foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1177.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ¼leuq"kaxh cSad½

vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼1959 dk 38½ dh /kkjk 26 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2d½

ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 25 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼x[k½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] LVsV cSad vkWQ gSnjkckn ds eq[;

izca/kd Jh ,e. g"kZo/kZu ¼tUe frfFk% 05-08-1960½ dks mudh

fu;qfDr dh vf/kwlpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ;k

LVsV cSad vkWQ gSnjkckn ds vf/kdkjh ds :i esa mudh lsokof/k dh

lekfIr rd vFkok vkxkeh vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks]

LVsV cSad vkWQ gSnjkckn ds funs'kd e.My esa vf/kdkjh deZpkjh

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk. la. 3@60@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

2637GI/2013

(3097)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2013

S.O. 1177.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (cb) of the sub-section (1) of Section 25 read with

sub-section (2A) of Section 26 of the State Bank of India

(Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), the Central

Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of

India, hereby appoints Shri M. Harshavardhan (DoB:

05-08-1960), Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, as

Officer Employee Director on the Board of Directors of State

Bank of Hyderabad for a period of three years from the date

of notification of his appointment or till he ceases to be an

officer of the State Bank of Hyderabad or until further

orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 3/60/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 26]

ubZ fnYyh, twu 23—twu 29] 2013] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 2—vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

No. 26]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 23—JUNE 29, 2013, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 2—ASHADHA 8, 1935

Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

3098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

[vk;qosZn] ;ksx o izkd`frd fpfdRlk] ;wukuh] fl) ,oa gksE;ksiSFkh

¼vk;q"k½ foHkkx]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1178.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj

dY;k.k ea=ky; ds vk;qosZn] ;ksx o izkd`frd fpfdRlk] ;wukuh] fl)

,oa gksE;ksiSFkh ¼vk;q"k½ foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr

dk;kZy; dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk

dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh

gS%&

1. ^^vk;qosZn ekr` ,oa f'k'kq LokLF; j{kk vuqla/kku laLFkku]

fr:ouUriqje** A

[Q k.la. bZ&11018@1@2013&vk;q"k ¼jkñHkkñ½]

,l. Jhfuokl] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

[Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani,

Sidha and Homeopathy (AYUSH)]

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2013

S.O. 1178.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central

Government hereby notifies the following office under the

administrative control of the Department of AYUSH,

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, where more than 80%

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

1. “Ayurveda Research Institute for Mother & Child

Health Care, Tiruvanantpuram”.

[No. E-11018/1/2013-AYUSH (O.L.)]

S. SRINIVAS, Dy. Secy.

lapkj ,oa lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;

¼Mkd foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1179.—jktHkk"kk fu;e ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e

¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj] Mkd foHkkx ds

v/khuLFk dk;kZy; eq[; iksLVekLVj tujy] vksfM'kk lfdZy]

Hkqous'oj&751001 dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa

deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr

djrh gSA

[la. 11017&1@2011&jk.Hkk.]

ehjk gk.Mk] mi egkfuns'kd ¼fQySVyh@jktHkk"kk½

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Posts)

New Delh, the 24th June, 2013

S.O. 1179.—In pursuance of Rule 10(4) of the Offi-

cial Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules,

1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of

Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneshwar-

751001 of the Department of Posts where more than 80%

staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11017-1/2011-O.L.]

MEERA HANDA, Dy. Director General

(Philately/OL)

oL= ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1180.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] oL= ea=ky; ds varxZr vkus okys

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us

fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gS%&

1. vuqla/kku foLrkj dsUnz] ds.js.v.o.iz.la.] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ]

ekQZr&jktdh; js'ke QkeZ] deyqvk xkatk] Mkd?kj&ykekpkSM+]

dkyk<qxh jksM] gY}kuh&263 139] ftyk&uSuhrky ¼mÙkjk[kaM½A

[la. bZ&11016@1@2011&fgUnh]

lqu;uk rksej] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1180.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies the following office under the Ministry of Textiles,

whereof 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of

Hindi :—

1. Research Extension Centre, CSRTI, Central Silk

Board, C/o State Sericulture Farm, Kamaluwa Ganja,

Lamachaur Post, Kaladhoongi Road, Haldwani-263 139,

Distt.- Nainital (Uttarakhand).

[No. E-11016/1/2011-Hindi]

SUNAINA TOMAR, Jt. Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3099

d`f"k ea=ky;

¼d`f"k vuqla/kku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1181.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] d`f"k ea=ky;] d`f"k

vuqla/kku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds

fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k

esa] Hkk.d`.v.i. ds dsUnzh; e`nk yo.krk vuqla/kku laLFkku] {ks=h;

vuqla/kku dsUnz] y[kuÅ dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa

us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[la. 13&10@2009&fgUnh@108&34]

js[kk vkuUn] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2013

S.O. 1181.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of Agricultural, Research and Edu-

cation hereby notifies the Central Soil Salinity Research

Institute, Regional Research Station (ICAR) Lucknow

where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 13-10/2009-Hindi/108-34]

REKHA ANAND, Under Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1182.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e

7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud¼dks½

esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gaS%

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud

la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj la'kks/ku ykxw gksus

la[;k dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

frfFk

dh frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼1½

vkbZ ,l 4031

la'kks/ku la[;k 1]

31 ebZ 2013

¼Hkkx 7½ 1988

ebZ 2013

¼2½

vkbZ ,l 4031

la'kks/ku la[;k 1]

31 ebZ 2013

¼Hkkx 8½ 1988

ebZ] 2013

bu la'kks/kuksa dh izfr;kWa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9]

cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa %

vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k

gSA

[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]

lh. vkj. jktsUnzk] oSKkkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

¼flfoy bathfu;jh½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND

PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2013

S.O. 1182.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule

(1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amend-

ment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given

in the Schedule below, has been issued.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and year of the

No. and year of

Date from which

No.

Indian Standards

the amendment

shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

IS 4031 (Part 7):

Amendment No. 1,

31 May 2013

1988

May 2013

(2)

IS 4031 (Part 8):

Amendment No. 1,

31 May 2013

1988

May 2013

Copies of these amendments are available for sale

with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional

Offices: at New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai,

Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore,

Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad,

Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune & Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

C. R. RAJENDRA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)

3100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu 2013

dk.vk. 1183.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS%

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

mRikn

bZdkbZ U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd

bZdkbZ nj

LySc esa

'ks"k

izpkyu

ekud

cM+s iSekus

NksVs iSekus

LySc

bZdkbZ;ka

frfFk

la[;k

¼#½

7903

2011

oL=kfn&mPp ?kuRo

100 oxZ

#ñ 68000-00

#ñ 58000-00

#ñ 7-00

lHkh

20-06-2013

iksyhbFkhyhu cqus diM+s ls

ehVj

cus frjiky

13488

2008

flapkbZ miLdj&mRltZdh

1 fdxzkñ

#ñ 62000-00

#ñ 53000-00

#ñ 0-35

lHkh

20-06-2013

ikbi i)fr;ka

16008

2012

d`f"k oL=kfn&d`f"k ,oa

100 oxZ

#ñ 81000-00

#ñ 0-80

lHkh

20-06-2013

ckxokuh ds fy, Nk;k tky

ehVj

69000-00

[la. lh,eMh&2@th&18]

ih.ds. xEHkhj] oSKkfud ^th* ,oa iz/kku ¼izek.ku½

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1183.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:

SCHEDULE

IS No. Part

Sec

Year

Product

Units

Minimum Marking Fee

Units Rate Units in Ramai- Effective

Large Scale Small Scale

Slab 1

ning

Date

7903

—

2011

Textiles-Tarpaulins made

100Square Rs. 68000

Rs.58000

Rs.7.00

All

—

20.06.2013

from High Density

metre

Polyethylene Woven

Fabric

13488 —

—

2008

Irrigation Equipment-

1Kg

Rs. 62000

Rs. 53000

Rs. 0.35

All

—

20.06.2013

Emitting Pipes Systems

16008 —

—

2012

Agro Textile-Shade Nets

100 Square Rs. 81000

Rs. 69000

Rs. 0.80

All

—

20.06.2013

for Agriculture and

metre

Horticulture Purposes

[No. CMD-II/G-18]

P. K. GAMBHIR, Scientist ‘G.’ & Cheif (Certification)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1184.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr

djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k] o"kZ

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 3812 ¼Hkkx 2½% 2013 pw.kZ b±/ku

vkbZ ,l 3812 ¼Hkkx 2½% 2003

31 ebZ 2013

dh jk[k&fof'kf"V% Hkkx 2 elkyk ¼eksVkZj½

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

o daØhV esa vifeJ.k dh rjg iz;ksx ds

fy, ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002]

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3101

{ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSA

[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]

lh. vkj. jktsUnzk] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2013

S.O. 1184.—In pursuance of clause (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 below

has been established on the date indicated against it:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and year of the Indian

No. and year of Indian

Date when

No.

Standards Established

Standards, if any, Superseded by

Established

and Title

the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 3812 (Part 2): 2013 Pulverized

IS 3812 (Part 2): 2003

31 May 2013

Fuel Ash— Specification: Part 2

(Second Revision)

For Use as Admixture in Cement

Mortar and Concrete (Third Revision)

Copy of the Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,

Pune and Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

C. R. RAJENDRA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1185.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd

uhps vuqlwph esa fn, ekud ¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x, gSa%

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k ,oa o"kZ

la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj

la'kks/ku ykxw

la[;k

frfFk

gksus dh frfFk

czhp yksfMax 'kkWV xu ,Qy ,oa Mcy cSjy dh

2 ebZ 2013

ebZ 2013

fof'kf"V ¼Hkk.ek. 10490%1983 dh la'kks/ku la[;k 2½

eWt+y yksfMax 'kkWV xu ,Qy ,oa Mcy cSjy dh

2 ebZ 2013

ebZ 2013

fof'kf"V ¼Hkk.ek. 10491%1983 dh la'kks/ku la[;k 2½

gfFk;kj vkSj ck:n&jkbQy&fLizax pkfyr ,;j jkbQy&

2 ebZ 2013

ebZ 2013

fof'kf"V ¼Hkk.ek. 13136%1991 dh la'kks/ku la[;k 2½

bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds la'kks/ku dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;EcVwj] xqokgkVh]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfPp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks dh osc lkbV] www.bis.org.in ij Hkh

miyC/k gSA

[lanHkZ ihthMh@th&3-5]

ds. lq/kkdj jko] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ihthMh½

3102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2013

S.O. 1185.—In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub-rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been amended on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and Year of

No. and year of

Date from which

No.

