action taken by it is proper.      interfere only when there is want of good faith,
  Itwill not be just and fair either to the management or      victimization, unfair labour practice , etc. , on the part
  to the workman that the Tribunal should refuse to            ofthe management .
  take evidence and thereby ask the management to
  fake a further application , after holding a proper          2. The International Labour Organisation, in its
  enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit of           recommendation ( No.119) concerning ' Termination
  the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence             of employment at the initiative of the employer'
 adduced before it, that he was or was not guilty of           adopted in June 1963, has recommended that a worker
 the alleged misconduct .                                      aggrieved by the termination of his employment
                                                              should be entitled to appeal against the termination
 (5) The management has got a right to attempt to              among others , to a neutral body such as an arbitrator,
 sustain its order by adducing independent evidence           a court , an arbitration committee or a similar body
 before the Tribunal . But the management should avail        and that the neutral body concerned should be
 itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable          empowered to examine the reasons given in the
 request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are           termination of employment and the other
closed. Ifno such opportunity has been available of,          circumstances relating to the case and to render a
 or asked for by the management , before the                  decision on the justification of the termination. The
proceedings are closed, the employer can make no              International Labour Organisation has further
 grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an          recommended that the neutral body should be
opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it only           empowered (if it finds that the termination of
the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether          employment was unjustified ) to order that the worker

1931

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
      concerned, unless reinstated with unpaid wages ,             whether there was a prima facie case . On the other
      should be paid adequate compensation or afforded             hand the issue about the merits of the impugned
      some other relief.                                            order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the
                                                                   Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced
      3. In accordance with these recommendations , it is           before it, has to decide for itself whether the
      considered that the Tribunal's power in an                    misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases , the
      adjudication proceeding relating to discharge or             point about the exercise ofmanagerial functions does
      dismissal of a workman should not be limited and              not arise at all . A case of defective enquiry stands on
      that the tribunal should have the power, in cases             the same footing as no enquiry.
     wherever necessary to set aside the order of
      discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of            (6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the
      the workman on such terms and conditions , if any,            evidence placed before it for the first time in
      as it thinks fit or give such other reliefs to the           justification ofthe action taken only, if no enquiry
      workman including the award of any lesser                     has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an
      punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the           employer is found tobe defective.
      circumstances of the case may require . For this
                                                                    (7) It has never been recognized that the Tribunal
      purpose , a new Section 11 -A is proposed to be               should straightaway, without anything more direct
      inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ..... " .
                                                                    reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee ,
      17. After insertion of section 11 -A, the Apex Court          once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been
 summed up the law in the case of Firestone Tyre and                held or the said enquiry is found to be defective .
Rubber Company [ 1973 ( 1 ) LLJ 278 ] in the following
propositions:                                                       (8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the
                                                                    opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time
      "( 1 ) The right to take disciplinary action and to           before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask
      decide upon the quantum ofpunishment are mainly               for itat the appropriate stage . Ifsuch an opportunity
      managerial functions , but if a dispute is referred to a       is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse.
      Tribunal. the latter has power to see if action ofthe         The giving of an opportunity to an employer to
      employer is justified.                                         adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal
                                                                     is in the interest of both the management and the
      (2) Before imposing the punishment as employer is             employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be
      expectedto conduct a proper enquiry in accordance              satisfied about the alleged misconduct.
      with the provisions of the Standing Orders . if
       applicable, and principles of natural justice . The          (9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the
       enquiry should not be an empty formality.                    enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence
                                                                    placedbefore a Tribunal for the first time, punishment
      (3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an                  imposed cannot, be interfered with by the Tribunal
       employer, and the finding ofmisconduct is a plausible
       conclusion flowing from the evidence , adduced at             except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as
                                                                     to suggest victimization.
       the said enquiry the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
       sitinjudgement over the decision ofthe employer as           (10) In a particular case , after setting aside the order
       an appellate body. The interference with the decision         ofdismissal , whether a workman should be reinstated
       of the employer will be justified only when the               or paid compensation is, as held by this Court in The
       findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the       Management ofPanitole Tea Estate Vs. The workmen,
       management is guilty of victimization , unfair labour         within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or
       practice or mala fide.                                        Tribunal" .
       (4) Even ifno enquiry has been held by an employer            18. Jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is
       or ifthe enquiryheld by him is found to be defective,   also not confined to the case where punishment is
       the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality shockingly disproportionate to the act of the mis-conduct.
       and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity   The Tribunal has power of substituting its own measure of
       to the employer and employee to adduce evidence         punishment in place of managerial wisdom : Change in
       before it. It is open to the employer to adduce         legal position, post introduction of section 11A of the Act
       evidence for the first time justifying his action , and it has been effectively summarized in the case ofAmbassador
        is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.     Sky Chef( 1996 Lab. I.C. 299) wherein High Court ofBombay
       (5) The effect ofan employer not holding an enquiry     observed that the section gives specifically two fold powers
        is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only   to an industrial adjudicator: firstly, it is a virtual power of

1932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

of charge sheet no improvement in his attendance was noticed in spite of his assurance dated 13-08-1998.

(i) Letter No. DIS/33 / 1334 dated 20-11-1997

(ii) Letter No. DIS/33/ 1395 dated 03-12-1997

(iii) Letter No. DIS/33/717 dated 06-08-1998

(iv) Letter No. DIS/33/ 1128 dated 20-11-1998 appeal against the findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and conclusion on facts , and secondly, and far more important, it is the power of re - appraisal of quantum of punishment. Now no restriction lies on an industrial adjudicator to interfere with the enquiry only on four grounds , referred above. However, wide discretionary powers with the adjudicator are to be exercised in judicial andjudicious manner before it interferes with the order of mis-conduct or punishment.

(v) Letter No.: DIS/33 / 124 dated 20-11-1998

The claimant was reminded that above acts on his part, if proved, constitutes misconduct under Clause No.19 (2)(VI ) of certified standing orders , which coins misconduct as 'Absence without leave' .

19.With this prelude in mind, now I would turn to facts of the present controversy. As record projects , charge-sheet dated 29-12-1998 was served, wherein it is detailed that the claimant remained absent without proper permission/ intimation for 326 days during the year 1997-98, as per details mentioned herein under:

Month/year Details

No. of Days

April' 97 7,8,17,21 , 23 , 24, 25 , 28 ,30 09

May' 97 1to6,8 , 9, 14, 16, 19, 21 , 22, 26 to 31 19

June' 97

1 to 14, 17, 18 , 19

17

July' 97 16,23,30

03

August' 97 14 , 19,20,21,26

05

Sept. ' 97

1, 2, 3, 7 to 11 , 16, 23 , 24, 25, 28, 29 , 30 15

October' 97

14

1, 2 , 7, 8 , 13 , 14, 19 to 23 , 28 to 30

November 97 1 to 15, 24, 26 to 30

21

December 97 1 to 4, 6 to 15, 24, 30, 31 17

20. The Enquiry Officer, in the light of the evidence putforward bythe Airlines , ocular as well as documentary and on consideration of circumstances of the case, concluded that the charges against the claimant stood proved . When preliminary issue was addressed to for adjudication, aspects relating to bonafides of the Airlines in initiating the domestic enquiry were considered. It was taken into account as to whether the charges is specific and clear. Care was taken to see as to whether the Enquiry Officer followed principles of natural justice and gave reasonable opportunity to the claimant to defend himself. Itwas also considered as to whether the enquiry report wasin consonance with the evidence produced or perverse. Atthe cost of repetition, it is announced that the Airlines acted bonafide and there had been no violations of principles of natural justice , in conduct of the domestic enquiry.

January' 98 17 , 22, 23, 27 to30

7

February' 98 3 to 15 , 20, 22 , 27 , 28

17

March' 98 1 to 18 , 20, 22-27

25

April ' 98 19,26,27,28,29,30 6

May' 98 1,2, 7-26, 29 , 30, 31 25

June' 98 1,5-8 , 13-19 , 21-30 22

July' 98

1-31

31

August' 98 1-20

20

Sept. ' 98 5, 11 , 17, 25 , 27-30 8

October' 98 1-31

31

Nov.' 98

1-19,23,27-30

24

TOTAL

326

Charge sheet highlights that the claimant was advised about his unsatisfactory attendance vide letters mentioned below, but till the date of issuance

21. Punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the claimant . Question for consideration comes as to whether there are any justifications for punishment ofdismissal from service ? Right of an employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is not unfettered. The punishment imposed must commensurate with gravity ofthemisconduct, proved against the delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of section 11 -A of the Act , it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not commensurate with the act of misconduct . In other words , the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with the punishment as it was not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or too severe . Apex Court, in this connection, had, however, laid down in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Company [ 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 291 ] that where order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act ofthe misconduct which no reasonable employer would impose in like circumstances , that itself would lead to the inference ofvictimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge . But by 1933 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of punishment tobe imposed . In that case a conductor ofthe buswas dismissed from service for causing revenue loss of50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets . It was held that the punishment was too harsh and disproportionate to the act of misconduct .

enacting the provisions of section 11 -A of the Act, the Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer , inimposing punishment , to the industrial adjudicator. It is now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of misconduct , in cases of discharge or dismissal . If the Tribunal is satisfied that the order ofdischarge ordismissal is notjustified in any circumstances on the facts of a case, it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment and direct reinstatement with back wages , but it has also the powerto imposed certain conditions as it maydeem fit and also to give relief to the workman , including award of lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.

24. After insertion of section 11 -A of the Act, the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with theTribunal , who has to see whether punishment imposed by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act ofmisconduct . If it comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment isnot justified because misconduct alleged and proved is such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any other relief, including the award of lesser punishment , in lieu ofdischarge or dismissal, as the circumstance ofthe casemaywarrant. Reference can be made to a precedent in Sanatak Singh ( 1984 Lab . I.C.817) . The discretion to award punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal caninterfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be madeto the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [ 1994( II) LLJ 332] . Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it is satisfied that the order of discharge of dismissal is not justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case, Section 11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the Industrial Tribunal , first is virtually the power of appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance, is the power of reappraisal of quantum of punishment.

22. It is established law that imposing punishment for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing authority todecide and normally it should not be interfered with by the Industrial Tribunals . The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment. But where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate , regard being had to the particular conduct and past record, or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstance, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice . Law to this effect was laid by theApex Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Labour [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 462] . Likewise in Management ofthe Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry [1971 ( II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be unwarranted . In Ram Kishan [ 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 982 ] the delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using abusive language against a superior officer . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to the delinquent. It was ruled therein, " when abusive language is used by any body against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language. No straight-jacket formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service . Each case has to be considered on its own facts" .

23. In B.M.Patil [ 1996 ( 11) LLJ 536] , Justice Mohan Kumar of Karnatka High court observed that in exercise of discretion, thedisciplinary authority should not act like a robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and understanding. It was assess each case on its own merit and each set of fact should be decided with reference to the evidence recording the allegation, which should be basis of the decision . The past conduct of the worker may

25. Power to set aside order ofdischarge or dismissal and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is notuntrameled power. This power has to be exercised only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction. of the Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one . It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to various circumstances like nature ofdelinquency committed by the workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency on employer's business, besides length of service rendered byhim. Furthermore , the Tribunal has to considerwhether thedecisiontaken by the employer is just or not .Only after taking into consideration these aspects , the Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The 1934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

quantum ofpunishment cannot be interfered with without recording specific findings on points referred above. No indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of grave misconduct like cheating , fraud , misappropriation of employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference cannotbe made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa [1995 ( 1 ) LLJ960] .

activities in connection with a labour dispute (as in this case), the work of the company will be paralysed ifthe Company is forced to give leave to all of them for more or less indefinite period. Such a principle will not be just , nor will it restore harmony between labour and capital or ensure normal flow of production. It is immaterial whether the charges on which the workmen are arrested by the police are ultimately proved or not in a court of law. The company must carry on its work and may find it impossible to do so if a large number ofworkmen are absent. Whether in such circumstances leave should be granted or not must be left to the discretion ofthe employer. It may be rightly accepted that if the workmen are arrested at the instance of the company' for the purpose of victimization and in order to get rid of them on the ostensible pretext of continued absence, the position will be different. It will then be a colorable or malafide exercise of power under the relevant standing order, that however, is not the case here."

26.An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause. Absence without leave is misconduct in industrial employment, warranting disciplinary punishment. Habitual absence from duty without leave has been made a misconduct under Model Standing Orders , framed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. Likewise, industrial employers also include " absence from duty " , without leave in the list of misconduct in their standing orders . Sanction of leave can be a significant defence to misconduct of absence without leave . No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right and remaining absent without leave will constitute violation of discipline . The fact that the claimant was continuously absent from work without leave , on account ofhis detention injail for an offence , will not give an immunity to the claimant and the employer will be justified in discharging him from services , announces the Apex Court inBurn & Company, [ 1959 ( 1 ) L.L.J. 450] .

27. In Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. [ 1958 ( 1 ) L.L.J.260 ] the Apex Court was confronted with a proposition astowhether provisions in the standing orders authorizing the employer to terminate services of its employee on account of absence without leave was an inflexible rule . In thatmatter seven workmen were absent without leave for 14 consecutive days , as they were in police custody. During police custody they applied for leave which were refused by the company and services of the workmen were terminated under relevant standing order for remaining absent without leave . The Industrial Tribunal took a view that the relevant standing order was not an inflexible rule and mere application for leave was sufficient to arrest the operation of the standing order. In appeal , though the Labour Appellate Tribunal did not maintain the award of the Tribunal on that count , yet it held that in view of the circumstances that the workmen were in custody, the company was not justified in refusing leave . When the matter reached the Apex Court , it set aside the order ofthe LabourAppellate Tribunal , relying its precedent in Burn & Company Ltd. (supra) and ruled thus:-

28. Defence open to an employee , against charge of absence without leave , is that the absence was on account ofcircumstances beyond his control . For instance , where absence of a workman was on account of his sudden or serious illness or serious illness of a relation that wouldbe anextenuating circumstance which the employer will have to take into consideration . However , if a workman feigns sickness in order to avoid duty by producing a fals @medical certificate, this would itself be a serious act of misconduct. In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. , [1990 (1 ) LLJ 403 ] the Patna High Court was addressed to a proposition where workman absented himself without leave or permission for a considerable period . After about 20 days of his absence , a memo and charge sheet was issued, notifying that a domestic enquiry would be held in the matter. The workman failed to appear in a domestic enquiry and theEnquiry Officer conducted the proceedings exparte. Onconsideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer , the Disciplinary Authority discharged him from service . Later onworkman informed the management that he was arrested by the police in connection with a murder case and requested to allow him to join duty. On refusal, an industrial dispute was raised. A High Court placed reliance on the precedent in Indian Iron & Steel Company ( supra ) and Burn& Company ( supra) and ruled that the discharge of theworkman was valid and justified for continuous absence without permission or leave .

" It is true that the arrested men were not in a position to cometo their work, because they had been arrested by the police . This may be unfortunate for them, but itwouldbe unjust to hold that in such circumstances the company must always give leave when an application for leave is made . If a large number of workmen are arrested by the authorities in charge of law and order by raising of their questionable

29. Absence without leave constitutes a misconduct justifying disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. Punishment can only be imposed either by complying with the procedure prescribed by the standing orders of the establishment , if any, or the rules ofnatural justice.Normally punishment should be inflicted after the workman has been found guilty of the misconduct , after 1935

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भागं II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

संख्या 158/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/ 78/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 634.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central. Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 158/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Nol , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bharat Leather Corporation Limited, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013.

holding a domestic enquiry. Reference can be made to Mufatlal Narain Dass Barot [ 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ 437] and Kalika Prasad Srivastava ( 1987 Lab . I.C.307 ) . Quantum of punishment in case of misconduct for absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case . In order to justify the extreme penalty of discharge or dismissal , it is to be proved that the workman remained absent without leave for an inordinate long period. In Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2007 L.L.R 238 ) removal ofworkman from service who remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of three months was held to be justified. In Sushil Kumar (2007 L.LR. 45) it was ruled that absence , which is continuous for a long period , amounts to serious misconduct to justify dismissal from service . In Borman (2003 L.L.R 364) 62 days absence of workman was held to be justified for his dismissal from service .

[No. L-42012/78/2002- IR (CM - II )] Β . Μ . PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I. D. No. 158/2011

Shri Rajesh Kumar C-2, Sudarshan Park , MotiNagar, New Delhi - 110015

Workman 30. Here in the case the claimant absented from his duties for a long period , without any intimation . It was not for the first time . In past too , he absented himself for 42 days for which he was cautioned to improve his conduct . He again absented for a period of 125 days . Since he had admitted his guilt, no enquiry was conducted. He was awarded punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of one year vide order dated 26-08-97. However he still did not mend his ways . He again absented for a period ofmore than 326 days , without any intimation . Thus it is clear that he is habitual in absenting himself from his duties. These facts justify action of the Airlines in award of punishment of dismissal to the claimant. Therefore , one cannot attribute illegality or unjustifiability to the action of the Airlines . The issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the Airlines and against the claimant .

Versus

Relief.

1.The Emporium Incharge , BharatLeather Corporation Limited, Regional Sales Office , E- 1, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001

2. The Management BharatLeather Corporation Limited, 9/4, Sanjay Place , Agra , Agra, (U.P. )

31. In view of the foregoing discussion it is evident that dismissal of the claimant from services on account of his frequent unauthorized absence is found to be in consonance with law and principles ofnatural justice . The claimant is not entitled to any relief. His claim statement is liable to be discarded , being devoid of merits . Consequently his claim statement is discarded. An award is , accordingly, passed in favour of the Airlines . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

...Management

AWARD

Dated: 31-01-2013

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

Office bearers of M/ s Bharat Leather Corporation Workers Union ( in short the union) forcible entered office ofthe Chairman and Managing Director (in short the CMD) ofBharat Leather Corporation (in short the Corporation) on 23-04-1985 . Vice President of the union was a Sales Assistant , who was working on daily wages basis at MarketingDivision, New Delhi , of the Corporation . He was का.आ. 634.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. एल. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम मंत्रालय संख्या -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ

870 GJ/ 13-19 1936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

Non-service of charge sheet and confirmation of his service in1986 make it apparent that the Corporation had condoned misconduct , ifany, alleged to have been committed by him.

3. He projects that four executives of the union, Shri I.P. Grover, Shri V.K. Kakkar, Shri Vijay Kumar Vohra and Shri D.D. Devra were charge sheeted. Though his name appeared in the complaint dated 23-4-1985 , yet he was not charge sheeted along with them. Shri C.L. Kumar, Enquiry Officerpassedorder on 10-3-1987 wherein he opined that he was equally responsible for the incident along with the persons facing the enquiry. Observations made by the Enquiry Officer are as follows:

"It is seen from the statement of imputations that the name of Shri Rajesh Malik has been mentioned as having accompanied the four accused during the incident . This name also occurs in the CMD's complaint made to the police on 23-4-1985 and also in various depositions . It is not known to this inquiry whether Shri Rajesh Malik is a private person or an employee of Bharat Leather Corporation or any other Government Organization, but if he were either of the latter he would be equally responsible alongwith the four accused for the said incident. It would therefore be only justified if the four accused are treated at par with Shri Rajesh Malik . " fresher in service . Forcible entry was made at about 11.40 a.m. at office of the CMD, located at Hemkunt House, Rajendra Place , New Delhi . The CMD was gheraoed and abusive and unparliamentary language was also used against him . They instigated their other colleagues to do so. The incident lasted till 12.30 p.m , when police reached and gherao was lifted. Police report was lodged , wherein name of the Vice President working on daily wages also figures . Those office bearers of the union , namely, Shri I.P. Grover, Shri D.D. Deora , Shri Vijay Kumar Vohra and Shri V.K. Kapoor were charge sheeted on 28.08.1985. Adomestic enquiry was conducted against them . Enquiry Officer passed an order dated 10-03-1987 concluding therein that Shri Rajesh Malik , claimant herein in the present proceedings , also accompanied the office bearers of the unionto the office of the CMD and was equally responsible alongwith the persons who were charge sheeted. Pursuant to the said order charge sheet was served on the claimant. His replydated 6-07-1987 was not found to be satisfactory. Shri C.I .. Kumar was appointed as Enquiry Officer, whose appointment was challenged by the claimant. On eve of retirement of Shri Kumar, Shri M.V. P. Saxena was appointed as Enquiry Officer, whose appointment was also challenged. Subsequently, Shri Ramesh Chand and Shri Prem Prakash, were appointed as Enquiry Officer. Shri Prem Prakash was replaced by Shri Rakesh Chand vide order dated 11-10-1994. Initially claimant participated in the enquiry. Thereafter , he opted to abandon the proceedings . Enquiry was conducted ex - parte . Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service to the claimant , vide his order dated 5-11-1996 . Appeal preferred came to be dismissed. Claimant raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation contested his claim , conciliation proceedings ended into failure. On consideration of failure report , submitted bythe Conciliation officer , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.I.-42012/78 / 2002 - IR ( CM - II ), New Delhi dated 4-4-2003, with followingterms:

"Whether action of the management of Bharat Leather Corporation in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar , Sales Assistant Grade II vide removal order dated 5-11-1996 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar pleading therein that he joined services of the Corporation as Sales Assistant on daily wages at New Delhi on 20-10-1982 . He was unanimously elected as Vice President ofthe union in 1984. His services were confirmed as Sales Assistant Grade II in 1986. In recognition of his hardwork, two advance increments were also granted at the time of confirmation of his service . Alleged incident of forcible entry and gherao of the CMD took place on 23-04-1985.

4. In view of the above recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer; charge sheet dated 24-06-1987 was issued to him . The said charge sheet was illegal and unauthorized , since it was issuedby the Appellate Authority, before whom claimant was supposed to prefer his appeal against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. Thus , he was deprived of his right to file an appeal . Shri C.I .. Kumar, on whose recommendations charge sheet was served upon him, was appointed as Enquiry Officer . Shri Kumar was already prejudiced against him . Hence, his appointment was wholly illegal and against principles of natural justice. Subsequently, Shri MV.P. Saxena was appointed as Enquiry officer on the eve of retirement of Shri Kumar. Appointment of Shri Saxena was illegal and unauthorized . Despite his objection. Shri Saxena proceeded with the enquiry in an illegal manner . Subsequently, Shri Ramesh Chand was appointed as Enquiry Officer, whose appointment was also opposed by him. Shri Prem Prakash was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 25-08-1993 . Since his appointment was also mala fide uncalled for, he was replacedby Shri Ramesh Chand vide order dated 11-10-1994 . He assailed order dated 11-10-1994 also . During the enquiry proceedings , he submitted application for VRS , which request was not conceded to . He suffered from spinal pain , hence could not attend the enquiry proceedings thereafter . The Corporation was well aware of his ailment , yct with ulterior motive continued with the enquiry either at Agra or at Kanpur. It was sodone to proceed against him ex - parte . No opportunity was 1937

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
provided to him to defend himself in the enquiry. Enquiry          That the ci arge sheet dated 24.06.1987 was issued
Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority.        by the CMD after more than 2 years only on the
He assailed the report vide his reply dated 12-07-1996, on         basis of the evidence of the management witness
 following grounds:                                                recorded during the enquiry conducted by Shri C.L.
                                                                   Kumar in the case of Shri I.P. Grover and others and
      -That as per schedule attached with the so called            further after misinterpreting and misconstruing the
      CDARules , 1981 , the Disciplinary Authority in the          recommendations of the said Shri C.L. Kumar, Inquiry
       case of workmen is Manager ( P &A) but the charge           Officer who submitted his report recommending that
       sheet in question has been issued to him by Shri            the workmen, viz . Shri I.P. Grover and others should
       Suresh Kumar the then Chairman and Managing                 be treated at par with Shri Rajesh Malik (workman
      Director , who was Appellate /Reviewing Authority            herein) meaning thereby all the workmen Shri IP
       ofthe workman. As such , the charge sheet issued by         Groverand others must be reinstated as Shri Rajesh
       a higher Authority usurping the powers of                   Malilk(workman herein) was in service and was
       Disciplinary Authority thereby snatching the right           neither suspended nor issued charge sheet . Since
       of appeal from the workman is illegal , malafide ,          the management did not want to reinstate Shri I.P.
       without jurisdiction and stands a nullity and against       Groverand others due to their active participation in
       the principles of natural justice as held by the             theunion activities and terminated their services from
       Supreme Court in its judgment, mentioned above .            the Corporation on the recommendations of IO, it
                                                                    issued the charge sheet to the workman also with
       -That the charge sheet was issued under the so               pre-meditated mind to treat the workınan at par in
       called CDA Rules 1981 , which were not at all                view ofthe recommendations of the IO and to remove
       applicable on the workmen and the service conditions         him from services . As such, the charge sheet issued
       ofthe workmen were changed/varied during the strike          on the instance and behest of the Inquiry Officer
       period, by the Management unilaterally without               and on the basis of evidence of MWs recorded during
        following the mandatory provisions of Section 9A of         enquiry in the case of S/ Shri IP Grover and others , is
       the Industrial Disputes Act . As such , the said             wrongful , illegal , malafide and against the principles
       change/variation made by the management during               ofnatural justice.
        strike period was wrongful, illegal , void , ultra vires
       besides detrimental to the workman as a whole and            That the enquiry proceedings in the case ofworkman
        hence the said CDA Rules , 1981 were challengedby           have been conducted separately for the alleged
        the Union before the office of the Labour                   incident dated 2-4-1985 after removing 4 executives
       Commissioner . The alleged unilateral change in CDA          of the Union illegally and arbitrarily. As such ,
        Rules , 1981 by the Management was also against             consequences ofthe Inquiry had already been known
        the Bipartite Agreement/ Minutes of Meeting dated            to the management as he was to be treated at par
       6-7-1983 held between the management and Union               with Shri I.P. Grover and others only after completing
        inwhich it was declared that :                              the formalities of enquiry proceedings . As such , the
                                                                    act of the management in conducting separate
         -- "8 Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules: - The
        union was intimated that the rules on the subject are       proceedings after more than 2 years and with pre-
                                                                     conceived andmeditated decision is wrongful , illegal ,
        under draft and as soon as the draft is finalized, the
        union will be invited to discuss the said rules with         malafide and against the principles of natural
                                                                    justice.
        the Management . "
                                                                     That since CMD was the Appellate /Reviewing
        Since the management enforced the so called CDA
                                                                    Authority of the workman , the appointment of
        Rules , 1981 , unilaterally which were not at all
        applicable on the workmen after making some                  Shri C.L. Kumar as Inquiry Officer made by the CMD
        modifications and consequently entirely changed the          usurping the powers of the Disciplinary Authority,
        service conditions of the workmen without                    is against the sub rule(2) of Rule 25 of the so called
        consulting the union, the said charge in the CDS             Rules , 1981 , The inquiry Officers were changed at
                                                                     least 5 times during the entire period illegally, mala-
        Rules , 1981 was however challenged by the union
        before the office of the Labour Commissioner, New            fide and with oblique motives and purposes , without
        Delhi , and conciliation proceedings were started and        following the rules , besides principles of natural
                                                                    justice.
         ultimately, Shri J. C. Negi , Deputy Labour
        Commissioner vide his letter dated 7-7-1988                  Similarly, the Disciplinary Authorities have also been
        was pleased to restrain the management for                   changed/replaced very frequently in the present case
        enforcing the said CDS Rules , 1981 on the workmen
        unilaterally.

1938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

as is evident from the following:

-" Earlier Shri Suresh Kumar, CMD , issued charge sheet in question usurping the powers of the DisciplinaryAuthority as he was Appellate Authority ofthe workman as per so called CDA Rules , 1981 ;

appeal . Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules ( in short the Rules) were applicable to the claimant . Full opportunity was given to the claimant to defend himself. Punishment wasawardedto him by the Disciplinary Authority on taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case . Appellate Authority also considered facts in the right perspective and dismissed his appeal . There is no case in favour of the claimant and his claim may be dismissed , pleads the Corporation .

-Thereafter Shri B.L. Sarose , Manager ( P & A) , MW III started himself acting as the Disciplinary Authority of the workman and appointed Shri Ramesh Chand , Inquiry Officer , in supersession of the orders of MD , as is evident from the correspondence;

8.Onpleadings of the parties , following issues were framedby my learned predecessor:

(i) Whether reference is proper or not ?

(ii) Whether enquiry conducted by the Corporation is proper, fair and conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and relevant rules ?

-Thereafter , Shri Vipin Malhotra , Assistant Manager(P &A) , who had always been acting for and onbehalf of and/ or under directions/ instructions of Shri B.L. Sarose, Manager (P &A) and/ or Shri Ramesh Chand, Inquiry Officer , throughout the enquiry proceedings , had been appointed Disciplinary Authority ofthe workman " .

( iii) Whether order of the Disciplinary Authority in imposing punishment is legal and proper?

(iv) As per terms of reference .

(v) Whether there is any delay/ latches on the part of the management to issue charge sheet ?

6. Without caring for the objections raised by him , the Disciplinary Authority acted beyond his jurisdiction whenpenalty of removal was awarded to him . He filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 17-01-97. The Appellate Authority also failed to grant him justice . Action of the Corporation is untenable . He claims that he may be reinstated in service with continuity and full backwages .

(vi) Whether there is any delay / latches on the part of the workman to approach for redressal of grievance ? If yes , its effects .

9.Vide orderNo.Z - 22019 /6/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) , New Delhi dated 11-02-2008 , case was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.ll. New Delhi for adjudication by the appropriate Government . It was retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government vide order No.7-22019 / 6/ 2007 - IR (C- II) . New Delhi dated 30-03-2011 .

10. Itwould not be out of place to mention that during the course of adjudication process , the Corporation was ordered to be wound by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad , vide order dated 30-08-2005 . Hence Official Liquidator was impleaded as a party, vide order dated 07-06-2011 .

11. On consideration of facts testified by the claimant, preliminay issue relating to virus of enquiry was answered in favour of the Corporation and against the claimant, vide order dated 09-03-2012 .

7. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading thatsince orderof removal from service was passed at Agra , where the claimant was last posted, this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Since the claimant had taken his terminal benefits , hence he admits result of the findings of the enquiry. Therefore , he cannot assail his removal order. The Corporation presents that the claimant was never confirmed in service , as Sales Assistant Grade II , as claimed by him. In 1986 , he was on probation on the post of Sales Assistant Grade II , but never confirmed since departmental enquiry was pending against him. His claim that his misconduct, if any, was condoned by the Corporation is uncalled for . The Corporation asserts that charge sheet was served upon him on 24-06-1987 by Shri Suresh Kumar, Chairman and Managing Director. Shri C.L. Kumar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On his retirement Shri MVP Saxena and later on Shri Ramesh Chand was appointed as Enquiry Officer. It is disputed that appointment of Shri Saxena or Shri Ramesh Chand was illegal and uncalled for. Moving of application for VRS was not disputed. However, his application was declined. Appointment of Shri Prem Prakash and subsequently his replacement by Shri Ramesh Chand hasnot beendisputed. Claimant was informed of each and every proceedings held against him . He adopted a non- co-operative attitude and abstained away from the proceedings .He was proceeded against ex - parte . Issuance of charge sheet by the CMD does not snatch his right of

12. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri N.Κ. Gautam, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Shri Rajender Kumar , Assistant Official Liquidator who represented the estate of the Corporation under liquidation , advanced arguments on behalf of the Corporation . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues 1939

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

involved in the controversy are as follows: -

Issue No. 1

13. At the outset , it was argued by Shri Rajender Kumar that enquiry proceedings lasted at Agra and the claimant was in service at Agra when punishment of removal from service was awarded to him . He contents that this Tribunal has nojurisdiction to entertain this dispute . Contra to it, Shri Gautam , presents that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute . Answer to the proposition is available in statutory provisions , which are considered in subsequent sections .

14. Clause ( a) of Section 2 of the Act defines appropriate Government. It would be expedient to know the definition of phrase ' appropriate Government ' . Consequently, definition of the phrase is extracted thus:

" 2 (a) " appropriate Government " means-

(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A of the DockWorkers (Regulation of Employment )Act , 1948(9 of 1948) or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Employees ' State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) , or the Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees section 5A and section 5B , respectively, of the Employees ; Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) , or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act , 1956( 31of 1956 ) , or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956) , or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961 ) , or the Central Warehousing Corporation establised under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporation Act , 1962 (58 of 1962) , or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the unit Trust if India Act , 1963 (52of 1963 ) , or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 , or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States, under section 16, of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964) or the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act , 1994 (55 of 1994) , or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of theRegional Rural Banks Act , 1976 (21 of 1976) , or theExport Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited orthe Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India Limited, the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987 ) or the Banking Service Commission Act, 1975 or an air transport service , or a banking or an insurance company, a mine , an oil field , a CantonmentBoard , or a major port , and company in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government , or any Corporation , not being a Corporation referred to inthis clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament , or the Central Public Sector Undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government; and '( ii ) in relation to any other industrial dispute , the State Public Sector Undertaking , subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government:

Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor andthe contract labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose , the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be , which has control over such industrial establishment".

15. In relation to an industrial dispute , appropriate Government can either mean the Central Government or the State Government . The Central Government has been defined under section 3 (8) and the State Government under section 3 (60) of the General Clauses Act , 1897. In relation to an industrial dispute concerning

1. an industry carried on or under the authority of the Central Government , or a railway company, or

2. an such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government , or

3. a Dock Labour Board established under section of 5A of the Dock Workers ( Regulation Employment ) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948) , or

4. the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the companies Act , 1956, or

5. the Employees ' State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) , or

6. the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1948 ( 46 of 1948 ) , or 1940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

7. the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards. ofTrustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B , respectively, of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952( 19 of 1952), or

8. the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance CorporationAct, 1956 ( 31 of 1956 ), or

9. the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or

10. the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee CorporationAct, 1961 (47 of 1961 ), or

11. the Central Warehousing Corporation established undersection 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962 ), or

12. the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963 ), or

13. the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 ofthe Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or

14. a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964) , or

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii))

26. a " major port , or

27. any company in which not less than fifty- one per cent of the paid- up share capital is held by the CentralGovernment, or

28. any corporation , not being a corporation. referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or

29. the Central public sector undertaking, or

30. subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlied by the Central Government , the appropriate Government would mean the Central Government" .

16. In relation to any industrial dispute , other than those specified in sub -clause ( i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Act, appropriate Government would be State Government. In other words , all industrial disputes which areoutside the purview of sub- clause (i ) are concern ofthe State Government under sub-clause ( ii ) of clause ( a) of Section 2 of the Act . Thus , the general rule is that an industrial dispute raised between employer and his employee would be referred for adjudication by the State Government, except in cases falling under section 2( a) ( i ) of the Act. Consequently, where industrial dispute which does not fall within the ambit of section 2 ( a ) (i ) of the Act , appropriate Government cannot be the Central Government . As pointed out above for a dispute concerning an insurance company the appropriate Government is the Central Government.

15. the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994( 55 of 1994), or

16. a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or

17. the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited, or

18. the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited, or

19. the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987) , or

20. an air transport service , or

21. a banking company, or

22. an insurance company, or

23. a mine , or

24. an oil- field, or

25. a Cantonment Board , or

17. The Corporation projects that the claimant was posted at its Agra , U.P. Office. It was agitated that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The scheme of the Act shows that it aims at settlement ofall industrial disputes arising between capital and labour by peaceful methods and through the machinery of conciliation, arbitration and if necessary by compulsory adjudication . The object of the Act is to protect workman against victimization by the employer and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The Act, however, does not provide for any set of social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests . Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial adjudication , keeping in view the social and economic conditions , the needs of the workmen , the requirement of the industry, social justice , relative interests of the parties and common good. These norms have given rights to the industrial employees what may be called industrial rights, as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining. This tool is resorted to between an employer or group of employers and a bonafide labour union . Policy behind this 1941

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour practices . What imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of an " industrial dispute " is that it affects the right ofthe workman as a class . But by way ofextension of definition of industrial dispute, by insertion of section 2A ofthe Act , the dispute of an individual workman connected with or arising out ofhis discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or otherwisetermination ofhis service by his employer has beenbrought within the ambit ofthe Act.

dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute as specified in the Second Schedule to a Labour Court for adjudication. In the same manner clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of section 10 empowers the appropriate Government to refer a dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relating to the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified under the Second Schedule or Third Schedule to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Sub- section ( 1A) of section 10 of the Act empowers the Central Government to refer any dispute which involves a question of national importance or in which industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested or affected for adjudication to a National Tribunal. Therefore , the provisions of section 10 ofthe Act, which empowers the appropriate Government or the Central Government , as the case may be , to refer a disputeto a Labour Court , Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal , nowhere make a reference to territorial jurisdiction of such courts or Tribunals. Consequently it is evident thatfor adjudication ofa dispute by this Tribunal , territorial constraints are not over it . The objection taken by the Corporation does not bear any substance . The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue Nos . 5 & 6

20. These issues were addressed vide order dated 09-03-2012 and findings were recorded therein relating to the issues referred above . When preliminary issue was addressed to for adjudication , aspects relating to bona fides of the Corporation in initiating the domestic enquiry were considered. It was taken into account as to whether the charges were specific and clear. Care was taken to see as to whether the Enquiry Officer followed principles of natural justice and gave reasonable opportunity to the claimant to defend himself. It was also considered as to whether the enquiry report was in consonance with the evidence produced or perverse . At the cost of repetition , it is announced that the bank acted bona fide and there had been no violations of principles of natural justice , in conduct of the domestic enquiry. Since the above propositions have been addressed to and answered, these issues nowhere qualify for further adjudication .

Issue Nos . 3 & 4 :

18. For adjudication of industrial disputes the appropriate Government is empowered to constitute Labour Courts , Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals . Sub- section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to constitute one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act . Sub- section ( 1 ) of section 7 A of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act . In the same manner sub- section ( 1 ) of section 7B oftheAct empowers the Central Government to constitute one or more National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes which , in the opinion of the Central Government, involve questions of national importance or are of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in , or affected by, such disputes . Therefore , the aforesaid provisions make it clear that for constitution of Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals , the appropriate Government or the Central Government , as the case may be , has not to take into consideration the territory for which Labour Courts , Industrial Tribunals or National Tribunals are to be constituted . Labour Courts are constituted for adjudication of disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act . An Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate any dispute relating to any matter whether specified in the Second Schedule or Third Schedule appended to the Act and such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act . National Tribunal can be constituted to adjudicate an industrial dispute involving questions of national importance or of such a nature in which industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in or affected by such disputes . Therefore , it is evident that territorial jurisdiction criteria for constitution of Labour Courts , Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals have not been provided under the Act.

21. Prior to introduction of section 11A of the Act, adjudicatory powers of the Tribunal were articulated in Buckingham & Carnatak Company [ 1951 (2) LLJ 314 ] . Four standards were delineated by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the above case to render managerial right of taking disciplinary action vulnerable , namely, ( i) where there is a want ofbona fides or ( ii) when it is a case of victimization or unfair labour practice or violation of the principles of natural 'justice, or ( iii ) when there is basic error of facts , or (iv)whenthere has been a perverse finding on the materials . This articulation was adopted by the Apex Court with slight modification in Indian Iron and Steel Company -Limited 19. Clause ( c ) ofsub - section ( 1 ) ofsection 10 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to refer a 1942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

before the dismissal and , therefore , adduced evidence to justify its action before the Tribunal , which decision was upheld. The Apex Court discarded' the plea on behalf of the workman that since no enquiry at all had been held by the employer , it had no right to adduce evidence to justify itsstand before the Tribunal . In Ritz Theatre [ 1962 ( II ) LLJ 498] it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the Tribunal would be justified to go to the merits of the case and decide for itself on the basis of the evidence adduced whether the charges have indeed been made out . It announced that it would neither be fair to the management nor fair to the workman himself in such a case that the Tribunal should refuse to take the evidence and thereby drive the management to pass through the whole process of holding the enquiry all over again . Reference can also be made to the precedent in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. [ 1961 ( 11 ) LLJ 644].

[ 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 260 ] , without any acknowledgement to the precedent in ,Buckingham & Carnatic case (supra), wherein it was ruled that the power of the management to direct its own internal administration and discipline was not unlimited and liable to be interfered with by industrial adjudication whena dispute arises to see whether termination of services of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. However, it was announced that the jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the managerial prerogative of taking disciplinary action is not of appellate nature as the legislature has not chosen to confer such jurisdiction upon it . Hence Tribunal could not substitute its own judgement for that of the management. The Court laid down that in the following circumstances an industrial adjudicator can interfere with the disciplinary action taken bythe employer: ( 1 ) when there is want of good faith, (2) whenthere was victimization or unfair labour practice , (3 ) when the management had been guilty of a basic error or violation ofthe principles ofnatural justice , or (4) when on the materials , the finding was completely baseless or perverse .

24. InDelhi Cloth and General Mills Company [ 1972 (1) LLJ 180] , Apex Court considered the catena of decisions over the subject and laid down the following principles:

"( 1) If no domestic enquiry had been held by the management , or if the management makes it clear that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that may have been held by it , it is entitled to straightaway adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action . The Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence so adduced before it, on merits , and give a decision thereon . In such a case , it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not rely on it.

(2) If a domestic enquiry had been held , it is open to the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry held by it , in the first instance , and alternatively and without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry is proper and binding , simultaneously adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. In such a case no inference can be drawn , without anything more , that the management has given up the enquiry conducted by it.

22. Enunciation ( 1 ) and (2) , referred above , are addressed to the bona fides of the employer in initiating the action and inflicting the punishment , while postulates (3) and (4) are addressed to domestic enquiry. Therefore , an employer is required to act bona fide in initiating disciplinary action as well as in inflicting the punishment . In initiating the action , the alleged act of misconduct should not be a ruse for something else , such as the trade union activities of the workman or employers dislike of him for some personal reasons . The action should not be motivated by vindictiveness or ulterior purpose , so as to smack for victimization or unfair labour practice . Likewise in the matter of inflicting punishment , the employer should act fairly. In case punishment awarded is so shockingly disproportionate to the act of the misconduct , as no reasonable man would ever impose that itself may lead to an inference of mala fides , victimization or unfair labour practice. In holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer must comply with the rules of natural justice . He must not be a biased person and give reasonable opportunity to both sides for being heard . His findings should not be baseless orperverse .