Indian Standards

Amendment

the Amendment

shall have effect

IS 10490:1983 Specification for Breech

2 May, 2013

May 2013

Loading Shot Guns, Single and Double Barrel

IS 10491: 1983 Specification For Muzzle

2 May, 2013

May 2013

Loading Shot Guns, Single and Double Barrel

IS 13136: 1991 Arms and Ammunition-

2 May, 2013

May 2013

Rifle- Air Rifle Spring Operated-Specification

Copies of these amendments are 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, Kochi. Also available on BIS website (www.bis.org.in)

[Ref. PGD/G-3.5]

K. SUDHAKAR RAO, Scientist 'F' & Head (PGD)

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1186.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e ¼4½ ds mi&fofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqu; esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la[;k

Lohd`r djus dh ykblsal/kkjh dk uke Hkkjrh; ekud dk Hkk ek Hkkx vuq o"kZ

la[;k

lh,e@,y

frfFk

o irk 'kh"kZd

,y&9995829

03.04.2013

eSñ Jh lkb± ,Dok]

iSdstcUn is;ty

14543

2004

IykWV uañ 5] cqf/k;k ukyk

¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd

jksM+] fryir ,DlVsa'ku]

feujy ty ds

ftyk Qjhnkckn&121003]

vykok½

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&9996629

08.04.2013

eSñ ,Q ts ,e flyS.MlZ izkñ fyñ okguksa ds fy, b±/ku

15490

2004

IykWV uañ 360@361]lSDVj&3] ds :i esa laihfM+r

Qsl&4] ,p,lvkbvkbMhlh]

izkd`frd xSl ds vkWu&

xzksFk lsUVj] ckoy]

cksMZ Hk.Mkj.k ds fy,

ftyk fjokM+h&123501

flys.Mj

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&9998128

10.04.2013

eSñ t; nqxsZ ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

esu cktkj] 394@6]

feJ/kkrq,a vkHkw"k.k@

iqjkuk Qjhnkckn&121002

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

¼gfj;k.kk½

,oa eqgjkadu

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3103

,y&9998229

10.04.2013

eSñ ';ke ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

esu cktkj] 7@44] iqjkuk

feJ/kkrq,a vkHkw"k.k@

Qjhnkckn] ftyk

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

Qjhnkckn&121102

,oa eqgjkadu

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&9997530

11-04-2013

eSñ o`ank QSjl izkñ fyñ]

dUM;wV~l QkWj

9537

1983

IykWV uañ 133] lSDVj&16

bySDVªhdy bUlVkys'kUl

b.MLVªh;y ,fj;k]

Hkkx 3% fjftM Iysu

cgknqjx<+]

dUM;wV~l vkWQ

ftyk >Ttj ¼gfj;k.kk½

bUlwysfVax eSfVfj;Yl

,y&9998936

18-04-2013

eSñ xqIrk ToSyjh gkml]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

8@78,] vxzlsu cktkj]

feJ/kkrq,a vkHkw"k.k@

esu cktkj] iqjkuk Qjhnkckn]

f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ftyk Qjhnkckn] ¼gfj;k.kk½

,oa eqgjkadu

,y&9999433

18-04-2013

eSñ LokfLrd fLizadyj

flapkbZ midj.k&

14151

2008

flLVe]

fLizadyj ikbil~&

oh-ih-vks- lnr uxj]

Hkkx 2% lgt la;ksth

ugj jksM] dkslyh]

iksyhbFkkbyhu ikbil~

ftyk fjokM+h&123302

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&9999534

18-04-2013

eSñ LokfLrd fLizadyj

flapkbZ ;a=ksa ds fNM+dko 14151

1999

flLVe]

gsrq iksyhbFkkbyhu

ohihvks lnr uxj]

ikbil~ Hkkx 1%

ugj jksM] dkslyh]

iksyhbFkkbyhu ikbil~

ftyk fjokM+h&123302

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&9998734

23-04-2013

eSñ vkbvkj, cSojsftl

iSdstcUn is;ty

14543

2004

izkñ fyñ]

¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd

IykWV uañ 31] xkao dkaojk]

feujy ty ds

ftyk Qjhnkckn&121101

vykok½

¼gfj;k.kk½

[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]

ns'k nhid] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2013

S.O. 1186.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule:

3104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant

Name and Address

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part.

Sec. Year

No.

No. CM/L-

Date

of the Licensee

L-9995829

03.04.2013

M/s. Shree Sai Aqua,

Packaged Drinking Water

14543

—

2004

Plot No. 5, Budhia Nala

(Other than Packaged

Road, Tilpat Ext.,

Natural Mineral water)

Distt. Faridabad-121003

(Haryana)

L-9996629

08.04.2013

M/s. FJM Cylinders Pvt.

Cylinders for On-Board

15490

—

2004

Ltd., Plot No. 360/361,

Storage of Compressed

Sector-3, Phase-4,

Natural Gas as a Fuel

HSIIDC, Growth Centre,

for Automotive Vehicles

Bawal, Distt.

Rewari-123501 (Haryana)

L-9998128

10.04.2013

M/s. Jai Durge Jewellers

Gold and Gold Alloys

1417

—

1999

Main Bazar, 394/6,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Old Faridabad-121002

Fineness and Marking

(Haryana)

L-9998229

10.04.2013

M/s. Shyam Jewellers,

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

Main Bazar, 7/44,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Old Faridabad,

Fineness and Marking

Distt. Faridabad-121102

(Haryana)

L-9997530

11.04.2013

M/s. Vrinda Ferrous (P)

Conduits for Electrical

9537

—

1983

Ltd., Plot No. 133,

Installations

Sector-16, Industrial Area, Part 3 Rigid Plain Conduits

Bahadurgarh,

of Insulating Materials

Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana)

L-9998936

18.04.2013

M/s. Gupta Jewellery

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

—

1999

House, 8/78A, Aggarsain Jewellery/Artefacts-

Bazar, Main Bazar

Fineness and Marking

Old Faridabad,

Distt. Faridabad (Haryana)

L-9999433

18.04.2013

M/s. Swastic Sprinkler

Irrigation Equipment-

14151

—

2008

System,

Sprinkler Pipes-

VPO Sadat Nagar,

Part 2: Quick Coupled

Nahar Road, Kosli,

Polyethylene Pipes

Distt. Rewari-123302

(Haryana)

L-9999534

18.04.2013

M/s. Swastic Sprinkler

Irrigation Equipment-

14151

—

1999

System,

Sprinkler Pipes-

VPO Sadat Nagar,

Part 1: Polyethylene

Nahar Road, Kosli,

Pipes

Distt. Rewari-123302

(Haryana)

L-9998734

23.04.2013

M/s. IRA Beverages

Packaged Drinking Water

14543

—

2004

Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 31,

(Other than Packaged

Village Kanwra,

Natural Mineral water)

Distt. Faridabad-121101

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

DESH DEEPAK, Scientist 'F' & Head (FDO)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3105

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1187.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd]

blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= esa dh Hkwfe esa dks;yk

vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS(

vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e

¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@439] rkjh[k 22 Qjojh] 2013 dk] ftlesa mDr

vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gSa] fujh{k.k dysDVj]

vuqiiqj ¼e/; izns'k½ esa dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly

gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ

dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM]

fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldsxkA

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj

fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys

dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA

mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrcn~/k dksbZ O;fDr] bl

vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh vof/k

ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½] lkÅFk bZLVuZ

dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½

ls]µ

¼i½

mDr vf/klwpuk dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds

v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k lEHkor% gksus

okyh fdlh {kfr ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds

v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k

¼ii½ mDr v/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds

v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/k

esa ;k mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds

v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy, izfrdj dk

nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls ¼iv½ esa

fofufnZ"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;; dks minf'kZr djus

fy,

iwoksZDr

Hkwfe

lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVks± vkSj vU;

nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxkA

vuqlwph

fctqjh Hkwfexr [kku] glnso {ks=

ftyk & vuqiiqj ¼e/;izns'k½

[js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e ¼ih,yth½@

Hkwfe@439] rkjh[k 22 Qjojh] 2013]

Øe xzke dk

cankscLr

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=

fVIi.kh

la-

uke

la[;k

gYdk

gsDVj

uEcj

esa

yksgljk

929

dksrek

vuqiiqj

53-048

Hkkx

fctqjh

734

dksrek

vuqiiqj

4-880

Hkkx

dksjtk

126

dksrek

vuqiiqj

6-068

Hkkx

dqy% 63.996 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 158.13 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

lhek o.kZu%

Cykd&I%

d&[k

js[kk xzke yksgljk ds mRrjh lhek ds utnhd fcUnq ^d* ls

vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds lekukarj mRrjh Hkkx ls

gksrh gqbZ xzke yksgljk&fctqjh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq

^[k* ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk xzke fctqjh ds if'peh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ xzke

yksgljk&fctqjh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gSA

x&d

js[kk xzke yksgljk ds mRrjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq

^d* ij feyrh gSA

Cykd&II%

?k&M+

js[kk xzke yksgljk ds mRrjh lhek esa fcUnq ^?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh

gS vkSj xzke yksgljk ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^³* ij feyrh gSA

M-&p

js[kk xzke dksjtk ds mRrjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^p* ij

feyrh gSA

p&?k

js[kk xzke dksjtk ds mRrjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq

^?k* ij feyrh gSA

[Qk- la. 43015@02@2013&ih-vkj-vkbZ-MCY;w-&I]

oh-,l-jk.kk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2013

S.O. 1187. —Whereas it appears to the Central Gov-

ernment that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in

the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/

GM (PLG)/LAND/439, dated the 22nd February, 2013 con-

taining details of the area of land described in the said

Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector,

District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) or at the office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or

at the office of the South Eatern Coalfields Limited

3106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006

(Chhattisgarh).

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957),

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to pros-

pect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Sched-

ule.

Any person interested in the land described in the

above mentioned Schedule may—

(i)

claim compensation under section 6 of the said

Act for any damage caused or likely to be

caused by any action taken under sub-section

(3) of Section 4 thereof; or

(ii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of

Section 13 of the said Act, in respect of pros-

pecting licence ceasing to have effect or

under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the said

Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect

and deliver all maps, charts and other docu-

ments relating to the aforesaid land to show

the expenditure incurred in respect of items

specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section

(1) of Section 13 of the said Act,

to the Officer-in-Charge or Head of the

Department (Revenue), South Eastern

Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-

495006 (Chhattisgarh) within ninety days from

the date of publication of this notification in

the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Bijuri U/g Mine, Hasdeo Area

District-Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG) LAND/

439, dated the 22nd February, 2013]

Sl. Name of Settle- Patwari Tahsil

District Area in Remark

No. village

ment

halka

hectares

number number

1. Lohsara

929

Kotma

Anuppur 53.048

Part

2. Bijuri

734

Kotma

Anuppur

4.880

Part

3. Korja

126

Kotma

Anuppur

6.068

Part

Total : 63.996 hectares (approximately) of 158.13 acres (approxi-

mately)

Boundary description:—

Block-I :

A-B

Line starts from point 'A' near northern boundary

of village Lohsara and passes parallel to northern

boundary of village Lohsara and meets at point 'B'

on the common boundary of villages Lohsara-Bijuri.

B-C

Line passes through western part of village Bijuri

and meets at point 'C' on the common boundary of

villages Lohsara-Bijuri.

C-A

Line passes through northern part of village Lohsara

and meets at starting point 'A'.

Block-II :

D-E

Line starts from point 'D' in village Lohsara and

passes through southern part of village Lohsara

and meets at point 'E'.

E-F

Line passes through northern part of village Korja

and meets at point 'F'.

F-D

Line passes through northern part of village Korja

and meets at starting point 'A'.