23. In Ramswarth Sinha ( 1954 L.A.C. 697 ) the Labour Appellate Tribunal recognized the right of the management to ask for permission to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to justify its action in a " no enquiry" case . Following that proposition the Apex Court equated the cases of" defective enquiry " with " no enquiry " cases and ruled that in either cases , the Tribunal have jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case on the basis of evidence adduced before it by the parties . Reference can be made to the precedent in Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt . Ltd. [ 1965 ( 2 ) LI.J 162] where the employer had held no enquiry at all

(3) When the management relies on the enquiry conducted by it , and also simultaneously adduces evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is the duty of the Tribunal , in the first instance , to consider whether the enquiry proceedings conducted by the management, are valid and proper. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings have been held properly and are valid, the question of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits , no longer survives . It is only when the holds that the enquiry proceedings have not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to 1943

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
                                                                   the proceedings have been held properly and the
      dealwith the merits of the dispute and in such a case        findings recorded therein are also proper.
      ithas to consider the evidence adduced before it by
      the management and decide the matter on the basis            (6)Ifthe employer relies only on the domestic enquiry
      of such evidence .                                            and does not simultaneously lead additional
                                                                    evidence or ask for an opportunity during the
      (4)Whenthe domestic enquiry has been held by the              pendency of the proceedings to adduce such
      management and the management relies on the same,             evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider
      it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try       the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the
      the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary         finding recorded therein and decide the matter. Ifthe
       issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce              Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not
      evidence before the Tribunal , if the finding on the          beenheld properly, it is not its function to invite suo
       preliminary issue is against the management .                moto the employer to adduce evidence before it to
      However, elaborate and cumbersome the procedure               justify the action taken by it .
       may be, under such circumstances , it is open to the
       Tribunal to deal , in the first instance , as a preliminary  (7) The above principles apply to the proceedings
       issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its            before the Tribunal , which have come before it either
       finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the          on a reference under Section 10 or by way of an
       management, then no additional evidence need be               application under Section 33 oftheAct .
        citedby the management. But, if the finding on the           25.Keeping in view the proposition laid by the Apex
       preliminary issue is against the management, the        Court inDelhi Cloth and General Mills Company ( supra) ,
        Tribunal will have to give the employer an             the Parliament inserted section 11 - A in the Act, which came
       opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give    into force w.e.f. 15th ofDecember, 1971. In the statement of
        asimilar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence   objects and reasons for inserting section 11 - A, it was stated:
        contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been
        made by the management to the Tribunal during the
        course of the proceedings and before the trial has
        cometo an end. When the preliminary issue is decided
        against the management and the latter leads evidence
        before the Tribunal , the position , under such
        circumstances , will be , that the management is
        deprived of the benefit of having the finding of the
        domestictribunal being accepted as prima facie proof
         of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the
         management will have to prove, by adducing proper
         evidence, that the workman is guilty of misconduct
         and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be
         just and fair either to the management or to the
         workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take
         evidence and thereby ask the management to take a
          further application, after holding a proper enquiry,
         and deprive the workman of the benefit of the
         Tribunal itselfbeing satisfied , on evidence adduced
         before it, that he was or was not guilty of the alleged
         misconduct.
          (5) The management has got a right to attempt to
          sustain its order by adducing independent evidence
          before the Tribunal. But the management should avail
          itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable
          request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are
          closed. Ifno such opportunity has been available of,
          or asked for by the management , before the
          proceedings are closed, the employer can make no
          grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an
          opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it only
          the enquiryproceedings and it has to decide whether

870 42/13-20

"In Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and
Another Vs. Their Workmen (AIR 1958 S.C. 130 at
p.138) , the Supreme Court, while considering the
 Tribunal's power to interfere with the management's
 decision to dismiss , discharge or terminate the
 services of a workman , has observed that in case of
 dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not act
 asa court of appeal and substitute its own judgment
 forthat of the management and that the Tribunal will
 interfere only when there is want of good faith,
 victimization, unfair labour practice , etc. , on the part
 ofthe management.
 2. The International Labour Organisation, in its
  recommendation (No. 119) concerning 'Termination
  of employment at the initiative of the employer'
  adopted in June 1963 , has recommended that a
  worker aggrieved by the termination of his
  employment should be entitled to appeal against the
  termination among others , to a neutral body such as
  an arbitrator, a court, an arbitration committee or a
  similar body and that the neutral body concerned
  shouldbe empowered to examine the reasons given
  in the termination of employment and the other
  circumstances relating to the case and to render a
  decision on the justification of the termination. The
   International Labour Organisation has further
   recommended that the neutral body should be
   empowered (if it finds that the termination of
   employment was unjustified) to order that the worker
   concerned, unless reinstated with unpaid wages ,

1944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

should be paid adequate compensation or afforded some other relief.

3. In accordance with these recommendations , it is considered that the Tribunal's power in an adjudication proceeding relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman should not be limited and that the Tribunal should have the power, in cases wherever necessary to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any, as it thinks fit or give such other reliefs to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require . For this purpose , a new Section 11 -A is proposed to be inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.....

26. After insertion of section 11 - A, the Apex Court summed up the law in the case ofFirestone Tyre and Rubber Company [ 1973 ( 1 ) LLJ 278] in the following propositions:

"(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal , the latter has power to see if action of the employer isjustified.

(2) Before imposing the punishment, as employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders , if applicable , and principles of natural justice . The enquiry should not be an empty formality.

(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence , adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgement over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will be justified onlywhen the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty ofvictimization, unfair labour practice or mala fide.

(4) Even ifno enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, theTribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order , had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it . It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action , and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra .

(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case . On the other hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

order ofdismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter , on the evidence adduced before it , has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved . In such cases , the point about the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all . A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry.

(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective .

(7) It has never been recognized that the Tribunal should straightaway, without anything more , direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee , once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective .

(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage . If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse . The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the management and the employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct.

(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiryconducted by an employer or by the evidence placedbefore a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot , be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization .

(10) In a particular case , after setting aside the order ofdismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated orpaid compensation is , as held by this Court in The Management of Panitole Tea Estate Vs. The Workmen, within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal " .

27. Jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is also not confined to the case where punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the act of the misconduct . The Tribunal has power of substituting its own measure of punishment inplace of managerial wisdom . Change in legal position , post introduction of Section 11A of the Act has been effectively summarized in the case of Ambassador Sky Chef ( 1996 Lab . I. C. 299 ) wherein High Court of Bombay observed that the section gives specifically two foldpowers to an industrial adjudicator: firstly, it is a virtual power of appeal against the findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of 1945

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the evidence and conclusion on facts , and secondly, and farmore important, it is the power ofre-appraisal ofquantum of punishment. Now no restriction lies on an industrial adjudicator to interfere with the enquiry only on four grounds , referred above . However, wide discretionary powers with the adjudicator are to be exercised in judicial and judicious manner before it interferes with the order of mis-conduct or punishment .

28. Now factual matrix of the controversy is to be addressed for ascertaining quantum of punishment for misconduct proved against the claimant. To know have a glance of the case , charge sheet Ex.MW1 /3 is to be looked into, which deciphers allegations as follows:

"Article I- That the said Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sales AssistantGrade II , while employed in the Corporation during May 1987 , has flouted the lawful and reasonable orders dated 21-05-1997 of his superior officer and thereby committed a misconduct, which violative of Rule 4 of the CDA Rules of Bharat Leather Corporation .

that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not commensurative with the act ofmisconduct. In other words, the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with the punishment as it was not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or too severe . Apex Court, in this connection, had, however, laid down inBengal Bhatdee Coal Company [ 1963 (1 ) LLJ 291 ] that where order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would impose in like circumstances , that itself would lead to the inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge. But by enacting the provisions of section 11 -A of the Act, the Legislature has transferred the discretion ofthe employer, in imposing punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of misconduct , in cases of discharge or dismissal . If the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case, it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment and direct reinstatement with back wages , but it has also the power to imposed certain conditions as it may deem fit and also to give relief to the workman , including award of lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal .

Article II -That during the aforesaid period and while employed in the Corporation, the said Rajesh Kumar, has been found irregular in attendance and not observing office timings and thereby committed misconduct which is violative of Rule 4 of the CDA Rules of Bharat Leather Corporation.

Article III That during the aforesaid period and while employed in the Corporation, the said Rajesh Kumar has exhibited indecent behaviour which was subversive of discipline in the premises of the Corporation and thereby committed misconduct, which is violative of Rule 4 of the CDA Rules of Bharat Leather Corporation".

(i) 17. The Enquiry Officer recorded his report dated 18-2-1997 wherein he concluded that all charges regarding flouting of lawful and reasonable orders dated21-05-1997 ofhis superior officer and exhibiting indecent behaviour which was subversive of discipline in the premises of the Corporation stood proved against the claimant.

30. It is established law that imposing punishment for a proved act ofmisconduct is a matter for the punishing authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered withby the Industrial Tribunals . The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment . But where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, regard being had to the particular conduct and past record, or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstance , the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Labour [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 462 ] . Likewise in Management ofthe Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry [1971 ( II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be unwarranted. In Ram Kishan [ 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 982 ] the delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to the delinquent . It was ruled therein , " when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior , it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that 29.On consideration of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority Shri Rajesh Malik was removed from service vide order dated 05-11-1996. Question for consideration comes as to whether there are any justifications for punishment of dismissal? Right of an employer to inflict punishment ofdischarge or dismissal is not unfattered. The punishment imposed must be commensurative with gravity of the misconduct, proved against the delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of section 11 -A of the Act , it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding 1946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

led to the use of abusive language . No straight -Jacket formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service . Each case has to be considered on its own facts " .

31. In B.M.Patil [ 1996 ( 11) LLJ 536 ] , Justice Mohan Kumar of Karnataka High Court observed that in exercise ofdiscretion, the disciplinary authority should not act like a robot andjustice should be moulded with humanism and understanding . It was to assess each case on its own merit and each set of facts should be decided with reference to the evidence recording the allegation , which should be basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of punishment to be imposed . In that case a conductor ofthe bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets . It was held that the punishment was too harsh and disproportionate to the act of misconduct .

33. Power to set aside order ofdischarge or dismissal and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is not untramalled power. This power has to be exercised onlywhen Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one . It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to various circumstances like nature of delinquency omitted bythe workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency onemployer's business , besides length of service rendered by him. Furthermore , the Tribunal has to consider whether the decision taken by the employer isjust or not . Only after taking into consideration these aspects , the Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The quantum ofpunishment cannot be interfered with without recording specific findings on points referred above . No indulgence is to be granted to a person , who is guilty of grave misconduct like cheating , fraud, misappropriation of employers fund , theft of public property etc. A reference cannot be madeto the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa [1995 ( 1 ) LLJ 960] .

34. In the light of above legal propositions , it would be considered as to whether punishment awarded to the claimant does not commensurate to his misconduct? The claimant was awarded punishment of removal from service. Disorderly or riotous or indecent behaviour tantamount to subversive of discipline . He alongwith other office bearers ofthe union entered the cabin of the CMD, gheraoed him , used abusive and unparliamentary language against him . They instigated their other colleagues todo so . Use of intemperate language against the CMD, who was highest executive of the Corporation and instigating other colleagues todo so , is very serious . It emerges that the claimant committed acts , which were subversive of discipline. Such acts are far different from an act of indiscipline on the part of a particular workman , since it have wider impact of impairing the discipline ofthe industrial establishment as a whole . Acts which tend to destroy discipline in the industrial establishment as a whole are to be treated as serious misconduct in industrial law. Such a proposition was laid by the Apex Court in Bharat Fritz Werner (Pvt .) Ltd. (1990 Lab . I.C. 844 ) . These aspects make itclear that the misconduct is alarming . Punishment " awarded to the claimant is found to be in consonance of hismisconduct. There is no question of reinstating him in the services of the Corporation . The claimant is not entitled to any relief. His claim is liable to be dismissed . Hence his claim is discarded. An award is , accordingly, passed in favour of the Corporation and against the claimant . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 05-02-2013

32.After insertion of section 11 -A of the Act, the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with the Tribunal , who has to see whether punishment imposed bythe employer is commensurative with the gravity ofthe act of misconduct . If it comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is proved , it may still hold that the punishment is' not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or without anyterms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in lieu of discharge or dismissal , as the circumstance of the case maywarrant . Reference can be made to a precedent in Sanatak Singh ( 1984 Lab . I.C.817 ) . The discretion to award punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [ 1994 (II ) L.LJ 3321. Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom , once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case , Section 11A of the Act specifically gives two fold powers to the Industrial Tribunal , first is virtually the power of appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance , is the power of reappraisal of quantum of punishment.

1947

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri Kailash Bira Yadav, (" the workman " in short) filed the statement ofclaim and the management of WCL, (" party no. 1 " in short) filed the written statement .

का.आ. 635. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 45/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/168/2007- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 635. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L-22012/168/2007- IR(CM- II ) ]

Β. Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Dated: 05-02-2013

Case No. CGIT / NGP/45/2007

Party No. 1: The Sub Area Manager, Western Coalfields Limited , Kamptee Sub- Area , PO /Tq. Kamptee , Distt. Nagpur

Versus

Party No. 2: Shri Kailash Bira Yadav R/o Old Kamptee Road, Kalamna Basti , PO : Uppalwadi, Near Bhawani Mandir, Nagpur.

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he came to be appointed as a General Mazdoor on 05-05-1980 , at Kamptee underground mine no . 1 and he was engaged as a driver in 1983 and he was serving as a dozer driver since 1985 and he was given grade ' D' , grade ' C ' and grade ' B ' w.e.f. 01-05-1987 , 01-05-1988 and 01-05-1990 respectively and he servedi party no. 1 with clean and excellent service record , but he was served with the charge sheet dated 12-06-2005 , for the incident dated 11-06-2005 and alongwith the charge sheet , no document or list of witnesses was supplied to him and immediately, an enquiry officer was appointed by the party no. 1 without waiting for his reply and such hasty action indicates that the party no . I was bent upon for taking action against him . The further case of the workman is that charges under clauses 26.22 and 26.33 ofthe certified standing order were levelled against him and under the said clauses , there is no reference to theft , but such a finding was given by the enquiry officer and the findings of the enquiry officer are totally perverse and as the charges levelled against him were serious in nature , it was incumbent upon party no . 1 to allow him to engagie an advocate for his defence in the enquiry and the enquiry officer neither explained the charges nor intimated.him that he can engage a lawyer and therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated and he was illegally dismissed from services by order dated 18-08-2006 , issued bythe Sub-Area Manager, Kamptee Sub- Area , on the false charge ofcommission of theft ofdiesel on 11-06-2005 and the enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary and illegal manner and in violation ofthe principles of natural justice and the manner in which, the enquiry officer preceded with and conducted the enquiry, clearly shows that he was biased and the enquiry officer allowed the manage nent to re-examine their main witnesses , but denied opportunity to him, to cross - examine them and the punishment imposed upon him is shockingly disproportionate .

AWARD (Dated: 05thFebruary, 2013)

The workman has prayed to set aside the dismissal order and to reinstate him in service with continuity, back wages and other consequential reliefs .

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , Shri Kailash Bira Yadav, for adjudication , as per letter No. L-22012/ 168/2007- IR(CM - II) dated 06-08-2007, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of WCL in dismissing Shri Kailash Bira Yadav w.e.f. 18-08-2006 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

3. The party no. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter- alia that the workman was served with the charge sheet dated 11 / 12-06-2005 and the workınan was on duty on 11-06-2005 from 12 PM to 8 PM arid on the same date, during the duty period, theft ofdiesel from the dozer, which the workman was operating occurred and the workman was involved in commission of the said theft and for the said misconduct , charge sheet vras issued against him and the document/complaint letter and list of

2. On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed 1948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934

PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ]

as such , the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits .

6. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the workman , in the entire statement of claim has not given a single reason on the point of perversity of the findings of the enquiry officer and as the workman has not challenged the findings of the enquiry officer , the issue of perversity of findings is to be answered in favour of the management and it has already been held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman to be in accordance with the principles of natural justice and as such, there is no scope forthe Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman and the findings of the equriy officer are based on the evidence adduced during the enquiry and the charges against the workman were duly proved and management has lost confidence in the workman and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Insupport of the contentions , the learned advocate forthe party no . 1 placed reliance on the dicision reported in(2009) 7SCC 552 ( Divisional Manager, RSRTC ) .

witnesses were supplied to the workman and the workman did not raise this issue in the departmental enquiry, because such documents had been given to him and charges levelled against the workman were not only under clauses 26.22 and 26.23 , but also, under clause 26.1 of the stainding orders and the said clauses very well refer to theft , fraud and misconduct and the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse and as per the norms of departmental enquiry, no advocate is to be allowed in the departmental enquiry and only a co - worker can be allowed to help the workman and the workman was allowed to do so and all the principles of natural justice were followed and the enquiry was conducted as per the principles of natural justice and full opportunities were given to the workman todefend himself and charges levelled against the workman were proved beyond doubt and after the enquiry, prosecution brief was given to the workman and the workman filed his reply and thereafter, second show cause notice was issued to the workman and as the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory and charges levelled against him were proved beyond doubt , order of dismissal from services was passed against the workman and the conduct ofthe workman is harmful for the company, as he was indulged in the activities of theft and dishonestly and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. Before delving into the merit of the case , I think it necessaryto mention the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to the scope , power and jurisdication of the Tribunal to interfere with the findings and punishment imposed in a departmental enquiry, which are as follows: --

4.As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from services , after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity ofthe departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated 25-09-2012, the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was heldtobe legal , proper and in accordance with the principles ofnaturaljustice.

5.At the time of arguments , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the " findings " of the enquiry officer are contrary to the materials on record ofthe enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, as because , the enquiry officer did not analyze the evidence of the witness for the management and recorded his findings holding the workman guilty of the charges , only after mentioning the evidence of the witnesses given in examination- in-chief and cross- examination and the management did not examine the prime witnesses , Shri Bhaskar Raut and Shri Devilal Sharma and as such, the findings of the enquiry officer on the basis of concocted story of the patrolling party is perverse and there is no legal evidence on record to hold the workman guilty of the charges of committing theft ofdiesel and the evidence of the witnesses examined by the management in the enquiry is not trustworthy and as such , the findings of the enquiry officer, basing on such untrustworthy evidence are perverse and the past service record of 26 years of the workman was quite unblemished, so the extreme penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the workman is shockingly disproporationate and the past service record ofthe workman was quite unblemished and

"Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power ofjudicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court . When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/ Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with . Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence , the authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion . Butthat findings must be based on some evidence . Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proofof fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding . Adequacy of evidence orreliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal . When the authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support there from , the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge . The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts . Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co - extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment . The Court/ Tribunal in its power of 1949 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

S.O. 636.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/1998 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L -22012/379/ 1997 -IR(CM - II )] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence . The Court/ Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner incosistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. Ifthe conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/ Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion of the finding , and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of that case . "

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present: Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer

Reference No. 20 of 1998

Parties: The management of Parasea 6/7 Incline , M/ s. ECL, Burdwan (WB) Vs.

TheOrg . Secy. CMS, Asansol (W.B. )

Representatives:

Sri P.K. Das , Ld. Advocate 8. Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above and on perusal of the records of the departmental enquiry, it is found that this is not a case of no evidence . It is also found that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence on record of the enquiry. The enquiry officer has analysed the evidence adducedby the parties and has given his findings holding the workman guilty of the charges . The findings of the enquiry officer are not as such as no reasonable person would have ever reached. Hence , the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse .

Forthe management : Forthe union (Workman ) : None Industry: Coal State: West Bengal Dated- 30-01-13

AWARD

So far the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, it is found that serious misconduct of commission of theft of the property of the employer has beenproved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry . Therefore , the punishment imposed against the workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate . Hence , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence , it is ordered :-

ORDER

In exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/ 379/97- IR(CM- II) dated 25-05-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

The action ofthe management of WCL in dismissiong Shri Kailash Bira Yadav w.e.f. 18-08-2006 is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of the management in dismissing Sh . Hira Lal Majhi , Armed Guard of Parasia 6/7 Incline of M/s . ECL is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" का.आ. 636.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 20/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/379/1997- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

Having received the Order of Letter No. L- 22012/ 379/97 - IR( CM - II ) dated 25-05-1998 of the above said reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 20 of 1998 was registered on 02-07-98 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support 1950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Food Corporation of India , Patna and their workmen.

of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

Appearances:

None

Onbehalf ofthe workman:

Onbehalf of the Management : Mr. Bhupendra Narayan Rep . ofManagement .

State: Bihar

Industry: Food Onperusal of the case record , it was found that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since 28-02-2007 . It seems that the workman is now no more interested to proceed with the case further . The case is also too old 1998. As such , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award " is hereby passed.

Dated , Dhanbad , the 2nd Jan. 13 ORDER

AWARD

Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as " No Dispute" existing . Send the copies of the order to the Govt. ofIndia , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 22012/ 165/ 2000 - IR( CM - II ) date 05-06-2001 .

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of the management Food Corporation of India , Patna in terminating the services of S. Sh. Mahendra Pd . and 16 others ( list enclosed) are legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

का.आ. 637, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 183/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. Neither the Union Representative for the Union FCI , Employee's Union nor any of seventeen workman Mahender Pd . and others appeared nor any witness for their evidence appeared . But Mr. Bhapendra Narayan , the Representative for the Management is present .

[सं. एल-22012/165/2000- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February , 2013

S.O. 637. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 183/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No - 2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

Afterperusal of the case record, I find that the case related to the alleged termination of the service of the workmen has been pending for the evidence of the workman since 8-8-2006 but since then imspite of giving morethan sufficient opportunities and issuance of Regd . notiecs to the Union on its address noted in the Reference , not a single witness in the period over six years has been produced. Under these circumstances , it is quite evident that neither the Union Representative nor any of the workmen appear to be interested in pursuing the case for final adjudication . Therefore , the case is closed and accordingly an order of no dispute is passed.

[No. L- 22012 / 165 /2000 - IR(CM - II)] Β . Μ . ΡΑΪΝΑΙK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer File No. L - 22012 / 165 / 2000 - IR (C - II ) LIST OF WORKMEN

Sh . Mahendra Pal 1.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

2. Sh . Bhikhari Yadav

Present: Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

3. Sh . Sanjay Dubey

4. Sh . Tuntun Sah

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 .

5. Sh . Munna Mishra

Reference No. 183 of 2001

Parties:

6. Sh . Dhananjay Kumar

Employer in relation to the management of 1951

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Representatives:

7. Sh . Ravindra Nath Tiwary

None

For the management:

8. Sh . Ramesh Trivedi

For the union (Workman): None

9. Sh . Saroj Kr . Mishra

State:West Bengal

Industry: Coal

10. Smt. Sunita Singh

Dated-16-01-13

11. Smt. Lakshmi Devi

AWARD

12. Smt . Ramrati Devi

13. Sh . Arun Kumar

14. Sh. Heera Lal

15. Sh. Indradeo

16. Sh . T.N. Upadhyay

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L-22012/537 /95- IR(C- II) dated 06-09-1996 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

17. Sh . Barak

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of the management of Nutandanga Colliery under Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. ECL in denying the regularisation ofSh .Basdeo Giri,Pit Superviser from Clerical Gr. II to Clerk Gr. I is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman concerned isentitled to? "

का.आ. 638. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 38/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/537/ 1995- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

Having received the Order of Letter No. 1.-22012/ 537/95 - IR( C - II ) dated 06-09-1996 of the above said refference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 38 of 1996 was registered on 16-09-96 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concened directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support oftheir claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

S.O. 638. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/1996) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L- 22012/537/1995 - IR(C -II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Onperusal ofthe case record, it has been found that the workman/Union is neither appearing nor taking any step since 2008. It seems that they are now no more interestedto proceed with the case further. As such , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

ORDER

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present: Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer Reference No. 38 of 1996

Let an "Award " be and the same is passed as " No Dispute" existing . Send the copies ofthe order to theGovt . ofIndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

Parties:

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer The management of Nutandanga Colly. , M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013 Vs.

The Secy. , CMU, Burdwan (W.B. )

का.आ. 639. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई.

8704 /13-21 1952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

workman, Shri Martand Singh Zhanakial Jangela , for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 22012/ 158/ 2003 - IR (CM- II) dated 08-12-2003 , with the following schedule:-

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 256/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/ 158/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Martand Singh Zhanaklal Jangela, Security Guard w.e.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the concened workman isentitled?"

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Martand Singh Zhanaklal Jangela ( " the workman " in short), filed the statement of claim and the management ofFood Corporation of India ( " Party No. 1" in short ) filed their written statement .

S.O. 639.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 256/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen, received by the CentralGovernment on 22-02-2013.

[No. L- 22012/ 158/2003 - IR(CM- II) ]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/ NGP /256/ 2003 Date: 06-02-2013

Party No. 1( a) : The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur-440015

Party No. 1( b) : The Senior Regional Manager,

FoodCorporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgatye, Mumbai- 400020

Versus

Party No. 2:

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 15-07-1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 , when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu ofnotice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract theduties of Security guards , in violation of the provision ofsection 25 - II of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is ofa perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with contnuityand full back wages .

The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar

Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha ( M.S. )

AWARD

(Dated: 6th February, 2013 )

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d ) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their

The further case of workman is that in 1993 , he was engaged by the Party No.1 through the contractor for a period of two years, but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years , the Party No.1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so- called- contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , but actually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No.1 and he was a 1953

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

employer from 15-07-1993 to 14-03-1999 , without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act , they were exempted by the Central Government , so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question ofviolation of the provisions of 25 ( 11 ) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains , then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards .

regular employee of Party No.1 and Party No.1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No.1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No.1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01-11-1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No.1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore , it was the mandatory duty of the Party No.1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and maragement of FCI implemented the notification on'y at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws .

Itisfurther pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt . Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No.1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the PartyNo.1 and party No. 1 also supplied the articles , such as, torch, lathi , whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitledto be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

The further case of party no . 1 is that for the reliefs as claimed, the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res- judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer ofthe workman.

The further case ofparty no . 1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation andAbolition ) Act , 1970 andthe interpretation ofthe notification issued on 01.11.1990 putby theworkman is not correct and they were exempted fromthe operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman , they paid the amount as per the directions given by the 3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him , as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence ofthe contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March , 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end , the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period ofcontract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998. and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no questionof following the procedure of termination by them andthey were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as

       1954
                         THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHA 2013 / PHALGUNA 25, 1934
                                                                                                      [ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) |
      ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
      from the contract's bill and they only used to check the    onthe incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI
      attendance ofthe security guards to find out as to whether  go-downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply
      the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite        contract labourers had the required license for the same .
      number of security guards, as per their requirement and     butcopy of such license was not filed and the process of
     they did not have the power to terminate any employee        engagement of contractors was done by the Regional Office
     appointedby the contractor and they did not provide any      ofFCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details
     article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the of the process of engagement of contractors and during
     workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any relief. the general election to the Parliament, FCI had submitted
                                                                 the names of the workman and 12 others in the list of
                                                                 employees submitted to the collector. This witness has
          4.Both parties have led oral evidence in support of    denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others
     documentary evidence. their respective claims, besides placing reliance on were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go-
                                                                 downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and that the FCI was
          The workman in support of his claim has examined       maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The
     himselfas a witness . In his evidence, which is on affidavit, witness has further stated that payment of wages to the
    the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the       workman was being done through the contractor as per
     statement of claim .                                       theminimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was
                                                                not making any deduction from the said wages towards
          Inhis cross - examination , the workman has admitted  PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register
    that in his statement of claim and so also in his affidavit he orsalary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt .
    hasmentioned that he was initially engaged as a Security    Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of
    Guard through a contractor. He has admitted that he has     labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was
    not filed any appointment letter issued by the FCI and no   submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the
    appointment order was issued by the FCI for his            workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI .
    engagement in the FCI and he has not filed any document
    to show that he was in continuous service in the FCI till        6.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the
   14-03-1999. The workman has further admitted that there     learned advocate for the workman that the workman was
   was no advertisement in any newspaper regarding             engaged by the management of FCI on 15-07-1993 at
   engagement of Security Guards in FCI and he has not         Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked
   mentioned the amount ofthe salary, which he was receiving   continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
   from FCI either in the statement of claim or in the affidavit and his services were terminated orally by the party no . 1
   and the signature appearing on the revenue stamp against   without following the due procedure of law and the
  his name at serial no. 06 in document no. 58, filed by the  workmanhad completed more than 240 days of work in
   management, is his signature and he has not filed any       each year and before termination of the services of the
  document to show that he worked for 240 days in any         workman , neither one month's notice nor one month's
  calendar year and he has not filed any document to show     wage in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was
  that FCI had taken any action against any defaulting        givento the workman , as required under section 25- F of
  SecurityGuard and he has not filed any document to show     the Act and after termination of the services of the
  that FCI appointed the Security Guards of Nagpur and        workman , fresh hands were engaged by party no. 1 to
 Manmad on permanent basis and he has also not filed any      extract the duties of security, guard, in violation of the
  document to show that uniform, torch and lathi were issued  provision of Section 25- II of the Act and the work of
  to him by the FCI .                                         security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination
                                                             ofthe workman is void and illegal .
       5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on
 behalf of the party no.1 has also reiterated the facts            Itwas further submitted by the learned advocate for
 mentioned in the written statement, in his examination- in- theworkman that the party no . I had shown the workman
 chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross - examination, this as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
 witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had      only on papers and the workman was actually working
 obtained any license from the competent authority for       under the direct control and supervision of the party no . 1
 engagement of contract labours in FCI. The witness has      and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
 admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI      party no. I was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
and he was engaged for watch and ward of go-downs and        legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
the workman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch         between the management and the contractor was bogus
                                                            and not genuine and the Central Government by

1955

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99 .

notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore , the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no. 1 has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full backwages .

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court ofJudicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passedbythe Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ petition , it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work ofthe Food Corporation of India and in view ofthe same, theyhave became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is ofperennial nature, However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passedthe following order:

"In view ofthe judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National UnionWater front Workers and Others [ reported in 2001 (7) $CC 1 ] , the relief sought by the petitioners cannotbe granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

XX XX XX XX

In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question ofgranting other prayer does not arise. In case , the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence , the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res -judcate . So , there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 .

7. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never appointed by party no.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a necessary party and in spite of raising such objection in the written statement, the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable . It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract ofthe contractor came to an end in March, 1999 , the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no question of party no . 1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the party no.1 and the workman and the party no. 1 was exempted by the Central Govemment from the ban imposed for engagement ofcontract labourers , so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules , for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system , Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and party no.1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply ofsecurity guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates asres -judicate between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

9. Inthis reference , it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party no. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim , it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Wardha as a security guard, through a contractor. Inparagraph4ofthe statement ofclaim, the workman has mentioned that, " In the year 1993 , the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for the period of 2 years , but the contract was 8. First ofall , I will take up the submission madeby the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the present reference is hit by the principles ofres -judicate, due to the 1956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

                                                                                                      [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
    made on paper. " The case of the workman is that after
    every two years , the party no . 1 on papers showed the      obedience. The essential condition of a person being a
    change of contractors , but he was not distrubed from        workman within the terms of the definition is that he should
    services and he worked continuously without any break        be employed to do the work in that industry and that there
    till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard of      should be , in other words , an employment of his by the
    perennial nature , he is entitled for reinstatement in service. employer andthat there should be a relationship between
    The workman has also claimed that as the Central            the employer and employee or master and servant unless
   Government issued notification on 01-11-1990 to abolish       a person is thus employed there can be no question ofhis
   the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give       being a " workman" within the definition of the terms as
                                                                 contained in the Act.
   employment to contract laboures engaged by the
   management and party no . 1 implemented such direction             Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
   at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and            Saurashtra ( 1957 - I - LLJ- 477 ) . Now where a contractor
   regularized and absorbed the services of the Security        employs a workman to do the work which he contracted
   Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not.             with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it
   implemed the same at Wardha and other places to deprive      stands , the workman of the contractor would not without
   him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .                something more become the workman ofthat third person.
         From the evidence on record and the own admission      Therefore, when the workman employed by the contractor
   of the workman in the cross -examination including the      were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
   specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor    claim to that effect has been made by the union. "
   and the contractor left him to FCI , it is clear that the         11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC- 3656
   workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman          (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: ---
   has not produced any evidence to show that he was
  directly engaged by the Party No. 1 .                              "The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
                                                               be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose
        10.At this juncture , I think it apropos to mention    benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the
  about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court    provisions ofthe Act what the legislature has not provided
  regarding contract labours , in the two decisions reported   whether expressly or by necessary implication, or
  in 1985 - II LLJ- 4 ( S.C. ) (The workman of the Food        substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the
  Corporation of India Vs. M/ s . Food Corporation of India)   legislature . The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
  and 2001 LAB IC 3656 ( S.C. ) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. the conditions of service of the contract labour and to
  and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and        authorize in Section 10( 1 ) prohibition of contract labour
  others).
                                                               system by the appropriate Government on consideration
        In the decision reported in 1985 - II LLOJ - 4 ( supra) of factors enumerated in sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 10 of
  the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:--                    theAct among other relevant factors . But, the presence of
                                                               some or all those factors , provide no ground for absorption
       "Briefly stated , when corporation engaged a           of contract labour on issuing notification under Section
 contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot, the     10(1) by the appopriate Government, is not alluded to either
 corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling    inSection 10 of at any other place in the Act and the
 work done by the contractor, the labour force employed       consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA
 by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation,  Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the
 there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen     CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme
 between the corporation and the workmen. " Workmen "        Courtto read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 of
 has been defined ( omitting the words not necessary) in      substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections
 the Industrial Disputes Act to mean ( any person including  23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract
 an apprentice) employed in any industry to do.......         labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
 " The expression " employed has at least two known          or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the
 connotations , but as used in the definition, the context   provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle
would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative
brought about by express or implied contract of service in   legislation and as such clearly impermissible.
which the employee renders service for which he is
engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him           Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily        S. 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and       contract labour or otherwise , in an indusrial dispute
                                                             brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions

1957

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , the present case in hand is to be considered.

ofservice, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees ofthe principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment . If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable , and , if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications .

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/- 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545 (W) if1996, D/-9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos . 345-354 of 1997m D/-17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2-8-2000 (Bom ) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/-23-12-1999 (Bom) , 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal ), Reversed.

12. In this case, the letter No. U- 23013 / 11 /89/LW dated 28-5-92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted bythe Central Government . So, the engagement ofcontract labour by the Pary No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not onlyon papers as claimed by the workmen . The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence . The engagement of labour contractor byParty No. 1 was not a mere ruse of camouflage to evade comliance of the various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time Party No. 1 paid his wages astheir employee . It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman inpresence ofthe Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same . As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1 , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman . Ilence , there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the privisions of Sections 25 - F or 25 - II oftheAct.

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engagedthe workman is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non -joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

Inview ofthe materials on record and the discussions made above , the reference cannot be answered in favour ofthe workman . Hence , it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment , the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contraet labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms " Contract labour", " Establishment " and " Workman " does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective ofthe fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word " Workman " is defined in wide terms . It is a genericterm ofwhich contract labour is a species . It is true that combined reading ofthe terms " Establishment " and " Workman " shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true ofa workman could not be correct ofcontract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under . " 1958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

in dismissing Sh . Sopar Shankar Rajam and 13 others workmen( List enclosed ) is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and writtenstatement and accordingly, the 14 applicants , (' the applicants ' in short ) , filed the statment of claim and the management of WCL , ( " Party No. 1 " in short ) filed their written statement .

का.आ. 640.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 07/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/599/1999- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 640. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/ 2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of WCL and theirworkman, received by the Central Government on 22- 02-2013.

[No. L-22012/599/ 1999 - IR(C- II)] Β . Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

CASE No. CGIT/NGP/07/ 2002

Date: 24-01-2013

PartyNo. 1 :

The case of the fourteen applicants as stated in the statement ofclaim is that they were serving with party no . 1, since 1st January , 1987 to 31st December, 1990 , as daily wagers and their services were regularized on regular establishment from 01-01-1989 to 31-12-1990 and at the time of termination , they were getting Rs . 1250 per month , as salary and their services were terminated orally and no written order of termination was issued and party no . 1 had also never given any letter about their misconduct and no enquiry was conducted against them , before termination of their services and before termination of their services , neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu ofthe notice nor retrenchment compensation was paid to them and no seniority list was prepared and published in the notice board by the party no . 1 and there wasviolation of the provisions of sections 25 - F and 25 -G ofthe Act read with Rule 77 of the Rules and the junior most eight workers are still on duty with party no. 1 and after theirtermination, they gave approach notice to party no. 1 but party no . 1 did not response to the same and their oral termination is illegal and the same is nothing but colourable exercise ofpower by party no. 1 and therefore, theyare entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

The Sub Area Manager , M/s. WCL, Nakoda (Ghugus Sub Area) , PostCementnagar, Ghugus , Chandrapur (MS)

Versus

PartyNo. 2 :

Shri D. S. Tawarkar , District Adviser, Indian National Trade Union Congress , Near Vithal Mandir Ward, Chandrapur (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 24th Janaury, 2013)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCl and their workmen , Shri Sopar Shankar Rajam and 13 others , for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/599/1999 - IR( CM - II) dated 20-03-2002, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management i.e. Sub Area Manager, Nakoda (Ghugus Sub Area ) of WCL

3. Party no . 1 in their written statement, denying the allegations made in the statement of claim have pleaded inter-alia that the 14 applicants had raised industrial dispute individually with the assistance of an advocate , before the ALC (C) in the year in 1998 and their basic demand was that they had been dismissed orally, after four year of service with WCL and they contested each case on merit , primarily on the ground that those persons had neither worked with them nor there was any dismissal and that the disputes were belated and on failure of conciliation of each case , the ALC ( C ) submitted the failure report separately and at no stage , the disputes were combined and on receipt of the failure report in each case , the Central Government refused to make reference of the cases of Six applicants , namely, Shri Sopar Shankar Rajam , Shri Bondi Narayan Sina , Rajaya Reddy, Shri Ramella Ravi Ramayya and Shri Bhagini Rajesh Satyya by issuing separate notifications and did not make any communication in respect of the other eight applicants and later on in the year 2002 , after of a gap of nearly three years , with no application of mind, the Central Government made the instant reference in respect ofall the 14 applicants without obtaining any fresh facts for reviewing the cases and

                                                                                                               1959
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]                 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
                                                             competent authority and the applicants have not
therefore , the reference is void and bad in law and hence   produced their letters of appointment or office orders or
not maintainable .                                           instructions to work at Nakoda establishment from
      The further case of the party no.1 is that WCL is a appointing 01-01-1989 to 31-12-1990 and payment ofmonthly wages
public sector undertaking and has set norms                  ofRs . 1250 is false and baseless and service of no regular
 employees , which has been done through Employment          worker is terminated orally in WCL and there should be a
Exchange, except in case of land oustee or dependents of     basis for such termination and order are always in writing
 deceased or handicapped employees in terms of NCWAS          and the story of oral termination has been deliberately
 and all appointments are in writing , issued by the          cooked up to cover up the falsehood and the question of
 competent authority and the applicants have not stated       Issuing any termination order in writing or otherwise or
 as to when and by whom, they were appointed and they         holding ofany departmental enquiry or question of issuing
 have not produced any document in support of their claim     notice or payment ofany compensation or notice pay does
 and all persons , who are appointed in WCL are assigned      not arise, as the applicants were never in their employment
 specific designations and required to perform specific jobs  and they had never received any representation from the
 and the applicants have not stated as to what were their     applicants.
 designation and what jobs they were doing as labour and            4. At this juncture , it is necessary to mention that
 threr is no designation or job like labour in WCL and it is  after issuance of notice by the Tribunal , the party no.1
 therefore , evident that the claim is baseless and wrong     neither appeared in the case nor filed any written statement .
  and every person appointed in WCL is paid wages              So , award in favour of the applicants was passed on
  through wage sheet and pay slip showmg the rates of         05-09-2002 . On 27-09-2002 , the party no.1 filed an
  wages, period ofwages and amount of wages etc is issued     application to set aside the exparte award dated 05-09-
  to each employee and the same remains with them and if       2002. The said application was allowed on 13-07-2004 and
  the applicants had worked with WCL, they must be having      party no.1 was allowed to file the written statement . After
  the pay slips , but such pay slips have not been produced    filing of written statement by party no. 1 , the applicants
  and ifany person works for four year in WCL, he should       filedtheir rejoinder.
  have become member of coal mine provident fund and on              5. In the rejoinder , it has been pleaded by the
  becoming a member , he is to be allotted a membership-       applicants that they have filed their regularisation order
  number and his wages are subject to deduction ofprovident    dated13-02-1989 issued by the management, in which has
   fund, the annual statement of which is sent to CMPF         been clearlymentioned that they were on duty from 1987
   Deptt. and if the applicants had not become members of       to 1990 and as such , the allegation of non -production of
   CMPF, it is a proof in itself that they were never the       document bythem is false . The applicants in their rejoinder
   employees ofWCL and every persons , who is an employee       have denied the other allegations pleaded in the written
   ofWCL is issued with an identity card containing his         statement.
   designation and other particulars and if the applicants           6. Besides placing reliance on documentary
   were the employees of WCL , then they must have been         evidence, the applicants have adduced oral evidence in
   issued with identity cards , which are supposed to be in     support of their claim . Applicant, Sopar Shankar Rajam
   their possession, but such identity cards have not been      has been examined as a witness on behalf of the applicants .
   produced and every person , who is employed in the Mines     No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the party
   as a worker, his name, father's name , age and address etc.  no. 1.
   are entered in the statutory "Form B " maintained under
    the Mines Act, 1952 and the names of the applicants did           7. The examination- in -chief of the witness , Sopar
    not appear in " Form B" register and this fact also goes to Shankar Rajam is on affidavit . In his evidence , this witness
    prove that they were never the employees of WCL and in      has stated that he alongwith the other 13 applicants were
    absence of any valid, legal and cogent documents , no        serving with party no . 1 as casual labourers from
    reliance can be placed on their claim and if the documents  01-01-1987 to 31-12-1990 and their services were regularized
    filed by the applicants are examined, it will be proved that against vacant posts and they were brought on to regular
    the entire case has been manipulated and manufactured        establishment from 01-01-1989 to 31-12-1990 and they were
    under some scheming mind and there is no merit in the        getting consolidated pay of Rs . 1250 per month and their
    demand of the applicants and the same is liable to be        services were terminated suddenly from 01-01-1991 orally,
    rejected.                                                    without compliance of the statutory provisions of sections
                                                                 25-F and 25 -G of the Act, though they had completed more
          The specific case of party no . 1 is that the applicants than 240 days continuous service within the preceding
    were never in their employment and their claim is totally    date of termination and as such , their termination is
     fabricated which would be evident inter- alia on the ground arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. However, in his cross-
    that there is no post like daily wages worker and no body     examination, the witness has stated that written order of
     is deployed in any work, unless he is duly appointed         appointment was issued to him and other applicants and
     through the proper procedure with the approval of the

870 दी 13-22 1960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

                                                                                                       [PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]
      the order dated 13-02-1989 , Ext. W- I is the said
      appointment order. The witness has further admitted that    Form B register and membership of CMPF have bot been
      there is no appointment order to show that he was engaged    filed in support of their working in WCL from
      from 01-01-1987 and there is nothing on the document,       01-01-1987 to 31-12-1990 and there is absolutely no legal
      Ext. W- 1 to show that the copy of the same was given to    and cogent evidence in support of the claim of the
      him and the other applicants and no separate order was      applicants . It was further submitted by the learned
     given to him regarding his regularisation in regular         advocate for the party no. 1 that the evidence of Sopar
     establishment from 1989 to 1990 and he cannot say the        Shankar is quite contradictory than the stands taken in
     name and designation of the person, who orally terminated    the statement of claim and rejoinder and the same is
     their services on 01-01-1991 and they have not filed any    unreliable and the documents , W- 1 which is the only
     document in respect of payment of wages by WCL and          document produced by the applicants, prima facie show
     there was no deduction of any amount from their wages       that the same is a fabricated document and the same has
     towards provident fund and except the document, Ext.        beenmanufactured for the purpose of the case, as because ,
    W- I, no other document to show that they worked for a       Ext. W- I shows that the same was issued on 13-02-1989 ,
     continuous period of 240 days preceeding the date of        but in that document, it has been mentioned that the
    termination and he cannot say as to in how many years ,      alleged workers worked from 1987 to 1990 and that they
    he completed the said 240 days of work.                     were regularized on the regular employment from 01-01-
          8. At the time of arguments, it was submitted by the   1989 to 31-12-1990 and when the certificate was issued on
    learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants     13-02-1989 , how it can be mentioned about the alleged
    were serving with party no . 1 from 01-01-1987 to           worker working till 1990 and no reliance can be placed on
    31-12-1990 as daily wagers and their services were          Ext. W- I. The further submission made by the learned
    regularized on regular establishment from 01-01-1989 to     advocate for the party no . I was that there is no legal
    31-12-1990 and at the time of termination of their services , evidence on record to show that the applicants completed
    they were getting Rs. 1250 per month as salary and the      240days ofwork in the preceding 12 months ofthe alleged
    services of the applicants were terminated orally on        date of termination and hence, there is no question of
   01-01-1991 and before termination of the services of the     compliance of the provisions of Sections 25 - F and 25 -G of
   applicants , neither any enquiry was held against them nor  theAct and the reference is to be answered in negative.
   the mandatory provisions of Section 25- F of the Act were         10. On perusal of the pleadings of parties and the
   complied by party no . 1 and though the applicants had      materials on record, it is found that the applicants have
   completed240days of work in every calendar year, neither    tried toblow hot and cold in the same breath . They have
   one month's notice nor one months's wages in lieu of        claimed that they worked with the party no. 1 from
   notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to        01-01-1987 to 31-12-1990 as daily wagers. In the same breath,
  the applicants before such termination and such facts have   theyhave claimed that their services were regularized on
  been amply proved by the documents , Ext. W- I and the       regular establishments from 01-01-1989 to 31-12-1990 and
  oral evidence of the applicant , Sopar Shankar Rajan and     they were getting Rs. 1200.00 per month as salary. They
  as such, the termination of the services of the applicants  have claimed that party no. I did not issue any letter about
  is illegal and unjust and the applicants are entitled for   theirmisconduct and there was no enquiry proceedings
  wages. reinstatement in service with continuity and full back against them. It is also claimed by them that their services
                                                              were terminated orally by the party no . 1 without
        In support of the submissions, the learned advocate   compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-1
  for the applicants placed reliance on the decisions reported and 25 -G of the Act . Such stands taken by the applicants
  in 2008 III CLR - 588 ( Divisional Manager, New India       show that they are unsure of the basis of their claim .
 Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Shankaralingam ), 2012 I CLR-
  123 ( Kan Singh Vs. Dist. Ayurved Officer & others ) and         As the applicants have claimed that they worked on
 Army Staff , New Delhi .) 2012III CLR- 1077 ( Ex . Hav. Satbir Singh Vs. Chief ofthe dailywages basis with party no . I from 01-01-1987 to 31-
                                                             12-1990 and their services were regularized on regular
       9. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned        establishment from 01-01-1989 to 31-12-1990 and
 advocate for the party No. 1 that it is clear from the      termination oftheir service orally is illegal , the burden is
 evidence on record that the applicants were never           onthem to prove their appointment with party no. 1 and
appointed by party no. 1 and WCL being a public sector       their working for 240 days in the preceeding 12 calendar
 undertaking , there are set norms for appointment through  01-01-1991 . months of the date of their alleged termination i.e.
Employment Exchange, except in the case of land oustee
and compassionate appointment and the applicants have             11. To prove their case , the applicants have examined
not stated anything as to when and by whom they were        the applicants , Sopar Shankar as a witness and have
appointed and documents such as pay slip , identity card,   produced the only document, Ext. W- 1 .

1961

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

statement of claim . The evidence of the witness is found to be quite unreliable due to the inconsistency in his evidence regarding the wages , the documents , Ext. W- I, the mode of the appointment ofthe applicants etc. There is also no legal evidence on record to establish that the applicants had infact worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months ofthe date of their alleged termination i.e. 01-01-1991 .

Onperusal of the materials on record, it is found that the applicants have miserably failed to prove that theyhad ever worked with party no. 1 either on daily wages basis or on regular employment with party no. 1. In view ofthe failure of the applicants to prove that they had ever workedwith party no. 1, with respect, I am of the view that the decision cited by the learned advocate for the applicants have no implication to the case in hand , hence, itisordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in negative . The applicants as named in the list submitted with the reference are not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer It is to be mentioned here that the applicants have neitherpleaded in the statement of claim nor in the rejoinder as to when, how and by whom they were appointed or engaged with party no . 1 and as whether they were appointed or engaged orally or by written order of the competent authority. They have also not adduced any evidence in the respect . Likewise , the applicants have also neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence as to how their services were regularized on regular establishment in 1989. Ifthe claim ofthe applicants about their working with the partyno. 1 from 01-01-1987 to 31-12-1990 and their claim of regularisation on regular employment from 01-01-1989 to 31-12-1990 is believed to be true for the sake of argument, then it is quite natural that there should have been appointment orders , documents regarding payment oftheir wages , identity cards , documents regarding CMPF membership and deduction ofwages towards contribution of CMPF, " Form B " register and orders regarding their regularisation on regular establishment with their designation and also the neme of the establishment to which they were posted. However, the applicants have not produced a single document out of the aforesaid statutory documents . The non- production of the above documents or any evidence in that respect clearly shows that the claim of the applicants is not true.

LIST OF WORKMEN

1. Sh. Bandi Narsayya Ballayya

2. Sh. Sailesh Lingaswami Sopparwar

3. Sh. Durganti Sinu Rajreddy

4. Sh . Tadveni Pochmalhu Ballayya

5. Sh. Akash Lingaswami Sopperwar

6. Sh. Dipak Narsing Gandhashriwar

7. Sh . Ramgiri Ravi Ramayya

8. Sh. Solpanka Shankarayya Rajayya

9. Sh. Khando Rajkumar Ramayya

12. So far the documents , Ext. W- I is concerned, on persual of the same , prima facie it appears that the same is a fabricated document . The applicants in their statement ofclaim have not pleaded anything as to the existence of such a documents and as to how such a document was issued. In Ext . W- I , the officer order number has not been mentioned. Though in the said document, " Office Order" has been mentioned, below the same " No Objection Certificate" has been mentioned. The most important factor for doubting the genuineness of the said document is its contents itself. Ext . W- I shows that the said document was issued on 13-02-1989 . However , in Ext . W- I, it has been mentioned that ,

10. Sh. Gurala Rajayya Komrayya

11. Sh. Sagarla Shankar Narsayya

12. Sh. Pallayya Rajayya Mallaya

13. Sh. Bhogani Rajesh Sattayya

"The workers were on duty of WCL Incline Cast colliery at Nakoda during the period i.e. 1987 to 1990 . Moreover, their services were regularized from on daily wages to on regular establishment from 1989 to 1990. Their names are as under. "

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

का.आ. 641. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 307/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Ifthe said document was issued on 13-02-1989, then there was no question of mentioning there in about the applicants working till 1990 and that their services were regularized from on daily wages to on regular establsihment from 1989 to 1990. The above mentioned facts prima- facie show that the said documents is a manufactured document and therefore , no reliance can be placed on such a document.

[सं. एल-22012/284/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी 13. So far the oral evidence of Sopar Shankar is concerned, it is found that the same is quite shaking , inconsistent and contradictory to the stands taken in the 1962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

Astankar ( ' the workman ' in short ) , filed the statment of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement .

S.O. 641. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 307/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L-22012/ 284/2003 - IR(CM- II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

CASE No. CGIT/NGP/307/2003 Date: 06-02-2013

Party No. 1(a) :

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur-440015.

Party No. 1(b) :

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of PartyNo.1 from 15-07-1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor . at Wardha Depot of Party No.1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 , when his services were terminated orally by Party No.1 , without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith , but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services , neither one month'snotice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties ofSecurity guards , in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ministry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate , Mumbai -400020.

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The Secretary,

HindNagar Ward No. 2,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , Near Boudha Vihar,

Post: Wardha , Distt .

Wardha ( M. S. )

AWARD

(Dated: 6th February , 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, Shri Homraj S. Astankar , for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 22012/ 284/2003 - IR ( CM - II) dated 08-12-2003, with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Homraj S. Astankar, Security Guard w.e.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Homraj S.

The further case of the workman is that in 1993 , he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years , but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years , the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so- called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was , also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , but actually, he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. I was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. I from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment ofcontract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 and issued notification on 01-11-1990, with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty ofthe Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the 1963

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the contract labour system was continued by the management , with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.

The further case ofparty no.1 is that for the reliefas claimed, the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/ 99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has nojurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res -judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of theworkman.

Itisfurther pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt . Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles , such as , torch, lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long spell ofwork being carried out by him , he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

The further case ofParty No. 1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation andAbolition) Act , 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01-11-1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and, therefore , the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was. paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance ofthe security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards , as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employec appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as torch, Lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to the workman and as such , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4.Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence .

The workman in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness . In his evidence , which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim .

In his cross- examination , the workman has admitted that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to the FCI and FCI had not given any advertisement for the said post and he does not know the name of the contractor and no appointment order was given to him , eitherby the contractor or the FCI and he has not filed any 3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him , as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract ofthe contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated bythe contractor and the original period of contract given tothe contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer ofthe workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 15-07-1993 to14-03-1999 , without any break in service and the workman didnot complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman , at any point of time and under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act , they were exempted by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their godowns are filled with food grains , then only, services ofthe security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system , they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards .

1964

                       THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934                      [ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
    document to show that salary was paid to him by FCI and      theAct and after termination of the services of the workman ,
    he cannot say for how many years he served in FCI and
     no termination order was issued by FCI and Mr. Bokade       fresh hands were engaged by party no. 1 to extract the
    terminated him orally and initially, he was getting Rs . 700 duties of security guard, in violation of the provision of
    as salary, but he cannot say the break -up of his salary,    Section 25 - H of the Act and the work of security guard is
    such as basic , DA and other allowances and he has not      perennial in nature , hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal .
    filed any document to show that he served with FCI from
    1993 to 1999. The workman has admitted that he was                Itwas further submitted by the learned advocate for
    appointed through Singh Securities Services .               the workman that the party no . 1 had shown the workman
                                                                as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
         5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on     only on papers and the workman was actually working
   behalf of the party no . 1 has also reiterated the facts     underthe direct control and supervision of the party no. 1
   mentioned in the written statement , in his examination - in- and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
   chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross - examination, this party no.1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
   witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had       legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
   obtained any license from the competent authority for        between the management and the contractor was bogus
   engagement of contract labours in FCI . The witness has      and not genuine and the Central Government by
   admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI      notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of
   and he was engaged for watch and ward of go -downs and      contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
   theworkman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch           labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
   on the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from, FCI      management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
   go-downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply        labour system and to give employment to the workman.
   conract labourers had the required license for the same,
  but copy of such license was not filed and the process of          Itwas also submitted by the learned advocate for
   engagement ofcontractors was done by the Regional Office    the workman that party no . 1 has admitted the claims made
  ofFCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details     bythe workman and has not been able to prove their claim
  ofthe process of engagement of contractors and during        that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
  the general election to the Parliament , FCI had submitted   cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
  the names of the workman and 12 others in the list of       workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
  employees submitted to the collector. This witness has       continuity and full back wages .
  denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others             7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
  were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go-      for the party no.1 that the workman was never appointed
  downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and that the FCI was         by party no.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
  maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The    security guard and as such , the concerned contractor is a
  witness has further stated that payment of wages to the     necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
  workman was being done through the contractor as per        the written statement , the workman did not implead the
 the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was        contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
  not making any deduction from the said wages towards        maintainable . It was further submitted by the learned
 PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register     advocate for the party no . 1 that the workman was engaged
  or salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt . by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
 Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of          came to an end in March , 1999, the services of the workman
 labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was          were terminated by the contractor and as such , there was
 submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the       no question ofparty no.1 complying with the due procedure
 workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI.               oftermination and there was no relationship of master and
      6.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the     servant between the party no.1 and the workman and the
 learned advocate for the workman that the workman was       party no.1 was exempted by the Central Government from
 engaged by the management of FCI on 15-07-1993 at           the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers , so
 Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked              contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
 continuously without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 for supply of security guards and due to the notification of
 and his services were terminated orally by the party no.1 , the Government for abolition of contract labour system,
without following the due procedure of law and the           Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as
workman had completed more than 240 days of work in          security guards and party no . 1 has no control over the
each year and before termination of the services of the     worrkman and the security contractor was submitting bills
workman , neither one month's notice nor one month's         for payment for supply of security guards and the security
wage in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was     contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
given to the workman , as required under section 25 - F of   further submitted by the learned advocate for the party
                                                             no.1 that the workman and some others had approached

1965

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such , the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res -judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res -judicata, due to the decision ofthe Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

9. Inthis reference , it is never the case ofthe workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party no. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim , it has been mentioned by the workman thathe was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot , Wardha as a security guard, through a contractor. Inparagraph 4 of the statement of claim , the workman has mentioned that , " In the year 1993 , the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for the period of 2 years , but the contract was made on paper. " The case of the workman is that after every two years , the party no . 1 on papers showed the change of contractors , but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01-11-1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and party no . 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services ofthe Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same , they have became workmen of Food Corporation of India , since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross - examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to FCI , and he was appointed through Singh Securites Services , it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1 .

"Inview of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union water front workers and others [reported in 2001 ( 7 ) SCC 1 ] , the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted .

10. At this juncture , I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon 'ble Apex Court . regarding contract labours , in the two decisions reported in 1985 - II LLJ - 4 ( S.C. ) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs M/ s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C. ) [ Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others ] . In the decision reported in 1985 - II LLOJ -4 ( supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that : ----

Inview ofthe rejection ofthe main prayer, the question ofgranting other prayer does not arise. In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances . "

"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor, the labour force employedby him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation , there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. " Workmen " hasbeen defined (omitting the words not necessary ) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do ". "The expression' employed has at least two known connotations , but as used in the definition , the context would indicate So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress . Hence , the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res -judicata.- So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned. advocate for the party no . 1 .

1966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience . The essential condition ofa person being a workman within the terms of thedefinition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be , other words , an employment ofhis by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a " workman " within the definition of the term as contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra ( 1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands , the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person . Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union. "

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656 (supra) the Hon 'ble Apex Court have held that:-

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions ofthe Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication , or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10 ( 1 ) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors . But , the presence of some or all those factors , provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10 ( 1) by the appropriate Government , is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation ofSections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act , it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment . Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible .

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground ofhaving undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuinebut a mere camouflage , the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable , and , if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age ofthe workers at the time of , their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications .

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Over ruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999 , D/ -12- 8-1999 ( Cal ) : C.O. No. 6545( W) if 1996, D/ -9-5-1997(Cal ): W.A. Nos . 345-354 of 1997m D/ -17-4-1998 (Kant ) : W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8-2000 ( Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999 , D/-23-12-1999 ( Bom) , ' 1998 Lab IC 2571 ( Cal ) , Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment , the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour . Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms " Contract labour" , " Establishment " and " Workman " does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective ofthe fact as to who has brought about such relationship . The word " Workman " is defined in wide terms . It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species . It is true that combined reading of the terms " Establishment " and " Workman " shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true ofa workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act . A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under. "

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , the present case in hand is to be considered.

1967

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 642. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 27/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial- Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of Ratibati Colliery of M/s . ECI . , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. 1. - 22012/145/ 2004- IR (CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOLL

Present: Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen. Presiding Officer

Reference No. 27 of 2005

Parties: The management of Ratibati Colly. , M / s . ECI. , Burdwan(WB )

Representatives:

For the management : None

For the union (Workman) : None

12. In this case, the letter No. U- 23013/ 11 /89/LW dated 28.05.92 , Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning , dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted bythe Central Government . So , the engagement ofcontract labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman . The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence . The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliane of the various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under . The workman , has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time. Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee . It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presenceesence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same . As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No.1 , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the . Party No.1 and the workman. Hence , there was no question of termination ofthe services by the Party No.1 or compliance ofthe provisions of Sections 25 - F or 25 -H of the Act .

Industry: Coal

Vs. The Dy. President , CMU.Asansol ( WB ) State : West Bengal Dated-16-01-2013

AWARD

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor . So, the contractor, who had engagedthe workman is a necessary party in the reference . The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

Inview ofthe materials on record and the discussions made above , the reference cannot be answered in favour ofthe workman . Hence , it is ordered: ---

ORDER

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/145/2004- IR (CM- II ) dated 04-03-2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

The reference is answered in the negative. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of dismissal accorded to Sh . Teka Bhuiya by the management of Chapuikhas Colliery ofM / s . Eastern Coalfields Limited is legal andjustified? If not , to what relief he is entitled to? " का.आ. 642. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 27/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/02/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/ 145/2004- आई आर (सीएम- II ) ]

Having received the Order of Letter No. 1. - 22012 145/2004- IR ( CM - II ) dated 04-03-2005 of the above said reference from the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 27 of 2005 was registered on 12-04-2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

870413-23 1968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 PHALGUNA 25. 1934

PART II SEC. 3( i )]

Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , PresidingOfficer Reference No. 04 of 1997 date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support oftheir claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Parties: The management of Khendra Colly. , M/ s . FCI.. Burdwan (WB ) Vs. The Org . Secy. ( Legal ) , CMU , Ukhra (W.B. )

Representatives :

For the management: Sri P.K. Das , L.d. Advocate

For the union (Workman ) : None

On perusal of the case record it is found that the dispute has already been settled for reinstatement of Sri Teka Bhuiya , the concerned workman vide G.M. Satgram Area of ECL's Letter No. SAT/ PER / Re- instatement/2011 /322 dated 23-09-2011 and the Form ' H ' enclosed therein duly signed by the concerned workman, Sri Teka Bhuiya and the representatives of the management .

Industry: Coal State : West Bengal Dated-07-02-13 AWARD

Considering the above facts , the case is closed and accordingly it is awarded that the case has been settled as perForm ' H ' , memorandum of settlement between both the parties , as an integral part of it. The terms and conditions of the settlement shall be binding upon both the parties . Hence , the case is closed . Accordingly, it is hereby ordered.

ORDER

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -22012/ 546/95 - IR ( C - II ) dated 17-01-1997 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposedof.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of the management of Khendra Colliery under Bankola Area of M / s . ECI . in dismissing Sh . Shankar Sardar, Underground Dresser, from services w..e.f. 05-05-1998 is legal ? If not , what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

का.आ. 643. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 04/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/546/1995- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February , 2013

Having received the Order of Letter No. 1. -22012/ 546/95 - IR ( C - II ) dated 17-01-1997 of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference caseNo. 04 of 1997 was registered on 27-01-1997 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

S.O. 643 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

Onperusal of the case record it has found that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since 11-03-2008 despite registered notices. It seems that the workman is now no more interested to proceed with the case further . The case is also too old1997 As such, the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed .

ORDER

[No. L- 22012/546/ 1995 - IR( C- II)] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour. New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN. Presiding Officer 1969

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, Shri Rajesh Wamanrao Bokade , for adjudication. as per letter No. 1. -22012 /233 /2003 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 08-12-2003, with the following schedule:

का.आ. 644.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 290/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur (M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Wamanrao Bokade . SecurityGuard w.e.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

[सं. एल-22012/233/2003- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly , the workman , Shri Rajesh Wamanrao Bokade ( " the workman " in short ) . filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement.

S.O. 644. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 290/ 2003) ofthe Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betweenthe management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013.

[No. L-22012/233/2003 - IR (CM - II )] Β . Μ . ΡΑΊΝΑΙΚ , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date:06-02-2013.

Case No. CGIT/NGP /290/2003

PartyNo. 1(a) :The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ajani , Nagpur-440015 . , Nagpur

Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgatye , Mumbai -400020 .

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of PartyNo. I from 17-08-1995 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 , when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1 , without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith , but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in licu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. I to extract the duties of Security guards , in violation of the provision of section 25-11 of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

Versus

Party No. 2 :The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt . Wardha (M.S. )

AWARD

(Dated : 6th February, 2013 )

The further case of the workman is that in 1993 , he was engaged by the Party No. I through the contractor for a period of two years , but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years , the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so- called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from hisservices and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , but actually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. I and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ("the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial 1970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/ PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) |

work in a year as alleged and as the workinan was engaged by the Security Contractor , there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point oftime and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act , they were exemptedby the , Central Government , so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 ( H ) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore , the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go -downs are filled with food grains , then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system , they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

No. I and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. I was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. I from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. I and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 and issued notification on 01-11-1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. Ito abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guard working at Nagpur and Manmad , but at Akola , Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the contract labour system was continued by the management , with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws .

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. I and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt . Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No. I was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractor engaged by the Party No. I and Party No. I also supplied the articles , such as , torch , lathi , whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him , he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages .

The further case of party no . 1 is that for the reliefs as claimed, the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res -judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appoint.nent and service conditions of the workman , who was an employce of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of theworkman.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him , as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterrrptedly till 14th March . 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end , the service of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March , 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 17-08-1995 to 14-03-1999 , without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of

The further case of party no . 1 is that the appropriate governinent decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regularisation and Abolition ) Act . 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01-11-1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore , the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman . they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite

                                                                                                               1971
[ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
                                                             workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wage
number of security guards , as per their requirement and     in lieu ofnotice nor retrenchment compensation was given
they did not have the power to terminate any employee        to the workman , as required under section 25 - F of the Act
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any     and after termination of the services of the workman , fresh
article, such as torch , Lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to the hands were engaged by party no . I to extract the duties of
workman and as such , the workman is not entitled to any      security guard , in violation of the provision of section
relief.
                                                             25-H ofthe Act and the work of security guard is perennial
      4. It appears from record that in support ofhis case,   in nature , hence the termination of the workman is void
 though the workman filed his evidence on affidavit, he did  and illegal .
 not appear for his cross - examination . As the evidence of        Itwasfurther submitted by the learned advocate for
 the workman has not been tested by way of cross-             the workman that the party no . I had shown the workman
 examination , the same cannot be considered.                 as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
       5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on     only on papers and the workman was actually working
 behalf of the party no.1 has also reiterated the facts       under the direct control and supervision of the party no . 1
 mentioned in the written statement , in his examination - in- and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
 chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross - examination , this party no. I was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
 witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had       legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
 obtained any license from the competent authority for        between the management and the contractor was bogus
 engagement of contract labours in FCI . The witness has       and not genuine and the Central Government by
 admitted that the workman was working from 1995 in FCI        notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of
  and he was engaged for watch and ward of go-downs and        contract labour and directed to give employment to
  theworkman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch on        contract labours engaged by the management and therefore,
  the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI           the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
  go-downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply         labour system and to give employment to the workman.
  contract labourers had the required license for the same.          It was also submitted by the learned advocate for
  but copy of such license was not filed and the process of    the workman that party no . I has admitted the claims made
  engagement ofcontractors was done by the Regional Office     bythe workman and has not been able to prove their claim
   of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the           that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
  details of the process of engagement of contractors and      cogent evidence in support of the same and as such , the
   during the general election to the Parliament , FCI had     workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
   submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the
                                                               continuity and full back wages.
  list of employees submitted to the collector. This witness
   has denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others          7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
   were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the          advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never
   go-downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and that the FCI was       appointed by party no.1 and he has engaged by the
   maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The     contractor as a security guard and as such , the concerned
   witness has further stated that payment of wages to the      contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
   workman was being done through the contractor as per         objection in the written statement, the workman did not
   theminimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was         implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
   not making any deduction from the said wages towards         isnot maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
   PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register     advocate for the party no . I that the workman was engaged
    orsalary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt.  by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
   Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of          came toan end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
    labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was          wereterminated by the contractor and as such , there was
    submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the       noquestion ofparty no. 1 complying with the due procedure
   workman was on duty from 1995 to 1999 in FCI .                oftermination and there was no relationship of master and
          6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the    servant between the party no . I and the workman and the
    learned advocate for the workman that the workman was        party no. I was exempted by the Central Government from
    engaged by the management of FCI on 17-08-1995 at            the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers , so
                                                                 contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules .
    Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked                for supply of security guards and due to the notification
    continuously without any interruption till 14th March,       of the Government for abolition of contract labour system .
    1999 and his services were terminated orally by the party     Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as
     no. 1, without following the due procedure of law and the    security guards and party no.1 has no control over the
    workman had completed more than 240 days of work in          workmanand, the security contractor was submitting bills
    each year and before termination of the services of the

1972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25, 1934

                                                                                                      [ PART II SEG3 ( ii) |
     for payment for supply of security guards and the security
    contractor was paying the wages to the workman . It was      Court didnot consider the claim made by the workman and
    further submitted by the learned advocate for the party      others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach
    no.1 that the workman and some others had approached         the appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
    the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of         cannot be said to be hit by the principles of
    1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the        res -judicata . So, there is no force in the contention raised
    Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition     by the learned advocate for the party no.1 .
    have held that the termination of the workman by the               9. In this reference , it is never the case of the
    contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal   workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
    and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again   party no. I as a security guard. In the very beginning of
    and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as       the statement of claim , it has been mentioned by the
    res -judicata between the parties and the workman is not
   entitled to any relief.                                      workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
                                                                 of India Depot, Wardha as a security guard, through a
         8. First of all , I will take up the submission made by contractor . In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim , the
   the learned advocate for the party no. I that the present    workman has mentioned that. " In the year 1993 , the
   reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India
   decision of the Hon'ble High Court. Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99 . through contractor, for the period of 2 years , but the contract
                                                                was made on paper. " The case of the workman is that after
                                                                every two years , the party no , I on papers showed the
         It is not disputed that the workman along with 78      change of contractors , but he was not disturbed from
   others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena          services and he worked continuously without any break
   Saptahit    Jaibhim "   filed   Writ    Petition   no .      till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
   1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at      perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
  Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur, for their regularisation      The workman has also claimed that as the Central
   and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On    Government issued notification on 01-11-1990 to abolish
  perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on     the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
  29-07-2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the   employment to contract labours engaged by the
  workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground      management and party no. I implemented such direction a
  that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular  Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
  work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the     regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
  same, they have became workmen of Food Corporation of        working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
  India. since the work on which they were employed is of      same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the
  perennial nature . However, it is found from the judgment    benefits under the Labour Laws .
  that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main
  relief and passed the following order:                            From the evidence on record and the own admission
                                                               of the workman in the statement of claim that he was
       "In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench      engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to
       in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs.         FCI , it is clear that the workman was engaged by the
       National Union Water front workers and others          contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence
        reported in 2001 ( 7 ) SCC 11 , the relief sought by the to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
       petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
       involves disputed question of facts as also other            10. At this juncture . I think it apropos to mention
       facts which are required to be adjudicated by          aboutthe principles enunciated by the Hon 'ble Apex Court
       appropriate authority. Accordingly the main prayer     regarding contract labours , in the two decisions reported
       to absorb them cannot be granted.                      in 1985 - IILLJ 4 (S.C. ) ( The workman ofthe Food Corporation
            XX          XX         XX          XX             ofIndia Vs. M/ s . Food Corporation of India ) and 2001 LAB
                                                              IC 3656 ( SC ) ( Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs.
       In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the      National Union Water Front Workers and Others) .
 question of granting other prayer does not arise . In case,       In the decision reported in 1985-11 LLOJ -4 ( supra )
 the petitioners approach the appropriate authority. the     the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:-
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year . The applicants are free to approach         Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances . "    contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot.
      So , it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble       the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
High Courtas mentioned above that the Hon'ble High                 of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
                                                                   force employed by him . payments made by him etc.

1973

[ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii ) |                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934
      In such a fact situation , there was no privity of           place in the Act and the consequence of violation of
      contract of employer and workmen between the                  Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly
      corporation and the workmen . " Workmen " has been            provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it
      defined (omitting the words not necessary ) in the            isnot for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to
      Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person                   read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
      including an apprentice ) employed in any industry            substitute for penal consequences specified in
                                                                    Sections23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption
      to do............ The expression ' employed has at least      ofcontract labour in the establishment of principal
      two known connotations , but as used in the
      definition , the context would indicate that it is used       employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment . Such
       in the sense of a relationship brought about by              an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will
      express or implied contract of service in which the           be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases
      employee renders service for which he is engaged              and the scope of interpretative legislation and as
                                                                     such clearly impermissible .
      by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
       cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily            Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
      prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command.      S. 10(1 ) ofthe CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
       and obedience . The essential condition of a person     labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought before
       being a workman within the terms ofthe definition is    it by any contract in regard to conditions of service , the
       that he should be employed to do the work in that       industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
       industry and that there should be , in other words , an whether the contractor has been interposed cither on the
       employment of his by the employer and that there        ground of having undertaken to produce any given result
       should be a relationship between the employer and       for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for
       employee or master and servant unless a person is       work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
       thusemployed there can be no question of his being      mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
        a "workman " within the definition of the term as      beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
       contained in theAct. Dharangadhara Chemical Works       benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not
       Ltd. Vs. State ofSaurashtra ( 1957 - II -LLJ - 477). Now genuine but a mere camouflage , the so called contract labour
       where a contractor employs a workman to do the          will have to be treated as employees of the principal
       work which he contracted with a third person to          employer who shall be directed to regularize the services
        accomplish on the definition as it stands , the        ofthe contract labour in the concerned establishment. If
       workman of the contractor would not without              the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
        something more become the workman of that third         employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
        person . Therefore , when the workmen employed by       preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise
        the contractor were certainly not the workmen ofthe     found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition
        corporation and no claim to that effect has been made   as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration..
        by the union ."                                         the age of the workers at the time oftheir initial employment
                                                                by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
        11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656      academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.
        (supra) the Hon ' ble Apex Court have held that:-             Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
        The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be  prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999 .
        constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose   D/- 12-8-1999 (Cal ): C.O. No. 6545 (W ) if 1996, D/ 9-5-
        benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in    1997(Cal): W.A. Nos . 345-354 of 1997m D/-17-4-1998 ( Kant):
        the provisions of the Act what the legislature has      W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8-2000 (Bom ) and W.P. No.
         not provided whether expressly or by necessary         2616 of 1999, D/-23-12-1999 ( Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 ( Cal ).
         implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for     Reversed.
        that provided by the legislature . The intendment of           It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
         the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service   contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
         of the contract labour and to authorize in Section      connection with the work of an establishment , the
         10( 1 ) prohibition of contract labour system by the    relationship of master and servant is created between the
         appropriate Government on consideration of factors      principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
         enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the      combined reading of the definition of the terms " Contract
        Act among other relevant factors . But, the presence     labour" , " Establishment " and " Workman " does not show
         of some or all those factors , provide no ground for    that the legal relationship between the person employed in
         absorption of contract labour on issuing notification   any industry and the owner of the industry is created
         underSection 10( 1 ) by the appropriate Government,     irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
         is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other  relationship. The word " Workman " is defined in wide terms .

1974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 22 फरवरी , 2013 It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment" and " Workman " shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master . But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLLRA Act . A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under . "

का.आ. 645 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में . केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायायल , असनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 26/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22 02 2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered.

[ सं. एल 22012/18/2002 आई आर ( सी एम II ) | बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 645.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. 26/2002 ) of the Cent. Govt. Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court . ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Lacchipur Colliery. M/s . Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. 1.-22012/ 18 /2002 - IR ( CM - 11 ) ] B. M. PATNAIK . Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer Reference No. 26 of 2002

Parties : The management of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M / s . ECL.. Burdwan Vs.

Sri Tapan Mazumdar , Bidhanbag . ( WB )

Representatives :

12. In this case , the letter No. U-23013/ 11/89/LW dated 28-05-92 , Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted bythe Central Government . So, the engagement of contract labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimedby the workman . The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence . The engagement of labor contractor by Party No. I was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under . The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of tine, Party No.1 paid his wages as their em pbyee . It is clear from the evidence that Party No 1 paid wages ofthe last three months to the workman in presence ofthe Labour Commissssioner, as the contractordid not pay the same.As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workm an was engaged as a contract labourwith Party Nol , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship ofm asterand servant between the . Party No.1 and the workman . Hence , there was no question of team inationofthe servicesby the Party No 1 orom pliance ofthe provisions of Sections 25-For25 - H of theAct.

For the Management

: Shri P.K. Das . L.d.

Adovocate

For the union

: Shri Sayantan Mukherjee .

(Workman)

Ld . Advocate

Representative

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the workm an is a necessary party in the reference . Thesaid contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non -joinder of necessary party, the refertence is bad in law .

Industry : Coal

State :West Bengal Dated 06-02-13 Inview ofthem aterialson record and the discussions made above, the reference carinot be answered in favour oftheworkman . Hence , itisordered :-

1975

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AWARD

hisfamily member are thrown on Street for begging which isagainst the Natural Justice.

In exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofSub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 18/2002-( IR . (CM - II ) dated 08-08-2002 has been pleasedto refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

Accordingly the action of the Management in dismissingTapan Mazumdar , Pit Clerk , from service is not legal and justified and the same is fit to the set aside . But considering the previous conduct of the workman , I hold that the Management before permitting him to join , he must be directed to execute a bond that in future he will not remain unauthorized absent, and ifhe will found again unauthorized absent he should be dismissed at once . So far back wages from 31-12-98 . is concurred, the workman Tapan,Mazumdar with be entitled only 50% of the amount ofbackwages .

ORDER

"Whether the action of the management of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s . Eastern Coalfield Limited in dismissing Sri Tapan Mazumdar, Pit Clerk from service is legal and justified ? If not, what relief is the workman entitled ?"

Lct an " Award " be and the same is passed as per above discussion . Send the copies of the order to the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

Having received the Order of Letter No.1 .-22012/ 18/ 2002-( IR . (CM - II ) dated 08-08-2002 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute, a reference case No. 26 of2002 was registered on 20-08-2002 and accordingly anorder to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their writtenstatements along with the relevant documents and a list ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

का.आ. 646. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 222/20(X) ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-22012/521/1999-आई आर (सीएम- II ) | बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 22nd February, 2013 The workman Tapan Mazumdar was found continuous absence duty since 06-07-98 to 31-12-98 without any information , for which a domestic enquiry was held. During enquiry it was found that earliar also he remained absent unauthorisedly due to which he was punished by the Management which has been admitted by the workman Tapan Mazumdar is his affidavit is chief dated. 16-03-2010 is last that one para on page - 5. The learned lawyer Sri Sayantan Mukherjee , Advocate, of the workman has submitted that " it is a case of Double Jeopardy" and " Nemo debet bis vesri ", but in my opinion the provision of Double Jeopardy will not applicable in the present case and because the workman Tapan Mazumdar was punished earliar for his misconductwhich the workman has admitted in his evidence (examination- in- chief) as carliar referred.

S.O. 646. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.222/ 2000) ofthe Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum - labour Court , NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of WCI , and their workmen. which was received by the Central Government on 22-02- 2013.

[No. 1.-22012/521 / 1999 - IR ( CM - II ) | Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΛIK Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date :08-02-2013 .

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 222/ 2000

But instead of misconduct of the workman , roferred above, I find that the workman was suffering jaundice ( Hepatitis - B) as per medical report of the doctor dated 31-13-98 and the doctor has given fitness - certificate , so, in my opinion the workman Tapan Mazumdar should be given a chance by way of " last chance " so that he can reform himself in future . In my opinion though the conduct of the workman is " remaining unauthorized absent", but the decision of the Managementby dismissing from service is a very harsh and capital punishment to him and by this decision of the Management , the workman along with all

87045/13-24 1976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii) |

Party No. 1 : The Sub Area Manager, Sillewara Colliery, Tah . Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

Versus

PartyNo. 2 : Shri Somraj Timaji Rakshit Ward no . 2, Khaparkheda, The. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 8th February, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , Shri Somraj Rakshit, for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 22012/ 521 /99- IR ( CM - II ) dated 13-07-2000 , with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Western coalfields Ltd. through its Suptd. of Mines , Manager, Sillewara Colliery, Tah . Saoner, Distt. Nagpur in dismissing the services of Sh . Somraj Timaji Rakshit w.e.f. 20-03-99 is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Somraj Rakshit , ( " the workman " in short ) , filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL, ( " Party No. I " in short) filed their written statement.

30-05-1996, a rail line fell on his right leg and his right great toe was fractured and he was admitted in the hospital immediately and proceeded on sick leave w.e.f. 31-05-1996 till 04-07-1996, as per the advice of the medical officer and after his recovery, he resumed his duties w.c.f. 05-07-1996 and submitted the medical bills and x- ray report and the same were duly acknowledged by party no.lon 17-06-1996 , but the safety officer did not take any step for reimbursement of the medical bills submitted by him and payment of his wages for the period of his availing such leave , so he made complaint against the safety officer to the higher authority and as the higher authority called for explanation from the safety officer for negligence in duty, the safety officer became annoyed with him and to take revenge for making complaint to the higher authority, forced him to work in the underground, but the civil surgeon , G.H. Hospital , Nagpur issued a certificate on 14-05-1997 advising the party no . I to provide light work for two months w.c.f. 14-05-1997 , but in spite of such advice, he was not provided with light work and he was completely unable to work in the underground, due to severe trouble inwalking and without considering the advice of the civil surgeon, party no . I did not allow him to resume his duties for light work and marked him absent from duty, by way of vengeance and he was constrained to file writ petition no . 2511 of 1997 and notice of the said writ petition was served on party no.l , but inspite of the same, party no . I issued the charge sheet dated 14-02-1998 against him and on 05-03-1998 , he gave his reply, requesting party no . Ito stay the enquiry proceedings till the disposal of the writ petition , but party no. I did not pay any heed to his request and he appeared before the enquiry officer, as and when he was called upon , but he was sent back on one pretext or the other or due to the reason of the enquiry officer being busy in other matters and on 01-02-1999 , he appeared personally before the enquiry officer and wanted to deliver a letter, but the enquiry officer refused to accept the letter, so he sent the letter by post, which was received by the enquiry officer on 01-02-1999 , but no reply was given to the same and on 04-02-1999, he again sent a registered letter requesting to allow him to participate in the enquiry proceedings and the said letter was duly acknowledged on 05-02-1999 and after waiting for a longtime, he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central). Nagpur by filing a complaint on 12-02-1999 and soon after the filing of the complaint , on 15-02-1999 , he received the enquiry report dated 12-02-1999 and on the same day, he submitted an application to party no. I intimating that on 04-02-1999 i.e. before the submission of the enquiry report . he had requested the enquiry officer to give proper opportunity of defence and the ALC issued the letter dated 10-03-1999 to party no . I asking them to give their comments . but party no.1 avoided to give any reply and instead of appearing before the ALC , on 17-03-1999 issued a show cause notice to him , under certificate of posting , which The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of party no. I since 07-01-1974 , as Manson Cat - II and his service record was clean and without any stigma and he wasworking in the underground and in the year 1984, while working in the underground , he met with a fatal accident and sustained injury on his left leg with a rusted iron and due to sustaining of such injury, his entire left leg was poisoned and for the same, his left leg was operated and after his recovery, he was provided light duty by party no . 1. The further case of the workman is that he was not fully recovered from the injury sustained by him and poisoning of his left leg slowly increased and as such, he was admitted in JN Hospital, Kamptee for further treatment on 12-10-1995 and he remained under medical treatment in the said hospital till 01-11-1995 and at the time of his discharge from the said hospital , he was advised by the doctor for taking bed rest from 02-11-1995 till 19-02-1996 and on 20-02-1996 , he was given the certificate of fitness for doing light duty and he was provided with light duty by the party no . I and while he was doing the light duty, on was received by him on 25-03-1999 and the such fact is

                                                                                                                   1977
[ भाग ।।  खण्ड 3( ii) ]                 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
                                                               back wages and he is also entitled to get the wages for the
evident from the postal seal on the envelop , even though ,    period, for which he was not provided work by party no.1
it was necessary to send the show cause notice under           i.c. from 15-04-1997 to 20-03-1999 , the date ofthe order of
registered post with AD and to allow him 72 hours time         hisdismissal .
after receipt of the show cause notice , but party no. I did
notdo so , with mala fide intention and passed the order of          3. The party no . I in their written statement , denying
dismissal on 20-03-1999 and it can be seen that both the       the allegations made in the statement of claim have pleaded
 show cause notice and order of dismissal were ready on         inter alia that the workman was appointed in the capacity
17-03-1999 itself, as the order ofdisınissal was a cyclostyled  ofMisc . Mazdoor category - 1 on 07-01-1974 and not as
 copy and the same was only a paper formality, to show that    Mason cat- 11 and he was regularized as Mason Helper cat-
 72 hours time was given to him to file his explanation to the  11 w.e.f. 01-01-1987 and the allegations that , in 1984 , the
 show cause notice and party no . I did not deem it necessary  workrhan met with an accident and his left leg was poisoned
 even to wait for his application and the same shows the        and after his recovery, he was given light work and he was
 mala fide intention of party no . I and that party no. I was   not recovered from the injury fully and his leg was poisoned
 predetermined for his dismissal from services .                again and that he was admitted in J.N. Hospital , and he was
       The further case of the workman is that he was absent    treated from 12-10-1995 to 01-11-1995 and after his recovery,
                                                                he was advised by the medical officer for taking rest from
  from the headquarters from 24-03-1999 to 26-03-1999 for       02-11-1995 till 19-02-1996 and he was declared fit todolight
  some urgent pressing work and after his returned to his       work on 20-02-1996 " are false , malicious and mischievous
 house in the evening of 26-03-1999 , the letter dated
 17-03-1999 was handed over to him by his family members        and a totally concocted story created just with an ulterior
  and due to making consultation with his consultant ,           motive to gain the sympathy of the Tribunal and the
                                                                workman took treatment for varicose veins and was
 preparation of the show cause and due to closure of the
  office of party no . 1 , he could able to file the show cause  operated for the same at J.N. Hospital , Kamptee on
  only on 30-03-1999 and the order of dismissal from services   17-10-1995 and he was discharged from the hospital on
                                                                01-11-1995 and varicose vein cannot be caused by any
  is by way of victimization and colourable exercise of the      traumatic injury and after discharge from the hospital , the
  employer's right and mala fide intention.                     workman was on sick leave from 02-11-1995 to 19-2-1996
        It is also pleaded by the workman that he was not        and after his recovery, though the workman was declared
  absented himself from duty, but he was not provided with       fit to do the original job by the medical officer , on the
  work on surface even after the advice of the medical officer   request of the workman and on humanitarian ground , he
  and he was not produced before the medical board, as           was given surface job from 20-02-1996 and he continued
  directed by the Ilon'ble High Court of Judicature of            on surface job till 14-07-1997 and the workman had filed
  Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur and only after his medical       writ petition no . 2511/97 claiming the reliefs to allow him to
   examination by the Medical Board, he should have been         work on surface with light duty, to declare him unlit
   asked to work in the underground and he was already           medically and to offer job to his son and promote him to
   directed to perform light work on surface , due to " varicose  next higher grade and the Hon'ble High Court , by order
   vein , left leg" , vide medical certificate dated 14-05-1997 , dated 17-11-1998 , dismissed the petition after considering
   issued by the Civil Surgeon, G. 11. Hospital, Nagpur and he    all the aspects of the case and the certificate issued by the
   had put in more than 240 days of attendance on surface         Civil Surgeon to give light duty to the workman was only
   and he had submitted the letter dated 28-06-1997 elaborately   for a period of 2 months , which was already expired way
   mentioning therein of his putting 240 days of attendance       back and during the pendency of the writ petition filed by
   from 20-02-1996 to 14-04-1997 and he was not provided          the workman, he was examined by the panel of doctors
   work and sent back from work w.e.f. 15-04-1997 , though        and the report of the panel of doctors did not indicate any
   work was available on surface and party no . I vide letter     disability of the workman and as the workman remained
   28-09-1998 directed him to appear at J.N. Hospital for his     absent from the work continuously for a long time , they
   medical examination and party no. I got the certificate as     were constrained to issue the charge sheet dated 14-02-1998 and
   desired by them only to harass him .                            following the principles of natural justice , the workman
          The further case of the workman is that neither he      was given ample opportunities to defend himself, but the
                                                                  workman failed to avail the opportunities given to him and
   was allowedby party no . I to participate in the enquiry nor   did not bother to appear before the enquiry officer and the
    the copies of the depositions of the witnesses recorded in     enquiry officer vide his letter dated 18-04-1998 intimated
    the enquiry and the enquiry report were supplied to him        the workman the next date of the enquiry to have been
    and the alleged enquiry as held was entirely against the       fixed to 22-04-1998 and the workman vide his letter dated
    principles of natural justice and the order of dismissal      22-04-1998 requested for adjournment of the enquiry, on
    passed by the party no . I is illegal , improper and bad in law the ground of his inability to attend the enquiry for the
    and as such , the order of punishment is to be set aside and   sickness of his wife and as such , the enquiry officer
    he is to be reinstated in service with continuity and full

1978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25. 1934

                                                                                                          PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) |
       adjourned the enquiry to 13-05-1998 and intimated the
      workmanabout the date of enquiry vide letter no . 864 dated    intention, he started remaining absent from his duty , under
      28-04-1998 , but the workman again requested for              the pretext of ill health and as per the doctor's advice , he
      adjournment ofthe enquiry vide letters dated 12-05-1998       was given light duty on surface, for the prescribed period
      and 13-05-1998 and the enquiry officer adjourned the          and later on, after his medical examination , when the
      enquiry to 13-1-1999 and 14-01-1999, with due intimation to   workman was found in a fit condition, he was asked to
      the workman, vide his letter no . 10 dated 6 /7-01-1999 and   resume his original duty underground, but the workman
      the workman again requested for adjournment , on the          was reluctant to do so and remained absent continuously
     ground ofnon- availability ofhis co -worker , so the enquiry   for a long period from his duty and as such , the charge
     officer adjourned, the enquiry to 22-01-1999 and 23-01-1999    sheet was submitted against him and as the workman did
      and intimated the dates to the workman vide letter no . 103   not attend the departmental enquiry, inspite of giving him
     dated 18-01-1999 and then only, for the first time, the        sufficient opportunities , the enquiry was concluded and
     workman requested for giving him an opportunity to submit     the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report and the
     his explanation to the charge sheet and to stop the enquiry   workman was issued with the second show cause notice
     proceedings and the enquiry officer in all fairness .         and though, the workman received the show cause notice .
     adjourned the proceedings, in order to enable the workman     he failed to file his show cause and ultimately, he was
     to file his explanation to the charge sheet and issued letter dismissed from services and as such, the claim made by
     no. 127 dated 25-01-1999, asking the workman to appear       dismissed. the workman is devoid of any merit and is liable to be
     before him within three days of the receipt of the said letter
    during the office hours with all supporting documents ,             4. In the rejoinder, the workman has denied the
    witnesses and representative , if any and it was also         pleadings made by the party no . I in the written statement .
    communicated to the workman that the said opportunity         It ispleadedby the workman in the rejoinder that he
    wasgiven to him as a last chance, but inspite of the same .   continued to work on surface till 14-04-1997 and not till
    the workman failed to avail the opportunity and did not       14-07-1997, as claimed and the doctors , who examined him
    appear before the enquiry officer and the workman neither     were of J.N.Hospital and no outside doctors were called
    appeared before the enquiry officer personally on             for the said purpose and as such , the report is not binding
   01-02-1999 nor sent any letter on 04-02-1999 to them by       and after receipt of the letter of the Enquiry Officer dated
    post, as alleged and the show cause notice was issued to     25-01-1999, he attended the office of the Enquiry Officer in
   the workman on 17-03-1999 under certificate of posting        regard to the departmental enquiry and met the clerk, Shri
   and admittedly the notice was received by the workman         Chikhede and the said clerk informed him about the Enquiry
   and inspite of receipt of the show cause notice , the        Officer to be busy in other office work and his non
   workman failed to appear or to submit any explanation and     availability for the enquiry and that the next date of the
   the workman was treated for varicose vein and he was also     inquiry would be intimated to him and as such , he returned
   provided with light work on surface and the departmental     back and waited for communication of the next date of the
  enquirywas conducted in the most fair and impartial manner,    inquiry, but he did not receive any communication and
  giving full opportunity to the workman to defend his case      though he was not in a position to work in the under-
  and it is not true to say that they had refused to provide    ground due to his ill health , party No. I insisted for doing
  work to the workman or that the workman was returned          duties in the under- ground and the party No. 1 intentionally
  back by them from work, rather it was the workman , who       warned him that in case of his not in a position to work in
  remained absent from work continuously for a long             the under- ground, he would not be allowed to do any work
  period, without due permission and the workman was            and party No. 1 compelled him to return back from the place
  informedto resume his original duty as Manson and inspite     of work and marked him absent on record and issued the
  of asking the workman to resume his original duty, he         charge suit to suit their purpose.
  remained absent continuously without permission and as
  such, he was marked absent from duty and the workman               5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
 was examined by the panel of doctors, whose report did        services , after holding of a departmental enquiry, the
 not disclose of the workman of having any disablement         fairness ofthe enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue
 and as such , the opinion of the Civil Surgeon, Nagpur, if    for consideration and by order dated 12-02-2007 , the enquiry
 any had no legality, validity or propriety .                  was held to be invalid and vitiated and not in accordance
       It is further pleaded by party no . I that the Hon'ble withthe principles ofnatural justice and the party no . I was
High Court did not order to stay the proceedings before       giventhe opportunity of proving the charges by adducing evidence before this Tribunal .
theenquiry officer and as such, there was no question to
stay the enquiry proceedings during the pendency of Writ            6. To prove the charges against the workman , party
petition no. 2511/1997 and the workman is interested in       no. I examined Kuttiyal Yahannan Tahankachan and Ilomkar
getting his son appointed in his place and with such          Nagorao Chinchkhede as the two witnesses. In rebuttal,
                                                              the workman examined himself as a witness . The examination

1979

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

in chief of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the party no.1 and so also the workman is on affidavit .