[F. No. 43015/02/2013-PRIW-I]

V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1188.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d

izrhr gksrk gS fd mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ¼mM+hlk½ ls nqxkZiqj ¼if'pe

caxky½ rd ok;k gfYn;k ,yihth ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds

fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks blls mikcn~/k

vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk

izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl

¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962

dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ’dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius

vk’'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS(

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml

rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti= dh izfr;k¡

lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj

Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa mi;ksx ds

vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh fc’'kuq eksgu Hkkatk] l{ke

izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] bafM;u vkW;y gkmflax

dkEiysDl] ckyklksj&756 001] ¼mM+hlk½ dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi

Hkst ldsxkA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3107

vuqlwph

rglhy % ckyklksj

ftyk % ckyklksj jkT; % mM+hlk

Øe

ekStk dk uke

[kljk ua-

{ks=Qy

la-

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

cMfdvk& 269

313

312

315

316

311

310

321

309

330

329

322

328

323

327

326

319

314

in~eiqj& 266

323

321

322

319

318

317

298

299

294

285

283

284

258

260

261

3108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

in~eiqj& 266 ¼tkjh----½

262

231

232

230

229

226

228

227

120

121

129

130

130@3558

140

138

139

464

465

469

474

473

475

472

497

485

486

482

488

770

774

779

775

778

776

777

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3109

[k¢j.kk& 264

108

449

447

448@518

448

446

454

456

437

436

434

433

247

432

430

429

428

476

3110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

[k¢j.kk& 264 ¼tkjh----½

477

427

488

426

492

493

486

487

nyl¨lk& 202

576

575

574

573

572

581

582

583

588@852

588@884

588

592

590

591

607

609

606

605

612

614

603

604

616

615

644

643@857

643

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3111

nyl¨lk& 202 ¼tkjh----½

642

634

632

635

636

637

486@871

482@835

481

482

480

472

474

471

402

407

411

412

413

414

415

416

119

424

118

117

425

426

428

429

3112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

88@851

ckjafx;k& 201

403

401

400

394

393

365@474

365

366

379

376

375

377

374

373

371

372

354

370

358

332@450

339

338

334

335

333

317

318

319

293

295

296

300

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3113

297

299@439

281

280

275

276

277

ik[kjlkmW & 204

364

366

365

359

362

360

361

ckaxjk & 199

195

196

197

198

199

199@1618

204

203

201

202

212

213

216

220

215

219

217

218

254

257

785

3114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

784

810

811@1609

811

807

806

803

803@1770

802

801

843

842

849

850

848

pdnk:gkfr & 200

26@121

}

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3115

pdnk:gkfr & 200 ¼tkjh----½

81@127

ikNqfM+vk& 169

825

826

dksjdksjk & 198

110

117

123

122

127

127@480

130

133

131

131@463

131@409

137@434

136

}

3116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

dksjdksjk & 198

138

138@474

139

139@451

141@410

142

188

188@530

189

185

186

177

178

353

353@394

358

357

357@550

357@379

363

368

368@490

366

373

376

377

377@526

378

¹[Qk- la- vkj&25011@3@2013&vksvkj&I]q

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2013

S.O. 1188.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline should be

laid in State of Odisha by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule

annexed hereto;

}

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3117

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by 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 hereby declares its intention

to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which

copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the

acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bishnu Mohan Bhanja, Competent

Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Housing Complex, Balasore – 756 001, Odisha.

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : BALASORE

DISTRICT : BALASORE

STATE : ODISHA

Sr. No.

Name of the Mouza

Khasara No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square meter

Barakia - 269

313

312

315

316

311

310

321

309

330

329

322

328

323

327

326

319

314

Padmapur - 266

323

321

322

319

318

317

298

299

294

285

283

284

258

3118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Padmapur - 266 260

261

262

231

232

230

229

226

228

227

120

121

129

130

130/3558

140

138

139

464

465

469

474

473

475

472

497

485

486

482

488

770

774

779

775

778

776

777

Kherana -264

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3119

Kherana -264

108

449

447

448/518

448

446

454

456

437

436

434

433

247

432

430

429

428

476

477

427

488

426

492

493

486

487

3120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Dalasosa - 202

576

575

574

573

572

581

582

583

588/852

588/884

588

592

590

591

607

609

606

605

612

614

603

604

616

615

644

643/857

643

642

634

632

635

636

637

486/871

482/835

481

482

480

472

474

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3121

Dalasosa - 202

471

402

407

411

412

413

414

415

416

119

424

118

117

425

426

428

429

88/851

Barangia - 201

403

401

400

394

393

365/474

365

366

379

376

375

377

374

373

371

3122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Barangia - 201

372

354

370

358

332/450

339

338

334

335

333

317

318

319

293

295

296

300

297

299/439

281

280

275

276

277

Pakharsaun - 204

364

366

365

359

362

360

361

Bangra - 199

195

196

197

198

199

199/1618

204

203

201

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3123

Bangra - 199

202

212

213

216

220

215

219

217

218

254

257

785

784

810

811/1609

811

807

806

803

803/1770

802

801

843

842

849

850

848

Chakadaruhati -200

26/121

3124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Chakadaruhati -200

81/127

Pachhuria - 169

825

826

Korkora - 198

110

117

123

122

127

127/480

130

133

131

131/463

131/409

137/434

136

138

138/474

}

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3125

Korkora - 198

139

139/451

141/410

142

188

188/530

189

185

186

177

178

353

353/394

358

357

357/550

357/379

363

368

368/490

366

373

376

377

377/526

378

[F. No. R-25011/3/2013-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2013

dk- vk- 1189-

dk- vk- 1189-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ¼mM+hlk½ ls nqxkZiqj

¼if’pe caxky½ rd ok;k gfYn;k ,yihth ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM ds }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh

pkfg,(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks blls

mikc} vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk,s tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962

dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius

vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS(

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti=

dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa

mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh fc’kuq eksgu Hkkatk] l{ke izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM] bafM;u vkW;y

gkmflax dkEiysDl] ckyklksj - 756 001] ¼mM+hlk½ dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

}

3126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vuqlwph

rglhy % jseq.kk ftyk % ckyklksj jkT; % mM+hlk

Øe

ekStk dk uke

[kljk ua-

{ks=Qy

la-

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

es?kMEc: & 172

54@552

52@547

49@542

48@539

47@536

46@538

46@537

45@543

43@728

43@739

43@730

41@532

dksjMk & 196

642

638

601

601@850

601@850@1192

601@856

601@863

601@883

601@883@1301

601@883@1302

601@905

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3127

dksjMk & 196 ¼tkjh----½

601@972

601@1060

602

602@1045

602@1163

603

603@857

603@857@1195

603@857@1196

603@864

603@887

603@887@1299

603@887@1300

604

626

625

606

605

ckeink & 176

870

861

860

857

857@1028

857@1114

853

853@1011

852

830

829

828

828@1209

828@1613

¹[Qk- la- vkj&25011@10@2013&vks vkj&I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

3128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2013

S. O. 1189.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline should be

laid in State of Odisha by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule

annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention

to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which

copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the

acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bishnu Mohan Bhanja, Competent

Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Housing Complex, Balasore – 756 001, Odisha

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : REMUNA

DISTRICT : BALASORE

STATE : ODISHA

Sr. No.

Name of the Mouza

Khasara No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square meter

Meghadambaru -172

54/552

52/547

49/542

48/539

47/536

46/538

46/537

45/543

43/728

43/739

43/730

41/532

Korara -196

642

638

601

601/850

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3129

Korara -196 (contd.)

601/850/1192

601/856

601/863

601/883

601/883/1301

601/883/1302

601/905

601/972

601/1060

602

602/1045

602/1163

603

603/857

603/857/1195

603/857/1196

603/864

603/887

603/887/1299

603/887/1300

604

626

625

606

605

Bmpada -176

870

861

860

857

857/1028

857/1114

853

853/1011

852

830

829

828

828/1209

828/1613

[F. No. R-25011/10/2013-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

3130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1190-

— vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ 73@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@5@2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&12011@16@2011&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼chñ&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2013

S.O. 1190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

managment of Indian Bank and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 27-05-2013.

[No. L-12011/16/2011-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 21st March, 2013

Present: A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 73/2011

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between

the Management of Indian Bank and their workman).

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees Union

6, Moore Street, Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

Vs.

The General Manager

2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank, Head Office

Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1st Pary/Petitioner

Sri J. Thomas

Union

Jeyaprabhakaran

Authorised

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

A W A R D

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/16/2011-IR (B-II)

dated 18.08.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management Indian Bank,

Chennai in imposing the punishment of "be brought down

to two stages with cumulative effect for one year upon Shri

Maouninadane, Ex-Clerk/Shroff vide order dated 27.09.2008

is just and legal? What relief the Union is entitled to?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 73/2011 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their claim, Counter and

Rejoinder Statement as the case may be.

3. The contentions in the Claim Statement briefly

read as follows:

The First Party Petitioner who had joined the services

of Indian Bank as Clerk while was working at Pondicherry

Main Branch during 2001 was suspended on 12.04.2005

alleging irregularities in respect of operations in the godown

of M/s New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. on 11.01.2001 to

13.01.2001 and 15.01.2001 to 18.01.2001. Some other

employees viz. the T.J. Ubendran, Sri C. Balasundram,

Sri V.R. Jothi, Sri S. Arumugam and Sri M. Veerasamy were

also similary alleged and were suspended. Reply was given

to Show Cause Notice dated 07.03.2007. Later he was charge

sheeted alleging Charge No. 1, that on 12.01.2001 he

received the godown keys of M/s New Horizon Sugar Mills

at 10.300 A.M. from the officials of the Pondicherry Main

Branch and returned back the same at 4.30 P.M. on the

same day as per Godown Key Register. However on perusal

of combined transaction log of the day it was observed

that he had entered transactions in the computer system

using his User-Id CMN 024 at 13.12, at 13.13, 14.47 and

16.11 on that day indicating that he had been at the branch

at the times specified when he was supposed to be at the

godown for re-arrangement of stocks on that day. The same

has been the situation in regard to the other charges vis.

2-5 as detailed in the Claim Statement. What the above is

that petitioner did not remain at the godown during the re-

arrangment of stocks on the days mentioned above keeping

the godown open to the mill officials for their disposal, a

gross violation of HO guidelines in respect of Key Cash

Credit (KCC) operations. Shortage of stocks was detected

later on in the godowns in which he has been supposed to

remain throughout the re-arrangement of stocks. Preliminary

and regular enquiries were held which is a sham and

eyewash exercise flouting laid down norms and procedures.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3131

To the demand of the defence of the original of the exhibits

for verification it was ordered by the Enquiry Officer that

CSE or DR might verify them at the Circle Office,

Pondicherry at their convenience which is not the

contemplated course. Thus, the exhibits lost its evidentiary

value. No witness was produced by the Management

denying opportunity of cross-examining him. Enquiry

Officer simply chose to act on the dictates of his superior.

The witnesses available in the Bank could well be produced

as witnesses. The whole process is vitiated. It is evident

that only under specific instructions from the administration

they had undertaken the job which is not an allegation of

deserting the post and proceeding on to attend their

personal work. The allegation has been the same in the

case of other employees too. All would not have so

conducted themselves in such an identical manner unless

there had been specific instructions from the

administration. It is not just and fair to later on find fault

with the staff alleging serious irregularities after having

directed them at an earlier stage to act in a particular manner.