In their examination -in -chief, the two witnesses examined on behalf of the party no . I have mostly reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement . However, in the cross-exam ination , witness , Kuttiyal Yohannan Thankachan has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the enquiry held against the workman and the punishment imposed against him and his evidence on affidavit is based on the records of the enquiry and he has no personal knowledge about the incident, for which the charge sheet was submitted against the workman .

employment to his son. The workman has stated that he cannot say if the said writ petition was dismissed on 17-11-1998 . The workman has also admitted that he has not filed any certificate either before the management of WCL . or before the Hon'ble High Court to show that he was medically unfit for duty. The workman has also admitted that in paragraph two of his show cause dated 05-03-1998 . filed to the charge sheet dated 14-02-1998 , he had mentioned that . " he was performing surface duty and management sent him back to perform duty in the under- ground and forced him to perform duty in the under - ground and te declare him medically unfit and to give employment to his son and to provide him duty, till such date of declaration and that he is willing to perform surface duty." The workman has further admitted that in all his applications submitted to the management . he had requested to allow him to work on surface and as management did not provide him duty on surface w.c.f. 15-04-1997, he did not go towork in the under- ground . The workman has admitted that from 15-04-1997 . he was fit for work in the under - ground and he had filed a medical certificate showing his fitness to do his duty.

In his cross -examination , witness Homkar N. Chinchkhede has stated that he was the management representative in the departmental enquiry held against the workman and the workman had received injuries , while working under-ground and management had given surface job for two months to the workman and as the medical board did not declare the workman unfit for under- ground duty, management did not give the workman alternative job on surface further and the workman was treated at J.N. Hospital of WCL at Kamptec.

8. Before deliving into the merit of the matter. I think it necessary to mention the charges levelled against the workman . The charges levelled against the workman are as follows:

7. The workman in his examination - in- chief has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder.

26.24 : Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

26.30: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or over staying beyond ten days after sanctioned leave .

The allegations levelled against the workman were that he remained continuously absent from June, 1997 , without any sanctioned leave or permission from any competent authority.

9. At the time of argument , the learned advocate for the workman reiterated the submissions made in the statement of claim . It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the documents filed by the workman and his oral evidence clearly indicate that due to the ill -health of the workman , he was not in a position to work in the underground and the Civil Surgeon had advised to provide light work to the workman and inspite of the same, the party no . I compelled the workman to work in the underground, inspite of the request of the workman to stop the payment of underground allowance and to allot him permanent duty on surface and management did not consider the medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon and though the workman attended his duty regularly, party no.l intentionally marked him absent in the register to make out a false case of absenteeism and party no. I has failed to prove the charges by adducing any reliable and cogent evidence and as such , the order of punishment of In his cross - examination , the workman has admitted that he has not filed any document in support of his claim that in the year 1984, he had sustained fatal injury on his left leg due to an accident in the under- ground mine and due to such injury, he was operated. It is further admitted by the workman that he has not filed any document to show that in the year 1995 , he was admitted in J.N. Hospital , Kamptee, for further treatment of the injury received on his left leg in the year 1984 and he was operated in the said hospital. The workman has admitted that in 1995 , a minor operation on his left leg was done in J.N. Hospital due to varicose vein . The workman has candidly admitted that as there was no treatment for sustaining injury on his left leg , he does not have any document regarding such treatment and till the year 1995 , he was working in the under- ground mine and his statement in paragraph two of hisaffidavit that, " after his recovery, he was provided light duty is not true. " It is further admitted by the workman that after his operation in 1995, for varicose veins , he requested the management to provide him light duty on surface for some days and management accepted his request and provided him light work on surface and in 1995 , his operation and treatment was done in J.N. Hospital , Kamptec and nowhere else . The workman has also admitted that on 15-04-1997 , he was asked by the management to join the original duties in the under-ground . The workman has also admitted that he had filed writ petition no . 2511/1997 praying todirect the management of WCI . to regularize his service on surface, to declare him medically unfit and to give 1980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

                                                                                                      == [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
     dismissal from services is liable to be set aside and the
     workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with          there is no scope in this reference for consideration of the
     continuity and full back wages .                              claims made by the workman in respect of the same .
           In support of the contention, the learned advocate           12. In this case , as the party no . I had been given the
     for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported    scope to lead evidence to prove the charges against the
    in 1995 (N ) CLR - 1095 (Co-operative Sugar Ltd Vs. Co- op.S.C. workman before this Tribunal , with respect, I am of the
    Employees Association ) and 1996 II CLR - 241 ( Managing      viewthatthedecision reported in 1995 ( II ) CLR- 1095 ( Supra)
    Uanavana) . Director, Bharat Containers Pvt . Ltd. Vs. Arvind Waman has no clear application to the present case in hand.
                                                                        13.Now, it is to be considered as to whether from the
          10. the Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned     materials on record , it can be held that the party no. I has
    advocate for party no . I that this Tribunal after holding    workman. been able to prove the charges levelled against the
    the departmental enquiry conducted against the
   workman not to be valid , allowed the party no.1 to prove            So far the oral evidence adduced by the parties is
    the charges by adducing evidence and accordingly, party       concerned , it is to be mentioned here that the evidence of
    no . I examined two witnesses , besides the documents
    already produced and in rebuttal , the workman examined      the witnesses no.2, Homkar Nagorao Chinchkhede
   himself as a witness and from the documentary evidence        examined onbehalf of party no.01 that the workman took
   on record and the virtually unchallenged evidence of the      treatment for varicose veins and was operated for the same
   two witnesses examined on behalf of party no . I and the      at J. N. Hospital on 17-10-1995 and he was discharged
   admission of the workman in his cross - examination that      from the hospital on 1-11-1995 and thereafter, he was on
   from 15-04-1997, he was fit for working the underground       leave from 02-11-1995 to 19-02-1996 and thereafter he was
   and that on 15-04-1997 , he was asked by the management       declared fit by the medical officer for his original job and
   to join his original duties in the under-ground and as        that on the request of the workman, he was given surface
   management did, not provide him duty on surface w.e.f.       job form 20-6-1996 to 14-07-1997 and the allegation ofthe
   15-04-1997, he did not go to work in the under- ground, it is accident and poisoning of his leg are false and when the
   crystal clear that management has been able to prove the     workman was asked to perform his original duty, he did not
   charges against in workman and as such , the punishment       attend the duty and approached the Hon'ble High Court
   imposed against the workman cannot be held to be              for redress has not been challenged seriously.
  excessive or shockingly disproportionate to the serious             The most important evidence on record is the
  misconduct of remaining' unauthorized absence, proved         admission of the workman himself . The workman in his
  against him, so , there is no scope to interfere with the     cross- examination has categorically admitted that he has
  punishment andthe workman is not entitled to any relief.      not filed any document to show that he sustained fatal
        11. At this juncture , it is necessary to mention that  injury on his ( left leg due to an accident in the under-
  there is no dispute between the parties regarding filing of   ground in the year 1984 and due to such injury " he was
 writpetition no. 2511/1997 by the workman before the Hon       operated . He has admitted the suggestion that as there
 'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench with the prayers to            was no treatment for sustaining injury on his left leg, he
  regularize his services on surface, to declare him medically  does not have any document regarding such treatment. Ic
  unfit and to give employment to his son . It is also found    hasalso admitted that till 1995, he was working in the under-
 thatthe Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition on     ground and in 1995, he was operated in J.N. Hospital ,
 17-11-1998 . The Hon'ble High Court in their decision have    Kamptee for varicose veins and on 15-04-1997, he was asked
 held that. " The petitioner is relying mainly on the certificate by the party no . I to join his original duties in the under-
 given by the Civil Surgeon in the month of May, 1997,         ground and from 15-04-1997, he was fit for work in the
 Annexure-P - 5 indicating that for two months from the date   under-ground and as management did not provide him duty
 ofthe certification , petitioner should be , given light work. under-ground. onsurface w.e.f. 15-04-1997 , he did not go to work in the
 Thatperiod has expired long back.
       Thereafter, during the pendency of the petition the          The workman has not filed a single document that in
 petitioner was to be examined by a panel of doctors as per    1984, he had sustained injury on his left leg and he was
 Form-O, Annexure - B annexed with the pursis dated 10th      treated for the same and in 1995 he was also operated for
November, 1998, copy whereof being illegible the original .   onhisright leg . the same and on 30-05-1996 , he sustained fracture injury
      There is no indication of disablement. Hence, petition
is rejected. Notice discharged . "                                   Onperusal of the evidence on record, it is found
                                                              that party no. I have been able to prove the charges that
      Inview ofthe rejection of the prayers of the workman    the workman remained absent from duties without
bythe Hon' ble High Court in writ petition no . 2511/1997,    sanctioned leave or permission of the competent authority.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1981

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

It is also found that party no. I have been able to prove that there was no reasonable cause for the workman to remain absent from duty.

Ascommission of serious misconduct of remaiuning unauthorized absent from duty has been proved against the workman , the punishment of dismissal from services cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate and as such, there is no scope to interfere with the punishment.

As the facts and circumstances of this case are different from the facts and circumstances " of the case referred in the decision reported in 1996 ( II ) CLR -241 (Supra) , with respect , I am of the view that the said decision has no clear application to the present case in hand . Hence, itisordered :-

ORDER

The action of the management of Western coalfields Ltd. through its Suptd. of Mines , Manager , Sillewara Colliery, Tah . Saoner , Distt . Nagpur in dismissing the " services of She Somraj Timaji Rakshit w.e. f. 20.03.99 is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

का.आ. 647.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट (आईडी संख्या 261/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012 / 163/2003 - आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 647. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. 261/2003 ) of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L-22012/163/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ]

Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑΙK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 06-02-2013 .

Case No. CGIT/NGP/261 /2003

PartyNo. 1 (a) : The District Manager, Food Corporation of India , Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur-440015

Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate , Mumbai -400020 . Versus

PartyNo. 2 :The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , Hind Nagar Ward No. 2 , Near Boudha Vihar , Post: Wardha, Distt . Wardha (M.S. ) AWARD

(Dated : 6th February, 2013 )

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , Shri Ashish Kisanrao Raipure , for adjudication , as per letter No. 1.-22012/ 163 /2003 - IR (CM - II ) dated 08-12-2003 , with the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Ashish Kisanrao Raipurc , Security Guard w.e.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Ashish Kisanrao Raipure (" the workman " in short) , filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India (" Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 13-12-1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March , 1999, when his.services were terminated orally by Party No. 1 , without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith , but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services , neither one 1982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of Security guards , in violation of the provision of section 25 - H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

The further case of the workman is that in 1993 , he was engaged by the Party No. I through the contractor for a period of two years , but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years , the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so - called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , but actually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to himby Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01-11-1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad , but at Akola, Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the contract labour system wascontinued by the management , with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws .

Itisfurther pleaded by the workman that his salary waspaid by the Party No. I and not by the contractor and hisdaily attendance was also marked by the Asstt . Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No. I was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. I also supplied the articles , such as, torch , lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view

[ PART 11 SEC . 3 ( ii ) |

of the long spell of work being carried out by him , he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workınan was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him , as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor , the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterrruptedly till 14th March , 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end , the services of the workman wereterminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March , 1999 and as the workman was not employedby them , there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 13-12-1993 to 14-03-1999 , without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor , there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regularisation and Abolition ) Act , they were exempted by the Central Government , so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 ( H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and IHome guards and therefore , the workman has no right to claim any relieffrom them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their godowns are filled with food grains , then only , services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system , they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of party no . I is that for the reliefs as claimed , by the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res -judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security

                                                                                                              1983
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
                                                            mentioned in the written statement , in his examination - in-
contractor and they had no control over the appointment      chief, which is on affidavit . In his cross - examination , this
and service conditions of the workman , who was an          witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had
employee of the security agency and he was never their       obtained any license from the competent authority for
employee and the security contractor was the employer of     engagement of contract labours in FCI . The witness has
theworkman.                                                  admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI
      The further case of party no . 1 is that the appropriate and he was engaged for watch and ward of godowns and
 government decided to abolish the employment of the         theworkman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch on
 contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the     the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970     godown and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply
 and the interpretation of the notification issued on        contract labourers had the required license for the same ,
01-11-1990 put by the workman is not correct and they        but copy of such license was not filed and the process of
 were exempted from the operation ofthe Act of 1970 in the    engagement ofcontractors was done by the Regional Office
 year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the        of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the
 year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the   details of the process of engagement of contractors and
 contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the     during the general election to the Parliament , FCI had
 workman were terminated by the security contractor and       submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the
 they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the    list of employees submitted to the collector . This witness
 contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and       has denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others
 whenthe contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman , were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the
  they paid the amount as per the directions given by the     godowns of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and that the FCI was
  ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered     maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The
  from the contract's bill and they only used to check the    witness has further stated that payment of wages to the
  attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether . workman was being done through the contractor as per
  the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite        theminimum wages fixed by the Govemment and FCI was
  number of security guards , as per their requirement and     not making any deduction from the said wages towards
  they did not have the power to terminate any employee        PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register
  appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any     or salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt .
  article, such as torch , Lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to the Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of
  workman and as such , the workman is not entitled to any     labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was
   relief.                                                     submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the
        4.Both parties have led oral evidence in support of    workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI .
   their respective claims , besides placing reliance on             6.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
   documentary evidence .                                       learned advocate for the workman that the workman was
         The workman in support of his claim has examined       engaged by the management of FCI on 13-12-1993 at
   himselfas a witness . In his evidence, which is on affidavit, Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked
   the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the        continuously without any interruption till 14th March ,
   statement of claim .                                         1999 and his services were terminated orally by the party
         Inhiscross -examination , the workman has admitted     no. 1, without following the due procedure of law and the
   that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor     workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
    left him to the FCI and FCI had not given any advertisement each year and before termination ofthe services of the
    for the said post and he does not know the name of the      workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wage
    contractor and no appointment order was given to him ,       in lieu ofnotice nor retrenchment compensation was given
    either by the contractor or the FCI and he has not filed any to the workman, as required under Section 25 -F of the Act
    document to show that salary was paid to him by FCI and     and after termination of the services of the workman , fresh
    he cannot say for how many years he served in FCI and no     handswere engaged by party no . 1 to extract the duties of
    termination order was issued by FCI and Mr. Bokade           security guard , in violation of the provision of Section
    terminated him orally and initially, he was getting Rs . 700 25-H ofthe Act and the work of security guard is perennial
    as salary, but he cannot say the break- up of his salary,    in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void
     such as basic , DA and other allowances and he has not      and illegal.
     filed any document to show that he served with FCI from           It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
     1993 to 1999. The workman has admitted that he was          the workman that the party no. I had shown the workman
     appointed through Singh Securities Services .                as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
          5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on     only on papers and the workman was actually working
     behalf of the party no.1 has also reiterated the facts

870 91 / 13-25 1984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

                                                                                                      [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
    under the direct control and supervision of the party no . 1
    and he was never a contract labour and such action of the          8. First of all , I will take up the submission made by
    party no . I was sham and only a camouflage to deny the      the learned advocate for the party no . I that the present
    legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract   reference is hit by the principles of res -judicata, due to the
    between the management and the contractor was bogus          decision of the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99 .
    and not genuine and the Central Government by
    notification dated 1-11-1990 abolished the employment of           It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
    contract labour and directed to give employment to           others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
    contract labours engaged by the management and therefore,    Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before the
    the management of FCI was bound to abolish the              Hon'bleHigh Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench ,
   workman. contract labour system and to give employment to the Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court
                                                                didnotgrant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by
         It was also submitted by the learned advocate for       the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ
  theworkman that party no . 1 has admitted the claims made     petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed
   bythe workman and has not been able to prove their claim      regularisation on the ground that they were employed by
   that the workman was a contract labour, by producing         the contract for doing regular work of the Food Corporation
   cogent evidence in support of the same and as such , the     of India and in view of the same, they have became
   workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with        workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on
   continuity and full back wages .                             which they were employed is of perennial nature . However,
                                                                it is found from the judgment that the Hon ' ble High Court
        7. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned         didnot consider the main relief and passed the following order:
   advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never
  appointed by party no.I and he has engaged by the                  "In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
   contractor as a security guard and as such , the concerned        in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs.
  contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such        National Union water front workers and others
  objection in the written statement, the workman did not
  implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference       [reported in 2001 ( 7 ) SCC 11 , the relief sought by the
  isnot maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned        petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
  advocate for the party no . 1 that the workman was engaged          involves disputed question of facts as also other
  by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor            facts which are required to be adjudicated by
  came to an end in March , 1999 , the services of the workman       appropriate authority. Accordingly " the main prayer
 were terminated by the contractor and as such , there was           to absorb them cannot be granted.
  no question ofparty no. 1 complying with the due procedure               XX         XX
                                                                                                  XX          XX
  oftermination and there was no relationship of master and
  servant between the party no.1 and the workman and the            " In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
 party no . I was exempted by the Central Government from      question of granting other prayer does not arise . In case,
 the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers , so     the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
 contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules , appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
  for supply of security guards and due to the notification    a period of one year . The applicants are free to approach
 ofthe Government for abolition of contract labour system ,   theappropriate authority for redressal of their grievances . "
 Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as                 So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
 security guards and party no.1 has no control over the       High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High
 workman and , the security contractor was submitting bills   Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and
 for payment for supply of security guards and the security   others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach
 contractor was paying the wages to the workman . It was      the appropriate authority for redress . Hence , the reference
 further submitted by the learned advocate for the party      cannot be said to be hit by the principles of
 no.1 that the workman and some others had approached         res -judicata. So , there is no force in the contention raised
 the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of        by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 .
 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition           9. In this reference , it is never the case of the
have held that the termination of the workman by the         workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
 contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal   party no . I as a security guard. In the very beginning of
and as such , the workman cannot agitate the question again   the statement of claim , it has been mentioned by the
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as       workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not       of India Depot , Wardha as a security guard , through a
entitled to any relief.                                      contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the

1985

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

workman has mentioned that , " In the year 1993 , the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor , for the period of2 years , but the contract was made on paper . " The case of the workman is that after every two years , the party no . 1 on papers showed the change of contractors , but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 1-11-1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and party no. I implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the . Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross - examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed through Singh Securities Servicies , it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor . The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1 .

10. At this juncture , I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon' ble Apex Court regarding contract labours , in the two decisions reported in 1985 - II LJ 4 ( S.C. ) (The workman ofthe Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s . Food Corporation of India ) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 ( S.C. ) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others ) .

In the decision reported in 1985 - II LLOJ -4 (supra ) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that : -

Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot , the corporation had nothing to do with the manner ofhandling work done by the contractor, the labour force employed by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation , there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen . " Workmen " has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean ( any person including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do ......... The expression ' employed has at least two known connotations , but as used in the definition , the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command. and obedience . The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms ofthe definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be, in other words , an employment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a " workman " within the definition of the term as contained in the Act . Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra ( 1957-1 - LJ - 477). Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands , the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union."

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656 (supra) the Hon ' ble Apex Court have held that:-

The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication , or substituting remedy or benefits for thatprovided by the legislature . The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10( 1 ) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Actamong other relevant factors . But , the presence of some or all those factors , provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) by the appropriate Government, isnot alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRAAct , it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment . Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be farbeyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible.

1986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act . A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made thereunder . "

So, keeping in view the principles enunciatedby the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , the present case in hand is to be considered .

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10( 1 ) ofthe CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought before itby any contract in regard to conditions of service , the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work ofthe establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse /camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuinebut a mere camouflage , the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contraot labour in the concerned establishment . If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable , and , if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age ofthe workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications .

AirIndia's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999 , D/-12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545 ( W) if 1996, D/ -9-5-1997 (Cal ): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -17-4-1998 (Kant) : W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8-2000 (Bom ) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999 , D/ -23-12-1999 ( Bom) , 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal ), Reversed.

12. In this case , the letter No. U - 23013 / 11 /89/L.W dated 28-05-92 , Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping , cleaning , dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted bythe Central Government. So , the engagement of contract labour by the Party No. I cannot be said to be illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment oflabour contractor by Party No. I for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence . The engagement of labor contractor by Party No. I was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance ofthe various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at apy point of time, Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party No. I paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman wasengaged as a contract labour with Party No.1 , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the . Party No.1 and the workman . Hence , there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. I or compliance ofthe provisions of Sections 25 - F or 25-11 of the Act .

13. It is the own case of the workinan that he was engaged by the contractor . So the contractor, who had engaged the workman is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non -joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

In view ofthe materials on record and the discussions made above , the reference cannot be answered in favour ofthe workman . Hence , it is ordered: -

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment , the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms " Contract labour " , " Establishment " and " Workman " does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship . The word " Workman " is defined in wide terms . It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species . It is true that combined reading of the terms " Establishment " and " Workman " shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master . But what is true of a workman could not be correct ofcontract labour . When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 1987

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II--खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2013

का.आ. 648. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 242/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/144/2003- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S. O. 648. In pursuanceance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 242/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received bythe Central Government on 22-02-2013.

[No. L-22012/ 144/2003 - IR (CM -II) ]

Β. Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑΙΚK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP /242/2003

Date: 06-02-2013 .

PartyNo.1 (a) :

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India , Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur-440015.

Party No.1 (b):

The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgatye, Mumbai - 400020.

Versus

PartyNo. 2

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , Hind Nagar WardNo. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,

Post: Wardha , Distt . Wardha (M.S. )

AWARD

(Dated: 6th February, 2013 )

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , Shri Ramdas S. Navghare , for adjudication , as per letter No.L - 22012/ 144/ 2003 - IR . (CM - II ) dated 08-12-2003, with the following schedule: -

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur (M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Ramdas S. Navghare , Security Guardw.e.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled? "

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly , the workman, Shri Ramdas S. Navghare ('the workman " in ' short) , filed, the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ( " Party No. I " in short ) filed their written statement .

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of PartyNo.1 from 05-10-1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No.1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 , when his services were terminated orally by Party No.1 , without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No.1 and while terminating his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in licu ofnotice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department ofhome guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of Security guards , in violation of. the provision of section 25 - H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

The further case of the workman is that in 1993 , he was engaged by the Party No. I through the contractor for aperiod of two years , but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years , the Party No.1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards 1988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

employed by them , there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 05-10-1993 to14-03-1999 , without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and asthe workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regularisation and Abolition) Act , they were exempted by the Central Government , so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 ( H ) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore , the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go -downs are filled with food grains , then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system , they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , but actually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no roleto play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. land he was a regular employee of Party No.1 and Party No.1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No.1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No.1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 and issued notification on 01-11-1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No.1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty ofthe Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but atAkola , Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the contract labour system was continued by the management with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws .

Itisfurther pleaded by the workman that his salary a mai by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt . Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No.1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No.1 and Party No.1 also supplied the articles , such as , torch, lathi , whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long spell ofwork being carried out by him , he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

The further case of party no . 1 is that for the reliefs as claimed, the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'hle High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/ 99 and the Hon 'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decisionofthe Hon ' ble Court operates as res -judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of theworkman.

3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him , as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till14thMarch, 1999 and since the contract ofthe contractor cameto an end, the services ofthe workman were terminated bythe contractor and the original period of contract given tothe contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not

Thefurther case ofparty no . 1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01-11-1990 put by the workman , is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore , the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1989

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards , as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article , such as torch , Lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to the workman and as such , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence.

The workman in support of his , claim has examined himself as a witness . In his evidence , which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim .

Inhis cross -examination, the workman has admitted that in his statement of claim and so also in his affidavit he has mentioned that he was initially engaged as a Security Guard through a contractor. He has admitted that he has not filed any appointment letter issued by the FCI and no appointment order was issued by the FCI for his engagement inthe FCI and he has not filed any document to show that he was in continuous service in the FCI in 05-10-1993 till 14-03-1999 . The workman has further admittedthat there was no advertisement in any newspaper regarding engagement of Security Guards in FCI and he has not mentioned the amount of the salary, which he was receiving from FCI either in the statement of claim or in the affidavit and the signature appearing on the revenue stamp against his name at serial no . 02 in document no. 58 , filed by the management, is his signature and he has not filed any document to show that he worked for 240 days in any calendar year and he has not filed any document to show that FCI had taken any action against any defaulting SecurityGuard and he has not filed any document to show that FCI appointed the Security Guards of Nagpur and Manmad on permanent basis and he has also not filed any document to show that uniform , torch and lathi were issued to him by the FCI.

5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on behalf of the party no. 1 has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement , in his examination- in- chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross - examination, this witness has stated that he has no Knowledge if FCI had obtained any license from the competent authority for engagement of contract labours in FCI . The witness has admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI and he was engaged for watch and ward of go -downs and theworkman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch on the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI go-downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply contract labourers had the required license for the same , but copy of such license was not filed and the process of engagement of contractors was done by the Regional Office ofFCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details of the process of engagement of contractors and during the general election to the Parliament, FCI had submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the list of employees submitted to the collector. This witness hasdenied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go- downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and that the FCI was maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The witness has further stated that payment of wages to the workman was being done through the contractor as per the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was notmaking any deduction from the said wages towards PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register or salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt . Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the workmanwas on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI .

6.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 05-10-1993 at Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked continuously without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the party no.1 , without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wage in lieu ofnotice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman , as required under Section 25- F ofthe Act and after termination of the services of the workman , fresh hands were engaged by party no.1 to extract the duties of security guard , in violation of the provision of Section 25- H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal .

Itwas further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the party no.1 had shown the workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working under the direct control and supervision of the party no.1 and he was never a contract labour and such action of the party no.1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to 1990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman .

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no.1 has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such , the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

7. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never appointed by party no.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such , the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement , the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable . It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March , 1999 , the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such , there was no question of party no.1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the party no.1 and the workman and the party no.1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement ofcontract labourers , so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules , for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system , Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and party no . 1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon ' ble High Court operates as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the present reference is hitby the principles of res -judicata , due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman along with 78 others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no . 1389/99 before the Hon'bleHigh Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'hle High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same , they have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature . However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

"Inview of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front workers and others (reported in 2001 ( 7) SCC 1 ) , the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

XX XX XX XX

Inview ofthe rejection of the main prayer , the question ofgranting other prayer does not arise . In case , the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year . The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances . "

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Courtdid not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress . Hence , the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res -judicata . So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 .

9. In this reference , it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party no. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim , it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot , Wardha as a security guard , through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that , " In the year 1993 , the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for or the period of 2 years , but the contract was made on paper. " The case of the workman is that after every two years , the party no . 1 on papers showedthe change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any 1991

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

employment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question ofhis being a " workman " within the definition of the term as contained in the Act .

break till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard ofperennial nature , he is entitled for reinstatement in service . The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01-11-1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and party no. 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra ( 1957 - ILLJ477 ) . Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the workwhich he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands , the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union."

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross - examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left himto FCI , it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1 ..

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656 (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: -

10. At this juncture , I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours , in the two decisions reported in 1985 - II LLJ - 4 ( S.C. ) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs M/ s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 ( S.C. ) ( Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others) .

In the decision reported in 1985 - II LLOJ - 4 ( supra) theHon 'ble Apex Court have held that: -

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature . The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10 ( 1 ) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors . But, the presence ofsome or all those factors , provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) by the appropriate Government , is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation ofSections 7 and 12 of the CLRAAct is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and, 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour inthe establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment . Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible .

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise , in an industrial "Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner ofhandling work done by the contractor, the labour force employed by him , payments made by himetc. In such a fact situation , there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen . " Workmen " has been defined ( omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do.... 'The expression' employed has at least two known connotations , but as used in the definition, the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience . The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed todo the work in that industry and that there should be, in other words , an

870 G1/13-26 1992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

can such relationship be implied from the provisions ofthe action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) ofthe CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under. "

So , keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , the present case in hand is to be considered.

disputebrought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of service , the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground ofhaving undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as todeprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so called contract labour will have tobe treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment . If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable , and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age ofthe workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999 , D/ 12-8-1999 (Cal) : C.O. No. 6545 ( W ) if 1996, D/-9-5-1997(Cal) : W.A. Nos . 345-354 of 1997m D / 17-4-1998 ( Kant) : W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ 2-8-2000 (Bom ) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ 23-12-1999 (Bom ) , 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal ) , Reversed.

12. In this case , the letter No. U- 23013 / 11 /89/LW dated 28-05-92, Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning , dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was liftedby the Central Government . So , the engagement of contract labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman . The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence . The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee . It is clear from the evidence that Party No.1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same . As itis clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No.1 , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No.1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No.1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25 - F or 25 -H of theAct.

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor . So the contractor, who had engaged the workman is a necessary party in the reference . The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non -joinder of necessary party , the reference is bad in law .

Inview ofthe materials on record and the discussions made above , the reference cannot be answered in favour ofthe workman . Hence , it is ordered :---

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment , the relationsphip of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading ofthe definition of the terms " Contract labour " , " Establishment " and "Workman" does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship . The word " Workman " is defined inwide terms . It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species . It is true that combined reading ofthe terms " Establishment " and " Workman " shows thataworkman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master . But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation ofdirect relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 1993 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

      1994
    [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934                     [PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]
     and also to convert all other casual labourers to time scale, dispute between the employers , in relation to the states were closed on 30-11-1996 and handed over to the
     on their completion of five years of continuous service नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013 management of National Sericulture Project, Central Silk
     andby circular date 12-12-1996, it was decided to convert  Board and their workman Shri Eknath Samadhan Shiral, StateGovernment and the only P 2 Basic Seed Farm, which
     the casual labourers to time scale labourer, who had been का.आ. 649.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 for adjudication, as per letter No.L -42012/ 63/ 2002- IR was functioning at Shirla during project period was
   का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एस. पी engaged prior to 07-08-1992 and had completed two years subsequently closed and handed over to the State
                                                                (CM- II) dated09-08-2002, with the following schedule: - Government and while handing over the Technical Service
    के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , of continuous service and the Deputy Director, N. S. P. , Centers , the concerned State Government Sericulture
     Shirla vide his letter dated 13-10-1996 had sent the details     "Whether the action ofthe Deputy Director, National
   अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक of his services along with other casual labourers and Departments were requested to utilize the labourers Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Government
    अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 145/2002 ) according to the said information, he had completed more engaged in the centers , but they did not agree for the of India, Basic Seed Farm Shirala, Taluka -Patur, Distt.-
    को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त than four years of continuous service on 30-11-1996. and same and there was no requirement of labourers in any of Akola (M.S. ) in terminating the employment of
    the date ofhis conversion as time scale labour was shown     Central Silk Board units functioning in Maharashtra and Shri Eknath Samadhan Shiral w.e.f. 30-11-1996 is
    हुआ था ।                                                     thus, the services of the labourers were terminated by legal andjustified? If not, to what reliefthe concerned
    as 08-05-1997 and he has acquired the status of Time scale
    labourer and as such, he was not liable to be terminated [सं. एल-42012/63/2002- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] offering admissible notice period wages and retrenchment workman is entitled?"
    and services of the casual labourers , Shri Abhay Tirpude बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी compensation , as per the provisions of Section 25 -F of the 2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were
    and seven women field Assistants were not terminated         Act and the workman and other labourers refused to
    and they were accommodated and transferred to other New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013 receive the same and later, individual demand drafts were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
                                                                 obtained in the name of the workman and other labourers statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Eknath
    places and therefore , he was also entitled to be S. O. 649. In pursuance of Section 17 of the and were sent to their residential addresses by registered Samadhan Shiral , ( " the workman " in short ) filed his
   accommodated and even though the TSC were over to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central post, but they refused to receive the same. statement of claim and the management of the National
   Maharashtra State Government, there was no need or Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 145/ Sericulture Project ,, Central Silk Board (" Party No.1 " in
   propriety for party no . 1 to terminate his services and the 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- short) filed their written statement . Itisfurther pleaded by the party no. 1 that order
   work of labourers was and is available with party no. 1 at P- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the dated 03-12-1996, was issued with the intention to
   2Basic Seed Farm, Shirla and also Gandhingala and party Industrial Dispute between the management of rehabilate the retrenched labourers by engaging them for The case of the workman as depicted from the
   no. 1 is taking the work of labourers at Shirla by appointing National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board and short duration at Basic Seed Farm, Sirla, but due to scaling statement ofclaim is that " National Sericulture Project "
   contract labourers and hence , his retrenchment on account their workmen, received by the Central Government on down of farm activities and reduction of work load in the was started by the Central Silk Board , a unit of
   ofclosure of unit is on false ground and is illegal . 22-02-2013 farm, the retrenched labourers could not be accommodated Government of India , at different places all over India
                                                                and that cannot be construed that work was available at P2 including in Akola district and the said project was
         It is also pleaded by the workman that the [No. L-42012/63/2002 - IR (CM - II) ] Basic Seed Farm, Shirla and after closure of TSC, Motala, implemented by the Director , National Silk Worm Seed
   establishment of party no. 1 is an industrial establishment     Project , Central Silk Board having office at Bangalore
   asdefined under section 25 - L of the Act, hence provisions B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer no casual labour was accommodated at anywhere and the
   ofchapter V-B ofthe Act are applicable to the establishment  women filed assistants were appointed on regular basis as and the in-charge of the said project in Akola district and
                            ANNEXURE                            per recruitment rules of Central Silk Board and they were other places in Maharashtra was the Deputy Director
   of the party no. 1 and his retrenchment is in contravention     having his office at P- 2, Basic Seed Farm , Shirla , Akola and
  of the mandatory provision of Sections, 25 - N, Section BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, posted to work at TSC , Akola and other places in there were seven technical centers (T.S.C. ) at Washim,
  25-F and 25 - FF of the Act and the party no. 1 did not follow CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Maharashtra State and the workman cannot be equated
                                                               withthe regular staff and it is not an industrial establishment Akola, Mehekar, Khamgaon, Risod, Motala and Buldhana ,
  the procedure of section 25-G of the Act and as such, his CaseNo.CGIT /NGP / 145/2002 which were under the control of the Deputy Director and
  retrenchment dated 30-11-1996 was illegal and unfair labour  as defined under section 25 ( L) of the Act and provision of
      Date: 04-02-2013                                         Section chapter V-B, 25 (L) and 25 (N) of the Act are not hewas initially appointed as a casual labour by party no . 1
  practiceandhe had completed more than 240 days ofwork        applicable to it and the workman is not entitled to any w.e.f. 09-05-1992 , at T.S.C. , Motala , from the list of
  in every year during his tenure and the termination of his   relief. candidates received from the concerned employment
       Party No. 1
  services was illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement in      exchange and T.S.C. , Motala (wrongly mentioned as
  service with continuity and full back wages . The Deputy Director, Akola in statement of claim ) was closed by party no . 1 in 4. The workman has examined himself as a witness to
       National Sericulture Project,                           prove the case. In his examination- in- chief, which is on 1993 and the party no . 1 handed over all the T.S.C. to the
       Central Silk Board, P -2 , Basic Seed Farm, 3. The party no, 1 in the written statement have affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned State Government of Maharashtra and the office of the
 pleaded inter-alia that seven Technical service centers were Shirala, Tah . Patur, inthe statement ofclaim . However, in his cross - examination, Deputy Director issued the order of retrenchment of his
  established in different places in Maharashtra State with Distt . AKOLA (MS). the workman has admitted that he was engaged as a services on 30-11-1996 and terminated his services w.e.f.
 the financial assistance of World Bank and for the said Versus     30-11-1996 on the ground ofclosure ofthe T.S.C. and N.S.P
 centers , required number of casual labourers were engaged    casual labour in the year 1992 and on 30-11-1996, the
        PartyNo. 2                                            National Sericulture project was closed and the said atAkola and three days after the order of retrenchment,
 purely on temporary on daily wages basis , for the casual    project was handed over to State Govemment and in all the party no . 1 issued another order dated 03-12-1996 and
 nature of work for the project period and the nature of Shri Eknath Samadhan Shiral seven persons were engaged in the project and all the offered fresh engagement of a casual labour at Basic Seed
 work of the centre was to provide technical service to the R/o . Takli , Post-Borkhedi , seven persons including himself were retrenched by the Farm, Shirla, but when he reported for duty on the basis of
 farmers, who were practicing sericulture and the work of Teh. Motala, State Government on 30-11-1996 and in the letter dated the order dated 03-12-1996, he was not allowed by party
 the centres was seasonal and intermittent in nature and Distt.Buldana, (MS) . 30-11-1996 informed them about their retrenchment.
 the workman was engaged as a casual labourer at TSC , AWARD          no . 1 to resume duty, so he served a notice on party no . 1
Motala on 09-05-1992 through local employment exchange             5. One S. Penchalaiah a Superintendent ofNational on08-02-1997 asking to allow him to resume duty, but the
 and he worked intermittently and he did not work (Dated: 4th February, 2013) Silkworm seed Organisation Centre , Silk Board, Bangalore party no. 1 did not give any reply. It is further pleaded by
continuously and he was paid wages as fixed by the State      has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party the workman that in the circular dated 15-10-1992 of the
Government and as per the terms and conditions of In exercise ofthe powers conferred by claase (d) of no. 1. In his examination - in - chief, which is on affidavit, this Director , N.S.W.S.P, Bangalore , direction was issued to
National Sericulture Project , the TSC establishment in pilot sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the convert the casual labourers , who had completed five
         Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act " in written statement. In his cross - examination , party no . 1 has years of service as on 01-09-1992 to time scale labourers
         short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial

1995 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

stated that he had or have not worked at Basic Seed Farm, Sirla and he has no personal knowledge about the period forwhich the workman worked at Basic Seed Farm, Shirla and the workman worked continuously for five years and he was entitled for regularisation .

का.आ. 650.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एस. पी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 144/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/62/2002- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी 6. It is necessary to mention here that the party no . 1 filed their written notes of argument on 21-09-2012 . However , in spite of giving several opportunities , no argument either in writing or oral was advanced from the side of the workman and as such, the case was closed and was posted for award as per orders dated 15-01-2013

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S. O. 650.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of National Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L-42012/62/2002 - IR (CM- II ) ] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIJ.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP / 144/2002

Date:04-02-2013 .

PartyNo. 1

TheDeputy Director, National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, P- 2 , Basic Seed Farm, Shirala, Teh . Patur , Distt. AKOLA(MS ) .

Versus

7. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record including the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties that the workman was engaged as a casual worker on 09-05-1992 and worked till 30-11-1996 without any break. However , the documents filedbythe management , Exts . M - I to M - VII show that due to closure of the Technical service centres including the service centres at Motala , where the workman was working and handing over of the centres to the State Government ofMaharashtra on 30-11-1996 , the services of the workman and all other casual labourers were terminated and before termination oftheir services , one month's wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman and other labourers , but they refused to receive the same . Fact regarding entitlement to receive such wages and compensation has been mentioned in the notice itself . It is also found that the wages and retrenchment compensation was also sent in shape of Bank Draft by RP with AD to the workman, but the workman did not receive the same . There is no evidence that any casual labour was accommodated by party no . 1 at any other place and there was any discrimination in respect of the workman. There is also no evidence that provision of Chapter V- B and provisions of Sections 25 -L and 25 - N are applicable to party no. 1. As the mandatory provisions of the Section 25 -F of the Act were complied with by party no.1 , before termination of the services of the workman, it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the workman is illegal or invalid. Hence , it is ordered:---

PartyNo. 2

ORDER

Shri Bhaskar Mohanji Suradkar R/o Madh, Teh. & Distt. Buldana , (MS ) .

AWARD

(Dated: 4th February, 2013 )

The action of the Deputy Director, National Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board, Government of India, Basic Seed Farm Shirala, Taluka - Patur, Distt . -Akola ( M.S. ) in terminating the employment of Shri Eknath Samadhan Shiral w.e.f. 30-11-1996 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to anyrelief.