Only with a view to clarify on the above aspects the defence

representative insisted on producing some officials who

worked at the branch during the relevant period as

management witnesses. Normally the godown lock keys

are kept inside the safe room. One Officer and the Cashier

jointly operate the safe room under dual lock system. Hence

the normal practice followed by the Clerk and Officer to

operate the godown keys was to take out or lodge the

godown keys in the safe room as and when it is operated

by the Cash Officer and Cashier. Under such a situation

there had been every possibility that coordinating with the

safe room operation by the Cash Section the godown keys

were taken out much earlier to leaving on godown work or

lodge them with considerable delay after returning from

the godown. Due to non-production of witnesses such an

eventuality could not be got clarified. Maouninadane has

been singled out for gross discrimination for his denial of

the charges and stand for enquiry. The other four CSEs to

avoid the embarrassing enquiry voluntarily accepted the

charges and got brought down in the scale of pay by one

stage. While so, Maouninadane was brought down by

two stages with cumulative effect. While charge against

Maouninadane was that he had left the godown during re-

arranging work inside the godown, that against C.

Balasundaram was more serious under various counts. In

his case on accepting his charges he was let off with liberal

punishment. The same is the case with V.R. Jothi, S.

Arumugam and M. Veerasamy. Mind of Appellate Authority

is dominated by prejudice. Maouninadane has been

discriminated with haras and disproportionate punishment

compared with similarly placed others. There is no mention

of cumulative effect of punishment under Sub-Clauses-

6(a) to 6(i), except under 6(f). Non-specifying the period of

reduction as one or two years had been spelt out even

though he has reached the maximum scale of pay in 1994

itself and also drawn three stagnation increments before

the punishment was imposed. Disciplinary Authority ought

to have mentioned in the punishment order the period of

reduction in tune with IBA guidelines. Notwithstanding

the justified contention of the charge sheeted employee in

reply to the findings of the enquiry officer dated 12.03.2008

to the effect that the five charges were proved, the

punishment was imposed. The ID raised having failed the

reference is occasioned. The punishment is illegal,

unjustified and is in victimization, discrimination and unfair

labour practice. It is mere distortion of facts of the Appellate

Authority to find that penalty was based on the gravity of

the charges proved and the circumstances. Only when the

Cash Safe is operated by the Cashier the Godown Operator

can lodge the keys until then the godown keys are in the

custody of concerned staff only. Despite the assurance of

the Enquiry Officer that Defence Representative's views

may be taken note of the findings does not contain any

mention of it. Evidence has to be re-appreciated under

Section-11A of the ID Act and idependent conclusion is to

be arrived at. The action is to be held as illegal and

unjustified and for consequential relief, it is prayed.

4. Counter Statement averments briefly read as

follows:

One of several types of credit facilities provided to

business borrowers by the Bank is Key Cash Credit (KCC)

by which against the pledge of stock with the borrower's

godown credit facility will be given and the stocks will be

under the lock and key of the Bank for the specified limit

and for the specified purpose. When the sanction of credit

is made the stock offered for pledge will be verified and

entries will be made into the Stock Register maintained at

borrower's godown duly signed by the representatives of

borrower and the Bank. Thereafter whenever the borrower

wants to lodge further stock or release of stock from the

godown or re-arrange the stock he should make a requisition

to the Bank upon which the Bank will deploy its staff

(Godown Keeper) with the key in its safe custody and the

concerned staff who is deployed to the borrower's godown

should remain physically present till the requirement of the

borrower is met. In the concerned branch a godown key

movement register has been maintained and entries on

movement of keys are to be made by those who are deputed

to the godown of the branch. The Clerk who is assigned

with this job (Godown Keeper) will be paid a special

allowance for the day he attends to such work, apart from

meeting his conveyance expenses. The Pondicherry branch

of the Respondent extended KCC limit to the borrower by

name New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd.", Ariyur, in 2004, it

came to light that the borrower had removed the stock in

excess to what was actually released by the Bank. When it

was probed into, it was found that the Clerks who were

deployed to the borrower's godown were leaving the key

with the borrower and were not present in the borrower's

premises during the release/lodgment of stocks into the

godown. Taking advantage of the situation, the borrower

3132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

had drawn stock more than that was entered in the godown

was a shortage of stock under pledge to the Bank. An

investigation was held into this irregularity in the borrower's

KCC account and it was noticed that the concerned

workman and four others had not acted in a responsible

manner and their failure to the present in the borrower's

godown during lodgment/release of stocks had resulted in

shortage of stock and thereby impaired the value of security

for the loans advanced to the borrower. Investigation

revealed that on 12.01.2001, 13.01.2001, 15.01.2001,

16.01.2001 and 17.01.2001 the concerned workman had taken

the godown key by affixing his signature in the Key

Movement Register at different timings in the mornings for

taking possession of the keys and also signed the key

Movement Register to record that the keys were returned

at different timings in the evenings of the above days.

Therefore, during the period from opening the godown

with the keys taken from the Bank till closing the godown

on all the five days the workman ought to have remained in

the borrower's godown to ensure that the stock in the

godown does not go out of the gate without being

accounted for in the books. However, in between the said

period on all five days the concerned workman had come

to the branch keeping the godown open and carried out

transactions using his User-Id and confidential password

(evidencing his presence in the Branch) when he was

supposed to be in the godown opened by him for

operations. It became evident that since he was not present

in the godown the borrower stealthily removed the pledged

stocks of sugar bags for which the Bank loan advanced.

Similarly, four other Clerks also indulged in similar acts of

not remaining in the godown during operations.

Disciplinary action was initiated against all the five Clerks

including the concerned workman. The other four Clerks

admitted the charges and pleaded for leniency and

punishment of bringing down in scale of pay by one stage

for one year without cumulative effect was imposed. Since

the petitioner did not accept the charges after a proper

enquiry in terms of principles of natural justice, the

punishment of bringing down his basic pay by two stages

in the scale of pay with cumulative effect was imposed

against him as per bipartite settlement on 27.09.2008 which

was confirmed in appeal on 17.03.2009. The punishment is

fully justified and shall not be interfered with. It is subject

to judicial review only on the ground of violation of

principles of natural justice, perversity of the findings or is

an act of victimization only. It is not alleged that there is

victimization. The concerned workman by pursuing the

domestic enquiry put himself in a different standing than

that of other four Clerks. He cannot make plea to equate

him with those who admitted their guilt and were given

lesser punishment. The claim is to be rejected.

5. Rejoinder averments in a nutshell are as follows:

It cannot be said that petitioner had returned to the

branch only at the time the key had been lodged as per Key

Movement Register. It is incorrect to allege that since the

node has been operated it is established that he had

deserted his post at the godown. His explanation has not

been taken into the least consideration. Bipartite Settlement

does not provide for leniency on admitting the charges by

a delinquent. Leniency to one and being harsh to another

in co-equal situations is also on subjective conclusions

and proclivities. Hence natural Justice is violated. Finding

was biased and vitiated. It is a case of victimization with

discriminatory punishments. The ego centric and deeply

prejudiced mindset of the administration is rendered

apparent on a casual perusal of the averment in the Counter.

If only the prosecution had brought before the forum the

officials who had certified the documents and had worked

at the branch at the releavant point of time the employee

would have brought out the fact and established his

innocence through the crosss-examination of the said

witnesses by putting forth the circumstances and facts

from his side to rebut the charges. The administration

defeated the very purpose behind holding the departmental

enquiry. It is clear that the Respondent in not having

traversed the various allegations in the Claim Statement

evidences the weak footing of the Respondent.

6. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the punishment of "be brouth down to

two stages with cumulative effect for one year" upon Sri

Maouninadane, Ex-Clerk/Shroff is just and legal?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

7. Evidence consists of the testimony of WW1 and

Ex. W1 to Ex. W16 on the petitioner's side and Ex. M1 to Ex.

M21, marked on consent with no oral evidence adduced

on the Respondents' side.

Points (i) & (ii)

8. Heard both sides. Perused the records, documents,

evidence and written arguments on the petitioner's side.

Both sides keenly argued in terms of their specific case in

their respective pleadings with reference to documents and

evidence. There is violation of principles of natural justice

denying reasonable opportunities to the petitioner

culminating in perverse finding. The employee is

discriminated and victimized by singling out for a

disproportionate and harsh punishment. No original

documents are produced for verification or no witness has

been produced. Thus valuable opportunity of rebutting

the charges by cross-examining any relevant witnesses is

denied vitiating the proceedings. In this case admittedly

no witness was produced on the Respondent's side. The

originals of the documents were also not produced. The

petitioner was being given opportunity to verify the

documents leaving it ambiguous as to where they were

with different and inconsistent version that it may be with

Circle Office, Pondicherry or with the CBI. Only xerox copies

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3133

were available during the enquiry. There was no opportunity

to the petitioner to rebut the case against the employee by

cross-examining the witness not placed before the enquiry.

There was no reasonable opportunity to the employee in

the enquiry. This is a circumstance to hold that the enquiry

is vitiated necessarily culminating in a perverse finding.

Regarding the conduct of the employee to have stood up

for enquiry, putting him to have adopted a different stand

merely for that reason as to treat him no similar with the

other delinquents in terms of the charges allged against

them does not sound reasonable. Discernibly for more

serious charges against the other delinquents they received

lesser punishments. It shows that the workman has been

singled out and discriminated for victimization in the matter

of punishment. There lies violation of principles of natural

justice. With the upgradation of the account in question

from sub-standard as evidenced from Ex. M10, it is

established that the framing of the charges had been on a

wrong premise.

9. On perusal of the whole materials I am led to the

conclusion that the action against the employee in this

case has not been after a properly conducted enquiry with

due regard to the principles of natural justice. The claim of

the defence to produce originals of the documents has not

been responded by the Management in a legal and proper

manner. The workman was being required by the

Management to examine the original wherever they are

without themselves being certain as to whether they were

in the Circle Office or with the CBI. The management has

also not been circumspect to produce witnesses to prove

the charges against the CSE despite the demand thereto

from the CSE. It is the bounden duty of the Management to

prove the allegations in the charge sheet against a

delinquent when he is put on enquiry. When that course is

not adopted by the Management the reasonable

opportunity of the CSE is deprived to him in cross-examining

the witness to bring out the truth. The decision arrived at

through the medium of the said enquiry has also thereby

rendered the finding perverse. The finding discernibly rests

not on any legal evidence. There is the absence of even

any logically probative material enabling a conclusion that

the employee is guilty. There is also no circumstantial

evidence leading to the conclusion that in the commission

of the socalled fraud, later with the unfolding of the fact

that no such fraud has actually taken place, the employee

is in any way liable or responsible. The finding rendered

by the Enquiry Officer is not on the basis of even any

logically probative meterial but is only on inferences falling

to the realm of surmises and conjectures. The enquiry

without conforming to the principles of natural justice

cannot be upheld. Though the employee may avail the

opportunity of citing and examining witnesses which the

prosecution omitted to produce and examine, in order to

substantiate his contentions or rebut the case against him,

he can be left to adopt that course only after the prosecution

has done its part of at least prima-facie proving the case

against the CSE. The punishment is also shown to suffer

from illegality, injustice, victimization and discrimination.

In such cases invocation of the power under Section-11A

of the ID Act by the Tribunal is justified. When there is

violation of principles of natural justice in the enquiry and

perversity in the finding or there is victimization the Court's

power to interfere under Section-11A is well settled. This is

a case where the employee was prejudiced by reason of

the violation of the principles of natural justice and lack of

fairness or properiety in holding the enquiry.

10. On all the above considerations, I am led to hold

that the enquiry is not fair and proper, the finding is perverse

and the punishment is not just and legal. The same is

therefore set aside and the Management is ordered to

restore his benefits and disburse the arrears forthwith.

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., Transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 21st March, 2013)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer.

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

WW1, Sri C.