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 1996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 / PHALGUNA 25, 1934

short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of National Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board and their workman Shri Bhaskar Mohanji Suradkar, for adjudication , as per letter No.L-42012/ 62 /2002 - IR (CM- II) dated 09-08-2002, with the following schedule: -

"Whether the action of the Deputy Director , National Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board , Government of India, Basic Seed Farm Shirala , Taluka-Patur, Distt. -Akola (M.S. ) in terminating the employment ofShri Bhaskar Mohanji Suradkar w.e.f. 30-11-1996 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticedtofile their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Bhaskar Mohanji Suradkar, ( " the ' workman " in short) filed his statement of claim and the management of the National Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board ("Party No.1 " in short) filed their written statement .

The case of the workman as depicted from the statement of claim is that " National Sericulture Project " was started by the Central Silk Board , a unit of Government of India, at different places all over India including in Akola district and the said project was implemented by the Director , National Silk Worm Seed Project, Central Silk Board having office at Bangalore and the in -charge ofthe said project in Akola district and other places in Maharashtra was the Deputy Director having his o.Tice at P - 2 , Basic Seed Farm , Shirla, Akola and there were seventechnical centers (T.S.C. ) at Washim , Akola , Mehekar , Khamgaon , Risod, Motala and Buldhana , which were under the control of the Deputy Director and he was initially appointed as a casual labour by party no. 1 w.e.f. 16-02-1991 , at T.S.C. , Buldhana , from the list of candidates received from the concerned employment exchange and T.S.C. , Buldhana (wrongly mentioned as Akola in statement ofclaim) was closed by party no . 1 in 1993 and the party no. 1 handed over all the T. S. C. to the State Government of Maharashtra and the office of the Deputy Director issued the order of retrenchment of his services on 30-11-1996 and terminated his services w.e.f. 30-11-1996 on the ground ofclosure of the T.S.C. and N.S.P at Akola and three days after the order of retrenchment , the party no. 1 issued another order dated 03-12-1996 and offered fresh engagement of a casual labour at Basic Seed Farm , Shirla but when he reported for duty on the basis of the order dated 03-12-1996, he was not allowed by party no. 1 to resume duty so he served a notice on party no. 1 on 08-02-1997 asking to allow him to resume duty, but the party no. 1 did not give any reply. It is further pleaded by the workman that in the circular dated 15-10-1992 of the Director , 'N.S.W.S.P, Bangalore , direction was issued to convert the casual labourers , who had completed five

[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

years of service as on 01-09-1992 to time scale labourers and also to convert all other casual labourers to time scale , on their completion of five years of continuous service andby circular date 12-12-1996 , it was decided to convert the casual labourers to time scale labourer , who had been engaged prior to 07-08-1992 and had completed two years ofcontinuous service and the Deputy Director, N.S.P. , Shirla vide his letter dated 13-10-1996 had sent the details of his services along with other casual labourers and according to the said information , he had completed more than five years of continuous service on 30-11-1996 and the date of his conversion as time scale labour was shown as 15-02- 1996 and he has acquired the status of Time scale labourer and as such , he was not liable to be terminated and services of the casual labourers , Shri Abhay Tirpude and seven women field Assistants were not terminated and they were accommodated and transferred to other places and therefore, he was also entitled to be accommodated and even though the T.S.C. were over to Maharashtra State Government, there was no need or propriety for party no . 1 to terminate his services and the work of labourers was and is available with party no . 1 al P-2Basic Seed Farm , Shirla and also Gandhingala and party no. 1 is taking the work of labourers at Shirla by appointing contract labourers and hence , his retrenchment on account ofclosure of unit is on false ground and is illegal.

It is also pleaded by the workman that the establishment of party no. 1 is an industrial establishment as defined under Section 25 - .L of the Act, hence provisions ofchapterV- B of the Act are applicable to the establishment ofthe party no . 1 and his retrenchment is in contravention of the mandatory provision of sections , 25- N , Section 25- F and 25 - FF of the Act and the party no . 1 did not follow the procedure of Section 25 -G of the Act and as such, his retrenchment dated 30-11-1996 was illegal and unfair labour practice and he had completed more than 240 days of work in every year during his tenure and the termination ofhis services was illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The party no , 1 in the written statement have pleaded inter-alia that seven Technical service centers were established in different places in Maharashtra State with the financial assistance of World Bank and for the said centers, required number of casual labourers were engaged purely on temporary on daily wages basis , for the casual nature of work for the project period and the nature of work of the centre was to provide technical service to the farmers , who were practicing sericulture and the work of the centres was seasonal and intermittent in nature and the workman was engaged as a casual labourer at T.S.C. Buldhana on 16-02-1992 through local employment exchange and he worked intermittently and he did not work continuously and he was paid wages as fixed by the 1997

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the writtenstatement . In his cross -examination , party no . 1 has stated that he had or have not worked at Basic Seed Farm , Sirla and he has no personal knowledge about the period for which the workman worked at Basic Seed Farm , Shirla andthe workman worked continuously for five years and he was entitled for regularisation.

6. It is necessary to mention here that the party no.1 filed their written notes of argument on 21-09-2012 . However, inspite of giving several opportunities , no argument either in writing or oral was advanced from the side of the workman and as such, the case was closed and was posted for award as per orders dated 15-01-2013 State Government and as per the terms and conditions of National Sericulture Project, the T.S.C. establishment in pilot states were closed on 30-11-1996 and handed over to the State Government and the only P - 2 Basic Seed Farm , which was functioning at Shirla during project period was subsequently closed and handed over to the State Government and while handing over the Technical Service Centers , the concerned State Government Sericulture Departments were requested to utilize the labourers engaged in the centers , but they did not agree for the same and there was no requirement of labourers in any of Central Silk Board units functioning in Maharashtra and thus , the services of the labourers were terminated by offering admissible notice period wages and retrenchment compensation , as per the provisions of Section 25 - F ofthe Act and the workman and other labourers refused to receive the same and later, individual demand drafts were obtained in the name of the workman and other labourers and were sent to their residential addresses by registered post, but they refused to receive the same.

It is further pleaded by the party no. 1 that order dated 03-12-1996, was issued with the intention to rehabiliate the retrenched labourers by engaging them for short duration at Basic Seed Farm , Sirla, but due to scaling down of farm activities and reduction of work load in the farm, the retrenched labourers could not be accommodated and that cannot be construed that work was available at P-2Basic Seed Farm , Shirla and after closure of T.S.C. Motala , no casual labourer was accommodated at anywhere and the women filed assistants were appointed on regular basis as per recruitment rules of Central Silk Board and they were posted to work at T.S.C , Akola and other places in Maharashtra State and the workman cannot be equated withthe regular staff and it is not an industrial establishment as defined under Section 25 ( L) of the Act and provisions of chapter V- B , of Section 25 ( L) and 25(N) of the Act are not applicable to it and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record including the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties that the workman was engagedas a casual worker on 16-02-1991 and worked till 30-11-1996 without any break . However, the documents filedbythe management , Exts . M - I to M - VII show that due to closure of the Technical service centres including the service centres at Buldhana, where the workman was working and handing over of the centres to the State Govemment ofMaharashtra on 30-11-1996, the services of theworkman and all other casual labourers were terminated and before termination of their services , one month's wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman and other labourers , but they refusedto receive the same . Fact regarding entitlement to receive such wages and compensation has been mentioned in the notice itself. It is also found that the wages and retrenchment compensation was also sent in shape of Bank Draft by RP with AD to the workman , but the workman did not receive the same . There is no evidence that any casual labourer was accommodated by party no . 1 atany other place and there was any discrimination in respect of the workman . There is also no evidence that provisionofChapter V-B and provisions of Sections 25- L and 25 -N are applicable to party no . 1 As the mandatory provisions of the section 25 -F of the Act were complied withby party no.1 , before termination of the services ofthe workman, it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the workman is illegal or invalid. Hence , it is ordered:--

ORDER

4. The workman has examined himself as a witness to prove the case . In his examination- in -chief, which is on affidavit , the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim . However, in his cross - examination, the workman has admitted that he was engaged as a casual labourer in the year 1991 and on 30-11-1996, the National Sericulture project was closed and the said project was handed over to State Government and in all seven persons were engaged in the project and all the seven persons including himself were retrenched by the State Government on 30-11-1996 and in the letter dated 30-11-1996 informed them about their retrenchment.

The action of the Deputy Director, National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Government of India, Basic Seed Farm , Shirala, Taluka-Patur, Distt . -Akola (M.S. ) in terminating the employment of Shri Bhaskar Mohanji Suradkar w.e.f. 30-11-1996 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 5.One S. Penchalaiah a Superintendent ofNational Silkworm Seed Organisation Centre, Silk Board, Bangalore has been examined as a witness on behalfofthe party no.1 . In his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit, this 1998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , Shri Ashok Harichandra Maliye , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/ 161 /2003 - IR. (CM -II ) dated 08-12-2003 , with the following schedule:-

का.आ. 651. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 259/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Harichandra Maliye, Security Guard w.e.f 14-03-1999 is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

[सं. एल-22012/161 /2003 - आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Ashok Harichandra Maliye ( " the workman" in short ) , filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India (" Party No. 1" in short ) filed its written statement.

S.O. 651. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 259/ 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , received bythe Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. 1.-22012/ 161 /2003 - IR (CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT / NGP /259/2003

Date: 06-02-2013

Party No. 1(a):

The District Manager , Food Corporation of India , Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur - 440015 .

Party No. 1 (b) :

The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, Ministry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road,

Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1from 22-07-1995 and he was initially engaged through, a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No.1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 , when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1 , without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith , but in colourable exercise of the rights and powersby the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under Section 25 - F of the Act and after his illegal termination , fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. I to extract the duties of Security guards , in violation of the provision of Section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

Versus

Party No. 2

The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , Hind Nagar Ward No.2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha,

Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 6th February, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in

The further case of the workman is that in 1993 , was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years , but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years , the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so- called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , but actually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No.1 and Party No. I was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the 1999

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii )]

Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act , they were exempted by the Central Government , so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 ( H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencics likePolice Personnel and Home guards and therefore , the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their godowns are filled with food grains , then only, services ofthe security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system , they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards .

engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No.1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01-11-1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore , it was the mandatory duty of the Party No.1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the contract labour system was continued by the management , with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws .

The further case of party no . 1 is that for the reliefs as claimed, the workman had filed a writ petition beforethe Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and thedecision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res -judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of theworkman.

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt . Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages .

The further case of party no. I is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regularisation andAbolition ) Act , 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01-11-1990 put by the workman is not correct and they wereexemptedfrom the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore , the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman , they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards , as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article , such as torch , Lathi , whistle and 3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him , as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the . proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March , 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated bythe contractor and the original period of contract given tothe contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March , 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 22-07-1995 to 14-03-1999 , without any break in service and the workman did not complete240 days ofwork in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under

870 G1 /13-27 2000

                       THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25, 1934                     [PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii )]
    uniform etc. to the workman and as such , the workman is     salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt.
    not entitled to any relief.
                                                                 Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of
          4.Both parties have led oral evidence , in support of  labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was
    their respective claims , besides placing reliance on        submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the
    documentary evidence .                                      workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI .
          The workman in support of his claim has examined            6. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the
    himself as a witness . In his evidence , which is on affidavit, learned advocate for the workman that the workman was
    the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the        engaged by the management of FCI on 22-07-1995 at
    statement of claim .                                        Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked
          Inhiscross -examination , the workman has admitted     continuously without any interruption till 14th March,
                                                                 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the party
    thatthe contractor engaged them in FCI and the contractor   no.1 , without following the due procedure of law and the
    was Singh Security and neither Singh Security nor FCI       workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
    issued any appointment order and he has not filed any       each year and before termination of the services of the
    document showing payment made by FCI to him and FCI         workman , neither one month's notice nor one month's wage
    did not issue any letter terminating their services and     in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given
    during the first two years of service , there was one       to the workrman , as required under section 25 - F of the Act
    contractor and in the subsequent two years , there was      and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh
    another contractor, who was Mr. Chauhan and he has not      hands were engaged by party no . 1 to extract the duties
    filed anydocument showing that punishment was               of security guard, in violation of the provision of section
:   awarded by the FCI to any Security Guard and his signature
                                                               25-H ofthe Act and the work of security guard is perennial
    is at serial no . 36 on the letter issued by the contractor to in nature , hence the termination of the workman is void
   the FCI which was received on 18-12-1996 , Exhibit M- 4 and andillegal .
   under that letter they were asked to join for the first time
   and under the said letter he was appointed for the first time      It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
   and it was his first appointment.                            the workman that the party no . I had shown the workman
                                                                as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
         5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on     only on papers and the workman was actually working
   behalf of the party no.1 has also reiterated the facts      under the direct control and supervision of the party no. I
   mentioned in the written statement, in his examination - in- and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
   chief, which is on affidavit . In his cross - examination , this
                                                               party no . I was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
   witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had      legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
   obtained any license from the competent authoriry for       between the management and the contractor was bogus
   engagement of contract labours in FCI . The witness has     and not genuine and the Central Government by
  admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI       notification dated 1-11-1990 abolished the employment of
   and he was engaged for watch and ward of go -downs and      contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
  theworkman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch on        labours engaged by the management and therefore , the
  the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI           management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
  go-downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply         labour system and to give employment to the workman.
   contract labourers had the required license for the same ,
  but copy of such license was not filed and the process             It was also submitted by the learned advocate for
  of engagement of contractors was done by the Regional        the workman that party no . I has admitted the claims made
  Office of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the     by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
  details of the process of engagement of contractors and      that the workman was a contract labour .by producing
  during the general election to the Parliament , FCI had      cogent evidence in support of the same and as such , the
  submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the      workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
  list of employees submitted to the collector. This witness   continuity and full back wages .
  has denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others         7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
  were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go-      advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never
  downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and that the FCI was          appointed by party no.I and he has engaged by the
  maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The     contractor as a security guard and as such , the concemed
  witness has further stated that payment of wages to the      contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
 workman was being done through the contractor as per         objection in the written statement, the workman did not
 the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was        implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
  not making any deduction from the said wages towards PF      is not maintainable . It was further submitted by the
  and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register or    learned advocate for the party no . 1 that the workman was

2001

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted .

XX

XX XX XX In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise . In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year . Theapplicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances ."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Courtdidnot consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress . Hence , the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res -judicata . So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 .

engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March, 1999 , the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no question of party no.1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the party no.1 and the workman and the party no.1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement ofcontract labourers , so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules , for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system , Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and party no.1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates asres-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. First ofall, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the party no . ! that the present reference is hit by the principles ofres -judicata , due to the decision ofthe Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

9. In this reference , it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party no. 1 as a security guard . In the very beginning of the statement of claim , it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Wardha as a security guard , through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim , the workman has mentioned that, " In the year 1993 , the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for the period of 2 years , but the contract was made on paper. " The case of the workman is that after every two years , the party no . I on papers showed the change of contractors , but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature , he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 1-11-1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and party no . 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services ofthe Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no . 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ petition , it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross- examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed through Singh Securities Services , it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman hasnot produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1 .

10. At this juncture , I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex " In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union water front workers and others [reported in 2001 (7) SCC1 ] , the reliefsought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by 2002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

                                                                                                      [ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) |
    Court regarding contract labours , in the two decisions
    reported in 1985 - IILLJ (S.C. ) (The workman of the Food          legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
    Corporation of India Vs. M/s Food Corporation of India)            necessary implication , or substituting remedy or
    and 2001 LAB IC 3656 ( S.C. ) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.       benefits for that provided by the legislature . The
    and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and              intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
    others) .                                                          conditions of service of the contract labour and to
                                                                       authorize in Section 10( 1 ) prohibition of contract
          In the decision reported in 1985 - II LLOJ -4 ( supra)       labour system by the appropriate Government on
    the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: -                           consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
         "Briefly stated , when corporation engaged a                 (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
         contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot,          factors . But, the presence of some or all those factors ,
         the corporation had nothing to do with the manner            provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
         of handling work done by the contractor, the labour          on issuing notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) by the
         force employed by him , payments made by him etc.            appropriate Government , is not alluded to çither in
         In such a fact situation , there was no privity of           Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
         contract of employer and workmen between the                 consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
         corporation and the workmen . " Workmen" has been            CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
         defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the            25 of the CLRA Act , it is not for the High Courts or
         Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person                  the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
         including an apprentice) employed in any industry            remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
        to do............" . "The expression ' employed has at least  consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
        two known connotations , but as used in the                  different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
        definition, the context would indicate that it is used        in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
        in the sense of a relationship brought about by               or a harsher punishment . Such an interpretation of
        express or implied contract of service in which the          the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
        employee renders service for which he is engaged             principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
        by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in           interpretative legislation and as such clearly
        cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily           impermissible.
        prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
        and obedience . The essential condition of a person          Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
        being a workman within the terms ofthe definition is         S. 10( 1 ) ofthe CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
                                                                     contract labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute
        that he should be employed to do the work in that            brought before it by any contract in regard to
        industry and that there should be , in other words , an      conditions of service , the industrial adjudicator will
        employment of his by the employer and that there
       should be a relationship between the employer and             have to consider the question whether the contractor
                                                                     has been interposed either on the ground of having
       employee or master and servant unless a person is             undertaken to produce any given result for the
       thusemployed there can be no question of his being           establishment or for supply of contract labour for
        a " workman " within the definition of the term as
       contained in the Act.                                        work of the establishment under a genuine contract
                                                                     or isa mere ruse /camouflage to evade compliance of
       Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of                various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
       Saurashtra ( 1957 -I - LLJ - 477). Now where a contractor    workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is
       employs a workman to do the work which he                     found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the
       contracted with a third person to accomplish on the          so called contract labour will have to be treated as
      definition as it stands , the workman of the contractor       employees of the principal employer who shall be
      would not without something more become the                   directed to regularize the services of the contract
      workman of that third person . Therefore , when the           labour in the concerned establishment . If the contract
      workmen employed by the contractor were certainly             is found to be genuine and the principal employer
       not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to           intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
      thateffect has been made by the union ."                      preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
      11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656            otherwise found suitable , and , if necessary, by
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: -                    relaxing the condition as to maximum age
                                                                    appropriately taking into consideration the age of
      " The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to       theworkers at the time of their initial employment by
      be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
      whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to             the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
                                                                    academic qualifications other than technical
      reading in the provisions of the Act what the                 qualifications .

2003

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

| भाग ।। खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/ -12-8-1999 (Cal ) : C.O. No. 6545 ( W) if 1996 , D/-9-5-1997(Cal ): W.A. Nos . 345-354 of 1997m D/ -17-4-1998 ( Kant ) : W.P. No. 4050 of 1999 , D/ -2-8-2000 ( Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ 23-12-1999 (Bom ) , 1998 Lab IC 2571 ( Cal ) , Reversed.

compliance ofthe various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time, Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee . It is clear from the evidence that Party No.1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman inpresence ofthe Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No.1 , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. I and , the workman . Hence , there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No.1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25- For 25- H of the Act .

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the workman is a necessary party in the reference . The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non -joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

In view ofthe materials on record and the discussions made above , the reference cannot be answered in favour oftheworkman . Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative . The workman is not entitled to any relief. J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013 It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement ofcontract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms " Contract labour " , " Establishment " and "Workman" does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship . The word " Workman " is defined in wide terms . It is a generic term ofwhich contract labour is a species. It is true that combined reading of the terms " Establishment " and " Workman " shows that aworkman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could notbe correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation ofdirect relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions ofthe action issuing notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) of the CLRA Act . A fortiori much less can such a relationshipbe found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under . "

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , the present case in hand is to be considered.

का.आ. 652. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 08/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22 02 2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/301/1995 आई आर ( सी 11 ) | बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S. O. 652. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/1996 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- 1.abour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013.

No. 1-22012/ 301 / 1995 - IR ( C - II ) | Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΔΙΚ. Derk Officer 12. In this case , the letter No. U-23013 / 11 /89/ W dated 28-05-92, Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping , cleaning , dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was liftedby the Central Government. So , the engagement of contract labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that the appoinment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman . The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence . The engagement of labour contractor by Party No.1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade 2004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013/PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii )|

ANNEXURE

ORDER

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer

Let an "Award " be and the same is passed as " No Dispute " existing . Send the copies of the order to the Govt . ofIndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

REFERENCE NO . 08 OF 1996

PARTIES:

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013 The management of Lower Kenda Colly. , M/ s. ECL ,

Burdwan(WB)

Vs.

The Jt . Gen. Secy. ,

CMU, Burdwan(WB)

REPRESENTATIVES :

का.आ. 653. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

For the Management: Sri P. K. Das , Ld . Advocate

For the union (Workman): Nonc

[ सं. एल 22012/562/1995 आई आर ( सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated -16-01-13

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 1L -22012/ 301/95-1R( C - 11 ) dated 14-02-1996 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

S. O. 653. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 34/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cuum - Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECI, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

SCHEDULE

No. 1.-22012/562 / 1995 - IR ( C - II ) | B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

"Whether the action of the management of Lower Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/ s . ECL , PO : Bahula, Distt . Burdwan in not offering employment to the son - in -law of Sh . Bandhu Dhibar, Ex -winding Engine Operator (medically unfit) isjustified ? If not , whatreliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

PRESENT: Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer REFERENCE No. 34 OF 1996

Parties :

The Management of Kajora Area, M/ s. ECL , Burdwan(WB) Vs.

The Gen. Secy. , CMS. Asansol (WB)

Having received the Order of Letter No.1 . - 22012/301 / 95 - IR ( C - II ) dated 14-02-1996 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 08 of 1996 was registered on 20-02-1996 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management : For the union (Workman ) : INDUSTRY: COAL Sri P.K. Das . Ld . Advocate None STATE : WEST BENGAL Dated -17-01-13

Onperusal of the case record , it has been found that the workman /Union is neither appearing nor taking any step since long . It seems that they are now no more interested to proceed with the case further . As such , the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed .

2005

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013 AWARD

S. O. 654. In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sripur Area of M/s. ECL and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

In exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofSub- section( 1 ) and Sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -22012/562/ 95 - IR ( C - II ) dated 21-08-1996 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

[No. 1.-22012/325/2007 - IR ( CM -11 )| B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

"Whether the denial of the management of Kajora Area of M / s , ECL in providing employment to the dependent of Sh . Mahendra Roy, Ex . Security Guard of Kajora Area is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? "

Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 22 OF 2008

Parties:

The manageinent of Kalipahari ( R ) Colly. , M/s . ECL, Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen. Secy. , KMC , Asansol (WB)

REPRESENTATIVES :

Having received the Order of letter No.1 .- 22012/562/ 95 - IR . ( C - 11 ) dated 21-08-1996 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute , a reference case No. 34 of 1996 was registered on 27-08-1996 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .

Shri P. K. Das , d . Advocate

For the Management:

Shri S. K. Pandey,

For the union (Workman ) :

1.d. Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated- 04-02-13

AWARD

On perusal of the case record , it has been found that the workman/ Union is neither appcaring nor taking any step since 2007. It seems that they are now no more interested to proceed with the case further. The case is also too old - 1996 . As such , the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute Award " is hereby passed.

ORDER

Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as " No Dispute " existing . Send the copies of the order to the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

In exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub-section( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of labour vide its Order No. 1. -22012/ 325/2007 - IR( CM - 11 ) dated 15-05-2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of the management of Kalipahari ( R ) Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s . ECL. by not regularizing Sri Kishor Kr. Singh working as Office Superintendent in the Technical and Supervisory Grade ' A ' is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled to ?" का.आ. 654. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/325/2007- आई आर (सीएम-11 ) 1 बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

Ilaving receivedthe Order ofLetter No.1.- 22012/325/ 2007- IR( CM - 11 ) dated 15-05-2008 ofthe above said reference from the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute , a reference case No. 22 of 2008 wasregisteredon 27-05-2008 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the 2006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCII 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

                                                                                                          PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) |
     registered post to the parties concerned directing them to
     appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written satisfactorily as Office Superintendent since 21-04-05 and
     statements along with the relevant documents and a list of    there is no adverse remark against him in the Service- record
    witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the     which is apparently clear from the written statement file by
     said order notices by the registered post were sent to the    the Agent dated 14-11-2006 before the Assistant labour
    parties concerned.                                             Commissioner ( Para 2 ). Further it appears that the case of
                                                                   one Debasish Banerjee Typist/ Clerk ofGhusick ' R ' Colliery
           It appears from perusal of the record and all the       wasconsidered by the Management and he was given due
    documents as well as written statement filed on behalf of      promotion with all monetary benefit vide Order No. G.M./
    the claimant- workman Kishor Kumar Singh that one              SA/C -6D/ 8 ( KPH ) / 04/ 1837 dated 15-11-2004.
    Sukumar Chatterjee - was posted as Office Superintendent            Onperusal ofthe written statement filed on behalf
    of Kalipahari Agent's Office , has superannuated from his     of the Management I find that nothing has been
    service w.e.f. 30.11.2003 , and thereafter the post was       mentioned against the work or conduct of the petitioner-
    remained vacant and the work of the office was suffering      workman Kishor Kumar Singh , nor any such document
    very badly, so to manage the office - work of Superintendent, has been filed to show the ground of non - consideration of
    a notice was issued by the Office of Kalipahari ( R ) Colliery, the prayer of the workman Kishor Kumar Singh. It reveals
    Sripur Area ( Ref No. AGT/KPH /A - 19/04/ 1403 dated          clear discrimination with the workman -applicant Kishor
   30-09-2004, by which applicant has been called from willing    Kumar Singh by the management without any rhyme and
    Senior Clerks ( Special Grade) of Kalipahari ( R) Colliery. On Justice" reason , which is apparently clear against the " Natural
   the basis ofabove notice Kishor Kumar Singh , Senior Clerk
   (applicant-workman ) filed his application with Biodata on
   04-10-2004 showing his willingness . After considering the          Considering the whole facts and circumstances
   willingness of Kishor Kumar Singh , the office of the Agent , discussed above , I find and came into conclusion that the
   Kalipahari ( R) Colliery, Sripur Area has issued an Office    action ofthe Management of Kalipahari ( R) Colliery under
  Ordervide Ref. No. AGT/ KPH/A - 19 /Authorisation/04/ 1515     SripurArea ofM/ s. FCI , by not regularising Kishor Kumar
   dated 01-11-2004 , and since then Kishor Kumar Singh is       Singh , working as Office Superintendent in Technical and
   looking after the day to day work of the office               Supervising Grade 'A' is totally illeagal and not justified
   Superintendent ofthe said Colliery. It further appears from   and the same is fit to be set aside . In my opinion the
   the documents that after considering the satisfactory         applicant -workman Kishor Kumar Singh is entitled for
  work of Kishor Kumar Singh , the Deputy C.M.E./Agent ,         regularisation in service in Grade 'A ' as claimed , and is also
  Kalipahari (R) Colliery, the Office of the General Manager,    entitled to get all back wages ( financial benefit ) the financial
  SripurArea has issued an Office Order No. GN /SA/C- 6D/        benefit from 21-04-2005 till his regularisation as he has been
  8(Genl . )/05/647 dated 21-04-05 has approved for giving       authorized to work for the said post by the order of General
  authorization to Kishor Kumar Singh , Senior Clerk , to work  Manager. The Management should regularize the post of
  asOffice Superintendent of the said office to acquire the     the applicant-workman as soon as possible without any further delay.
  skill and knowledge of the said post without any financial                            ORDER
  benefit, and on the basis of above order of General Manager,
  the Office of the Agent, Kalipahari ( R ) Colliery has issued       Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as per
  anOffice Order (No. AGT/KPH/A- 19/05/ 530 dated 21-04-        above discussion . Send the copies of the order to the
 05, and Kishor Kumar Singh has been authorized to officiate    Govt . of India, Ministry of labour, New Delhi for
 asOffice Superintendent of the Agent of said colliery, and     information and needful . The reference is accordingly
 since then the claimant Kishor Kumar Singh is officiating     disposed of.
 the office of Superintendent , but he has not been promoted
 nor his post has been regularise as Office Superintendent                   JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer
 nor he is getting any financial benefit since last seven                       नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013
 years . It further appears from the documents filed that the        का.आ. 655. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947
 applicant -workman Kishor Kumar Singh has applied several
 time before the Authority, Management of Kalipahari (R)       का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यूसी. एल.
 Colliery under Sripur Area of M / s . ECL , but the           'के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच ,
Management did not consider the prayer of Kishor Kumar         अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
 Singh by regularising his service who is still working as     अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 06/2009 ) को
Office Superintendent in the Technical and Supervising
Grade 'A' . Now it has to be seen whether the action of the    था । प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ
Management is legal and Justified.
       It has been submitted on behalf of the workman                     [सं. एल -22012/276/2007 आई आर ( सी एम II ) |
Kishor Kumar Singh that the workman is working                                            बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

2007

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S. O.655. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.06/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Chanda Rayatwari Colliery of WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013.

[No. L-22012/276/2007- IR (CM - II )]

B. M. PATNAIK, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP /06/2009

Date: 07-02-2013 .

PartyNo. 1 :

The Sub Area Manager, Chanda Rayatwari Colliery of WCL , Post-Rayatwari, Chandrapur(MS)

Versus

PartyNo. 2

The General Secretary, Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS ), C/o. C.J. Khandre, Near Mahakali Mandir, Distt. Chandrapur (MS) .

AWARD (Dated: 7th February, 2013 )

Trade union under the Trade Unions Act , 1926 and party no. 1 is a Government company and is a " state " within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreements ( " the NCWA " in short ) are mandatory and are binding on all coal companies including party no. 1 and the provisions of employment to dependent of deceased employce were introduced for the first time in NCWA- II and the Joint Bipartite Committee for the coal industry in its meeting held on 25. 10. 1979 , took further decision to provide jobs tothe dependent concerned, within two months of receipt ofapplication from the claimants by the management and the provision for monetary benefits to dependent was introduced in NCWA -V and continued in subsequent NCWAS VI , VII and VIII and according to such provision , the option is on the female dependent , either to accept monetary compensation or employment . The further case of the claimant as presented by the union is that Late Digamber Gaikwad was a permanent workman as a Belt operator at Chanda Rayatwari Colliery and he died on 24-09-1998 and the applicant, the wife of deceased Digamber submitted her application alongwith all the relevant and required documents on 17-10-1998 for her employment to the Manager, Chanda Rayatwari Colliery, as the dependent asper the provision of clause 9.4.0 of NCWA- VI and party no. 1 instead of providing her employment , arbitrarily sanctioned monetary compensation of Rs . 2500 per month to her w.e.f. 05-02-1999 , i.c. after three months of herapplication . Vide office order dated 9/ 10-03-1999 ofthe Dy. ChiefGeneral Manager (Staff Establishment ) , WCI . HQ, Nagpur, whereas , in the same office order, in similarly situated case of Smt . Ratna Mala W/o . Late Ganpat Lachman Lengure of Ilindustan Lalpeth Mine no . I , monetary compensation was granted w.c.f. 10-12-1998 and her son was kept on live roster and on attaining the age of 18 years , he was provided with employment and from 10-12-1998 till the date of providing employment to her son,monetary compensation was paid to Smt . Ratna Mala .

Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their claimant , Smt. Sunita W/o Digamber Gaikwad, for adjudication , as per letter 12/276 /2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 16-02-2009, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the demand of Monetary Compensation (w.e.f. 05-02-1999 to 31-03-2002) by the KSS Union i.r.o.Smt . Sunita, the dependent Widow of Late Digamber Gaikwad is proper & justified? If so, to what relief is widow of the deceased employee entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written- statement and accordingly, the union , "Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS) " , ( "the union " in short ), filed the statement of claim on behalf of the claimant, Smt . Sunita, widow of LateDigamber Gaikwad and the management of WCL, ( " Party No.1 " in short ) filed their written statement.

The case of the claimant as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that it (union ) is a registered

The further case of the claimant as projected by the union is that the applicant represented against the order of monetary compensation granted to her, vide her letter dated 08-04-1999, by submitting full particulars of her family members and prayed for giving her employment , but party no. I did not give any reply, so being compelled by circumstances and financial crisis , she submitted an application on 26-09-2000 to party no . 1 intimating her willingness to accept the monetary compensation w.c.f. 05-02-1999 as already sanctioned and requesting to keep the name of her son in the live roster and to provide him employment on his attaining 18 years of age, but she was not given the monetary compensation , so she submitted another application dated 05-09-2002 to the Chief General Manager, Chandrapur Arca for payment of monetary compensation w.e.f. 05-02-1999, but instead ofpaying the samew.e.f. 05-02-1999, order dated 3/7-5-2002 was issued by party no. 1 , mentioning there in about keeping the name ofher son, Bhaivad in the live roster and grant of monetary compensation ofRs.3000 per month w.e.f.01-04-2000 and though, they ( union ) took up the matter with party no. I by

87061/12-28 2008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

addressing different letters and direct with the General Manager ( Industrial relation ) , the same did not yield any result and in similarly situated cases including Smt . Iswari Bai , party no. 1 granted monetary compensation from the date of order and the applicant is entitled for monetary compensation at the rate of Rs . 2500 per month from 05-2-1999 to 10-11-1999 and @ of Rs . 3000- per month from 11-11-1999 to 31-03-2002.

3. The party no . 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter - alia that as materials facts have been suppressed by the applicant , the case is to be rejected on that count only and there is no employer and employee relationship between them and the applicant and as such , the dispute raised by the union does not come under the purview of Section 2 ( k ) of the Act and on that count also , the reference is liable to be rejected and as the relief claimed in this case is of civil in nature , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the case . It is further pleaded by the party no . I that monetary compensation was sanctioned to the applicant on 10-03-1999, but she refused to accept the same , therefore , her sanction was cancelled and she again moved application for grant of job for six years and thereafter , to give employment to her son after his attaining 18 years of age and there was no provision of giving employment for six years and the applicant again applied on05-09-2000 and 26-09-2000 for release of the monetary compensation , by keeping her son on live register but due to her refusal to accept monetary compensation , her previous application had become in fructuous and therefore as per Rules and the provisions , they sanctioned monetary compensation of Rs . 3000 per month to her w.e.f. 01-04-2002, with prospective effect and she accepted the same without any protest or objection and as per her application , her son was kept on live roster and after his attaining 18 years of age , he was employed on 29-05-2005, as a general mazdoor at Ballarpur Area and as such , the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

4. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that NCWAs are settlements under Section 18 ( 3 ) of the Act and are binding onboth parties and continue to remain in force , unless the same are amended or altered by another settlement and as it is not disputed that monetary compensation was first sanctioned in favour of the applicant w.c.f. 05-02-1999, she is entitled for such compensation w.e.f. 05-02-1999 to 31-03-2002 and as there was delay in making the payment of the arrear monetary compensation , she is also entitled to interest on the amount .

In support of the submission , the learned advocate for the claimant placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2007 ( 115 ) FLR -427 ( Mohan Mahto Vs. M/s . Central Coalfields Ltd. ) and AIR 2000 SC - 3513 (Vijay 1 .. Mehrotra Vs. State ofU.P. )

5. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . I that the dispute is not an industrial dispute under section 2 K of the Act and as the applicant is neither a member of the union nor her cause was duly espoused by the union , the claim is liable to be

[PART II-Sec . 3( in)

rejected and the plain reading of the case , it can be found thatthis is a case of civil in nature and as such , the civil court is the proper forum and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the issue and due to the age ofthe applicant , the management was not inclined to offer employment and therefore , she was offered monetary compensation, but she refused to receive the same and subsequently , she changed her mind and as per her application dated 05-09-2002 , she agreed to receive the monetary compensation and insisted to keep the name of her son in the live roster till his attaining majority and accordingly she was allowed monetary compensation of Rs. 3000 w.e.f. 01-04-2002, which she accepted without any dispute and the name of her son was kept in the live register. and on his attaining the age of 18 years , he was given employment and as such , she is not entitled to any relief.

6.Beforedelving in to the merit of the matter, I think it necessary to mention the relevant provisions of clause 9.5.0 relating to employment/ monetary compensation to female dependent as provided in NCWA - VI , which is admittedly applicable to the parties to the case . The same read as follows : -

9.5.0 : Employment/Monetary Compensation to female dependent

Provision of employment/ monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 . above would be regulated as under : --

(i) In case of death due to mine accident , the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs . 4000 per month or employment irrespective of her age .

( ii ) In case ofdeath/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, ifthe, female dependent isbelow the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs . 3000 per month or employment .

( iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0 , if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age , he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependent is on live roster , the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras ( i ) & (ii ) above . This will be effective from 01-01-2000 .

(iv) Monetary compensation , wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependent attains the age of 60 years .

(v) The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue . The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee & finalized .

2009

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

compensation can be said to be an industrial dispute and the union is entitled to raise the disputes and the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute referredby the Central Government .

7. In this case , all most all the facts are admitted by the parties . The only objection raised by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 is that the dispute raised is not an industrial dispute and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the same . However, I find no force in the objection raised by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 , in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts in the decisions mentioned below:-

In the decision reported in 2007 ( 115 ) FLR-427 (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :

"A settlement within the meaning of sub- section (3 ) ofsection 18 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered , modified or substituted by another settlement .

XX XX XX XX

The expanding definition of workman as contained insection 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act would confer a right upon the Appellant to obtain appointment on compassionate ground, subject of course, to compliance of the conditions precedent contained there in . "

In the decision reported in 1993 (1 ) BLJ -52 (Employees of M/s . BCCL Vs. Their workman ), the Hon'ble High Court (Ranchi Bench ) have held that :--

" In this case , provision for giving employment to the dependent of an employee who dies in harness isa condition of service . Such a condition of service has been included in the settlement entered into by and between the employees. Such a provision per se cannot be said to be unreasonable . "

In the decision reported in 2001-1 - LLJ - 196 [Municipal Employees union Vs. Secretary ( Labour) Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi and another ] , the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held that :

9. On perusal of the record including the pleadings ofthe parties, it is found that the only dispute between the parties is regarding the date from which , the applicant is entitled to get the monetary compensation. It is not disputed that though the applicant had applied for employment as a dependent of her deceased husband , as per the provision ofclause 9.5.0 of NCW A- VI , the party no . 1 did not give her employment and offered monetary compensation of Rs . 2500 per month w.e.f. 5-02-1999 to her, vide order no. 23/568 dated 9 /10-03-1999 , without assigning any reason for not giving her employment . It was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the applicant refused to accept the offer of monetary compensation , so the sanction of monetary compensation in her favour was cancelled and such monetary compensation was sanctioned againw.e.f. 1-04-2002 , considering her application dated 05-09-2002 and she accepted the same without any objection and the name of her son was kept in the live roster and he was also given employment on attaining the age of 18 years , so the applicant is not entitled to get the monetary compensation w.e.f 5-02-1999 . However, I find no force in such contentions . There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant refused to accept the offer of monetary compensation . No doubt , after she was allowedmonetary compensation w.c.f. 5-02-1999 , she again filed application to give her employment , instead of monetary compensation stating the ground of her inability to maintain the family with the amount of the monetary compensation of Rs . 2500 per month . There is also nothing on record to show that the order dated 09/10-03-1999 was cancelled by party no . 1. Keeping the name of the son of the applicant in the live roster and giving him employment on his attaining the age of 18 years has no bearing in not granting the monetary compensation to the applicant w.e.f. 05-02-1999 , in view of the provision of9.5.0 of NCW A. It is clear from the materials on record that the applicant is entitled to get the monetary compensation w.e.f. 5-02-1999 as admissible . Hence , it is ordered: -

"Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 -Sec, 2(K)-Industrial Dispute Definition of-ward " Person " appearing in section is wide enough to permit any person to raise an Industrial Dispute when condition of Labour is involved.

ORDER

A claim for appointment on compassionate ground was raised as an industrial dispute but was refused to be referred by the government . On appeal against the said rejection High Court allowed the appeal.

The demand of Monetary Compensation (w.e.f. 5-02-1999 to 31-03-2002 ) by the KSS Union i.r.o Smt . Sunita, the dependent widow of Late Digamber Gaikwad is proper & justified . The applicant Smt . Sunita , the dependent widow of Late Digamber Gaikwad is entitled to get the monetary compensation as admissible for the period from 5-02-1999 to 31-03-2002.

HELD- Based on the decisions of the same Court reported in [ 1999-11 -LLJ - 856) (Del ) and 1999-II - LLJ- 1136] ( Del ) the court observed that the expression person appearing in Section ' 2( K) of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 defining Industrial Dispute is wide enough to commission such person . "

The party no . I is directed to pay the arrears of monetary compensation to the applicant for the period from 5-02-1999 to 31-03-2002 within one month of the date of publication ofthe award in the Official Gazette.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer 8. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon 'ble courts in the above decisions to the present case in hand, it can be held that the dispute raised by the union onbehalf of the applicant regarding payment ofmonetary 2010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 22 फरवरी , 2013

Food Corporation of India and their workman , Shri Sudhakar Namdeo Khandate , for adjudication , as per letter No. L-22012/ 142/2003 - IR(CM - II )dated 8-12-2003 , with the following schedule:--

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur (M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Sudhakar Namdeo Khandate , Security Guard w.e.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and justified? If not, to whatrelief the concerned workman is entitled ? " का.आ. 656. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 240/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-22012/ 142/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी.एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

2.On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Sudhakar Namdeo Khandate (" the workman " in short) , filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ( " Party No. 1 " in short ) filed their written statement .

S.O. 656. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 240/ 2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L- 22012/ 142/2003 - IR(CM - II) ]

B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT /NGP/240/2003

Date:6-02-2013

PartyNo. 1(a) : The District Manager , Food Corporation of India, Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur-440015

Party No. 1(b)

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of PartyNo. 1 from 24-11-1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 , when his services were terminated orallyby Party No. 1 , without following thedue procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-3-1999 was not in good faith , but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after his illegal termination , fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of Security guards , in violation of the provision of section 25 -H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

: The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgatye , Mumbai-400020

Versus

PartyNo. 2 : The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar , Post: Wardha , Distt . Wardha (M.S. )

AWARD

(Dated: 6th February, 2013 )

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause ( d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( " the Act " in short ) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of

The further case of the workman is that in 1993 he was engaged by the Party No. I through the contractor for a period of two years , but the contract was made , only on papers and after every two years , the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and hewas merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , butactually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. I and he was a regular employee of Party No. I and Party No. I was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his 2011

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 ( H ) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencics like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore , the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go - downs are filled with food grains , then only, services ofthe security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issuedby the Central Government abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

legitimate claim and the contract between Party No.1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment ofcontract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore , it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed theSecurity Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad , but atAkola, Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the contract labour system was continued by the management , with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws .

The further case of party no. 1 is that for the reliefs asclaimed , the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'bleHigh Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/ 99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore , this Tribunal hasno jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon the Court operates as res -judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of theworkman.

It isfurther pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and hisdaily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No. I was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so -called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles such as , torch, lathi , whistle and uniform etc , to him and in view of the long spell ofwork being carried out by him , he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

The further case of party no . I is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 1-11-1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore , the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and whenthe contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman . they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only usedto check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards , as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employce appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article , such as torch , Rathi , whistle and uniform etc to the workman and as such , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4.Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence .

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleaded the contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract ofthe contractor came to an end, the services ofthe workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was upto 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them , there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman werenever utilized by them as employer from 24-11-1993 to 14-3-1999, without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days work in the year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regularisation and Abolition ) Act , they were exempted by the Central Government , so the allegations made by the workman 2012

                      THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934                      [PART II SEC . 3( ii) ]
         The workman in support of his claim has examined       and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register or
    himself as a witness . In his evidence , which is on affidavit, salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt.
   the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
    statement of claim .                                       Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of
                                                                labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was
         In his cross -examination , the workman has denied     submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the
   the suggestion that he has mentioned in his affidavit in    workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI .
   paragraph 1 that he was initially engaged as a Security           6.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
   Guard through a contractor. He has admitted that he has      learned advocate for the workman that the workman was
   not filed any appointment letter issued by the FCI and no   engaged by the management of FCI on 24-11-1993 at
   appointment order was issued by the FCI for his             Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked
   engagement in the FCI and he has not filed any document     continuously without any interruption till 14th March , 1999
   to show that he was in continuous service in the FCI in
  24-11-1993 tiil 14-03-1999 . The workman has further admitted and his services were terminated orally by the party no . 1 ,
                                                               without following the duc procedure of law and the workman
  thatthere was no advertisement in any newspaper regarding    had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
   engagement of Security Guards in FCI and he has not         and before termination of the services of the workman ,
  mentioned the amount ofthe salary, which he was receiving    neither one month's notice nor one month's wage in lieu of
   from FCI either in the statement of claim or in the affidavit
                                                               notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
   and the signature appearing on the revenue stamp against   workman , as required under section 25 - F of the Act and
  his name at serial no.16 in document no . 42, filed by the   after termination ofthe services ofthe workman , fresh hands
  management , is his signature and he has not filed any      were engaged by party no . I to exttact the duties of security
  document to show that he worked for 240 days in any          guard, in violation of the provision ofsection 25 -H of the
  calendar year and he has not filed any document to show     Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature ,
  that FCI had taken any action against any defaulting         hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal .
  Security Guard and he has not filed any document to show
  that FCI appointed the Security Guards of Nagpur and              Itwas further submitted by the learned advocate for
  Manmad on permanent basis and he has also not filed any     the workman that the party no. I had shown the workman
  document to show that uniform , torch and lathi were issued  as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
  to him by the FCI.                                          only on papers and the workman was actually working
        5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on    under the direct control and supervision of the party no.1
                                                              and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
  behalf of the party no.l has also reiterated the facts      party no.1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
  mentioned in the written statement, in his examination - in- legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
  chief, which is on affidavit . In his cross - examination , this
 witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had       between the management and the contractor was bogus
                                                              and not genuine and the Central Government by
  obtained any license from the competent authority for       notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of
 engagement of contract laboures in FCI . The witness has     contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
 admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI       labours engaged by the management and therefore , the
 and he was engaged for watch and ward of godowns and         management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
 the workman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch on      labour system and to give employment to the workman .
 the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI
 godowns and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply                 It was also submitted by the learned advocate for
 contract labourers had the required license for the same ,  theworkman that party no . I has admitted the claims made
 but copy of such license was not filed and the process of   by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
 engagement of contractors was done by the Regional Office    that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
 of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details    cogent evidence in support of the same and as such , the
 of the process of engagement of contractors and during      workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
 the general election to the Parliament , FCI had submitted  continuity and full back wages .
 the names of the workman and 12 others in the list of
                                                                   7.Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
 employees submitted to the collector. This witness has
                                                              for the party no.1 that the workman was never appointed
 denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others       by party no.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the
                                                             security guard and as such , the concened contractor is a
godowns of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and the FCI was
                                                             necessary party and in spite of raising such objection in
maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The     the written statement , the workman did not implead the
witness has further stated that payment of wages to the      contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
workman was being done through the contractor as per         maintainable . It was further submitted by the learned
the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was
                                                             advocate for the party no. I that the workman was engaged
notmaking any deduction from the said wages towards PF       by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor

2013

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Inview ofthe rejection ofthe main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise . In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year . The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Courtdid notconsider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence , the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res -judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no. 1.

came to an end in March , 1999 , the services ofthe workman were terminated by the contractor and as such , there was no question ofparty no . 1 complying with the due procedure oftermination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the party no.1 and the workman and the party no. 1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers , so contract was given to the security contractor , as per rules , forsupply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system , Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and party no.1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman . It was furthers submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'hle High Court while depositing of the said petition have held thatthe termination of the workman by the contractor was avalid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res -judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. First of all , i will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res -judicata, due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. no . 1389/99 .

9. Inthis reference, it is never the case ofthe workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party no . 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim , it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Wardha as a security guard , through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim , the workman has mentioned that In the year 1993 , the workman was engaged by theFood Corporation of India through contractor, for the period of 2years, but the contract was made on paper. " The case of the workman is that after every two years , the party no. 1 on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard ofperennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service . The workman has also claimed that as the Central Govemment issued notification on 01-11-1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and party no . 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 beforethe Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble Iligh Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'hle High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ petition , it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work ofthe Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature . However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order :

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross - examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to FCI , it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor . The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1 .

10. At this juncture , I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon ' ble Apex Court regarding contract labours , in the two decisions reported in 1985-11 LLJ - 4 ( S.C. ) ( The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s . Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C. ) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others) .

" Inview ot the judgment of the Constitution Bench inSteel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union water front workers and others [reported in2001 (7) SCC 1 ] , the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since ,the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted .

2014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

In the decision reported in 1985-11 LLOJ -4 ( supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:-

Act isexplicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Courtto read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment ofprincipal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment . Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible .

" Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor , the labour force employed by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation , therewas no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. " Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do ............. " . The expression ' employed has at least two known connotations , but as used in the definition , the context would indicate thatit is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience . The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be , in other words , an employment ofhis by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a " workman " within the definition ofthe term as contained in the Act .

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10( 1 ) ofthe CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought before itby any contract in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishtnent or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse /camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial' legislations so as to deprive the workers ofthe benefit there under . If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services ofthe contract labour in the concerned establishment . If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and , if necessary, by relaxing the condition as tomaximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age ofthe workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra ( 1957-1 - LLJ - 477) . Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands , the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person . Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claimto that effect has been made by the union . "

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656 (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:

AirIndia's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/-12- 8-1999 (Cal ) : C.O. No. 6545( W) of 1996, D/-9-5-1997(Cal ): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997, D/ -17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999 , D/-2-8-2000 ( Born ) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -23-12-1999 ( Born ) , 1998 Lab IC 2571 ( Cal) , Reversed .

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended , does not extend to reading in the provisions ofthe Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication , or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The intendment ofthe CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10 ( 1 ) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub - section (2) of Section 10 of theAct among other relevant factors . But, the presence of some or all those factors , provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) by the appropriate Govemment , is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment , the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms " Contract labour" , " Establishment " and " Workman " does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word " Workman " is defined in wide terms . It isa generic term of which contract labour is a species . It is true that combined reading ofthe terms " Establishment " and " Workman " shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is truc 2015 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRAAct . A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there -under. "

का.आ. 657. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.एस.पी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered.

[सं. एल -42012/66/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 657. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of National Scriculture Project, Central Silk Borad, National Silk Board , Government of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. 1.-42012/66/2002 - IR( CM - II ) | Β . Μ . ΡΛΙΝΑIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 04-02-2013

Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 11 /2003

PartyNo. 1

: The Deputy Director, National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board , P - 2 , Basic Seed Farm , Shirala . Tah , Patur, Distt . Akola (MS)

Versus

12. In this case , the letter No. U-23013/ 11 / 89/LW dated 28-05-92, Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning , dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted by the Central Government . So , the engagement of contract labour by the Party No.1 cannotbe said to be illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No.1 for supply ofSecurity Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman . The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. I was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there- under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time, Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that party No.1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presence ofthe Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same . As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No.1 , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No.1 and the workman . Hence , there was no question of termination ofthe services by the Party No.1 or compliance of the provisions of Section 25 - F or 25 - H of the Act .

PartyNo. 2

: Shri Vijay Kashiram Morcy R/o . Sawad, Tch . Risod, Distt . Washim ( MS) .

AWARD (Dated: 4th February, 2013 )

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor , who had engaged the workman is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non -joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

Inview ofthe materials on record and the discussions made above , the reference cannot be answered in favour ofthe workman . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of National Sericulture Project, Central Siik Board and and their workman , Shri Vijay Kashiram Morcy, for adjudication , as per letter No. 1.-42012/66/ 2002 - IR(CM- II ) dated 09-08-2002, with the following schedule:

The reference is answered in the negative . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the Deputy Director, National Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board .

870 61 / 13-29 2016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25. 1934

Government of India, Basic Seed Farm Shirala , Taluka - Patur, Distt . Akola ( M.S. ) in terminating the employment of Shri Vijay Kashiram Morey w.e.f. 30-11-1996 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled? "

2. On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Vijay Kashiram Morey, ( " the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and the management of the National Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board ( " Party No. 1 " in short) filed their written statement .

The case of the workman as depicted from the statement of claim is that " National Sericulture Projcet " was started by the Central Silk Board, a unit ofGovernment of India, at different places all over India including in Akola district and the said project was implemented by the Director, National Silk Worm Seed Project , Central Silk Board having office at Bangalore and the in - charge of the said project in Akola district and other places in Maharashtra was the Deputy Director having his office at P -2, Basic Seed Farm , Shirala, Akola and there were seven technical centres ( T.S.C. ) at Washim , Akola, Mehekar, Khamgaon , Risod, Motala and Buldhana , which were under the control of the Deputy Director and he was initially appointed as a casual labour by Party No. 1 , w.e.f. 04-02-1991 , at T.S.C. , Risod from the list of candidates received from the concerned employment exchange and T.S.C. Risod (wrongly mentioned as Akola in statement of claim) was closed by Party No. 1 in 1993 and the Party No. 1 handed over all the T.S.C. to the State Government of Maharashtra and the office of the Deputy Director issued the order of retrenchment of his services on 30-11-1996 and terminated his services w.e.f. 30-11-1996 on the ground ofclosure ofthe T.S.C. and N.S.P. at Akola and three days after the order of retrenchment , the Party No. 1 issued another order dated 03-12-1996 and offered fresh engagement of a casual labour at Basic Seed Farm , Shirala, butwhen the reported for duty on the basis of the order dated 03-12-1996 , he was not allowed by Party No. I to resume duty, so he served a notice on Party No. I on 08-02-1997 asking to allow him to resume duty, but the PartyNo. 1 did not give any reply. It is further pleadedby the workman that in the circular dated 15-10-1992 of the Director , N.S. W.S.P. Bangalore , direction was issued to convert the casual labourers , who had completed five years of service as on 01-09-1992 to time scale labourers and also to convert all other casual labourers to time scale , on their coation of five years of continuous service and by circular date 12-12-1996 , it was decided to convert the casual laboures to time scale labourers , who had been engaged prior to 07-08-1992 and had completed two years of continuous service and the Deputy Director, N.S.P. Shirla vide his letter dated 13-10-1996 had sent the details of his services along with other casual laboures and according to the said information, he had completed more than five years of continuous service on 30-11-1996 and

[ PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

the date ofhis conversion as time scale labour was shown as 03-02-1996 and he has acquired the status of Time scale labourer and as such , he was not liable to be terminated and services of the casual labourers , Shri Abhay Tirpude and seven women field Assistants were not terminated and they were accommodated and transferred to other places and therefore , he was also entitled to be accommodated and even though the T.S.C. were over to Maharashtra State Government , there was no need or propriety for Party No. I to terminate his services and the work of labourers was and is available with party no . 1 at P-2Basic Sced Farm , Shirla and also Gandhingala and party no. 1 is taking the work of labourers at Shirla by appointing contract labourers and hence , his retrenchment on account ofclosure of unit is on false ground and is illegal .

It is also pleadedby the workman that the establishment of party no . 1 is an industrial establishment as defined under Section 25-1 . of the Act, hence provisions ofchapter V-B of the Act are applicable to the establishment of the Party No. 1 and his retrenchment is in contravention ofthe mandatory provision of Sections , 25 - N , Section 25- FF of the Act and the party no. I did not follow the procedure of Section 25 -G of the Act and as such , his retrenchment dated 30-11-1996 was illegal and unfair labour practice and he had completed more than 240 days ofwork in every year during his tenure and the termination of his services was illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

3. The party no . I in the written statement have pleaded inter - alia that seven Technical service centres were established in defferent places in Maharashtra State with the financial assistance of World Bank and for the said centres , required number of casual labourers were engaged purely on temporary on daily wages basis , for the casual nature of work for the project period and the nature of work of the centre was to provide technical service to the farmers , who were practicing sericuture and the work of the centres was seasonal and intermittent in nature and the workman was engaged as a casual labourer atT.S.C. Risod on 04-02-1991 through local employment exchange and he worked intermittently and he did not work continuously and he was paid wages as fixed by the State Government and as per the terms and conditions of National Scriculture Project , the T.S.C. establishment in pilotstates were closed on 30-11-1996 and handed over to . State Government and the only P -2 Basic Farm , which was functioning at Shirla during project period was

subsequently closed and handed over to the State vernment and while handing over the Technical Service Centres , the concerned State Government Sericulture Department were requested to utilize the labourers engaged in the centres , but they did not agree for the same and there was no requirement of labourers in any Central Silk Board units functioning in Maharashtra and thus , the services of the labourers were terminated by offering admissible notice period wages and retrenchment compensation, as per the provisions of Section 25 - F of the 2017

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Act and the workman and other labourers refused to receive the same and later, individual demand drafts were obtained in the name of the workman and other labourers and were sent to their residential addresses by registered post, but thay refused to receive the same .

It is further pleaded by the party no . 1 that order dated 03-12-1996 , was issued with the intention to rerabilitate the retrenched labourers by engaging them for short duration at Basic Seed Farm , Sirala , but due to scaling down of farm activites and reduction of work load in the farm, the retrenched labourers could not be accommodated and that cannot be construed that work was available at P-2 Basic Seed Farm , Shirla and after closure of T.S.C. Risod , no casual labour was accommodated at anywhere and the women filed assistants were appointed on regular basis as per recruitment rules of Central Silk Board and they were posted to work at T.S.C. Akola and other places in Maharashtra State and the workman cannot be equated with the regular staff and it is not an industrial establishment as defined under Section 25 ( L) of the Act and provision of section chapter V- B , 25 ( L) and 25 (N ) of the Act are not applicable to it and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

engaged as a casual worker on 04-02-1991 and worked till- 30-11-1996 without any break . However, the documents filed by the management , Exts . M - 1 to M- VII show that due to closure of the Technical service centres including the service centres at Risod, where the workman was working and handing over of the centres to the State Government of Maharashtra on 30-11-1996 , the services of the workman and all other casual labourers were terminated and before termination of their services , one month's wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman and other labourers , but they refusedto receive the same . Fact regarding entitlement to receive such wages and compensation has been mentioned in the notice itself. It is also found that the wages and retrenchment compensation wasalso sent in shape of Bank Draft by RP with AD to the workman, but the workman did not receive the same . There is no evidence that any casual labour was accommodated by party no . I at any other place and there was any discrimination in respect of the workman . There is also no evidence that provision of Chapter V- B and provisions of Sections 25-1 . and 25 - N are applicable to party no. 1. As the mandatory provisions of the Section 25 - F of the Act were complied with by party no . 1 , before termination of the services of the workman , it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the wokman is illegal or invalid . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the Deputy Director, National Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board, Government of India, Basic Seed Farm Shirla, Taluka - Patur, Distt . Akola (M.S.) in terminating the employment of Shri Vijay Kashiram Moreyw.e.f. 30-11-1996 is legal and jusified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The workman has examined himself as a witness to prove the case. In his examination- in- chief, which is on affidavit , the workman has reiterated the fact mentioned in the statement of claim . However, in his cross - examination , the workman has admitted that he was engaged as a casual labour in the year 1991 and on 30-11-1996 , the National Sericulture project was closed and the said project was handed over to State Government and in all seven persons were engaged in the project and all the seven persons including himself were retrenchedby the State Government on 30-11-1996 and in the letter dated 30-11-1996 informed them about their retrenchment .

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

का.आ. 658 .. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच . अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 279/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

5.One S. Penchalaiah a Superintendent of National Silkworm Seed Organisation Centre , Silk Board , Bangalore has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party no. 1. In his examination - in-chief, which is on affidavit, this witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement . In his cross -examination , party no . 1 has stated that he had or have not worked at Basic Seed Farm, Shirala and he has no personal knowledge about the period for which the workman worked at Basic Seed Farm , Shirla and the workman worked continuously for five years and he was entitled for regularisation.

[ सं. एल-22012/203/2003 - आई आर ( सीएम II ) | बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013 6. It is necessary to mention here that the party no. 1 filed their written notes of argument on 21-09-2012 . However, inspite of giving several opportunities , no argument either in writing or oral was advanced from the side ofthe workman and as such , the case was closed and was posted for award as per orders dated 15-01-2013.

S.O. 658.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the ward (Ref. No. 279/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- 1 abour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute 7. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record including the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties that the workman was 2018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L-22012/203 /2003 -IR(CM - II )]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT.. CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/ NGP /279/2003

Date: 06-02-2013

PartyNo. 1(a) : The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur-440015

PartyNo. 1(b)

PartyNo. 1from 02-03-1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruptiontill 14th March, 1999 , when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services , neither one month'snotice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25- F of the Act and after his termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. I to extract the duties of Security guards , in violation of the provision ofsection 25 - H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

: The Senior Regional Manager, FoodCorporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgatye , Mumbai-400020

Versus

PartyNo. 2 : The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar , Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha ( M.S. )

AWARD (Dated: 6th February, 2013 )

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , Shri Narendra Ramdas Kashimpure, for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 22012/ 203 / 2003 - IR (CM- 11)dated 08-12-2003 , with the following schedule: -

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Narendra Ramdas Kashimpure , Security Guard w.e.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Narendra Ramdas Kashimpure ( " the workman " in short ), filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ( " Party No. 1 " in short) filed their written-statement .

The further case of the workman is that in 1993 , hc was engaged by the Party No. I through the contractor for a period of two years , but the contract was made, only on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement ofthe so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and hewas merely shown to be engaged by the contractors , butactually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him wasbeing assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. I was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. I from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No.1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore , his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 and issued notification on 01-11-1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore , it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. I to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented thenotification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed theSecurity Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad , but atAkola , Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws .

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and 2019

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of theworkman.

his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so -called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and PartyNo. 1 also supplied the articles such as , torch, lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him , he is entitledto be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages .

The further case of party no . I is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act, 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01-11-1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore , the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor , who was paying the same to the workman and whenthe contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman , they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards , as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as torch , lathi , whistle and uniform etc to the workman and as such , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. It appears from record that in support of his case , though the workman filed his evidence on affidavit , he did not appear for his cross - examination . As the evidence of the workman has not been tested by way of cross- examination, the same cannot be considered.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter- alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleaded the contractor, who appointed him , as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract ofthe contractor came to an end , the services of the workman were terminated bythe contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was upto 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March , 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them , there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman werenever utilized by them as employer from 02-03-1993 to 14-03-1999, without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act , they were exempted by the Central Government , so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 ( H ) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore , the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go downs are filled with food grains , then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system , they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards .

5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on behalf of the party no . I has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement , in his examination - in- chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross - examination, this witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had obtained any license from the competent authority for engagement of contract labourers in FCI . The witness has admitted that the workman was working from 1994 in FCI and he was engaged for watch and ward of go downs and theworkman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch on the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI godowns and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply contract labourers had the required license for the same, butcopy of such license was not filed and the process of engagement of contractors was done by the Regional Office of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details of the process of engagement of contractors and during the general election to the Parliament , FCI had submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the list of employees submitted to the collector. This witness has The further case of party no. I is that for the reliefs as claimed , the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/ 99 and the Hon' ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore , this Tribunal has nojurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon 'ble Court operates as res -judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in 2020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go- downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 and that the FCI was maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The witness has further stated that payment of wages to the workman was being done through the contractor as per the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was not making any duduction from the said wages towards PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register or salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt . Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the workman was on duty from 1994 to 1999 in FCI .

6.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 02-03-1994 at Wardha Depot as a security guard and he worked continuouslywithout any interruption till 14th March , 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the party no . 1 , without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the workman , neither one month's notice nor one month's wage in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman , as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after termination of the services of the workman , fresh hands were engaged by party no . 1 to extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the provision of section 25 -H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennail in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal .

Itwas further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the party no . I had shown the workman as contract labour, but the so -called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working under the direct control and supervision of the party no . 1 and he was never a contract labour and such action of the party no. I was sham and only a camouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so-called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of contract labour anddirected to give employment to contract labours engagedby the management and therefore , the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no . I has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour , by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such , the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. I that the workman was never appointed by party no. I and he has engaged by the contractor as a

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

security guard and as such , the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement , the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable . It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. I that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March , 1999 , the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such , there was no question of party no . 1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the party no . I and the workman and the party no . I was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers , so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules , for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system . Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and party no. I has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. I that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such , the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicate between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. First ofall , I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the party no. I that the persent reference is hit by the principles of res -judicate , due to the decisionofthe Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99 .

It is not disputed that the workman along with 78 others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no . 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay , Nagpur Bench , Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they havebecame workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature . However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others 2021

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others).

In the decision reported in 1985-11 LLOJ - 4 ( supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that : ---

[reported in 2001 ( 7 ) SCC 1 ] , the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority . Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

In view ofthe rejection of the main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case , the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter withina period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of theirgrievances ."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Courtdid not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress . Hence , the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res -judicata . So , there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 .

"Briefly stated , when corporation engaged a contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor, the labour force employedby him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation , there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. " Workmen " has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean ( any person including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do............" . ' The expression ' employed has at least two known connotations, butas used in the definition , the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed . It discloses a relationship of command and obedience . The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed to do the work inthat industry and that there should be , in other words, anemployment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a " workman " within the definition of the term as contained in the Act .

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra ( 1957-1 - LLJ - 477 ) . Now where a contractor employee a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands , the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore , when the workmen employed by the contractor werecertainly not the workmen of the corporaton and no claim to that effect has been made by the union ."

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656 (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that: ---

9. In this reference , it is never the case ofthe workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party no . 1 as a security guard . In the very beginning of the statement ofclaim , it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Wardha as security guard , through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim , the workman has mentioned that , " In the year 1993 , the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for the period of 2 years , but the contract was made on paper . " The case of the workman is that after every two years, the party no . 1 on papers showed the change of contractors , but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature , he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01-11-1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and party no . implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services ofthe Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the statement of claim that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to FCI it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1 ..

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended , does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication , or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10 ( 1 ) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub- section (2 ) of Section 10 of theAct among other relevant factors . But , the presence of someor all those factors , provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1 ) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the 10. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours, in the two decisions reported in 1985 - II LLJ - 4 (S.C. ) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s . Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C. ) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.

2022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II- SEC . 3 (11 ) }

ofaworkman could not be correct of contract labour . When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act . A fortiori mush less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under . " consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act isexplicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Courtto read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible.

So, keeping in view the principles enunciatedby the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered .

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract in regard to condtions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age ofthe workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/ -12- 8-1999 (Cal ): C.O. No. 6545 ( W) if 1996, D/ 9-5-1997 (Cal ) : W.A. Nos . 345-354 of 1997m D/-17-4-1998 (Kant ): W. P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2-8-2000 ( Bom ) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/-23-12-1999 ( Bom ) , 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal ), Reversed.

12. In this case , the letter No. U-23013/ 11 /89/LW dated 28-05-92 , Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping , cleaning , dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted by the Cental Government . So , the engagement of contract by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. I for supply ofSecurityGuards was genuine and the same was not only onpapers as claimed by the workman . The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence . The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. I was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations , so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time , Party No. I paid his wages as their employee . It is clear from the evidence that Party No. I paid wages of the last three months to the workman inpresence ofthe Labour Commissioner , as the contractor did not pay the same . As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1 , by the contractor and as such , it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No.1 and the workman . Hence , there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25 - F or 25- H of the Act.

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor , who had engaged the workman is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference . Due to non -joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

Inview ofthe materials on record and the discussions made above , the reference cannot be answered in favour ofthe workman . Hence , it is ordered: ----

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment , the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour . Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms " Contract labour" , " Establishment" and " Workman " does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship . The word " Workman " is defined in wideterms . It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species . It is true that combined reading of the terms " Establishment " and " Workman " shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true

J. P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer 2023 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

                                                              Board and their workman Shri Bika Laxman Satwal , for
                नई दिल्ली , 22 फरवरी , 2013
                                                               adjudication , as per letter No.L-42012/ 68/2002 - IR (CM - II )
      का.आ. 659. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947          dated 08-11-2002, with the following schedule:-
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एस. पी.  "Whether the action of the Deputy Director, National
के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच ,   Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Government of India,
अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक Basic Seed Farm Shirala, Taluka- Patur, Distt. Akola (M.S.)
अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 12/2003 ) को in terminating the employment of Shri Bika Laxman Satwal
प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ w.e.f. 30-11-1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
                                                               the concerned workman is entitled" ?
 था ।
                                                                     2.Onreceipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed
             [सं. एल-42012/68/2002- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ]      to file their respective statement of claim and written
                            बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी      statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Bika Laxman
                                                               Satwal, ("the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim
           New Delhi , the 22nd February,2013                   and the management of the National Sericulture Project,
       S.O. 659. In pursuance of Section 17 of the             Central Silk Board ( " Party No.1 " in short) filed their written
                                                                statement .
 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central
 Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2003)             The case of the workman as depicted from the
 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour     statement of claim is that "National Sericulture Project "
 Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial       was startedbythe Central Silk Board, a unit of Government
 Dispute between the management of National Sericulture         of India, at different places all over India including in
 Project, Central Silk Board, National Silk Board, Govt . of    Akola district and the said project was implemented by the
  India, and their workmen , which was received by the          Director, National Silk Worm Seed Project CentralSilk Board
 Central Government on 22-02-2013 .                             having Office at Bangalore and the in- charge of the said
                          [No. L-42012/68/2002- IR (CM - 11 )]  project in Akola district and other places in Maharashtra
                             B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer        was the Deputy Director having his office at P-2 , Basic
                                                                 Seed Farm, Shirla, Akola and there were seven technical
                        ANNEXURE                                 centers (T.S.C. ) at Washim , Akola , Mehekar, Khamgaon ,
                                                                Risod, Motala and Buldhana , which were under the control
    BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,                  ofthe Deputy Director and he was initially appointed as a
         CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR                         casual labourer by party no.1 w.e.f. 24-09-1991 , at T.S.C. ,
                                        Date: 04-02-2013.       Akola, from the list of candidates received from the
  Case No.CGIT /NGP / 12 /2003                                   concerned employment exchange and T. S. C. , Akola was
  PartyNo.1                                                      closed by party no.1 in 1993 and the party no.1 handed
                                                                 over all the T.S.C. to the State Government of Maharashtra
  The Deputy Director ,                                          and the office of the Deputy Director issued the order of
  National Sericulture Project,                                  retrenchment of his services on 30-11-1996 and terminated
  Central Silk Board, P - 2 , Basic Seed Farm ,                  hisservices w.e.f. 30-11-1996 on the ground of closure of
  Shirala , Tal . Patur, Distt . Akola (MS) .                    the T.S.C. and N.S.P at Akola and three days after the order
                           Versus                                ofretrenchment, the party no. 1 issued another order dated
                                                                 03-12-1996 and offered fresh engagement ofa casual labour
  Party No. 2                                                    atBasic Seed Farm ; Shirla, but when he reported for duty
   Shri Bika Laxman Satwal                                        on the basis of the order dated 03-12-1996 , he was not
   R/o . Harihar , Post-Old City Akola,                          allowed by party no . 1 to resume duty, so he served a notice
   Teh . Akola, Distt . Akola (MS) .                             on party no. 1 on 08-02-1997 asking to allow him to resume
                                                                 duty, but the party no. I did not give any reply. It is further
                           AWARD                                 pleaded by the workman that in the circular dated
                                                                 15-10-1992 ofthe Director, N.S. W. S. P , Banagalore, direction
                 (Dated: 4th February, 2013 )                    was issued to convert the casual labourers , who had
   In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of          completed five years of service as on 01-09-1992 to time
   sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of    scale labourers and also to convert all other casual labourers
   Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) (" the Act " in  to time scale, on their completion of five years of continuous
   short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial    service and by circular dated 12-12-1996, it was decided to
   dispute beetween the employers , in relation to the            convert the casual labourers to time scale labourers , who
   management of National Sericulture Project, Central Silk       had been engaged prior to 07-08-1992 and had completed

870 G1 113-30 2024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

two years of continuous service and the Deputy Director , N.S.P. , Shirla vide his letter dated 13-10-1996 had sent the details of his services along with other casual labourers and according to the said information , he had completed more than. five years of continuous service on 30-11-1996 and the date of his conversion as time scale labour was shown as 23-09-1996 and he has acquired the status of Time scale labourer and as such , he was not liable to be terminated and services of the casual labourers , Shri Abhay Tirpude and seven women Field Assistants were not terminated and they were accommodated and transferred to other places and. therefore, he was also entitled to be accommodated and even though the TSC were over to Maharashtra State Government , there was no need or propriety for party no . 1 to terminate his services and the work of labourers was and is available with party no . 1 at P -2 Basic Seed Farm , Shirla and also Gandhingala and party no . 1 is taking the work of labourers at Shirla by appointing contract labourers and hence , his retrenchment on account of closure of unit is on false ground and is illegal .

not agree for the same and there was no requirement of labourers in any of Central Silk Board units functioning in Maharashtra and thus , the services of the labourers were terminated by offering admissible notice period wages and retrenchment compensation , as per the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act and the workman and other labourers refused to receive the same and later, individual demand drafts were obtained in the name of the workman and other labourers and were sent totheir residential addresses by registered post , but they refused to receive the same . It is further pleaded by the party no . 1 that order dated 3-12-1996, was issued with the intention to rehabilitate the retrenched labourersby engaging them for short duration at Basic Seed Farm , Shirala, but due to scaling down of farm activities and reduction of work load in the farm, the retrenched labourers could not be accommodated and that cannot be construed that work was available at P2 Basic Seed Farm , Shirala and after closure of TSC , Akola, no casual labourer was accommodated at anywhere and the women field assistants were appointed on regular basis asperrecruitment rules of Central Silk Board and they were posted to work at TSC , Akola and other places in Maharashtra State and the workman cannot be equated withthe regular staff and it is not an industrial establishment asdefined under section 25 ( L) of the Act and provisions of Section chapter V-B , 25 ( L) and 25( N ) of the Act are not applicable to it and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

It is also pleaded by the workman that the establishment of party no. 1 is an industrial establishment as defined under section 25 - L of the Act , hence provisions ofchapter V- B ofthe Act are applicable to the establishment of the party no . 1 and his retrenchment is in contravention ofthe mandatory provison of Sections , 25 -N , Section 25 - F and Section 25 - FF of the Act and the party no. 1 did not follow the procedure of section 25 -G of the Act and as such, his retrenchment dated 30-11-1996 was illegal and unfair labour practice and he had completed more than 240 days of work in every year during his tenure and the termination ofhis services was illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

4. The workman has examined himself as a witness to prove the case . In his examination - in- chief, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim . However, in his cross -examination , the workman has admitted that he was engaged as a casual labourer in the year 1991 and on 30-11-1996, the National sericulture project was closed and the Said project was handed over to State Government and in all seven were engaged in the project and all the seven persons ineluding himself were retrenched by the State Government on 30-11-1996 and in the letter dated 30-11-1996 informed them about their retrenchment .

5. One S. Penchalaiah , a Superintendent of National Silkworm Seed Organisation Centre , Silk Board , Bangalore has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party no.1. In his examination- in- chief, which is on affidavit , this witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement . In his cross - examination , party no. I has stated thathe had or have not worked at Basic Seed Farm , Shirala and he has no personal knowledge about the period for which the workman worked at Basic Seed Farm , Shirala and the workman worked continuously for five years and he wasentitled for regularisation .

3. The party no . 1 in the written statement have pleaded inter- alia that seven Technical service centers were established in different places in Maharashtra State with the financial assistance of World Bank and for the said centers , required number of casual labourers were engaged purely on temporary on daily wages basis , for the casual nature of work for the project period and the nature ofwork ofthe centre was to provide technical service to the farmers , whowere practicing sericulture and the work of the centres was seasonal and intermittent in nature and the workman was engaged as a casual labourer at TSC , Akola on 24-09-1991 through local employment exchange and he worked intermittently and he did not work continuously and he was paid wages as fixedby the State Government and as per the terms and conditions of National Sericulture Project , the TSC establishment in pilot states were closed on 30-11-1996 and handed over to the State Government and the only P 2 Basic Seed Farm , which was functioning at Shirala during project period was subsequently closed and handed over to the State Government and while handing over the Technical Service Centers , the concerned StateGovernment Sericulture Departments were requested to utilize the labourers engaged in the centers , but they did

6. It is necessary to mention here that the party no . 1 filed their written notes of argument on 21-09-2012 . However , in spite of giving several opportunities , no argument either 2025

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 22nd February, 2013

inwriting or oral was advanced from the side ofthe workman and as such, the case was closed and was posted for award as per orders dated 15-01-2013

S. O. 660.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Majri Area of Kuchana of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L-22012/260/2003-IR (CM- II) ]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM- LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 28-01-2013 .

Case No.CGIT /NGP/53/2004

PartyNo.1 The ChiefGeneral Manger , Majri Area ofKuchana of WCL, Post: Shembule, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S. )

Versus

PartyNo.2 Shri B.C. Kamanwar, JointGeneral Secretary, Indian National Mines Overınan Sirdar And Short-Firer's Association, (Central)/ WCL, PO : Babupeth , Opp . Post Office, Babupeth , Chandrapur. (M.S.)

AWARD

7. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record including the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties that the workman was engaged as a casual worker on 24-09-1991 and worked till 30-11-1996 without any break. However, the documents filedby the management, Exts . M -I to M- VII show that due to closure of the Technical service centres including the servicre centres at Akola, where the workman was working and handing over of the centres to the State Govemment of Maharashtra on 30-11-1996, the services of the workman and all other casual labourers were terminated and before termination of their services, one month's wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman and other labourers , but they refused to receive the same . Fact regarding entitlement to receive such wages and compensation has been mentioned in the notice itself. It is also found that the wages and retrenchment compensation was also sent in shape of Bank Draft by R P withADto the workman , but the workman did not receive the same. There is no evidence that any casual labour was accommodated by party no.1 at any other place and there wasany discrimination in respect of the workman . There is also no evidence that provision of Chapter V-B and provisions ofSections 25 -L and 25 - N are applicable to party no . 1. As the mandatory provisions of the Section 25 - F of the Act were complied with by party no.1 , before termination of the services of the workman , it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the workman is illegal or invalid. Hence , it is ordered:-

(Dated: 28th January, 2013) ORDER

The action of the Deputy Director , National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Government of India, Basic Seed Farm Shirala, Taluka-Patur , Distt. -Akola (M.S.) in terminating the employment of Shri Bika Laxman Satwal w.e. f. 30-11-1996 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , Shri Bisun Prasad Zamman, for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 220012/260/ 2003 - IR (CM 11 ) dated 18-05-2004, with the following schedule:-

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Majri Area Kuchana of Western Coalfields Ltd. in refusing to change the date of Birth of Shri Bisun Prasad Zamman, Mining Sirdar as 01-01-1957 instead of 13-11-1952 on the basis of the Mining Sirdar Certificate No. 44203 dated 2-3-1984 as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 is legal & justified? If not , to what relief he is entitled?" का.आ. 660. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 53/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/260/2003- आई आर (सी एम- II ) ]

2.Onreceipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri B.P. Zamman , बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी 2026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(" the workman" in short) , filed the statement of claim through the union , " Indian National Mines Overman Sirdar And Short- Firer's Association , ( Central ) WCL " and the management of WCL , (" Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .

25-04-1988 was issued by the JBCCI in respect of the procedure for determining/ verification of the age of the employee and in view of the same , the party no . 1 should havecomplied and implemented the instruction no . 76 and corrected his age in terms of para ( i ) (b ) of the said instruction on the basis of the Mining Sirdar Certificate and though, he made several representations himself and though the union to party no . 1 , to correct his date of birth as01-01-1957 instead of 1-11-1952, basing on the Mining SirdarCertificate no correction was made by the party no. L and party no . 1 had corrected the date of birth of Shri Rajenti Ramdeo from 05-1-1932 to 18-12-1936 , basing. on the Mining Sirdar Certificate , even though , there was no objection from Shri Rajenti and such correction ofdate ofbirth is being done even now also , in similarly situated cases, by party no. 1 , irrespective of the entry made and recorded in" Form B " register and party no. I had committed number of mistakes and irregularities in appointment of employees in their mines including in the case of Shri Raffique Mia , driver , Shri Somnath , Halege Khalasi , Shri Kailash, Haullage Khalasi and party no. I had also corrected the date of birth under the provision of implementation instruction no . 76 and basing on the Mining Sirdar Certificate of the employees , namely Shri Muslim Alizam, Shri Sarwan Kumar Yadav, Shri Bansraj Ramdeo, Shri Samir Alli and Shri Nandlal Kumbar and vide circular dated 15/17-07-1999 , party no . I had reiterated to settle all the pending cases of age dispute as per implementation instruction no . 76 and party no . I had also corrected the dateofbirth of some employees , even after their retirement including Shri Sitaram Bakaram , Carpenter , Shri Algoo Mantigoo , Ex - loader and the workman is entitled for correction of his date of birth. The union has prayed to direct the party no . 1 to correct the date of birth of the workman as 01-01-1957 from 13-11-52 , on the basis ofthe Mining Sirdar Certificate , as per implementation instruction no. 76 .

The case of the workman as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Western Coalfields Limited (" WCL " in short) is one of the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited and is a " State " under article 12 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of National Coal Wage Argeements (" NCW A " in short ) are mandatory and are binding on coal companies including WCL . The further case of the workman as presented by the union is that the workman was appointed on 17-05-1975 at Majri underground mine no.2 , as a manual worker and thereafter , worked in different categories , such as Timberman and Timber Mistry and coal industry is a hazardous industry and there remained shortage of manpower and as such , appointments of persons available were being made in WCL and entries of their age were beingmade on assumption and the workman for his carrier growth wanted to appear in Sardarship examination , being heldunder Coal Mines Regulations , 1957 and for the same, he approached the Manager of the Mine , as per the usual practice in vogue at that time to forward his form containing his date of birth , medical certificate , conduct certificate, educational qualification and experience , as required under Regulation 15 of Coal Mines Regulations , 1957 and the Manager on verification and scrutiny of the particulars and being satisfied certified and forwarded the documents tothe office ofthe Chief Inspector of Mines and the Board of Mining Examination conducted Sirdar's certificate examination on 02-03-1984 and the workman passed the Sirdar's certificate examination and certificate no. 44203 was issued in his favour, under the Mines Act, 1952 , under the official seal and signature of the Secretary and Chairman of theBoard ofExamination and in that certificate , the date of birth of the workman was mentioned as 01-01-1957 and as there was shortage of Mining Sirdar in the colliery, he was promoted as a Mining Sirdar in Technical and Supervisory grade and as per provision of Regulation 24 , his Sirdar Certificate was submitted to the Manager of the mine and as such, party no , I was all along in full knowledge of his date of birth as recorded in his Sirdar Certificate i.e. 01-01- 1957, but party no . 1 did not care to correct the mistake in hisdate of birth and deliberately and intentionally all attempted to retire/superannuate him five years before his actual date of retirement and the statutory records about variation of age are in possession of party no . 1 and his date of birth was not corrected as per the implementation instruction issued by JBCCI from time to time and in modification of earlier implementation instruction no. 37 dated 5-02-81 , implementation instruction no . 76 dated

3. The party no . 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter- alia that the workman was initially appointed atNew Majri underground Mine no.2 on 17.05.1975 as a Timber man and according to the statutory provision of the Mine Act, 1952 and rules made there under, the full particulars ofthe workman including his parentage , date of birth and home address etc. were entered in " Form B " register, on the basis of his declaration and as per the declaration of the workman , his date of birth was recorded as 13-12-1952 and the entries were duly signed and authenticated by him and he also put his LTI against the entries and the workman also declared his age as 13-11-1952 in the declaration form " A " , sent to the Coal MinesProvident Fund department and the said form was signed bythe workman , and on 01-11-1989, the workman was transferred to Majri Open caste Mine and in the last pay certificate sent by Majri underground Mine, his date ofbirth was shown as 13-11-1952 and on the basis of the 2027

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

said last pay certificate and copy ofthe " Form B " register , the date ofbirth of the workman was entered as 13.11.1952

ofbirth than what was recorded in the statutory " Form B " register and other statutory records and if any different date was certified, then, it might have been done in connivance with the employees and even the colliery manager is not empowered to alter the statutory records , without sufficient and cogent documents and the workman has not claimed that his date of birth recorded in " Form B " register and other records stood corrected prior to his appearing in the examination and certificate granted and unless the recording of the age in the statutory records proved wrong, the same cannot be altered, on the basis of the Mining Sirdarship Certificate and there being no discrepancy or glaring mistake in recording of the age of the workman , in the statutory and other records of the company, the claim of the workman cannot be admitted and accepted.

It is also pleaded by the party no. 1 that age dispute cannot be decided and determined on the basis of comparison and every case has its own merit and it has not been proved by the workman that the cases of the other employees are exactly of the same merit, like his own case and age disputes are ongoing process and the same are done within the frame work of norms / rules and merit of each case and the same cannot be generalized and in the service excerpt supplied to the workman in duplicate in 1987, his age was mentioned as 26 years as on 13-11-1978 and one copy of the same was returned by the workman after signing of the same and confirming the correctness of his age and he did not protest or raise any objection against the same, though the specific purpose of the said document was for clarification of the relevant service particulars and the workman has not submitted any reason for not representing at the relevant time and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Inthe rejoinder , reiterating the facts mentioned inthe statement of claim , it is pleaded by the workman that party no.1 is a " State " within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India and has to act not only fairly, but also reasonably and cannot discriminate between the employees and the NCW AS are settlements and are binding on the parties and implementation Instruction no . 76 is applicable to the management as well as to the workman and it was the management who is/was to implement the provisions ofimplementation instruction no . 76 and it was not on the workman and he is entitled for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the date of birth , mentioned in the Mining Sirdarship Certificate .

5. To prove the case the union has examined Shri B.C. Kamanwar, the Joint General Secretary of the union and the workman as witnesses , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence .

in "Form B " register of New Majri OC Mine and according to the Statutory medical examination report in Form ' O' dated 13-11-1978, the age of the workman was recorded as 30 years on the date of examination and the said document was also signed by the workman and he also put his left thumb impression on the same and in the service register ofthe workman maintained by them, the age of the workman has been shown as 26 years as on 13.01.1978 and the said document has also been signed by the workman and he has also put his LTI on the same and even in Form - PS3 and Form- PS4 filled in , in the year 1998 of Family Pension Scheme submitted to the CMPF Department the workman had declared his date of birth 13-11-1952 as under his signature and right from the initial stages of service till 1998 , in all the statutory and non- statutory records maintained by them , the date of birth of the workman had beenrecorded as 13.11.1952 . The further case of the party no. 1 is that in the year 1990, the workman put up an application addressed to the Suptd. Mines/ Manager, New Majri OC stating that in his Mining Sirdar's Certificate, his date of birth to have been recorded as 1st January, 1957 , where as in " Form B " and other records of the Company, his date of birth was recorded as 13-11-1952, hence the same be corrected as 01-01-1957 and the said application indicated that the workman was aware of his dateofbirth recorded in the official records ofthe company and he had never challenged the date of birth, so recorded incompany'srecords , prior to 1990 and after obtaining the Mining Sirdarship , Certificate in the year 1984, the workman did not protest or apply for change of his date of birth and he submitted the application in 1990, after a gap of nearly six years ofobtaining the said certificate , and while making the application , he did not allege about wrong recording of his date of birth, in the records of the company and at the time of putting up his application to the department of Mines in the prescribed form, the workman must have manipulated his date of birth and supplied a different date of birth than that was recorded in the statutory records and the Manager of the Mines is required to grant him experience certificate for working in a mine and in support ofhiseligibility for appearing in the examination conducted by the department of mines , for granting the Mining Sirdarship Certificate and on perusal of the Mining Sirdarship Certificate, it can be observed that, it was the workman, who had to put evidence before the authority in proofofage , medical fitness, good character, literacy and experience in coal mining and the Manager of the Coal Mine is requiredto certify only the experience and the said certificate does not state that the particulars had been certified by the colliery manager and assuming but not admitting that the age of the workman was certified by the colliery manager, he could not have shown any other date

No oral evidence has been adduced by the party no. 1.