Union

Maouninadane

For the 2nd Party/

1st Management

None

Documents marked on the side of the Petitioner

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

12.07.2007

Charge Sheet issued to Sri C.

Maouninadane

Ex.W2

05.11.2007

Enquiry proceedings held on

05.11.2007, 10-11-2007,

22.11.2007 and 11.01.2008

Ex. W3

31.03.2003

Letter from thousand lights to

the Chief Manager, Pondichery

Main Branch

Ex. W4

06.02.2008

Letter from the Defence

Representative enclosing the

defence summing up

Ex. W5

17.01.2008

Brief from the Presenting

Officer

Ex. W6

17.03.2008

Letter from the Circle Office,

Pondicherry Ref: COP:

VGAS:CS 262-6: 2007-2008

enclosing the Enquiry Officer's

findings

Ex. W7

02.04.2008

Comments on the findings of

the Enquiry Officer by the

Charge Sheeted Employee

3134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ex. W8

05.09.2008

Show Cause Ref: COP:VGAS:

CS: 262-9: 2008-09 from Circle

Office, Pondicherry to Sri C.

Maouninadane proposing the

punishment

Ex. W9

23.09.2009

Reply to the second show

cause by the Charge Sheeted

Employee

Ex. W10

27.09.2008

Letter Ref. COP:VGAS:CS:262-

11:

2008-09

from

the

Disciplinary

Authority

enclosing the speaking order

Ex. W11

17.03.2008

Letter Ref COP:VGAS:CS:262-

14:APP:2008-09 enclosing the

orders of the Deputy General

Manager/Appellate Authority

Ex. W12

15.04.2009

Letter Ref: IRC:ALC/2009-

Reply submitted by the

Management to the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner ©

Ex. W13

09.09.2009

Letter Ref: IRC:ALC/2009-

Reply submitted by the

Management to the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner ©

Ex. W14

08.09.2007

Letter Ref: COP:VGAS:

SCN:249-7:PUN:2007-08 issued

by the Disciplinary Authority

enclosing the speaking orders

to Sri V.R. Jothi

Ex. W15

28.02.2008

Letter Ref: COP:VGAS:SCN:

247-9:2007-08 by the Appellate

Authority enclosing the orders

of the Appellate Authority to

Sri C. Balasundaram

Ex. W16

04.09.2007

Leeter Ref: COP:VGAS:SCN:

248-4:2007-08-Second Show

Cause Notice proposing the

punishment issued to Sri T.J.

Ubendran by the Disciplinary

Authority

Documents marked on the side of the Management

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

17.03.2007

Memo

issued

Maouninadane by the Bank

Ex. M2

12.04.2007

Reply of Maouninadane to the

Bank to the memo dated

17.03.2007.

Ex. M3

10.11.2007

Letter of Maouninadane

informing the name of his

defence representative in the

enquiry

Ex. M4

09.03.1999/

Godown Key Movement

28.09.2002

Ex. M5

—

Combined Transaction Log for

15.01.2001—3 Sheets

Ex. M6

—

Combined Transaction Log for

16.01.2001—14 Pages

Ex. M7

—

Combined Transaction Log for

17.01.2001—22 Pages

Ex. M8

—

Special Transaction Log for

13.01.2001—One Sheet

Ex. M9

—

Special Transaction Log for

13.01.2001—One Sheet

Ex. M10

31.03.2003

Letter from Asstt. General

Manager

Ex. M11

08.02.2003

Stock Audit of New Horizon

Sugar Mills Limited—Report of

Dwaraka and Associates

Chartered

Accountants

addressed to Bank—two

Pages

Ex. M12

27.01.2003

Report from Dwaraka and

Associates

Chartered

Accountants addressed to

Bank—Audit Report—13

Pages

Ex. M13

—

Godown card in respect of

Godown Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 4 ,5, 5A

and 6—12 Sheets

Ex. M14

15.09.2008

Proceeding of Personal Hearing

Ex. M15

20.09.2008

Letter from Disciplinary

Authority to the Petitioner

advising him to submit his

written statement before

23.09.2009

Ex. M16

12.11.2008

Appeal by Maouninadane

against the order of the

Disciplinary Authority

Ex. M17

08.09.2007

Order of Disciplinary Authority

issued to T.J. Ubendran, Clerk/

Shroff (Mr. T.J. Ubendran has

not made any appeal against

the order dated 26.09.2007)

Ex. M18

28.02.2008

Order of Appellate Authority

issued to V.R. Jothi

Ex. M19

19.09.2007

Order of Disciplinary Authority

issued to M. Veerasamy, Clerk/

Shroff (He has not made any

appeal against the order dated

19.09.2007)

Ex. M20

26.08.2008

Letter from AGM/DA to S.

Arumugam, Asstt. Manager—

Punishment of "Reduction in

one stage in present scale of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3135

pay for one year ..................."

(He has not made any appeal

against this order)

Ex. M21

26.08.2008

Charge Sheet

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2013

dk-vk

. 1191.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 54@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@5@2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@84@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2013

S.O. 1191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 27.05.2013.

[No. L-12011/84/2010-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 21st March, 2013

Present: A.N. JANARDANAN

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 54/2011

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Indian Bank and their Workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees' Union

6, Moore Street, mannay Corner

Chennai-600001

Vs.

The Dy. General Manager

2nd Party/Management

Indian Bank Circle Office, 46-51

Katpadi Road, Vellore-632004

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

Sri.

Thomas

J e y a p r a b h a k a r a n ,

Authorized

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.

Management

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/84/2010-IR (B-II)

dated 27.5.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the management of Indian Bank, Chennai

in justified in retaining a sum of Rs. 86,167 of Sri. K.

Dasarathan, an Ex-Clerk-cum-Shroff (retired) released from

the PF Amount? What relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 54/2011 and issued notices to both

sides. First Party Petitioner was represented by Authorized

Representative and Respondent by Advocate who filed

their Claim, Counter and Rejoinder Statement as the case

may be.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement briefly read

as follows:

Sri. K. Dasarathan, Retired Clerk-cum-Shroff of

Virupakshipuram Branch was issued memo dated 16.06.2007.

It was based on a fraud occurred in 2005 in certain accounts

at the Arni Branch where he was then working. The

perpetrator of the fraud was an Assistant Manager of the

Branch, who on complaint was arrested by Police.

Dasarathan stood alleged of being negligent due to which

the fraud took place. He was due for retirement on 31.01.2008

with an unblemished service of more than three decades.

As per the Bipartite Settlement governing disciplinary

action of award staff, an award staff can be subjected to

disciplinary proceeding during the course of his service

and any unconcluded proceeding ceases with his demitting

the office. The administration abruptly issued Charge Sheet-

cum-Show Cause dated 09.01.2008. He submitted reply

which was without any iota of delay on his part because of

intervening circumstances narrated in the Claim Statement.

On 23.01.2008 he was served communication intimating

non-receipt of his reply on or before 22.01.2008 but having

not been received domestic enquiry was ordered. Second

letter of the same date informed enquiry being held on

24.01.2008. It shows undue haste and intention of

management to exert undue pressure on the employee to

submit to the dictates of the management which is unjust

and unfair. It is unfair labour practice for the administration

to sit on the head of the employee. ID was raised for

3136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

allowing him to retire peacefully. While so, he retired on

31.01.2008 and he was duly relieved. The dispute was then

closed as otherwise disposed of. But while settling his

terminal benefits a sum of Rs. 86,167/- was retained from

the Employer's PF Contribution. From the PF receipt it is

evident that the trustees of the Indian Bank Staff Provident

Fund have settled the full amount. Administration effected

the recovery while disbursal only. The retention of the

amount is in total contravention of the Staff Provident Fund

Rules. Rule-17 permits such deduction in specific

eventualities. Administration is not having authority of

deducting any amount from PF contribution of employee

or employer. Under Rule-19 the Bank has to intimate the

trustee to make deduction. It was illegal on the

administration to retain the amount unilaterally. It is not

established that the employee has been guilty of any

misconduct or negligence causing financial loss to the Bank.

Sastry Award is also against the action. He has been singled

out for discrimination. As against the Asstt. Branch

Manager Mr. Elango and six other Officers and Clerks no

recovery was made from any other staff. Dispute raised

against having ended in failure reference is occasioned.

The action is illegal, unjustified and is in victimization and

unfair labour practice. The Respondent is to be directed

forthwith to release the impounded amount with interest

and costs after holding the action as illegal and unjustified.

4. Counter Statement averments briefly read as

follows:

The duties and powers of the bank employees are

codified either in the form of manual or circulars. The main

objectives of the "Know Your Customer" (KYC) guidelines

are mentioned in the Deposit Manaul 2006, Page No. 2.4.1

to 2.5 is that it is not only for preventing money laundering,

for opening of account but also for control of the account,

close monitoring of all transactions and also minimize

frauds and misappropriation and potential loss which may

happen in a Bank. Point-2.5 lays down customer's

acceptance policy, identification procedures, monitoring

transactions. Page-1.1.8 gives the operational guidelines

of low income group customers. 1.6 is customer

identification is ongoing process and KYC norms enforced

to old accounts wherever required. Page-4.4.5 item no. 35

procedure for inoperative and scarcely account. Managers

manual 2006, Page No. 292 and 293 give what is risk based

Management. The identified areas of risk are not-adherence

of systems and procedures, lack of internal control,

negligence of employee and willful blindness. The

transaction which should arouse suspicion is surge in

activity level, inconsistent transaction in volume and

purpose of account. How to debit a transaction by a ledger

clerk and how to make payment by the payment cashier is

mentioned in Deposit Manual 2006. Payment Cashier

should obtain signature of receiver of payment on the back

of the instrument whenever required in order to compare

the signature with the one already there in the instrument.

No employee is required to carry out orders of his superiors

which are either illegal or contrary to the procedures laid

down by the Bank. If an employee commits irregularity he

must be deemed to have done it at his own risk. It shall not

be open to say that he did it on the instructions of his

superiors. If any loss is occasioned to the Bank concerned

employee is liable to make good the loss. It is the case of

the Bank that by reason of failure on the part of the

concerned clerk in not discharging his work with regard to

transactions of accounts of certain deceased customers a

loss of Rs. 86,167/- occasioned to the Bank and therefore

the said amount was adjusted against the moneys payable

to him. Respondent Bank is a nationalized Bank authorized

as Pension Disbursing Authority for payment of pension

to the retired government servants of the Government of

India. Based on Pension Payment Order and as per the

notified DA pensioners having account with the

Respondent Bank are paid pension, which the Bank

thereafter gets reimbursed from the Government. In 2005-

2006 the Arni Branch was already in "Total Branch

Computerization" (TBC) category and was undergoing

the process of switch over to Core Banking Solutions

(CBS). While so, noting some irregularities in the payment

of pension to some pensioners an investigation was held

which brought to light that pension was paid after death of

some pensioners by means of withdrawal slips crediting

large amounts with the pension account of such deceased

pensioners by debiting Government of India Pension

Account. Thereafter, withdrawal of the amount was

engineered presenting withdrawal slip by unauthorized

persons. The fraud was perpetrated by the Assistant Branch

Manager. The role of the workman was that as a Ledger

Clerk he had accepted withdrawal slips without the

mandatory Pass Book, who did not examine for any apparent

error or mistake in the instrument and allowed the token to

be issued by Sub-Staff at the instance of the Assistant

Branch Manager. Further as a payment cashier he had made

the payments through the withdrawal slips without the

mandatory Pass Book and without obtaining signature of

the person who was actually receiving the Cash. The

transactions relate to the deceased pensioners such as

Mrs. Jagadambal, Mrs. K.S. Susai Mary, Mr. Chinnappa,

Mrs. Noorzahan, Mr. P. Sekar and Mrs. Rani where

unauthorized issuance of token for payments or withdrawal

slips were not accompanied by the Pass Book and without

taking the signature of the payees of the amounts, thus

perpetrating unauthorized withdrawal of money from the

deceased pensioners' accounts. Disciplinary action was

initiated against the Assistant Branch Manager, Mr. M.

Elango and the workman with six others. Mr. Elango was

dismissed, others were also appropriately punished. Show

Cause Notice was issued to the employee to which he

gave a reply but not disputing the fraudulent withdrawal

or his handling of those transactions. His explanation was

that due to heavy business the superiors must have

collected the instrument and issued token and that he would

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3137

make entries at his convenient time, that he must have

taken the identification of the presenter by the Officer that

the token were not issued by him, that he used to call the

token number through the display system requiring the

party to tell the amount being withdrawn and would have

proceeded to make the payment which are not tenable.

Charge Sheet was issued on 09.01.2008 but before enquiry

could be commenced he retired on 31.01.2008. A sum of Rs.

86,167/- was withheld from his PF dues under the Sundry

Deposit to the extent of the loss caused to the Bank by

reason of his negligence, the action is justified. The

recovery of the amount lost would not amount to

punishment. His retirement before the completion of the

enquiry would not wipe of his liability to make good the

loss. The case of the employee falls squarely under Rule

17 of the Staff PF Rules. It is open to the Bank to prove the

negligence of the employee and justify the adjustment of

the loss from the Bank's contribution to his PF. If and when

Bank leads evidence about his negligence he can vindicate

his stand about his non-liability. Adjustment of the loss

from Bank's contribution to his PF account is in tune with

Indian Bank Staff PF Rules. It is not a case deduction but

of recovery of loss by way of adjustment. Claim is to be

rejected.

5. Rejoinder averments in a nutshell are as follows:

Petitioner alone has been singled out for recovery of

Rs. 86,167/-. Petitioner had explained the circumstances

behind debiting/making payment of the instruments. It has

not been established as to any negligence on the part of

the employee. Now Respondent is estopped from leading

the evidence against him. Responsibility ought to have

been established in the manner provided. Negligence

cannot be simply alleged. Under Rule-17 deduction has to

be carried out by the trustees and be paid to the Bank and

is not to be unilaterally deducted by the Management.

Money is vested with the Trust only. Bank is estopped

from proceeding in any manner against former employee.

There is no scope to lead evidence against superannuated

employee. No recovery or loss had been effected from any

other employees. That the employee facilitated the fraud

causing loss to the Bank remains as a mere allegation and

is not just and legal. Recovery of the amount is unjust and

illegal.

6. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the retention of Rs. 86,167/- of Sri K.

Dasarathan, Ex-Clerk-cum-Shroff (Retired) from the PF

amount is justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

7. Evidence consists of Ex.W1 to Ex.W17 on the

petitioner's side marked on consent with no oral evidence

on the petitioner's side and that of MW1 and Ex. M1 to

Ex. M20 marked on consent on the Respondent's side.

Points (i) & (ii)

8. Heard both sides. Perused the records, documents,

evidence and written arguments on the petitioner's side.

Both sides keenly argued in terms of their definite case in

their respective pleadings with reference to documents and

evidence. Admittedly, the impugned action against the

workman was without finding him guilty in an enquiry

properly held. There cannot be any disciplinary proceeding

initiated or continued after the so-called delinquent demits

his office. The employee retired on 31.01.2008 and was

duly relieved. The retention of Rs. 86,167/- from that portion

of his PF money forming employer's contribution effected

by the administration is not legal in as much as only the

trustee of the fund of the fund has the authority to do so.

What the management has to do, as per rule is to given

intimation to the trustee to make the deduction. Evidently,

the employee who superannuated has not been found

guilty of the charges of misconduct on account of

negligence causing financial loss to the Bank. Evidently,

the similar employees do not stand similarly punished by

the Management. Hence the case of the employee stands

as one singled out for discrimination. From the main culprit

Assistant Branch Manager, Mr. Elango and other Officers

also no recovery is shown to have been made. What is the

specific negligence or the degree of negligence on the part

of the employee to facilitate the fraud does not stand

established. The very fact that the Respondent

Management has expressed its readiness vis-à-vis the

necessity of being granted an opportunity to establish the

guilt against the employee, perse shows that the charges

against the employee remains yet to be established

warranting any action against him. So much so it is true to

uphold the contention of the petitioner that the employee

facilitated the fraud causing loss to the Bank remains as a

mere allegation and not an established fact. Though the

Management availed the opportunity of proving the charge

before this forum, because of not having been proved while

he was in service holding an enquiry with the required

efficacy even after having issued a Charge Sheet but

without the same being followed-up, the same has not been

successful. According to MW1 he has not ensured whether

token was issued by the employee herein. In cases where

photos of customers are not provided it is not possible to

identify the customers. Specimen signature identification

is also not with the payment cashier. Hence the employee

could not be held responsible for the fraudulent withdrawal.

As against the total loss of Rs. 1,68,000/- the recovery of

Rs, 86,167/- constituting more than 50% of the loss from

the employee is also arbitrary and illegal. It has not been

possible to fix any responsibility or liability or the quantum

of loss due to any act of the employee. In view of the

above discussion it is only to be held that the action of the

Respondent Management against the workman in retaining

Rs. 86,167 is not justified and the same is liable to be set

aside entitling him to the refund of the same with interest

3138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

@ 9% per annum from the date of retention till date of

payment. It is so ordered.

9. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 21st March, 2013)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1s1 Party/Petitioner :

None

Union

For the 2nd Party/ :

MW1, Sri S. Selvam

Management

Documents marked on the side of the Petitioner

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

16.04.2008

Letter dated 16.04.2008 to the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner,

Chennai by the Union.

Ex.W2

08.05.2008

Letter Ref. I RC/Asstt. Labour

Commissioner/339/2008 dated

08.05.2008 by the HRM, Deptt.

the

Asstt.

Labour

Commissioner, Chennai.

Ex. W3

25.11.2008

Rejoinder submitted by the

Union to the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner, Chennai

Ex. W4

26.06.2007

Memo Ref. CO/VLR/VIG/F.311/

91/2007 dated 26.06.2007 issued

to Sri K. Dasarathan by the

Chief Manager, Circle Office,

Vellore.

Ex. W5

16.07.2007

Reply submitted by Sri K.

Dasarathan to the Memo dated

26.06.2007.

Ex. W6

09.01.2008

Charge Sheet Ref. CO/VLR/

VIG/F.311/018/2008 dated

09.01.2008 issued to Sri K.

Dasarathan.

Ex.W7

14.01.2008

Letter Ref. CO/VLR/VIG/F.311/

024/2008 dated 14.01.2008 by

the Disciplinary Authority

permitting

perusal

documents and instructing the

employee to reply before

18.01.2008.

Ex. W8

22.01.2008

Reply submitted by the

employee to Memo dated

09.01.2008.

Ex.W9

22.01.2008

Communication Ref. CO/VLR/

VIG/F.311/041/2008 dated

22.01.2008 by the Disciplinary

Authority ordering holding the

enquiry and appointing the

Enquiry Officer.

Ex.W10

22.01.2008

Letter from the Enquiry Officer

to Sri K. Dasarathan informing

enquiry proceedings on 24th

January, 2008.

Ex.W11

22.01.2008

Letter from the Union to the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner,

Chennai requesting initiation

of conciliation proceedings

over the harassment on the eve

of retirement.

Ex.W12

23.01.2008

Letter Ref. M7 /6/2008-B2 from

the

Asstt.

Labour

Commissioner,

Chennai

informing

conciliation

proceedings on 04.02.2008.

Ex.W13

23.01.2008

Letter Ref. IBEU/745/2004—06

dated 23.01.2008 from the

Union to the Disciplinary

Authority informing about the

conciliation proceedings and

invoking Section-33 by the

Conciliation Officer.

Ex.W14

23.01.2008

Representation from Sri K.

Dasarathan to the Enquiry

Officer requesting adjourning

the proceedings due to the

pending ID.

Ex.W15

07.03.2008

Payment Order No. 190/2007-

08 dated 07.03.2008 settling PF

to Sri K. Dasarathan.

Ex. W16

Nil

PF Settlement Receipt

Ex.W17

Nil

Staff Providing Fund Rules—

Page 16

Documents marked on the side of the Management

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

05.12.2006

Covering

letter

Ramamoorthy, Investigation

Officer -Quantifying loss due

to misappropriation amounting

to Rs. 18.39 lakhs—Interim

Report—in respect of Six SB

Accounts.

Ex.M2

05.12.2006

Staff particulars—Indian

Bank—Arni Branch

Ex..M3

12.12.2006

Investigation Officer Mr. B.

Ramamoorthy's Report- 13

Pages

Details of SB A/c Nos—

(a) 12130—Mrs. Jagdambal—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3139

Deceased Pensioner

(b)

13113—Mr. Chinnappa—

Deceased Pensioner

(c)

18549—Mr. K. Soosai—

Correct Name -Mrs. K.

Soosai Mary -Deceased

Pensioner

(d)

506038—Mr. P. Sekar &

Rani—Not a Pension

Account

(e)

12932—Mrs.. Noorjahan—

Deceased Pensioner

(f)

4686—Mr. Duraisamy—

Deceased

Pensioner

Containing 34 vouchers

and 4 SB opening Cards

and copy of 10 unused/

surrendered cheques

used

withdraw

amounts fraudulently.

Ex.M4

23.01.2007

Report

Vigilance

Investigation/Interrogation on

26.12.2006, 28.12.2006 and

04.01.2007 at Arni Branch and

on 03.01.2007 and 11.01.2007 at

Circle Office—From Mr. S.

Selvam, Investigation Officer

addressed to Circle Head.,

Vellore.

Ex..M5

—

Withdrawal slips (10 Nos.) with

forged signatures of deceased

party accounts.

Ex.M6

07.03.2008

Letter detailing payment of PF

Payment to K. Dasarathan

Rs. 10,84,332 and holding

Rs. 86,167 to keep in Sundry

Deposit Account.

Ex.M7

22.04.2009

Order from AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority, Indian

Bank, CO, Vellore, Vigilance

Section addressed to V.

Balakrishnan, Clerk/Shroff,

Sakkaramallur

Branch-

imposing punishment of

reduction of pay by one stage

for Charge No.1, reduction to

lower scale of pay by one stage

for Charge No, 2 and "Censure"

for Charge No.3 — and all

punishment

will

run

independently,

Ex.M8

02.07.2009

Order of AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority issued

to S.S. Bedform, Clerk/Shroff,

Darapadevedu

Branch—

imposing punishment of

reduction to lower stage in

scale of pay.

Ex.M9

02.07.2009

Order of AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority issued

to T.K. Kumar, Sub-Staff,

Vellore Main Branch—

imposing punishment of

reduction to lower stage in

scale of pay by one stage.

Ex.M10

02.07.2009

Order of AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority issued

to Mrs. M. Jaya, Clerk/Shroff/

Typist,

Sathuvacherry

Branch—imposition

punishment of reduction to

lower stage in scale of pay by

one stage etc.