2028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

6. The examination - in - chief of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the union are on affidavit . Both the withnesses have reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement ofclaim and rejoinder, in their evidence . However, Witness Shri B. C. Kamanwar , in his cross - examination has stated that he has not produced any document to show that the applications of the employees for appearing in the Mining Sirdar examination are being certified by the colliery manager and the same are being forwarded to the examination board of Mines Department at Dhanbad and he cannot show any provision in the Coal Mines Regulation , 1957 , which provides the colliery Manager is required to certify about the age of the applicant to appear in the Mining Sirdar Certificate . This witness has further admitted that in para ( B) ( ii) of Implementation Instruction No. 76 , it has been mentioned that, " wherever there is no variation in records , such cases will not be reopened , unless there is any very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management . " This witness has further admitted that in all the official documents maintained by the management , such as " Form B " register , Service register , CMPF declaration form , LPC , " Form B " register of MMOC Mine, service excerpts , Forms PS - 3 and PS -4 , there is no variation of the age of the workman and on 23.01.1990, the workman filed an application for change ofhis date ofbirth , basing on the Mining Sirdar Certificate and in that application , the workman had not mentioned any other ground for change of his date of birth .

7. The workman in his cross - examination has admitted nat copy of the " Form B " register does not have any sipnature of any officer of WCL , as there is no column for theramend in his application dated 22.01.1990 , addressed to tie Suptd/ Manager of New Majri Mine he has mentioned that his date of birth as per Mining Sirdar's Certificate no . 44203 is 01-01-1957, but in the " Form B " register and other records of the company, his date of birth is recorded as 13.11.1952 and he was transferred to Majri Open cast Mine from Mine no.2 and at that time , his " Form B " register , Ext . M - 1 , his date of birth was mentioned as 13.11.1952 and he had never made objection regarding the entries made in Ext. M - I. and Ext . M - II is the copy of the declaration form given by him for Coal Mines Provident Fund and he has signed on the said form and the said form was submitted by him on 04.01.1981 and in Ext . M - 11 , his date of birth is mentionedas 13-11-1952 and he has signed on the service excerpts after supplying the required information in the same and he did not raise any objection regarding his date ofbirth , mentioned as 26 years on 13-11-1978 in the service excerpts and Ext. M- 111 is the copy of his service excerpts withhis signature and he has submitted forms PS- 3 ( Ext . M - IV) and PS -4 ( Ext . M -V) regarding family pension and in both the forms , he had mentioned his date of birth as 13-11-1952 and he passed Sirdar Certificate on 02-03-1984 and he knew that his date ofbirth was mentioned as 13-11-1952

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

inthe records of WCL and he raised his objection regarding hisdate of birth for the first time in the year 1990 .

8. During the course of argument , the learned advocate for the workman reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder . The specific submission made by the learned advocate for the workman was that Implementation Instruction No. 76 issued by the JBCCI is binding on the management of WCL and so also to the workmen and according to the said instructions , the age ofa workman is required to be corrected, basing on the dateofbirth mentioned in the Mining Sirdar Certificate and party no . I have corrected the date of birth of number of employees basing on the Implementation Instruction no . 76 and Mining Sirdar Certificate and in the Mining Sirdarship Certificate , the date ofbirth of the workman has been mentioned as 01-01-1957 and as such , he is entitled for correction of the date of birth basing on the said certificate.

Insupport of such contentions , the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported inAIR 1974 SC -348 ( Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection ), 2007 ( 115 ) FLR -427 ( Mohan Mahto Vs. M/ s . Central Coal FieldsLtd and others) , AIR 1994 SC - 853 ( S.P.Chengalvarya Naidu Vs. Jagannath ) , ( 1979) 3 SCC- 762 (Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. Perfect Pottery Co.Ltd) .

9. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . I that the workman has claimed to change his date of birth from 13-11-1952 to 01-01-1957 , basing on the date of birth as mentioned in the Mining SirdarCertificate and he did not claim that the entries in the company's records were wrong and the workman and so also , the other witness examined on behalf of the workman in their evidence have admitted that in all the records of the company, the date of birth of the workman has been mentioned as 13-11-1952 and for the first time on 23-01-1990, the workman asked the management to change his date ofbirth , basing on the Mining Sirdarship Certificate and as there was no mistake in respect of the date of birth ofthe workman in the company's record , there is no question of changing of the same basing on the Mining Sirdarship Certificate and Implementation Instruction no . 76 is not applicable to his case and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

10. From the principles enunciated by the Hon ' ble courts in the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the workman it is clear that WCL. , which is a public of sector undertaking is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and settlement within the meaning section 18 ( 3 ) are binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered , modified or substituted by another settlement and the Tribunal cannot

                                                                                                                   2029
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]                  भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
                                                               workman, it is found that in all the statutory records and all
go beyond the terms of reference. It is also clear from the    otherrecords of party no. 1 , the date ofbirth ofthe workman
materials on record that Implementation Instruction no . 76     has been recorded as 13-11-1952 and there was never any
 is binding on both the management of WCL and so also          dispute regarding the date of birth of the workman. It is
 on their workmen .                                             also found that in the Mining Sirdarship Certificate , the
       11. The claim of the workman is based on the             date of birth of the workman has been mentioned as
 provisions of implementation Instruction no . 76. On perusal   01-01-1957 . It is also clear that the workman did not raise
 of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 issued on             any objection in respect of his date of birth till 23-01-1990
 25.04.1988 , it is found that the same 'was issued for         and it is only on 23-01-1990, the workman submitted an
 determination /verification ofthe age of the employees and     application for the first time to change his date of birth as
  for resolving of disputed cases of service records . Clause   01-01-1957, basing only on the date of birth mentioned in
 (B) ( i) and ( ii ) of the said Implementation Instruction      the Mining ,, Sirdarship Certificate . It is also found that in
 provides the procedure for review / determination of date      hisapplication dated 23-01-1990 also , the workman did not
 of birth in respect of existing employees , which reads as      mention any other ground to change his date of birth or
  follows:-                                                      that there was any mistake in recording his date of birth in
                                                                therecords ofthe party no . 1. It is not known as to how the
 (B) Review/determination                                       workmanwas able to manage to record his date ofbirth as
  (i)  (a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation   1-1-1957 in the Mining Sirdarship Certificate , when there
       Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by     was no dispute about the date of birth recorded in the
       the recognized Universities or Board or Middle pass       records of party no.l. Neither in the statement of claim nor
       Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/ or      inthe rejoinder, it is pleaded that there was any mistake in
       Department of Public Instruction and admit cards           recording the date of birth of the workman as 13-11-1952 in
        issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as      the statutory records and other records of party no . 1. It is
        correct provided they were issued by the said             also to be mentioned that in Exts . M- IV and M -V, the
        Universities /Boards /Institutions prior to the date of  workman himselfhas mentioned his date ofbirth as 13-11-1952 .
        employment.                                                    When it is the admitted case that there was no
    (i) (b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship , Winding Engine or      variation regarding the date of birth of the workman in the
        similar other statutory certificates where the Manager    records of party no.l and when there was also no glaring
        had to certify the date of birth will be treated as       and apparent wrong entry in respect of the date of birth of
        authentic . Provided that where both documents            the workman , there was no question for the party no . 1 to
        mentioned in (i) (a) and ( i ) ( b) above are available the reopen the case of the workman and to change his date of
        date of birth recorded in (i ) (a) will be treated as     birth, basing on the Mining Sirdar Certificate .
        authentic .
                                                                        13. Though the documents produced by the union
   ( ii) Wherever there is no variation in record as , such cases show that party no . I had changed the date of birth of
         will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring       number of their employees , basing on Mining Sirdarship
         and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of         certificate , matriculate certificates and other documents as
         the Management ......                                    mentioned in clause ( B ) ofthe Implementation Instruction
    It isalso necessary to mention clause (5 ) of Implementation   no 76 , there is no evidence on record that the cases referred
    Instruction no . 76, which is quite necessary to determine     by the union in the statement of claim are similar to the
    the dispute between the parties . The same read as follows:    workman and there was no variation of the date of birth of
    (5) Undisputed cases                                           those employees in the records of party no.l. Hence , it
                                                                   cannot be said that there was any discrimination in the
            It was agreed that in undisputed cases , with a view   case ofthe workman . Hence , it is ordered: -
            to have stable record of service , the entire date in                           ORDER
            the service record should be computerized and a
            copy shouldbe retained at the colliery/project/ Area/        The action of the management in relation to Majri
            Subsidiary level and at the Headquarters of Coal       Area Kuchana of Western Coalfields Ltd. in refusing to
            India. Such undisputed cases will not be reopened .     change the date of Birth of Shri Bisun Prasad Zamman ,
            It was also agreed that after the task of              Mining Sirdar as01-01-1957 instead of 13-11-1952 on the
            computerisation is over , a copy of the print out will  basis of the Mining Sirdar Certificate No. 44203 dated
            be given to the employee concerned.                     02.03.1984 as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 is legal
     12. From the evidence on record including the Mining           &justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
     Sirdarship Certificate , documents Exts . M- I to M - V and the                          J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
     evidence of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the

2030

2013/ PHALGUNA 25 , 1934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALG

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) )

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

60/2003 - IR (CM - II ) dated 30-01-2004, with the following Schedule :-

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Ballarpur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. in terminating theservices ofShri Suresh Laxman Durge, General Mazdoor videoffice order No. WCL/SC/45B/222 dated 05-03-2001 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

का.आ. 661.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/60/2003- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

2.Onreceipt of the reference , parties were noticed to filetheir respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the workman , Shri Suresh Laxman Durge , (" the workman " in short ) through his union , "Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress " , ( " the union " in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL, (" party no . 1 " in short) filed the written statement .

S.O.661 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/ 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dhoptala Sub Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

Inthe statement of claim , it is pleaded by the union that the action of party no . 1 in terminating the services of the workman , vide order dated 05-03-2001 is illegal and therefore, the same is required to be set aside and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

[No. L- 22012/60/2003 - IR (CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. The party no.l resisted the claim of the workman by filing their written statement and pleading inter- alia that their action in terminating the services of the workman is legal and proper and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR

No. CGIT/NGP/ 16/2004

Date: 18-1-2013

Party No. 1

The Sub Area Manager , Dhoptala Sub Area of WCL , Post Sasti , Tah . Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur.

V/s

PartyNo. 2

Sh . Lomesh Khartad, General Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress , Dr. Ambedkar Nagar , Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur

AWARD

4. It is necessary to mention here that as the termination of the workman was done after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was takan up for consideration as a preliminary issue and the parties were directed to adduce evidence in support oftheir respective claims . The workman filed his evidence on affidavit . However, inspite of giving several opportunities , the workman did not appear for his cross -examination . On 19-12-2012 , the learned advocate for the workman filed an application for permission ofthe court to withdraw his power, on the ground that the present whereabouts of the workman is not known and that the workman is not coming to contest the case and after hearing the said application , the learned advocate for the workman was allowed to withdraw the power. In the interest ofjustice, notice was issued to the Secretary of the union to appear in the case and in response to the notice , the Secretary of the union , Shri Lomesh Maruti Khartad appeared on 18-1-2013 and filed an affidavit stating that the workman is not interested to contest the case and though several letters had been written by him , the workman is not making any contact with him . He has also prayed to close the case and to pass " no dispute" award .

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act" in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , Shri Suresh Laxman Durge ,for adjudication , as per letter No.L - 22012/

As the union which has raised the dispute on behalf of the workman has prayed to close the case and as the workman is not interested to contest the case , the case is 2031

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State: Bihar Industry : Food closed and posted for award.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd Jan. 2013

AWARD

5. As the workman is coming to contest the case, it appears that at present no dispute exitst between the parties .Hence , it is necessary to pass a " No dispute " award . Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference be treated as " No dispute" award.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) of the 1. D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-22012/ 182/95- IR(C -II ) dt . 16-6-1999.

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the managment of FCI , Patna, in terminating the services ofSh . Hirdyanand Dubey and Raju Mishra is legal and justified ? If not to what relief theworkmen are entitled ? "

का.आ. 662 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 270/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/182/1995- आई आर (सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

2. Neither any representative for FCI Employee's Union/workmen Hirdyanand Dubey and Raju Mishra appeared nor any workmen's withness for evidence produced despite three Regd. notices issued for it . Mr. Bhapendra Narayan , Asstt .Gr. FCI , for the management is present.

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 662. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 270/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No- 2 . Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L-22012/ 182/ 1995 - IR (C- II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Perusal of the case record clearly reveals that the case has been pending for the evidence of the workmen since 7-2-2006 for which inspite of giving more than sufficient opportunities and Regd. Notice having been issued to the Union concerned on its address noted in the Reference for it not a single witness produced on their behalf. It also indicates that the Union Representative/ both workmen by their conduct appear to be uninterested in pursuing the case. Proceeding with the case under the circumstances for altogether for more than six years for evidence is unwarranted . Hence the case is closed and accordingly an Order of no industrial dispute existent is passed.

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.2 ) AT DHANBAD

Present: Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I. D. Act 1947.

Reference No. 270 of 1999

Parties : Employer in relation to the management of Food Corparation of India, Patna, and their workmen .

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbehalf of the workmen

का.आ. 663. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 271/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Mr.Bhupendra

Onbehalfof the Management :

Narayan

[सं. एल-22012/183/ 1995- आई आर (सी- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

Rep. of the Manangement

870 51/ 13-31 2032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 663. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 271 / 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No.2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L- 22012/ 183 / 1995 - IR (C - II )]

B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer

Perused the case record , I find the present reference related to the termination of their services has been pending forthe evidence of the workmen since 8-8-2006 for which more than sufficient opportunities were given and Regd. Notices also issued to the Union on its address noted in the Reference , even then not a single witness on behalf of theworkmen produced in the period of more than six years . Proceeding with the case insuch circumstance of uncertainity is unwarranted . Hence the case is closed due to disinterestness of the Union as well as that of the workmen in pursuing the case . In result an order of no industrial dispute existent is passed .

ANNEXURE

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

LIST OF WORKMEN

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2 ) AT DHANBAD

Present:

1. Smt . Gangajali Devi

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

2. Smt. Lachia Devi

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of the I. D. Act , 1947.

3. Smt. Sarswati Devi

Reference No. 271 of 1999

4. Smt. Bechani Devi

5. Smt. Lalmuni Devi

Parties : Employes in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna , and their workmen.

6. Smt. Tara Devi

APPEARANCES :

7. Shri Purushotam Dubey

Onbehalf of the workmen :

None

8. Md . Abdul Rahman

Onbehalf ofthe Management : Mr. Bhupendra Narayan

9. Shri Sidh Nath Singh

Rep . of the Manangement

10. Shri Rama Shanker Singh

State: Bihar Industry: Food

11. Shri Rajendra Prasad

Dated, Dhanbad , the 2nd Jan. 2013.

12. Shri Gorakh Ram

AWARD

13. Shri Rama Shankar Upadhyay

14. Shri Rajendra Dubey

15. Shri Harendra Tiwari

16. Shri Sheo Mandil

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-22012/ 183/95- IR(C-II) dt. 16-6-1999 .

SCHEDULE

17. Shri Nandjee Prasad

18. Shri VinodKumar

19. Shri Rambabu Singh

" Whether the action of the managment of FCI Patna, in terminating the services of Smt. Gangajali Devi and 22 others(list enclosed ) are legal and justified ? If not to what reliefthe workmen are entitled ? "

20. Shri Prameshwar Mali

21. Shri Narayan Jee

22. Shri Vijay Shankar Rai

2.Neither union representative for FCI , Employee's Union nor any of the workmen Smt. Ganagjali Devi & 22 others appeared nor any witness for their evidence produced despite serevral notices . Mr. Bhapendra Narayan , AG, I is present .

23. Uma Shankar Singh.

2033

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

Birbal Yadav, for adjudication , as per letter No. L-22012/ 13/2002 - IR (CM - II ) dated 14-08-2002, with the following schedule :-

का.आ. 664.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 124/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Chandrapur Area of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Rammurat Birbal Yadav, Loader by order No. WCL/CHA/CGM/ADMN / 12858 dated 30-11-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman is entitled ? "

[सं. एल-22012/ 13/2002- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

2. On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file then respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which , the workman, Shri Rammurat Yadav, ( " the workman " in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of Chandrapur Area of WCL , ( "party no. 1 " in short ) filed the written statement .

S.O. 664.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 124/2002 ) of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

[No. L -22012/ 13/2002 - IR (CM - I1 ) ]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 30-01-2013 .

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 124/2002

Party No. 1 : The Chief General Manager, ChandrapurArea of WCL, Po & Distt . chandrapur (MS) .

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Rammurat Birbal Yadav, Near Old Power House , Bagad Kidki , PO & Distt . Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 30thJanuary, 2013 )

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that the party no . 1 is a Government Coal Company owned and controlled by the Central Government and is a "State " within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the terms and conditions of the National Coal Wages Agreements ( " the NCWAs " in short ) are mandatory and binding on the management of party no. 1 and the service conditions of the workmen of party no . 1 are governed by the certified standing orders . The further case ofthe workman is that he wasappointed as a piece rated loader in June , 1976 and posted at Hindustan Lalpeth Mine and subsequently, he. was transferred to Sasti underground mine and thereafter to Chanda Rayatwari colliery and then to Nandgaon incline and thento Hindustan Lalpeth underground of Chandrapur sub- area and he is a trade union leader and a social worker and he had been raising/ reporting against corruption , dereliction of duties, improper maintenance of safety of mines and persons working therein , misbehavior of officers and corrupt practices in the Mines and as such , the management was always in search of chance to victimize and harass him and to spoil his records and during and in course of his employment , he sustained serious injuries at 10Dip , Nandgaon Incline in the second shift on 01-08-1995 and he approached Dr. Das , Medical officer of Nandgaon Incline dispensary on 01-08-1995 and the doctor referred him toArea Hospital , Chandrapur for further treatment and asper the advice of the doctor , he remained under treatment and reported for treatment on 02-08-1995 , 03-08-1995 , 05-08-1995 to 07-08-1995 and on 08-08-1995 and he was further referred to Government Civil Hospital , Chandrapur for treatment and he was being treated in the said hospital and so also the Area Hospital and his treatment in theArea hospital continued from 12-08-1995 to 28-08-1995 and on 23-08-1995 , the doctors detected swelling on old fracture inthe L. S. region and advised him for post S.P. exercises Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ("the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relationto the management of WCL and their workman , Shri Rammurat 2034

                       THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25, 1934                       [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
     and he underwent treatment at Area Hospital , Chandrapur    injury sustained on 01-08-1995 in the Mines and he also
     and Nandgaon Incline Dispensary and for his treatment,      showed all connected/relevant papers and handed over
    he reported on different dates in the said hospitals between copies of the same to him and the Personnel Manager
    theperiod from 29-08-1995 to 21-08-1996 and on 21-08-
    1996, he was referred to OPD at Government Civil Hospital,   advised himto undergo treatment and assured to look into
    Chandrapur, where he remained under the treatment of         the payment of IOD wages and vide his letter dated
    doctor, Ajay Duddalwar as an indoor patient from            30-09-1996 , he informed the Manager, Nandgaon Incline
    10-09-1996 to 26-09-1996 and thereafter, he was advised for about his getting treatment for the injury sustained by him
    15 days rest and to report again by the said doctor, so on  on 01-08-1995 in the mine and requested for payment and
    14-10-1996, he appeared before the said doctor, who         during the course of his treatment and when he was unfit
                                                                for work, he was released for Rayatwari Sub- Area vide
    advised. him for further rest of 15 days and the period of  order dated 30-09-1996, in utter disregard to the principles
    rest was extended by the doctor from time to time and he    ofnaturaljustice and provisions of CSR and other Act and
    reported on different dates before the doctor for treatment
   till 08-08-1997 , after which , he was referred by Dr. Sindhu Rules and Regulations and vide his letter dated 24-10-1996,
    to Ortho Surgeon , so he again reported back to Chandrapur  he requested the Manager, Nandgaon Incline for payment
   Area Hospital on 12-08-1997 and then on 16-08-1997,          of yearly bonus, but he was informed that since he had
   17-08-1997,21-08-1997, 23-08-1997, 26-08-1997 and 28-08-     already been released from Nandgaon Incline on
   1997 and then, he was referred to Dr. L.K. Arora, the Ortho 01-10-1995 to Durgapur Rayatwari , the bonus be obtained
                                                               fromDurgapur Rayatwari and when he was under Medical
   Surgeon of Rajiv Ratan Hospital , Ghugus , Wani Area and    treatment, such release was illegal , arbitrary and revengeful
   he appeared before the said doctor on 31.08.1997 and he     attitude of the Management and though he was unfit to
   was examined by Dr. Mal, who diagnosed as , " H.O. injury   resume duty and was advised bed rest by the doctor, he
  01-08-1995 C/ o Back pain , OE lumber Lordotic curve is 1 .  was asked by the Suptd. of Mines /Manager, Nandgaon to
   FUL + L4 L5 , L5 S1 . SLR (-) EHL good (5) . Movement       resume duty and managementman did not pay him the IOD
   painful and restricted , X- ray old Transverse process ( L) wages and also the T.A. apd D.A. as per rules of the
   side L3 L4, Spondolylethice L5 on S - 1 " and he was advised company to enable him to take his son who was seriously
   to use LS Belt alongwith taking of medicines .
                                                               ill and referred to Medical College Hospital , Nagpur, for
        The further case of the workman is that he again       treatment and he was submitting information to the
  reported back to Area Hospital, Chandrapur on 04-09-1997     management about his treatment and vide letter dated
  and medicines were prescribed and the proposal for          20-05-1997 , he informed the Deputy Sub - Area Manager,
  providing belt was regretted and as per advice, he continued Chandrapur about his treatment and through he was under
  treatment on different dates from 14-09-1997 till 25-04-1999 treatment of IOD , to victimize and harass him, the party
  and on 25-04-1999, he was again advised to report to M.S.   no.1 submitted a false , fabricated and baseless charge sheet
  Ortho , Wani Area and he reported to the said doctor on 29- against him on 25-03-1999 and he submitted his reply to
 04-1999 and the doctor examined him and prescribed           the said charge, denying the charges and a departmental
 medicines and the doctor also advised for another review     enquiry was ordered and in the enquiry, he gave his
  on 16-05-1999 and he again reported at Chandrapur Area      statement and on 11-07-1999 , he filed an application for
 Hospital on 04-05-1999 and to the M.S. Ortho, Wani Area      supply of documents , but the documents were not supplied
 on    16-05-1999      and   he was       advised    for      on 16-07-1999 and vide his registered letter dated
 X-ray and he also reported at Chandrapur Area Hospital       19-7-1999 , he again demanded for copies of documents
 on different dates from 30-05-1999 to 05-12-1999 for         and legible copy of proceedings of dated 16-7-1999
 treatment and thereafter, when he went for treatment, he     and on 16-09-1999 , he again asked for the names of the
 was not treated by the authorities on the ground of their   witnesses and copy of injury report and his fitness
 having received copy of the letter of his dismissal from     certificate and some other informations , but the management
 service and he was never declared fit after sustaining       representative (" M.R. " in short ) did not produce the
 injuries on 01-08-1995 and he was never examined by any     documents on 16-09-1999 and the MR produced two
 Medical Board of WCL.                                       documents, which were admitted into evidence, but copies
                                                             of the same were not supplied to him , though he demanded
       It isalso pleaded by the workman that he was not      copies of the same vide his letters dated 17-09-1999 and
paid wages on account of I.O.D. as per provisions of         23-09-1999 and the enquiry officer vide his letter dated
 NCWA V /VI and with the intervention of the District        10-10-1999 , made wild allegations against him and intimated
Collector, the payment of 1.O.D. wages from August, 1995     aboutthe closure ofthe enquiry exparte on 28-09-1999 and
to December, 1995 was paid to him in January, 1996 and he    such facts conclusively proved that without any
metthe Personnel Manager , Chandrapur Area personally        information to him , the enquiry officer conducted the
and informed him about his undergoing treatment for the     enquiry exparte on 28-09-1999 in utter disregard to

2035

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

officers of WCL and endorsed copies of the same, to different authorities including the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India and by endorsing the copies of the said letter to unconcerned higher dignitaries , the workman intended to coerce and pressurize the management to concede to his unreasonable demands and the language used in the said letter was highly abusive , derogatory and disrespectful and following the normal procedure , the ALC intervened and invited comments from the management and they submitted a detailed report to the ALC and after making investigation , the ALC submitted failure report to the Ministry vide letter dated 31-08-1999.

principles ofnatural justice and he was victimized and vide his letter dated 14-10-1999, he intimated the enquiry officer about the fact of non - supply of documents and about not intimating the date of enquiry fixed on 28-09-1999 and he also sent a copy of the same to the ChiefGeneral Manager , WCL, Chandrapur, which were received by them on 18-10-1999 and 15-10-1999 respectively and he was dismissed from services vide order dated 30-11-1999 ofthe Personnel Manager (Admn . ) , Chandrapur Area with immediate effect and he made appeal to the CGM, Chandrapur Area on 13-12-1999, but the same was not replied.

The further case of the workman is that the charge sheet is vague and the enquiry was conducted in a most arbitrary manner in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and he was not given chance to explain his case and list of witnesses and documents were not given to him, inspite of his repeated demands and inspite of specific provision in clause 28.10 of the certified standing orders , copies of the enquiry proceedings and copy of enquiry report were not given to him and no second show cause notice was issued against him before imposing the punishment, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard and the party no. I concealed and suppressed documents which were in their possession and which were required for adjudication of the dispute and as he raised voice against the corrupt practice adopted by the management of WCL, he was victimized.

The workman has prayed to set aside the order of punishment imposed against him and to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages and all consequential benefits .

The further case of party no . 1 is that the workman on the ground of his sustaining the alleged injury on 01-08-1995, which was simple in nature , as would be evident from the slip issued by the Mining Sirdar, did not comply withthe transfer order and remained unauthorisedly absent for three years and even after rejection of his dispute by the Ministry in August, 1999, he did not report for duty and considering the fact that the workman had been absenting unauthorisedly for a long time and was defying the lawful transfer order for nearly three years , they had no alternative , but to draw up disciplinary proceedings against him and accordingly, charge sheet dated 25-03-1999 was issued against him , calling for his explanation within 72 hours of the receipt of the charge sheet and the workman submitted two replies , one dated 23-03-1999 and the other dated 01-04-1999 and in the first reply, he had stated that his case relating to IOD was under Industrial dispute before the ALC (C) and about his undergoing treatment in WCL hospital enclosing some medical certificates and he wasbeing victimized and in the second letter, the workman had reiterated the pendency of the dispute before the ALC and the Civil Court and in the said letter, he had also passed some uncalled for remarks against the Personnel Manager, (Admn . ) , the charge sheet issuing authority and threatened to take recourse to legal action , if the charge sheet would not be withdrawn within 72 hours , with the object of demoralize the Personnel Manager (Admn . ) and he also sent letters to different authorities incuding the Hon'ble President of India with the motive to pressurize the management and to politicalise the disciplinary matter , so that the proceedings should be dropped against him and with a view to demoralize and terrorize Shri Venugal , the charge sheet issuing authority, the workman sent a writtencomplaint against him , through senior advocate , Shri V.P. Pande to the learned Civil Judge , District Court , Chandrapur to issue non -bailable warrant alleging contempt ofcourt.

It isalso pleaded by the party no . 1 that they decided to proceed with the enquiry in respect of the charge sheet dated 25-03-1999 and accordingly, the enquiry was 3. The party no.1 in their written statement have pleaded inter-alia that the workman was working as a loader atNandgaon Incline , Hindusthan Lalpeth Sub - Area and in the larger interest of the company and better utilization of manpower, the workman was transferred alongwith 18 other loaders to Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery vide office order dated 30-09-1996 and consequent upon the transfer, the workman and all other transferees were released form Nandgaon Incline w.e.f. 01-10-1996 and even though, all other transferees joined their duties at Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery, the workman did not join at Durgapur Rayatwari colliery and as the workman did not comply with the order of transfer, the Sub -Area Manager, Durgapur Rayatwari Sub-Area wrote a letter dated 06-02-1997 to the workman advising him to report at Durgapur Rayatwari Sub - Area at the earliest , failing which he Wouldbe liable for disciplinary action for remaining absent without leave or permission and on receipt of the said letter, the workman made a complaint to the ALC (C ), Chandrapur, vide his letter dated 18-02-1997 alleging harassment by senior 2036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 16, 2013/PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

but the workman and his co - worker admitted about the workman, not working for the period from January, 1996 to August, 1996 and the workman of having received the payment for the said period , considering the same to be his payment for IOD and they wanted only the list of witnesses and nothing else and the management representative was directed by the Enquiry Officer to supply copies of the documents to the workman and out of the documents , copies of the attendance register and complaint against the workman were supplied to him and those two documents were taken on récord and marked as M - 7 and M-8 respectively and the management representative gave outthat documents No. 1 and 2 not to be connected with the enquiry and after hearing both the parties , the enquiry officer gave his decision that those two documents not to be connected with the enquiry and there was no necessity to supply copies of the same to the workman and then , the workman and his co - worker asked for change of the enquiry officer and the Enquiry Officer asked them to approach the competent authority for the same and thereafter, the workman and his co - worker disclosed that they would not participate in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, Shri Kawle and considering the circumstances , the Enquiry Officer was satisfied that the workman and his co - worker did not want to participate in the enquiry, so he decided to proceed with the enquiry ex - parte and the workman and hisco-worker refused to sign the said part of the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer resumed the enquiry and the enquiry was held ex - parte on 28-09-1999 and the management representative produced some other documents and gave his statement and then the enquiry was closed and the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report to the competent authority holding the charges to have been proved against the workman , after analyzing the evidence on record of the enquiry in a rational and logical manner and the Disciplinary Authority after going through the enquiry report agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and considering the seriousness of the misconduct , decided to terminate the services of the workman and the services of the workman were terminated vide order dated 30-11-1999 .

constituted and Shri P.D. Kawle was appointed as the enquiry officer and Shri Ramesh Gedam was appointed as the presenting officer and the enquiry commenced on 19-04-1999 , after due notice to the workman and the workman attended the enquiry and requested for time to engage his co - worker and accordingly, the enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry to 22-04-1999 and on the next date of the enquiry, the workman appeared with his co - worker, Shri Babulal Shripal and the enquiry officer explained the procedure of the enquiry to the workman and his co -worker and then read over and explained the charges to the workman , to which , he pleaded not guilty and stated that he received injuries on his waist on 01-08-1995 Nandgaon Incline and to be under treatment for the same and about his not getting proper treatment in Area hospital , about non- receipt of payment etc and about his raising industrial dispute regarding the issue and requested for permission to file documents in regard to the same and his request was granted by the enquiry officer and then the presenting officer, presented the case of the management and filed supporting documents and the same were taken on the record of the enquiry and marked as exhibits and at that stage , the workman requested for adjournment , on the ground ofhis not feeling well, so the enquiry was adjourned to 11-07-1999 and on 11-07-1999, due to late appearance of the management representative , the workman and his co- worker requested to adjourn the enquiry and accordingly the enquiry was adjourned to 16-07-1999 and on 16-07-1999 , though the workman appeared, his co - worker remained absent, so the workman prayed for adjournment and the enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry to 20-07-1999 and the workman referred to his letter dated 11-07-1999 , in which he had asked for some documents and when the enquiry officer asked the workman to specify the documents , the workman told that he himself not to be clear about the same , so it was not possible to supply any document and so far the supply of documents in regard to the medical treatment of the workman is concerned , the documents were available with the workman himself, so the question of supply of the same to the workman by the enquiry officer did not arise and on 20-07-1999 , the enquiry was not held and the same was adjourned to 06-09-1999 and on 06-09-1999 , only the co-worker of the workman appeared and asked for adjournment on the ground of non- receipt of the notice , so , the enquiry was adjourned to 14-09-1999 and on 14-09-1999 , the workman and his co -worker appeared and the workman prayed for adjournment on the ground of his appearing before the ALC, so the enquiry was adjourned to 16-09-1999 and on 16-09-1999 , the workman and his co - worker were present and the workman submitted an application and demanded for the list of witnesses and documents , i.e. injury report , his fitness certificate and the name of the doctor issuing the certificate and the copy of the complaint against him,

The further case of the party No. 1 is that the enquiry held against the workman was just , fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the injury slip given by the Mining Sirdar, which was the initial report regarding the injury sustained by the workman on 01-08-1998 shows that the injury sustained by the workman was a simple injury on his waist and he was not carried to the hospital and even first aid was not required and at the hospital also , he was treated as an outdoor patient and had hisinjury been serious , he would have been admitted as an indoor patient and would have given immediate treatment accordingly and in the Area Hospital and Civil Hospital 2037

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

22-11-2012 , the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal , proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice .

6.Beforedelving in to the merit of the matter , I think it necessary to mention the charges levelled against the workman in the charge sheet dated 25-03-1999 . The charges levelled against the workman under the different clauses ofthe standing order are as follows : -

26.3: Willful in - subordination or disobedience , whether alone or in conjunction with another and others of any lawful or reasonable order of a superiors .

26.24: Habitual Late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

26.30: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond ten days after sanctioned leave .

also , he was treated as an outdoor patient and his x -ray of waist also did not reveal any dislocation or fracture and he was given only medicines and the medical treatment papers filed by the workman show only complain of pain to different hospitals including Civil Hospital and he used the simple accident as a device for remaining absent and to make out acase for payment of wages for the entire period on account ofthe injury and the workman had reported and performed his duty both in underground and on surface in the mine from January, 1996 to 23-08-1996 for a period of eight months and ifhe was not fit and genuinely suffering from the injury, how could he perform his duty and the workman had made awritten complaint to the Director General of Mines Safety, Collector, Chandrapur and several other authorities about the alleged injury and the consequential claims arising out of the same, but after enquiry and verification , none of them found any substance in the complaint and at the time ofthe transfer of the workman , he was taking treatment in the hospital of the company and his such treatment was not an impediment or a genuine ground for refusal to carry out the transfer order and when the workman received the transfer and release orders , he did not represent to the management that on account of his ongoing treatment for his injury, he was not in a position to report to the new place ofhis transfer and even , he did not make a request to keep his transfer order in abeyance in view of his health condition and subsequently also , when he was reminded ofhisnot reporting at the new place of posting by the Sub-- Area Manager , Rayatwari Sub - Area vide letter dated 06-02-1997 and the workman did not respond at all and the workman was not genuinely in any difficulty in carrying out the transfer order and he tried to delay the same merely as a prestige issue and during the course of the enquiry itself, copies of the proceedings were supplied to the workman on the date of enquiry he had attended and as the workman had walked out of the enquiry, no useful purpose would have been served by supplying a copy of the enquiry report to him and otherwise also , their action cannot be held to be vitiated due to non - supply of the enquiry report , as neither it was pleaded nor proved that any prejudice was caused to his defence due to the same and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. At the time of argument , it was subinitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the enquiry officer was biased as he had taken documents in evidence during the enquiry, basing on which the charge sheet was not submitted against the workman and the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on the evidence on record and the enquiry officer failed to appreciate the evidence adduced in the enquiry in its proper perspective and though during the enquiry, the workman took the specific plea of hissustaining injury on 01-08-1995, while on duty in the second shift in the mine and about his undergoing treatment in the Area Hospital and produced documents in support of such treatment, but the same were not considered and from the materials on record , it can be held that management failed to prove the charges levelled against the workman and as such, the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that it is clear from the evidence on record that as the workman was raising voice against corruption in WCL, he was victimized and a false charge sheet was submitted against him, even though , he was on I.O.D and the action ofthe management is illegal and against the principles of natural justice . The learned advocate for the workman also in the written notes of argument raised several other issues which . relate to the fairness or other wise of the departmental enquiry, which have already been decided and as such , there is no need for considering such submissions again.

4. In the rejoinder, the workman reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim . It is further pleaded that the party no . 1 has tried to mislead the Tribunal andthe action of the party no . 1 against him was intentional and deliberate , with a view to victimize him and the reference is to be answered in his favour.

The learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2010(1 ) Mh. L.J. -587 (Shriram Viswanath Despande Vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT , Jabalpur), (2008 ) 8 SCC - 236 ( State ofUttaranchal Vs. Kharak Singh) , 2010 ( 126) FLR- 994 (Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand), 2000 LLR-999 (Mohd . Mia Vs. State of 5. As this is a case of termination of the workman from services , after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated 2038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16 , 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

report and the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges , the workman is not entit led to any relief.

WestBengal & others) , AIR 1964 SC- 506 (The State of Mysore Vs. K. Mache Gowda), 2000 III CLR- 99 (Gajanan Vs. MSRTC) and AIR 1973 SC -2650 ( Western India Match Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen) .

8. Percontra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that it has already been held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was fairand proper by order dated 23-11-2012 and the union in the statement of claim has not made any allegation or submission that there is any perversity in the enquiry report and therefore, it can be held that the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse .

Insupport ofsuch contentions , the learned advocate for the party no. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2001 LAB I.C. - 2367 (M /s . The Benaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. Vs. The Labour Court - II , Lucknow) , AIR 1970- SC- 1334 ( M/ s . Perry and Co. Ltd. Vs. P.C. Pal ) , 1996 , LAB IC -462 ( SC) (B.C. Chaturverdi Vs. Union of India ) , 2003 LAB IC- 757 (SC) ( Regional Manager UPSRTC, Etawah Vs. Hotilal ) , 2005 LAB IC -4158 ( SC ) (V.Ramana Vs.APSRTC) , 2005 LAB IC- 854 ( SC) (Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate) , 1994 LAB IC - 762 ( SC ) (Managing Director , ECIL , Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar ) and 2001 LAB IC-2379 (SC) ( Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. S. Balakrishnan) .

9. Keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Courts in the decisions cited by the learned advocates for the parties , now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

10. It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a chain of decisions including the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that interference with the finding of fact is permissible only when there is no material for the said conclusion or that on the materials, the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man and a finding recorded in a domestic enquiry cannot be characterized as perverse by the Labour Court unless it can be shown that such a finding is not supportedby any evidence , or is entirely opposed to the whole body of evidence adduced . In a domestic enquiry once a conclusion is deducted from the evidence , it is not permissible to assail that conclusion even though it is possible for some other authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence .

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that there is only sweeping allegation regarding the perversity of findings in the rejoinder without any specific instances and therefore , such sweeping allegation cannot be accepted and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the documents filed and evidence led in the enquiry and the enquiry officer has given a rational and objective report and he has not relied on any extraneous material and the report is also not contrary or opposed to the evidence and the report is also not such, which no reasonable person could have arrived at and as such , the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the management that the allegation of bias against the enquiry officer has not been substantiated and as such , such submission cannot be accepted and commission of serious misconducts has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and as such , the punishment imposed against the workman cannot be said to be disproportionate and moreover , the union /workman has not challenged the proportionality of the punishment and it has neither been pleaded nor proved that the punishment of termination of the services imposed against the workman was shockingly disproportionate to the charges and as such , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment .

It is also settled by the Hon'ble Courts that in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against anemployee , the Tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal where the findings are perverse or there is no prima facie case and in such a case , the Tribunal does not. sit as a court of appeal , weighing or re - appreciating the evidence for itself, but examines the finding ofthe enquiry officer on the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is and where there is no failure of the principles of natural justice in the course of domestic enquiry, if the Tribunal finds thatdismissal ofan employee is by way of victimization or unfair labour practice, it will then have complete jurisdiction to interfere withthe order of dismissal passed in the domestic enquiry. In that event , the fact that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in the course ofdomestic enquiry will absolutely lose its importance or efficacy. Whether and under what facts and circumstances a The further submission made by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 is that the non - supply of the report of the enquiry to the workman does not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings , as it is neither pleaded nor proved by the workman that any prejudice was caused to him due to non- supply of the enquiry report and there is no provision in the Company'sStanding Order or any other rule to issue second show cause notice to the workman about the proposed punishment and there is no legal force behind such claim of the union and no employee in the grab of a trade union leader can afford to commit acts of misconduct and get immunity from disciplinary measures and the workman has not been punished for his legitimate trade union activities and as there is no perversity in the enquiry

                                                                                                                 2039
 [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]                   भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934
                                                              present case in hand, it can be held that the disciplinary
Tribunal will accept the plea of victimization against the    proceedings does not vitiate .
employer will depend upon the judicial discretion.
                                                                    The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
      11.Onperusal ofthe materials on record, it is found      in the decision reported in 1994 LAB IC-762 (Supra) have
 that the main grievance of the workman is that he was         held that:
 victimized by the management of party no . 1 as he tried to
 raise and fight against corruption committed by the officers       "Inquiry report-Non furnishing of copy ofdelinquent-
 ofWCL, as an union leader. However, after going through             Effect when the employee is dismissed or removed
 the evidence on record carefully, it is found that the              from service and the enquiry is set aside because the
 allegation of victimization made by the workman is not to           report is not furnished to him , in some cases the
 be correct. The materials do not show that the departmental         non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced
 enquiry initiated against the workman punishment imposed            him gravely, while in other cases it have made no
 against him was due to victimization for his legitimate             difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to
 activity as a leader of the union . It is the admitted case of      him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee
 the parties that the workman did not attend duty after 01-          withbackwages in all cases is to reduce the rules of
 08-1995 and that the workman was transferred to Durgapur            justice to a mechanical ritual . The theory of
 Rayatwari Colliery vide office order dated 30-09-1996 and           reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural
  hewas released from Nandgaon incline w.e.f. 01-10-1996,            justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law
  but he did not join at Durgapur Rayatwari colliery and for          and to assist individual to vindicate his just right.
  the absence of the workman from duty without any                    They are neither incantations to be invoked nor rites
  sanctioned leave and for not joining at Durgapur Rayatwari          to be performed on all sundry occasions . Whether in
  colliery as per the transfer order passed by the competent          fact, prejudiced has been caused to the employee or
  authority, the charge sheet was submitted against him and           not on account of the denial to him the report has to
  the enquiry was made against him. Hence , it cannot be said         beconsidered on the facts and circumstances of each
  that there was any victimization of the workman .                   case. Where , therefore , even after the furnishing of
         12. The next submission made by the learned                  the report, no difference would have followed, it
   advocate for the workman is that the enquiry officer was           would be perversion ofjustice to permit the employee
                                                                      to resume duty and to get all the consequential
   biased. It was submitted that during the enquiry, the enquiry       benefits . It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and
   officer admitted a document i.e. a report regarding the             the guilty and thus to straitening the concept of
   previous attendance of the workman , though the charge             justiceto illogical and exasperating limits . It amounts
   sheet was not based on such document . It is to be
   mentioned that such a document was produced by the                  to an " unnatural expansion of natural justice " which
                                                                       itself is antithetical to justice ."
   management during the enquiry in presence of the workman
   and copy of the same was given to the workman and the               Asper judicial precedent, the judgment of a larger
   workman did not raise any objection to the admission of       bench ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court is to be followed than the
   the said document . Moreover, it appears from record that     judgment of a smaller bench. Hence , judgment of the
    the said document was filed to show the habitual absence     Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has to be
    ofthe workman from duty. Hence , it can be said that the      preferred than to the judgment of the smaller bench ofthe
    enquiry officer was biased against the workman .              Hon'ble Apex Court as cited by the learned advocate for
          13. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the    theworkman.
    workman that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied           Applying the principles enunciated by Constitutional
    to the workman before imposition of the punishment and        Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present case in
    therefore, the enquiry can be held to be bad.                 hand, it is found that though the workman has mentioned
          In support of such contention , the learned advocate    about the non -supply of the enquiry report to him and the
     for the workman placed reliance on the decision reported     2nd show cause notice in the statement of claim , there is
     in (2008) 8 SCC-236 (Supra) .                                 no pleading that due to non -supply of the enquiry report ,
                                                                   any prejudice was caused to him . Taking into consideration
           In reply, it was contended by the learned advocate     thefacts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the
     for the party no.1 that the workman has neither pleaded       supply ofthe enquiry report to the workman , no difference
     nor proved that due to non - supply of the enquiry report     would have followed. Hence , I find no force in the
     any prejudice was caused to him and applying the principles   submission made by the learned advocate for the workman.
     enunciated by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
     Apex Court reported in 1994 LAB IC- 762 (Supra) to the

870 61/ 13-32 2040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

16. As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and circumstances ofthe cases referred in the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the workman , with respect, I am of the view that the cases have no clear application to the case in hand.

17. In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above , it is found that the workman is notentitled to any relief. Hence , it is ordered:-- 14.On perusal of the records , it is found that, there is no delay in conducting the departmental enquiry in this case as the charge sheet was submitted against the workman on 25-03-1999 and the enquiry was commenced on 19-04-1999 . It is also found that the management representative was not examined as a witness , but he presented the case of the management by giving a statement . Hence , with respect, I am of the view that the decisions citedby the learned advocate for the workman in these aspects has no application to the case in hand.

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to Chandra pur Area of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Rammurat Birbal Yadav, Loader by order No. WCL/ CHA/CGM/ ADMN/ 12858 dated 30-11-1999 is legal and justfiied. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

का.आ. 665 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 80/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 1/2005- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 665.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central overnment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 80/2005) of the Cent. Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Pench Area of WCL , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013.

[No. L-22012/ 1 /2005 - IR (CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

15. So far the questions of perversity of the findings and quantum of punishment are concerned , on perusal of the record of the enquiry including that enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, it is found that the report of the enquiry officer is based on the evidence adduced in the enquiry and not on extraneous materials . The claim of the workman is that he was injured on 01-08-1995, while performing his duty in the Mine and sustained injuries on his waist and he was under medical treatment from 01-08-1995 , till the date of submission of charge sheet and even beyond the date of his termination from services . However, the documents including the report of the Mining Sirdar and documents produced by the workman show that the workman sustained only minor injuries as he fell down due to slip of his feet. The outdoor ticket of the hospital dated 01-08-1995 , where the workman was examined soon after the fall shows that there was sudden back pain following fall while on duty. The said document does not show the workman of sustaining any injury. The OPD ticket dated 12-08-1995 of the hospital of WCL, where the workman was treated also shows that though the workman was suffering from acute back pain , there was no sign , no def, no tenderness or injury. It is also found from record that the workman complained of suffering from backache and got him treated in different hospitals . The workman was never declared medically unfit to do his duty. The workman also did not apply for any leave including medical leave. He attended the departmental enquiry at the initial stages , but subsequently , abstained from attending the same. From the materials on record and as the report of the enquiry officer is based on the evidence of the record of the enquiry, it cannot be said that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse .

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 80 /2005

Date: 21-01-2013.-

PartyNo. 1:

The General Manager, Pench Area of WCL

Distt. Chhindwara , M.P.

Versus

Serious misconducts of willful disobedience of reasonable order of superior, habitual absence from duty and absence of duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient case have been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry . The punishment of termination of the services of the workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the serious conducts proved against him . Hence , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman .

                                                                                                               2041
 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
Party No. 2:                                                 by the management was unconstitutional and not in
                                                             accordance with law and in violation of the principles of
The General Secretary,                                       natural justice and he did not remain absent deliberately.
 SKMS ( AITUC) CRO Camp ,                                    Prayer has been made by the union to set aside the
 Iklehra, Distt . Chhindwara , M.P.                          departmental enquiry held against the workman and for
                        AWARD                                hisreinstatement in service with continuity and full back
                                                             wages.
               (Dated: 21st January, 2013)                         4. The party no . 1 in its written statement have
       Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of   pleaded inter- alia that the reference is vague as the
 sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of  reference doesn't have the number and the date of the
 Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in termination order and for that the reference is void and
 short), the Central Government has referred the industrial   not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is also pleaded by
 dispute between the employers , in relation to the           the party no . I that the workman was appointed as D.P.R.
 management of WCL and their workman , Shri Guruprasad,       atMathani mine w.e.f. 26-06-1996 and within 6 months of
  for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/ 1 / 2005 - IR hisemployment, he started absenting from duty without
 (CM -II ) dated 27-10-2005, with the following schedule:-    obtaining any sanctioned leave or intimation to the
                                                              management and during the entire year of 1997, he did not
       "Whether the action of the management ofMathani        work for a single day and as the absence of the workman
       Colliery ofWestern Coalfields Limited, Pench Area      was without any sanctioned leave and intimation to the
        in terminating Sh . Guruprasad S/o Sh . Ghansu ,      management, a charge sheet dated 29-03-1998 was issued
        from services is legal and justified? If not , to what against him and in the charge sheet , the charges were
        reliefthe concerned workman is entitled ?"             specifically mentioned and the workman received the
       2.On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed    charge sheet, but he did not submit his explanation to the
  to file their respective statement of claim and written      said charge sheet and as such , the enquiry was constituted
  statement, in response to which, the workman Shri            and Shri S. Nagachari was appointed as the enquiry officer
  Guruprasad S/ o Shri Ghansu , ( " the workman " in short )   to enquire into the charges , under intimation to the
  through his union , the SKMS ( AITUC)( " the union " in      workman and the enquiry officer fixed the enquiry under
                                                               his letter dated 23-06-1998 and informed the workman about
  short) filed the statement of claim and the management of    the same and the eriquiry officer flxed the three dates of
  WCL Pench Area (" party no . 1 " in short) filed their written the enquiry i.e. on 08-07-1998 , 14-07-1998 & 21-07-1998
   statement .
                                                               and it was clearly stipulated in the letter that if the
        3. The case of the workman is that , he was working    workman would not attend the enquiry on the date fixed,
   as D.P.R. in Mathani colliery and as he fell ill , he was    the enquiry would be held ex -parte and the letter was
   undergoing treatment and he filed an application on          received by the workman which was sent by registered
   21-12-1997, before the management regarding such illness     post and the enquiry officer held the enquiry on the dates
   and he also filed another application on 02-02-1998          fixed, but the workman did not appear in the enquiry and
   intimating the management about his suffering for T.B. as    healso did not send any intimation regarding the reasons
   diagnosed by the doctor of the company hospital and he       of his inability to attend the enquiry and as such , the
   was treated in the Central Hospital , Badkuhi and he was     enquirywas held ex- parte on 21-07-1998 and on that date,
   referred to the District T.B. Sanatorium , Chindwara and as  witnesses of the management were examined and
   he was not declared fit to resume his duties , he was not    documents were produced and the enquiry officer
    able to join his duties and inspite of such intimation, the submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority andthe
    management issued the charge sheet dated 29-03-1998 and      enquiry officer analyzed the evidence in an objective
   the charges levelled against him were without any basis       manner and hold the workman guilty of the charges and
    and the same was illegal and unconstitutional and when       the report of the enquiry officer was examined by the
    he had already intimated the management regarding his       Disciplinary Authority in detail and after being satisfied
    illness and treatment , there was no need of initiation of  thatthe ex -parte enquiry had been held in a fair and proper
    the departmental enquiry and he also did not receive the     manner , the Disciplinary Officer passed the punishment
    charge sheet and copy of the charge sheet was received       oftermination of the services of the workman after taking
    by him along with the enquiry report and when the copy       approval of the competent authority ; and before
    of the charge sheet was not given to him and he did not      termination of the services of the workman , a copy of
     submit any explanation , there was no question to initiating the enquiry report was sent to him vide letter dated
    the departmental proceeding and when though charges          01-09-1998 of the Sub Area Manager and he was asked to
    were levelled under the Standing Orders , the action was      submit his comments and there was also indication of the
     not taken in accordance with the said Standing Order by     proposed punishment of termination of services and the
     the management and the departmental enquiry conducted

2042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii)]

departmental enquiry not to be fair and proper , the party no. I was directed to adduce evidence to prove the charges against the workman , as per orders dated 17-08-2011 .

Itisfurther necessary to mention here that in spite of giving several opportunities , the party no.1 failed to adduce evidence to prove the charges against the workman .

8. As no evidence has been adduced by the party no.1 to prove the charges levelled against the workman , it can be held that the workman did not commit any misconduct and as such , the punishment imposed against him cannot be sustained . Therefore , the order of termination of the services of the workman , Guruprasad is required to be quashed and set aside and according the order of termination of the services of the workman in quashed and set aside.

9.Now, the question remains for consideration is as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled . In view of the failure of the party no . I to prove the charges levelled against the workman , the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity.

So far the back wages is concerned , it is settledby the Hon'ble Apex Court that to claim back wages , the workman has to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination . In this case , the workman has neither pleaded nor proved that he was not gainfully employed from the date of termination . Hence , the workman is not entitled to back wages . Therefore , it is ordered.

ORDER

letter was sent by registered post , but the workman did not submit any reply and therefore , considering his serious misconduct, he was terminated from services , vide letter no . 98/675 dated 16-09-1998 with immediate effect and the workman did not file any appeal against the punishment imposed against him and the enquiry was held against the workman in a fair and proper manner and the punishment of termination is proportionate to the charge and the workman had not sent any intimation to the management about his alleged sickness and he had also not obtained sanctioned leave for the same , as required under the rule and the document , Annexure ' l ' filed by the workman was written by his father for the employment of the brother of theworkman, in place ofthe workman and the mention of the sickness of the workman was incidental and neither any medical certificate nor any application for sick leave was attached with the said application and the document, Annexure '2' , dated 02-02-1998 appears to be manipulated and moreover , no medical certificate was attached nor sick leave was applied for and as such , the absence of the workman from duty could not be automatically condoned and the document, Annexure '3 ' was regarding the sickness of the workman during the years 1999 & 2000 and the same doesn't relate to the period of unauthorized absence , during the entire year of 1997, for which he was charged and punished in September, 1998 and the charge sheet was in accordance with the provisions of the Certified Standing Order and the workman had not sent any prior information about his sickness and treatment and the story of non- receipt of the charge sheet by the workman is incorrect and the action against the workman was taken in accordance with the Certified Standing Order and as their action is fair and legal , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

The action of the management of Mathani Colliery ofWestern Coalfields Limited, Pench Area in terminating Sh . Guruprasad S/o . Sh . Ghansu from service is illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity. He is not entitled to any back wages or any other relief.

The party no.l is directed to implement the award within one month of the publication of the award in the officialgazette .

5. During the course of argument , it was submitted by the union representative that the charge sheet was not received by the workman and as such , there was no question of submission of the explanation by the workman and there was no paper publication , according to the Certified Standing Order and the provisions of Section 28.1 of the Certified Standing Order were not followed and the workman was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the entire enquiry is illegal .

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

6. As this is a case of termination of the services of the workman , after holding of a departmental enquiry, the validity or otherwise ofthe departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated 17-08-2011 , the departmental enquiry was held to be not legal and proper and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

का.आ. 666. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स धर्मवीर पुत्र श्री रामदत्तमल, माईन आनर , लाईम स्टोन रामगंजमण्डी कोटा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-2-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

7. It is to be mentioned here that in view ofthe prayer made by the party no. 1 in the written statement to allow them to lead evidence to prove the charges against the workman before this Tribunal , in case of holding the

[सं. एल-29011/11/2008 - आई आर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव 2043

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) 」

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

1987 to 30-10-2003 and payment of overtime wages totheir workman Shri Nandkishore S/ o Shri Kanwarlal isjustified and legal ? What relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. निर्देश/विवाद , न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को नोटिस/सूचना जारी कर विधिवत अवगत करवाया गया ।

S.O.666 .- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2009) of the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Kota now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Dharamvir S/ o Sh . Ramdattamal , Mine Owner, Lime Stone Ramganjmandi Kota and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 5-2-2013 .

[No. L-29011 / 11 /2008 - IR (M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

अनुबन्ध

न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण केन्द्रीय ) ,कोटा (राजस्थान )

पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , आर.एच.जे.एस.

3. प्रार्थी की ओर से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट पेश किया गया जिसमें वर्णित किया गया कि प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी प्रबन्धक धर्मवीर लाईम स्टोन , माईन आनर , रामगंजमण्डी द्वारा वर्ष 1987 से चालक के पद पर सेवा में नियोजित किया गया एवं 1-1-03 से 30-10-03 तक उसे 2700 रु. प्रतिमाह की दर से भुगतान किया जाना था , परन्तु उसे जन. 83 से अक्टू 83 तक 10 माह का भुगतान नहीं किया गया जो प्रार्थी प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है । इसी प्रकार ओवरटाईम की राशि व बोनस आदि नियुक्ति तिथि से सेवा समाप्ति तक प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है । अतः प्रार्थी ने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के माध्यम से उक्त राशि दिलाये जाने की मांग की ।

निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक औ. न्या. केन्द्रीय / 5/2009

दिनांक स्थापित : 7-1-09

प्रसंग : भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश क्रमांक एल-29011 / 11/2008 (आई आर- एम ) दिनांक 26-8-08

निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947

4. इससे अप्रार्थी को अवगत करवाया गया । आदेशिका दि. 1-6-10 के अनुसार उसके नोटिस पर यह रिपोर्ट आई कि धर्मवीर की मृत्यु हो चुकी है । इसके पश्चात आदेशिका दि. 12-11-10 को उसके विरूद्व एकपक्षीय कार्यवाही का आदेश दिया गया, पत्रावली साक्ष्य एकतरफा में नियत की गयी परन्तु आज तक कोई एकतरफा साक्ष्य प्रार्थी द्वारा पेश नहीं की गयी ।

मध्य

नन्दकिशोर पुत्र कंवरलाल द्वारा जनरल सेक्रेट्री , पत्थर खान कामगार यूनियन , बंगाली कोलोनी , कोय

-प्रार्थी

श्रमिक/कर्मकार

एवं

5. वैसे तो जब कर्मकार के यह नोटिस में आ चुका है कि नियोजक की मृत्यु हो चुकी है तो उसका यह दायित्व बनता है कि उसके विधिक प्रतिनिधि को अभिलेख पर लाता परन्तु उसके विधिक प्रतिनिधिको अभिलेख पर लाने बाबत कोई कार्यवाही प्रार्थी द्वारा नहीं की गयी । प्रार्थी कर्मकार द्वारा आज तक एकतरफा साक्ष्य में भी कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं की गयी , अतः अब साक्ष्य हेतु और कोई अवसर दिये जाने का औचित्य नहीं होने से प्रार्थी की साक्ष्य बन्द की जाती है ।

धर्मवीर पुत्र श्री रामदत्तमल , माईन आनर , लाईम स्टोन रामगंजमण्डी, कोटा ( राजस्थान ) ।

-अप्रार्थी नियोजक

उपस्थित

प्रार्थी/ श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः श्री एन. के. तिवारी

अप्रार्थी/नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः एकपक्षीय कार्यवाही

6. चूँकि प्रार्थी कर्मकार को अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में वर्णित तथ्यों को साक्ष्य से साबित करना था परन्तु वह किसी प्रकार से साबित नहींकर पाया , अतः वह अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में वर्णित तथ्यों को साक्ष्य से साबित करने में विफल रहा है तथा अप्रार्थी नियोजक की मृत्यु हो जाने से उसके किसी विधिक प्रतिनिधि को भी अभिलेख पर लाने में विफल रहा है , अतः ऐसी परिस्थितियों में वह कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं बनता है ।

अधिनिर्णय दिनांक: 18-12-2012

अधिनिर्णय

भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के प्रासंगिक आदेश दि. 26-8-08 के द्वारा निम्न निर्देश /विवाद , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) (घ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है :-

परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अपने प्रासांगिक आदेश क्र. एल-29011 / 11/2008 - आईआर ( एम ) दिनांक 26-8-08 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश /रेफ्रेन्स को इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिकं नन्दकिशोर अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में वर्णित तथ्यों को साक्ष्य से साबित करने में विफल रहने तथा अप्रार्थी नियोजक की मृत्यु हो जाने व उसके किसी विधिक प्रतिनिधि को भी अभिलेख पर लाने में विफल रहने से किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , न्यायाधीश "Whether the action of the management of M/ s Dharmvir S / o Shri Radattamal , Lime Stone Mine Owner in denying payment of wages for the period from 1-1-2003 to 30-10-2003 , Bonus from the year 2044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16,2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

AWARD

(Dated: 6th February , 2013)

का.आ. 667. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 280/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman , Shri Kishor Ganpat Neware , for adjudication, as per letter No.L - 22012/ 223 /2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 08-12-2003 , with the following schedule:--

[सं. एल-22012/223/2003- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Kishor Ganpat Neware , Security Guard w.e.f 14-03-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled? "

S.O. 667. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 280/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013 .

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Kishor Ganpat Neware (" the workman " in short), filed the statement ofclaim and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Party No.1 " in short) filed its written statement.

[No. L-22012/223/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Cse No.CGIT /NGP /280/2003 Date: 06-0 2013 .

Party No. ( a) :

The District Manager , Food Corporation of India, Ajani , Nagpur, Nagpur-440015.

Party No.1(b) :

The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road , Churchgatye, Mumbai -400020 .

Versus

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 13-12-1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1 , as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 , when his services were terminated orally by Party No.1 , without following thedue procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith , but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No.1 and while terminating his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25- F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. I to extract the duties of Security guards , in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

PartyNo. 2

The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar Ward No.2, Near Boudha Vihar , Post: Wardha, Distt . Wardha (M.S. )

The further case of the workman is that in 1993 , he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years , but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years , the Party No.1 changedthe contractor on papers only and the engagement ofthe so- called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and hewas merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually he was working under the direct control and

                                                                                                               2045
 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had        in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of
                                                             work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged
no role to play in the same and the work performed by him    by the Security Contractor , there was no relationship of
was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a        master and servant between them and the workman at any
regular employee of Party No.1 and Party No. I was his real  point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No.1 from      (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act, they were exempted
 time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his     by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the
 legitimate claim and the contract between Party No.1 and    workman against them are not true and there was no
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,      question of violation of the provisions . of 25 ( H) of the
 his oral termination from services was against the          Actand the work does not constantly exist and the work of
 mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central             providing security guards was given to other Government
 Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract   Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and
 labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract     therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relieffrom
 Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 and issued     them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
 notification on 01-11-1990 with directions to abolish the    and as and when their go - downs are filled with food grains ,
 contract labour system in the establishment of the Party     then only, services of the security guards are required and
                                                              in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
 No.1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged     Government abolishing contract labour system , they
 by the management and therefore , it was the mandatory       appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
 duty ofthe Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system guards.
  in all places and management of FCI implemented the
  notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed               The further case of party no . 1 is that for the reliefs
 the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad , but       as claimed, the workman had filed a writ petition before
  at Akola , Amravati , Wardha and Gondia districts , the     the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
  contract labour system was continued by the management,     1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
 with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under     and denied the reliefs prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
  the labour laws .                                           has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
        It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary   of the Hon'ble Court operates as res -judicata and they
  waspaid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and      floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
  hisdaily attendance was also marked by the Asstt .           awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
  Manager of FCI , Wardha Depot and the Party No. I was        two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
  supervising his work through their officers and he had no    the appointment of security guards by the security
  relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party contractor and they had no control over the appointment
  No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles , such as , and service conditions of the workman , who was an
  torch, lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of employee of the security agency and he was never their
  the long spell ofwork being carried out by him , he is entitled employee and the security contractor was the employer of
   to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back   theworkman .
  wages.                                                             The further case ofparty no . 1 is that the appropriate
        3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have     government decided to abolish the employment of the
   pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their       contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
   employment and the workman has not impleded the             Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition ) Act, 1970
   contractor, who appointed him , as a Party and the workman   and the interpretation of the notification issued on
   was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at        01-11-1990 putby the workman is not correct and they
   FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party      wereexemptedfrom the operation ofthe Act of 1970 in the
   and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot      year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the
   proceed and the workman was not in their service             year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
   uninterruptedly till 14th March , 1999 and since the contract contractor was terminated and hence , the services of the
   of the contractor came to an end , the services of the       workman wereterminated by the security contractor and
   workmanwere terminated by the contractor and the original    they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
   period of contract given to the contractor for providing     contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
   Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended   when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
    as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as     workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given
    the workman was not employed by them, there was no          by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
    question offollowing the procedure of termination by them    recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
    and they were not the employer of the workman and the        checkthe attendance of the security guards to find out as
    services of the workman were never utilized by them as       to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
    employer from 13-12-1993 to 14-03-1999, without any break

2046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

requisite number of security guards , as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as torch , Lathi , whistle and uniform etc. to the workman and as such , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

workman , neither one month's notice nor one month's wage in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman , as required under section 25- F of the Act and after termination of the services of the workman , fresh hands were engaged by party no . I to extract the duties of security guard , in violation of the provision of section 25 - H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature , hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal .

4. It appears from record that in support of his case , though the workman filed his evidence on affidavit , he did not appear for his cross -examination . As the evidence of the workman has not been tested by way of cross- examination, the same cannot be considered.

Itwas further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the party no . I had shown the workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working under the direct control and supervision of the party no. 1 and he was never a contract labour and such action of the party no.1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman .

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no . I has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour , by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such , the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade , the witness examined on behalf of the party no.1 has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement , in his examination - in- chief, which is on affidavit . In his cross -examination , this witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had obtained any license from the competent authority for engagement of contract labours in FCI . The witness has admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI and he was engaged for watch and ward of go - downs and the workman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch on the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI go- downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply contract labourers had the required license for the same , but copy of such license was not filed and the process of engagement of contractors was done by the Regional Office of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details of the process of engagement of contractors and during the general election to the Parliament , FCI had submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the list of employees submitted to the collector . This witness has denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go- downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 that the FCI was maintaining the attendance register of the workmen . The witness has further stated that payment of wages to the workman was being done through the contractor as per the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was not making any deduction from the said wages towards PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register or salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt. Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI .

6.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 13-12-1993 at Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked continuously without any interruption till 14th March , 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the party no . 1 , without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the

7. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never appointed by party no.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such , the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement , the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable . It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March , 1999 , the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such , there was no question of party no.l complying with the due procedure oftermination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the party no.1 and the workman and the party no.1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers , so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules , for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and party no . I has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills 2047

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) )

Courtdidnotconsider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress . Hence, the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res -judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 .

for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman . It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such , the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. First of all , I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the party no . I that the present reference is hit by the principles of res -judicata, due to the decision ofthe Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

9. In this reference , it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party no . 1 as a security guard . In the very beginning ofthe statement of claim , it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot , Wardha as a security guard , through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that , " In the year 1993, the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for the period of 2 years , but the contract was made on paper. " The case of the workman is that after every two years , the party no. I on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14-03-1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature , he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01-11-1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and party no. 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws .

Itisnot disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim " filed Writ Petition no . 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon 'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they havebecame workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature . However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'bleHigh Court did not consider the main relief and passedthe following order:

" Inview of the judgment of the Constitution Bench inSteel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others [reported in 2001 (7 ) SCCI ] , the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted..

Inviewofthe rejection of the main prayer, the question ofgranting other prayer does not arise . In case , the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter withina period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances. "

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High

870 61113-33

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the statement of ciaim that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor left him to FCI , it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1 .

10. At this juncture , I think it apropos to mention aboutthe principles enunciated by the Hon 'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours , in the two decisions reported in 1985-11 LLJ -4 ( S.C. ) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs M/ s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 ( S.C. ) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others).

In the decision reported in 1985 - II LLOJ -4 ( supra) theHon'ble Apex Court have held that :----

"Briefly stated , when corporation engaged a contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner ofhandling work done by the contractor, the labour force employedby him , payments made by him etc.

2048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

                                                                                                              2049
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934           [PART 11-SEC. 3(ii) ]
           In such a fact situation, there was no privity of      13. It is the own case of the workman that he was
     a combined reading of the definition of the terms contract of employer and workmen between the Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
          corporation and the workmen . " Workmen " has been engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
     "Contract labour " , " Establishment " and " Workman " engaged theworkman is a necessary party in the reference.
     does not show that the legal relationship between defined (omitting the words not necessary ) in the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
     the person employed in any industry and the owner Industrial Disputes Act to mean ( any person The said contractor has not been added as a party in this 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
      of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as todo including an apprentice ) employed in any industry reference. Due to non -joinder of necessary party, the the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
                    . " . " The expression ' employed has at least reference is bad in law. remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
      to who has brought about such relationship . The
      word "Workman " : is defined in wide terms . It is a two known connotations , but as used in the In view of the materials on record and the consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
      generic term of which contract labour is a species . It definition, the context would indicate that it is used discussions made above , the reférence cannot be answered different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
      is true that combined reading of the terms in the sense of a relationship brought about by infavour ofthe workman. Hence , it is ordered in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
      "Establishment " and " Workman " shows that a express or implied contract of service in which the or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of ORDER
      workman engaged in any establishment would have employee renders service for which he is engaged the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
      direct relationship with the principal employer as a by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in The reference is answered in the negative . The principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
      servant of master. But what is true of a workman cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily workman is not entitled to any relief. impermissible. interpretative legislation and as such clearly
      could not be correct of contract labour. When the prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command J. P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer
      provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation and obedience . The essential condition of a person Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
      ofdirect relationship of master and servant between being a workman within the terms of the definition is S. 10 ( 1 ) of the CLRAAct prohibiting employment of नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013
      the principal employer and the contract labour nor that he should be employed to do the work in that contract labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute
       can such relationship be implied from the provisions industry and that there should be, in other words , an का.आ. 668 brought before it by any contract in regard to औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947
       ofthe action issuing notification under Section 10( 1 ) employment of his by the employer and that there का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एस. बी. conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will
       of the CLRA Act . A fortiori much less can such a should be a relationship between the employer and के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , have to consider the question whether the contractor
       relationship be found to exist from the rules and the employee or master and servant unless a person is अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक has been interposed either on the ground of having
       forms made thereunder. " thus employed there can be no question ofhis being undertaken to produce any given result for the
        a " workman " within the definition of the term as    अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 147/2002 ) establishment or for supply of contract labour for
       So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the contained in the Act . को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2013 को प्राप्त work of the establishment under a genuine contract
 Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , the    हुआ था । or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance of
 present case in hand is to be considered. Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
        Saurashtra ( 1957 - ILLJ477) . Now where a                  workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is [सं. एल -42012/65/2002- आई आर (सी एम- H ) ]
       12. In this case, the letter No. U - 23013 / 11/89/LW contractor employs a workman to do the work which
 dated 28-05-92 , Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows           found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the बी. एम. पटनायक , डेस्क अधिकारी
       he contracted with a third person to accomplish on           so called contract labour will have to be treated as
  that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in the definition as it stands , the workman of the employees of the principal employer who shall be New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013
  sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings contractor would not without something more directed to regularize the services of the contract
  owned or occupied by the establishments of Food becomethe workman of that third person . Therefore, S. O. 668. In pursuance of Section 17 of the
                                                               Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central labour in the concerned establishment. Ifthe contract
  Corporation of India and some other departments was whenthe workmen employed by the contractor were is found to be genuine and the principal employer
  lifted by the Central Government . So, the engagement of certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 147/
  contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be      2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
      claim to that effect has been made by the union. "       Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the preference to the erstwhile contract labour. If
  illegal . It is also found from the materials on record that the  otherwise found suitable , and , if necessary, by
  appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply 11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656 Industrial Dispute between the management of
(supra) the Hon' ble Apex Court have held that :--- of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not National Silk Board , Government of India, National relaxing the condition as to maximum age
  only on papers as claimed by the workman . The workman       Sericulture Project , Central Silk Board and their workmen, appropriately taking into consideration the age of
      " The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to   whichwas received by the Central Government on 22-02-2013. the workers at the time of their initial employment by
  has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or be constructed liberally in favour of the class for the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
  reliable evidence . The engagement of labour contractor by whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to academic qualifications other than technical [No. L-42012/65 /2002-IR (CM-II)]
  Party No.1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade reading in the provisions of the Act what the qualifications.
  compliance ofthe various beneficial legislations , so as to                             B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
     legislature has not provided whether expressly orby           AirIndia's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled ANNEXURE
   deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The necessary implication , or substituting remedy or
  workman has not been able to produce any document to benefits for that provided by the legislature . The prospectively. M.A.T. Nos . 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
  showthat at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages       BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, D/ -12-8-1999 (Cal ) : C.O. No. 6545( W) of 1996,
      intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the                    CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
   as their employee . It is clear from the evidence that Party conditions of service of the contract labour and to D/-9-5-1997 ( Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997,
  No.1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in authorize in Section 10 ( 1 ) prohibition of contract Case No. CGIT /NGP /147/2002 D/ -17-4-1998 (Kant) : W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, Date: 04-02-2013
   presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor labour system by the appropriate Government on D/ 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999,
   did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on consideration of factors enumerated in sub - section PartyNo. 1 : D/ -23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
                                                                  Reversed.
   record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant The Deputy Director,
   with Party No.1 , by the contractor and as such, it can be factors . But, the presence of some or all those factors , National Sericulture Project, It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
   held that there was no relationship of master and servant provide no ground for absorption of contract labour Central Silk Board, contract labour by the contractor in any work of or
   between the Party No.1 and the workman . Hence , there onissuing notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) by the P-2, Basic Seed Farm , inconnectionwith the work of an establishment, the
   was no question of termination of the services by the Party appropriate Government , is not alluded to either in Shirala, Tah . Patur, relationship of master and servant is created between
   No.1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25 - F or   Distt . AKOLA (MS) . the principal employer and the contract labour. Even
   25-H ofthe Act .

2050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 / PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

Versus

PartyNo. 2

Shri Devanand Sahadevo Palaspagar R/o. Choti Umri , Distt. Akola, (MS) .

AWARD (Dated:4th February, 2013)

In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( "the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board and their workman Shri Devanand Sahadevo Palaspagar, for adjudication , as per letter No.L-42012/65/ 2002- IR ( C - II ) dated 09-08-2002, with the following schedule: -

"Whether the action ofthe Deputy Director, National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Government of India, Basic Seed Farm Shirala , Taluka- Patur, Distt.-Akola (M.S. ) in terminating the employment of Shri Devanand Sahadevo Palaspagar w.e.f. 30-11-1996 is legal andjustified? Ifnot , towhat relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement ofclaim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Devanand Sahadevo Palaspagar ( "the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and the management of the National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board (" Party No.1 " in short) filed their written statement .

onthe ground of closure of the T.S.C. and N.S.P at Akola and three days after the order of retrenchment , the party no . I issued another order dated 03-12-1996 and offered fresh engagement of a casual labour at Basic Seed Farm, Shirla, but when he reported for duty on the basis of the order dated 03-12-1996, he was not allowed by party no. I to resume duty, so he served a notice on party no . 1 on 08-02-1997 asking to allow him to resume duty, but the party no. I did not give any reply. It is further pleaded by the workman that in the circular dated 15-10-1992 of the Director, N.S.W.S.P, Bangalore , direction was issued to convert the casual labourers , who had completed five years of service as on 01-09-1992 to time scale labourers and also to convert all other casual labourers to time scale, on their completion of five years of continuous service andby circular dated 12-12-1996 , it was decided to convert the casual labourers to time scale labourer, who had been engaged prior to 07-08-1992 and had completed two years of continuous service and the Deputy Director, N.S.P. , Shirla vide his letter dated 13-10-1996 had sent the details of his services along with other casual labourers and according to the said information , he had completed more than five years of continuous service on 30-11-1996 and the date of his conversion as time scale labour was shown as30-09-1996 and he has acquired the status of Time Scale Labourer and as such , he was not liable to be terminated and services of the casual labourers , Shri Abhay Tirpude and seven Women Field Assistants were not terminated and they were accommodated and transferred to other places and therefore , he was also entitled to be accommodated and even though the TSC were over to Maharashtra State Government , there was no need or propriety for party no . I to terminate his services and the work of labourers was and is available with party no . 1 atP-2Basic Seed Farm , Shirla and also Gandhingala and party no. 1 is taking the work of labourers at Shirla by appointing contract labourers and hence , his retrenchment on account of closure of unit is on false ground and is illegal .

It is also pleaded by the workman that the establishment of party no. I is an industrial establishment asdefined under section 25- L of the Act, hence provisions of chapter VB of the Act are applicable to the establishment of the party no . 1 and his retrenchment is in contravention of the mandatory provision of sections , 25 -N , Section 25 - F and 25 - FF of the Act and the party no. 1 didnot followthe procedure of section 25-G ofthe Act and as such , his retrenchment dated 30-11-1996 was illegal and unfair labour practice and he had completed more than 240 days of work in every year during his tenure and the termination ofhis services was illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

The case of the workman as depicted from the statement of claim is that " National Sericulture Project " wasstartedbythe Central Silk Board , a unit of Government of India, at different places all over India including in Akola district and the said project was implemented by the Director, National Silk Worm Seed Project, Central Silk Board having office at Bangalore and the in -charge of the said project in Akola district and other places in Maharashtra was the Deputy Director having his office at P-2, Basic Seed Farm , Shirla, Akola and there were seven technical centers (T.S.C. ) at Washim , Akola , Mehekar, Khamgaon , Risod, Motala and Buldhana , which were under the control ofthe Deputy Director and he was initially appointed as a casual labour by party no . 1 w.e.f. 01-10-1991 , at T.S.C. , Akola, from the list of candidates received from the concerned employment exchange and T.S.C. , Akola was closed by party no . 1 in 1993 and the party no.1 handed over all the T.S.C. to the State Government of Maharashtra and the office ofthe Deputy Director issued the order of retrenchment of his services on 30-11-1996 and terminated his services w.e.f. 30-11-1996

3. The party no. I in the written statement have pleaded inter-alia that seven Technical service centers were

                                                                                                                2051
 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]                 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16, 2013 /फाल्गुन 25 , 1934
                                                              labour inthe year 1991 and on 30-11-1996, the National
established in different places in Maharashtra State with     Sericulture Project was closed and the said project was
the financial assistance of World Bank and for the said       handed over to State Government and in all seven persons
centers ,requirednumber of casual labourers were engaged     were engaged in the project and all the seven persons
purely ontemporary on daily wages basis, for the casual       including himselfwere retrenched by the State Government
 nature of work for the project period and the nature of      on30-11-1996 and in the letter dated 30-11-1996 informed
work ofthe centre was to provide technical service to the     them about their retrenchment .
 farmers, who were practicing sericulture and the work of           5. One S. Penchalaiah , a Superintendent ofNational
 the centers was seasonal and intermittent in nature and the
 workman was engaged as a casual labourer at TSC ,            Silkworm SeedOrganisation Centre, Silk Board, Bangalore
 Akola on 01-10-1991 through local employment exchange         has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party
 and he worked intermittently and he did not work              no.l. In his examination - in-chief, which is on affidavit, this
 continuously and he was paid wages as fixed by the State     witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
 Government and as per the terms and conditions ofNational     statement. In his cross -examination , party no.1 has stated
 Sericulture Project , the TSC establishment in pilot states   thathe had or have not worked at Basic Seed Farm , Shiirla
 were closed on 30-11-1996 and handed over to the State        and he has no personal knowledge about the period for
 Government and the only P -2 Basic Seed Farm, which was       whichthe workman worked at Basic Seed Farm, Shirla and
  functioning at Shirla during project period was              the workman worked continuously for five years and he
  subsequently closed and handed over to the State             was entitled for regularisation .
  Government and while handing over the Technical Service            6. It is necessary to mention here that the party
  Centers, the concerned State Government Sericulture           no. I filed their written notes of argument on 21-09-2012 .
  Departments were requested to utilize the labourers           However, inspite of giving several opportunities , no
  engaged in the centers , but they did not agree for the same  argument either in writing or oral was advanced from the
   and there was no requirement of labourers in any of Central  side of the workman and as such , the case was closed and
   SilkBoard units functioning in Maharashtra and thus, the     wasposted for award as per orders dated 15-01-2013 .
   services of the labourers were terminated by offering
   admissible notice period wages and retrenchment                    7. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the
   compensation, as per the provisions of Section 25 - F ofthe  evidence on record including the oral evidence of the
   Act and the workman and other labourers refused to receive   witnesses examined by the parties that the workman was
   the same and later, individual demand drafts were obtained    engaged as a casual worker on 01-10-1991 and worked till
    in the name of the workman and other labourers and were     30-11-1996 without any break. However, the documents.
    sent to their residential addresses by registered post, but  filed by the management , Exts . M - I to M - VII show that
   they refusedto receive the same.                              due to closure of the Technical service centres including
                                                                 the service centres at Akola, where the workman was
          It is further pleaded by the party no. 1 that order    working and handing over of the centres to the State
    dated 03-12-1996, was issued with the intention to           Government of Maharashtra on 30-11-1996, the services of
    rehabilitate the retrenched labourers by engaging them for   theworkman and all other casual labourers were terminated
    short duration at Basic Seed Farm, Sirla, but due to scaling  and before termination of their services , one month's
    down of farm activities and reduction of work load in the    wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation
    farm, the retrenched labourers could not be accommodated     was offered to the workman and other labourers , but they
     and that cannot be construed that work was available at      refused to receive the same . Fact regarding entitlement to
    P-2 Basic Seed Farm , Shirla and after closure of TSC,        receive such wages and compensation has been mentioned
    Motala, no casual labour was accommodated at anywhere         in the notice itself. It is also found that the wages and
     and the women field assistants were appointed on regular     retrenchment compensation was also sent in shape of
     basis as per recruitment rules of Central Silk Board and     Bank Draft by RP with AD to the workman , but the
     theywere posted to work at TSC, Akola and other places       workman did not receive the same . There is no evidence
     in Maharashtra State and the workman cannot be equated       that any casual labour was accommodated by party no . 1
     withthe regular staff and it is not an industrial establishment at any other place and there was any discrimination in
     asdefined under Section 25 (L) of the Act and provision of    respect of the workman . There is also no evidence that
     Section chapter V- B, 25 ( L) and 25 (N ) of the Act are not  provision of Chapter V-B and provisions of Sections
     applicable to it and the workman is not entitled to any       25-Land 25- N are applicable to party no . 1. As the mandatory
     relief.                                                       provisions of the section 25 - F of the Act were complied
           4.The workman has examined himself as a witness to      withby party no. 1 , before termination of the services ofthe
      prove the case . In his examination- in-chief, which is on   workman , it cannot be said that the termination of the
      affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned    services of the workman is illegal or invalid . Hence , it is
      in the statement ofclaim . However, in his cross -examination , ordered:--
      the workman has admitted that he was engaged as a casual

2052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25, 1934

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii)] ORDER

AWARD

The action of the Deputy Director, National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Government of India, Basic Seed Farm Shirala, Taluka- Patur, Distt. -Alola (M.S. ) in terminating the employment of Shri Devanand Sahadevo Palaspagar w.e.f. 30-11-1996 is legal and justified. Theworkman is not entitled to any relief.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-40012/124/2001 - IR(DU), dated09-07-2001.

SCHEDULE

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2013

"Whether the action of the management of Chief GeneralManager, Bihar Telecome Circle , Patna in not re- engaging the workman Sri Dinesh Prasad as a Daily Rated Mazdoor, who was out ofthe employment w.e.f. 04-02-92 to 26-11-94 is justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled for ? "

का.आ. 669.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बिहार टेलीकाम सर्किल , पटना के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 211/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-02-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2. Put up today for an order over the petition dt. 5-3-2012 filed on behalf of the management, Bihar Telecom Circle/BSNL, Patna/O.P. for dismissal , and its rejoinder filed onbehalfofthe workman petitioner on 19-06-2012 .

[सं. एल-40012/ 124/2001- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 669. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 211 / 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.2 , Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe Bihar Telecom Circle, Patna and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-02-2013.

[No. L-40012/124/2001 - IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947

Reference No. 211 of2001

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Bihar Telecom Circle , Patna and their workmen,

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe Workman

: Mr. R. R. Ram , Ld . Adv. Onbehalf of the Management : Mr. Shushil Pd . L.d. Adv.

State: Bihar

Industry: Telecom

Dhanbad, the 23rd January, 2013

Mr. Shushil Prasad , the Ld . Advocate for the O.P. Management in view of the contents of the petition with its Annexure- the xerox copy of the orderdt. 10-7-1997 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 302 of 1996 has to submit that the presentReference has been filed by the petitioner for grant oftemporary status in service with other relief for which the Hon'ble CAT, Patna as per the aforesaid order has already dismissed his previous case, observing that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief; as such the present case is unsustainable on the point of Res Judicata. In response, the contention of Mr. R. R. Ram, the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner is that the present Reference relates to "Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom Bihar Circle, Patna in not re-engaging the workman Shri Dinesh Prasad as a Daily Rated Mazdoor, who was out of employment w.e.f. 04-02-1992 to26-11-1994 is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled for? " , is different from the case of the petitioner for his reinstatement in his post and giving him temporary status, for regularising of his service with consequential benefits , which was denied by the Hon'ble CAT, at Patna ; and thus it is not hit by the Principle of Res Judicata as in applicable to the present Reference. Further it is contended bythe aforesaid Ld. Counsel for the petitioner it relates to re-engagement of the workman as contrasted with his reinstatement in his service as sought by him in his previous case before the Hon'ble CAT. So it is different . On reply, Mr. Shushil Prasad , the Ld. Advocate for the Opp- Management relying upon the authority. 2012 (4 ) JLJR 146 (DB), Union of India & Ors . Vs. Anju Kumari , has to submit that the words ' reinstatement ' and re-engagement' have similar meaning, so the present case is barred by the PrincipleofConstructive Res Judicata ; and that it is settled principle of Law that a person when coming before a Court ofLaw has every right to seek relief in all respect for which 2053

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 16 , 2013/फाल्गुन 25 , 1934

[ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

he is entitled but he can not seek relief in the subsequent case for which he did not seek relief in earlier suit , and that as such it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court , Ranchi, Jharkhand.

अतः , अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप - खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 26-03-2013 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[सं. एस-11017/1/2003- आई आर ( पी.एल. ) ] चन्द्र प्रकाश , संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013

S. O. 670. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the provisions of sub -clause (vi ) ofthe clause (n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , declaredby the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, dated 13- 09-2012 the service in the Hindustan Aeronauties Limited which is covered by item 8 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a Public Utility Service for the purpose ofthe said Act, for a period of six months from the 26th September, 2012.

And whereas , the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension ofthe said period by a further period of six months .

Onpersual of the case record and the original copy of the order of the Hon'ble CAT, Patna, I find that the existence of both the parties for the cause of reinstatement or re -engagement of the petitioner as sought before the Hon'ble ' CAT, Patna Bench in his previous case O.Α. No. 302/1996 as in the present Reference for re - engagement before the Tribunal in similitude appears to be beyond controversy, as the very term re - engagement of the workman in the present Reference directly or indirectly relates to his reinstatement as Daily Rated Mazdoor which was already denied by the Hon'ble CAT and the Petitioner is bound by the order of the same Hon'ble CAT of the Competent Jurisdiction in the eye of Law. In the instant case, workman petitioner can not take such defence on the ground of his claim for re -engagement which he had not taken in his previous case. Similar view was also of the Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) in the aforesaid ruling in reference to Sec . 11 and Order II , Rule II of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, that respondent can not take the defence which he did not take as defence in the earlier round of litigation (para 6) .

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub -clause (vi ) of clause (n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a Public Utility Service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 26th March , 2013.

Under these circumstances , the present Reference concerning re-engagement as Daily Rated Mazdoor being barred by Constructive Res Judicata under Sec . 11 Explanation IV of the aforesaid C.P.C. is unsustainable . Accordingly, a copy of the order is forwarded to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for information and needful .

[No. S- 11017/1 /2003 - IR (PL) ] CHANDRA PRAKASH ,It. Secy.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2013

का. आ. 671. केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो, जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप-खण्ड (vi )के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. दिनांक 06-09-2012 द्वारा किसी भी तेल क्षेत्र जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 17 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 09-09-2012 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

का. आ. 670. केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो, जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप - खण्ड (vi )के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रमः और रोजगार मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. दिनांक 13-09-2012 द्वारा हिन्दुस्तान एरोनाटिक्स लिमिटेड जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि ४ में शामिल है, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 26-09-2012 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

अतः, अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा 2054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2013 /PHALGUNA 25 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a Public Utility Service for the purpose ofthe said Act , for a period of six months from the 9thSeptember , 2012.

प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्तअधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 09-03-2013 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[सं. एस -11017/10/97- आई आर ( पी.एल. ) ]

चन्द्र प्रकाश , संयुक्त सचिव

Andwhereas , the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months.

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2013

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub -clause (vi ) of clause (n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a Public Utility Service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period ofsix months from the 9th March , 2013 .

[No. S- 11017/10/97 - IR (PL) ] S. O. 671.-Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance ofthe provisions of sub - clause ( vi ) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of Indiain the Ministry of Labour and Employment, dated 06- 09-2012 the service in the Any Oil Field which is covered by item 17 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes

CHANDRA PRAKASH, Jt . Secy.

Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri . New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.