Ex.M11

20.08.2009 Order of AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority issued

to P. Radhakrishnan, Clerk/

Shroff, Negungunam Branch—

imposing punishment of

reduction to lower stage in the

scale by one stage etc.

Ex.M12

02.07.2009

Order of AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority issued

to P.R. Ravi, Clerk/Shroff,

Padavedu Branch—imposing

punishment of reduction to

lower stage in the scale of pay

by one stage etc.

Ex.M13

01.06.2009

Order of AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority issued

to U. Panneerselvam, Asstt.

Manager,

Thittacherry

B r a n c h — i m p o s i n g

punishment of reduction of pay

by one stage from the present

scale of pay for one year etc.

Ex.M14

29.04.2009

Order of AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority issued

to T.R. Sambasivam, Asstt.

Manager Kallimedu Branch-

imposing punishment of

reduction of pay by one stage

etc.

Ex.M15

02.07.2009

Order of AGM/Circle Head/

Disciplinary Authority issued

3140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

to M. Punniakotti, Clerk/Shroff,

Arugundram—imposing

punishment of reduction to

lower stage in the scale of pay

by one stage etc.

Ex. M16

—

Indian Bank's Extract of Manual

2006, Page No. 292 293 and 294

Ex. M17

—

lndian Bank Manual of

Instructions-IV-Deposits

2006—Extract of Cfause-2.4. 1

to 2.5. 20.3, 20.5, 35, 35.19

Ex. M18

—

Extract of Indian Bank Staff

Provident Fund- Extract of

Rule-11 and Rule-17

Ex. M19

07.12.2006

Police Complaint from Bank—

Arni Branch

Ex. M20

—

FIR

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2013

dk- vk- 1192

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u c®d ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè eas

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-5-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@76@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2013

S.O. 1192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 27.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/76/2011-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 23rd April, 2013

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 12/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Indian Bank and their

Workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees'

Association

No. 17, Ameerjan Street,

Choolaimedu,

Chennai-600094

The General Manager

2nd Party/Management

Indian Bank, Zonal Officer, No. 395,

Dr. Nanjappa Raod,

Coimbatore-641018

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

Sri G. Gopal Authorized

Union

Representative

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Management

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order L-12012/76/2011-IR(B-II) dated

5/15.03.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the Indian Bank management,

Coimbatore Zone pertaining to transfer of Smt. Hemamalini

from Peelamedu Branch to Kalapatti Branch as claimed by

Indian Bank Employees Association is justified or not?

What relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it ID 10 12/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Petitioner entered appearance through Authorized

Representative and Respondent through Advocate and

filed Claim and Counter Statement as the case may be.

3. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell in the Claim

Statement is that the concerned workman Hemamalini was

transferred to Kalapatti Branch from Peelamedu Branch by

the Management of Indian Bank, Coimbatore Zone violating

rules and procedures regarding the transfer of employees

thereby demoralized her and set a bad precedent in effecting

transfers. It is arbitrary and misuse of authority. The transfer

is to be ordered to be cancelled recalling her to Peelamedu

Branch with immediate effect.

4. Contra contentions of the Respondent in the

Counter Statement in a nutshell are that the transfer was

not in violation of the existing rules and procedures. She

alongwith one Premalatha, another Clerk being junior most,

were posted to Kalapatti which they had accepted. There

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3141

is no acceptable reason to hold that the transfer was not

justified.

5. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the transfer of Smt. Hemamalini from

Peelamedu Branch to Kalapatti Branch is justified or not?

(ii)To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

Points (i) & (ii)

6. When the matter came up for consideration from

time to time proposal for settlement was mooted and

discussed and accordingly as on the day the Authorized

Representative for the petitioner filed a petition stating

that on interse discussion the Management agreed to

consider the request of the employee to be posted to her

place of choice on re-transfer in Coimbatore City. In view

of the agreed stand the claim is not pursued further and the

same is to be treated as withdrawn. An endorsement was

also made to the said effect on the Claim Petition by the

Authorized Representative.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw

the claim since the same is no longer pursued to the realm

of being proved.

8. Whether or not the action of the Indian Bank

Management, Coimbatore Zone pertaining to the transfer

of Smt. Hemamalini is justified or not still remains to be an

unproved issue in as much as the Petitioner Union has

been pleased to withdraw the claim in the light of the agreed

stand of the Management to consider the request of the

employee to give her transfer according to her choice in

Coimbatore City based on which petitioner has sought to

permit the claim to be withdrawn.

9.The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 23rd April, 2013)

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2013

dk- vk-1193-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uo eaxywj iÙku

U;kl ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaè eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñ vkjñ uañ

30@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-5-2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&45011@02@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 28th May, 2013

S.O. 1193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (C. R. No. 30/2006) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of New Manglore Port Trust and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 27.05.2013

[No. L-45011/02/2006-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL,

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, Bangalore

Dated

5th April, 2013

PRESENT

: Shri S. N. NAVALGUND Presiding Officer

C R No. 30/2006

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

The Chairman

Kanara Stevdoring Workers' New Mangalore Port Trust,

Union

Q C Laboratory Building,

Panambur,

Mangalore-575 010.

Appearances

I Party

Sh. K S Nambiar

Advocate

II Party

Sh. Ramesh Upadhayay

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section

2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-45011/2/2006-

IR(B-II) dated 20.07.2006 for adjudication on the following

schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of New

Mangalore Port Trust in denying ACP benefits to Smt.

Namitha D'Almedia, Sri Abdul Rahiman, Sri Edwin D'Souza

and Sri Praveen Kumar as per Clause 31 of Wage Revision

Settlement dated 02.08.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen are entiled?"

3142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

2. On receipt of the reference registering it in C R

30/2006 when notices were issued to both the sides, both

sides entered their appearance through their respective

advocate and filed their claim statement and counter

statement respectively.

3. In the claim statement filed by the I Party it is

alleged the four workmen covered in this reference were

appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) by New

Mangalore Port Trust Listed Workers Managing

Committee prior to 1990 on the scale of Rs. 1165-40-1485-

45-1935 and since then they continuously worked without

any break in service and that during the year 1990 the II

Party framed New Mangalore Cargo Handling Workers

(Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1990 with the object

to ensure regularization of employment and other benefits

to all classes of Staff and Cargo Handling workers who

were working in New Mangalore Port Managing Committee

and Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.01.1990 was

entered into with the workmen according to which the II

Party has taken over New Mangalore Port Listed Workers

Managing Committee with all its assets and liabilities and

also absorbed all the employees of New Mangalore Port

Listed Workers Managing Committee except the four

workmen covered in this reference. It is further alleged

aggrieved by the exclusion of absorption of these four

workmen the I Party Union raised a dispute before ALC(C),

Mangalore and in the said dispute a settlement was arrived

at and a Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.08.1996 was

drawn under Section 12 (3) of ID Act 1947 and as per the

said Settlement the II Party agreed to absorb and regularize

their services w.e.f. 15.03.1990 and implemented the terms

of settlement by Regularizing and Absorbing their

services. It is further alleged that on 02.08.2000 a settlement

was arrived at between the Employees and Management

known as Wage Revision Settlement and as per clause 31

of the said settlement a scheme called as Assured Career

Progression (ACP) was introduced according to which if

an employee is not promoted to higher post on completion

of 12 years of service he is entitled for one financial

upgradation and after 24 years of service he is entitled for

two financial upgradations. It is further alleged that the

four workman covered in this reference have though put it

more than 12 years of service and not promoted to the

higher post and repeatedly requested to pay them financial

upgradation the management did not consider their

reasonable request the I Party Union sent a notice of

demand, demanding ACP benefits to them and as that was

also not considered it raised a dispute before ALC(C),

Mangalore and as II Party took unreasonable and frivolous

contention the conciliation ended in failure. Thus it is

alleged the denial of ACP scheme benefit to workmen

covered in this reference immediately after completion of

12 years of service from the date of their appointment is

illegal and the same has caused monetary loss and not

conducive for industrial peace and harmony, therefore the

II Party be directed to issue direction to provide them ACP

benefits immediately after completion of 12 years of

service.

4. The II Party in its Counter Statement contended

out of the four workmen covered in this reference Namitha

D' Almaeda was appointed on 05.03.1990 and remaining

three on 12.03.1990 as Literate Assistants and in the dispute

raised regarding their exclusion from absorption a settlement

was arrived at under Section 12(3) of ID Act on 29.08.1996

and their services were regularised as Literate Assistants

in the pay scale of Rs. 1075 -1580 (pre-revised) w.e.f.

15.03.1990 and they were promoted as Clerk in the scale at

Rs. 1165-1935 (pre-revised) and extended all benefits vide

order dated 31.08.1996. Therefore, as on the date of claim

as they had not completed 12 years of Service as LDC they

were not entitle to the benefits of first ACP as such their

claim is not maintainable.

5. On completion of the pleadings when the matter

was posted for evidence on behalf of the II Party the

affidavit of Michael D'souza in RCHW wing of II Party was

filed reiterating the contention in the Counter Statement

and by examining him oath as MW 1 copies of

memorandum of settlement dated 29.08.1996; Order dated

31.08.1996 issued in pursuance to the said settlement and

settlement dated 02.08.2000 on the Wage revision were got

exhibited as Ex M-1 to Ex M-3 respectively and in his cross-

examination by the learned advocate for the I Party a letter

of appointment in favour Abdul Rehman issued by NMPT

Listed workers managing committee a Photostat copy of

appointment order in favour of Shyamala issued by the

managing committee as Clerk dated 12.02.1990 have been

got exhibited as Ex W-1 and Ex W-2 respectively. Interalia,

on behalf of the I Party while filling the affidavit of K

Balakrishna Rai reiterating the claim statement subjected

him for cross-examination by the learned advocate

appearing for the II Party and no further documents got

exhibited.

6. With the above pleadings and evidence brought

on record by the parties, the learned advocate appearing

for the I Party filed his written arguments and learned

advocate appearing for the II Party addressed his

arguments.

7. In view of the undisputed facts during the year

1990 the II Party while Mangalore Port Cargo Handling

Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1990 entered

into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.01.1990 with

the New Mangalore Port Listed Workers Managing

Committee and as per that settlement take over New

Mangalore Port Listed Workers Managing Committee with

all its Assets and Liabilities and absorbed its workers except the

four workers covered in this reference and later in a dispute

raised relating to their exclusion from absorption before

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3143

ALC(C), Mangalore arrived at a settlement dated 29.08.1996

the copy of which is produced at Ex M-1 and it is claimed

that as per this settlement they continued to work as Literate

Assistants in the pre-revised scale Rs. 1075-1580 till

31.03.1992 and promoted as LDC from 01.04.1992 they had

not completed 12 years of Service on the date of claim in

the same Cadre i.e. LDC, as such their claim as on date of

their claim they were entitled for first ACP is untenable, the

only point for my consideration is whether by virtue of the

order passed by the II Party dated 31.08.1996 consequent

upon the terms of settlement dated 29.08.1996 the copy of

which is produced at Ex M-1 the four workmen covered in

this reference were continued to work as literate assistants

till 31.03.1992 and came to be promoted as LDC w.e.f.

01.04.1992?

8. On appreciation of the pleadings, evidence placed

on record by both the sides and arguments addressed by

both the sides, my finding on the above point is in the

Negative and that they are presumed to be in the cadre of

LDCs from the date of their appointment for the following

reasons:

REASONS

9. It could be seen from the settlement dated

29.08.1996 the copy of which is produced at Ex M-1 in the

dispute raised by the I Party Union relating to the exclusion

of absorption of these four workmen the II Party agreed to

regularize the services rendered by them as Literate

Assistants in the pay scale of 1075 -30-1198-35-1580 (pre-

revised) w.e.f. 15.03.1990 and as LDCs (clerk) in the pay

scale of Rs. 1165-40-1485-45-1935 (pre- revised) w.e.f.

01.04.1992 and to extend all consequential benefits arising

out of such regularisation and accordingly under Order

dated 31.08.1996 the copy of which is produced at Ex M-2

regularized their services w.e.f. 01.04.1992 in the pay scale

of 1165-40-1485-45-1935 (pre-revised) with further

qualification their appointments will be considered as

Promotion for the purpose of Pay Fixation. On this count

MW 1 in his cross-examination by learned advocate

appearing for the I party has clearly admitted that in the II

Party Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion Regulation of

1991 there was no post of Literate Assistant and that the

promotion of these four workmen as clerk under Ex M-2

was for the purpose of Pay Fixation and not Regular done

as per provisions of Promotion Seniority and Promotion

Regulations (RR), it is very clear that the contention of the

II Party the appointment of these four workmen w.e.f.

01.04.1992 as Clerk is not a Promotion and it is just for the

purpose of Pay Fixation as per the terms of the settlement

arrived at between the parties. Therefore, there is no merit

in the contention of the II Party that the four workmen

covered in this reference continued to be Literate Assistants

till 31.03.1992 and they came to be promoted as Clerks from

01.04.1992. Accordingly, while coming to the conclusion of

answering the point raised for consideration in the Negative,

I arrive at conclusion the action of the New Mangalore

Port Trust in denying ACP benefits to these four workmen

as per clause (31) of Settlement Dated 02.08.2000

immediately after they completed 12 years of service from

the date of their appointment is not legal and justified and

that they are entitle for the first ACP Benefits as per clause

31 of Wage Revision Settlement dated 02.08.2000

immediately on completion of 12 years of service and second

ACP Benefit on completion of 24 years of service from date

of their appointment. In the result, I pass the following

Order:

ORDER

The reference is allowed holding that the action of

the Management of New Mangalore Port Trust in denying

ACP benefits to Smt. Namitha D'Almedia, Sri Abdul

Rahiman, Sri Edwin D'Souza and Sri Praveen Kumar as per

Clause 31 of Wage Revision Settlement dated 02.08.2000 is

not legal and justified and that they are entitle for the First

ACP Benefit as per clause 31 of Wage Revision Settlement

dated 02.08.2000 immediately on completion of 12 years of

service and Second ACP Benefit on completion of 24 years

of service from the date of their appointment.

(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 5th April, 2013)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2013

dk- vk-

1194- —vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks c®d ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè eas

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-5-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@102@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, The 29th May, 2013

S.O. 1194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2012) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

CHENNAI now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of UCO BANK and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 09.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/102/2011-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

3144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 7th March, 2013

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 26/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of UCO Bank and their Workman)

BETWEEN

Ms. K. Sivagami

Petitioner/1st Party

Vs.

1. The Chairman &

Managing Director

Respondent/1st Party

UCO Bank

Responden/2nd Party

10 BTM Sarani

Kolkata-700001

2. The Field General

Respondent/2nd Party

Manager

UCO Bank, Regional Office

328, Thambu Chetty Street

Chnnai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

M/s. Balan Haridas,

Advocates

For the 1st & 2nd Party/

Smt. Revathy Murlidharan

Management

and

Ramesh,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/102/2011-IR (B-II)

dated 12/19.04.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank,

Zonal Office, Chennai in terminating the services of Smt.

K. Sivagami, an ex-sweeper w.e.f. 20.08.2010 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman concerned is entitled

to?

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 26/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed Claim, Reply and Rejoinder

Statement as the case may be.

3. The Claim Statement averments briefly read as

follows:

The petitioner who joined the services of the

Respondent Bank as a Sweeper in 1991 has been

continuously working at Thambu Chetty Street Branch.

While so, she was terminated on 20.08.2010 for no reason.

She was drawing a weekly wages of Rs. 610. Even though

she was sweeping over 4001 and less than 6000 sq.ft., she

was not being paid Rs. 238/- per day as per Circular No.

HO/TSD/IR(NEGO)4-11/2010/COM dated 10.03.2010. On

demand at that rate she was orally terminated. Her juniors

have been confirmed. For no fault she was denied

permanency. There is unfair labour practice upon her. The

Bank did not dispute her engagement continuously from

1991. There is no compliance of Section-25F of the ID Act.

She had completed 480 days of continuous service in 24

calendar months. Tamil Nadu Conferment of Permanent

Status to Workmen Act, 1981 would apply to the Bank and

she is entitled to permanency. Many of her juniors

appointed like her were made permanent. They are S.

Bhawani, Chennai Triplicane Branch, M. Kausalya, Chennai

Zonal Office, S. Loganathan, Chennai RTC, P. Saraswathi,

Chennai Chetpet, K. S. Angappa, Chennai FCC, K. Shanthi,

Chennai Korattur, A Dhanalakshmi, Chennai Koyembedu

and others. It is not correct to allege that she was irregularly

appointed. There is violation of Sectlon-25G of the ID Act

also. At her turn Respondent took a negative attitude. She

is fully qualified to be a Sweeper. Holding the order of

termination illegal, she is to be reinstated into service with

all benefits.

4. Reply Statement averments briefly read as follows:

The Branch came into existence only on 26.12.1994

and her joining service in 1991 is not true. Her services

were utilized only sporadically on daily wages varying from

Rs. 100—110/- per day. Her services were utilized only when

the permanent full time sweeper was on leave. No question

of allotment of sweeping work to her commensurate with

the sweeping area does arise. Regularizatioin is not

automatic and initial appointment itself shall be following

due process of selection as per relevant rules. No

appointment order having been issued to the petitioner as

Sweeper, at the time of disengagement also, no formal

termination order was issued. On oral instruction of Zonal

Manager her services were discontinued from 19.10.2010.

Her claim is not sustainable and is sought to be dismissed.

5. Rejoinder averments in a nutshell are as follows:

The petitioner's initial engagement was in Regional

Office in the 2nd Floor in 1991, where after she was asked

to work in the Branch in the 3rd floor of same building. Her

last drawn salary was Rs. 170 per day inadvertently omitted

in the Claim Statement, though entitled to Rs. 238 per day

as per the circular. It is incorrect to say that she was paid

Rs. 100—110 per day. She was engaged on all the working

days continuously and was to the permanent post. All the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3145

persons regularized were also engaged like her. Watering

down the judgment of the order of the Supreme Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and

Others (Air-2006-SC-1806) it is held that Tribunals dealing

with ID Act are not circumscribed by the judgment in Uma

Devi's case.

6. Points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether termination from services of Smt. K.

Sivagami, Ex-Sweeper w.e.f. 20.08.2010 is legal

and justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?

7. Evidence consists of the testimony of WW1, the

petitioner and Ex. W1 to Ex. W11 (serives) on the petitioner's

side with no evidence, oral or documentary on the

Respondent's side.

Points (i) and (ii)

8. Heard both sides. Perused the records, documents,

evidence and the cited decisions on either side. Both sides

keenly argued in terms of their case in their respective

pleadings. There is violation of Section-25F and 25G of the

ID Act which is pleaded as well as substantiated in the

evidence of WW1. Ex.W11 (series) vouchers would show

the petitioner to have had worked more than 240 days in 12

months. Petitioner has been discriminated and neglected.

Even her counterparts, yet her juniors, have been made

permanent. The factum of her having worked not less than

240 days during 12 calendar months does not stand shaken

even by any contra suggestion. There is virtually unfair

labour practice upon her. Employment Exchanges

(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act does not apply

to Class-IV employees. She has been in service from 1991.

9. The contra arguments are that she was appointed

only as a casual against leave vacancies of permanent

employees without issuing any order of appointment. Mere

completion of 240 days is not enough to enure the right for

regularization.

10. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner to

the decision of the High Court of Madras dated 22.07.2008

in WP Nos. 37547 of 2005 and 12772 of 2006, Anoop Sharma

Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division-I, Panipat

(Haryana) (2010-5-Scc-497), Maharashtra State Road

Transport Corporation and another Vs. Castribe Rajya

Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana (2009-8-scc-566), etc.

11. On behalf of Respondent reliance was placed on

the decision of the Apex Court in C.s. Azad Krishi Evam

Prodyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. United Trades Congress

and Another decided in Civil Appeal 5873 of 2007 dated

13.12.2007 and Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil

Kumar Mishra and Others dated 19.08.1992 in Civil Appeal

Nos. 3448-53 and 3456-92.

12. On examination of the whole materials, I am led to

the conclusion that the case of the petitioner pleaded

stands proved to sustain the claim. The material contentions

on behalf of the petitioner raised in the pleadings do not

stand controverted. It is not in dispute that even her

counterparts, yet junior, have been confirmed. There is no

dispute either that she has completed 240 days within a

period of 12 calendar months and 480 days within a period

of 24 calendar months and that the Tamil Nadu Conferment

of Permanent Status to Workmen Act is applicable to her.

Though it is pleaded there is no proof of her having been

appointed in an irregular manner. It Is pertinent to note that

some form of appointment other than through the

recruitment is not totally banned in exigencies of Public

Service. All cannot be assailed as to backdoor entry. Once

such appointments usher in and the incumbents, in due

course with efflux of time become entitled to any benefits

arising out of statutory rights such rights cannot be

deprived to them as in the ID Act. Sponsoring through

Employment Exchange is not necessary in the case of

Sweepers. Her claim that she was engaged continuously in

a permanent post is not rebutted. There is no contra

evidence or suggestion emanating from the Respondent

ID disprove her case. Pleading, perse, is not proof. Her

claim herein is not for regulalization as such but to set

aside the illegal and unjustified termination violating

Section-25F and 25G of the ID Act. The facts and materials

on record suggest practice of unfair labour practice upon

the petitioner. In such a context decision of the Supreme

Court in Uma Devi's has no application. The various

decisions of the Apex Court and High Court of Madras

cited above factually support the case of the petitioner,

The decisions relied on behalf of the Respondent are

distinguishable on facts and cannot be found to support

the stand of the Respondent. It is also pertinent to note

that this is a case for setting aside the illegal termination

and not for regularization. It is proved that there is violation

of Section-25F and Section-25G of the ID Act and hence

the termination is illegal and unjustified. She is entitled to

be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of

service and all attendant benefits and with full back wages

from the date of her termination.

13. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 7th March, 2013)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

WW1, Smt. K. Sivagami

For the 2nd Party/

None

Management

3146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex W1

28.05..2007

Circular of Revision of Daily

Wages

Ex. W2

02.01.2009

Letter of Deputy General

Manager

Ex. W3

12.01.2009

Letter of Chief Manager

Ex. W4

16.06..2009

Particulars of Daily Wagers

Ex. W5

22.02.2010

Circular of Revision of Daily

Wages

Ex. W6

15.05.2010

Gowri (one of the employee)

pay slip

Ex. W7

15..05.'2010

Gowri (one of the employee)

pay slip

Ex. W8

10.03.2010

M. Kowsalya (one of the

employee) appointment order

Ex. W9

19.05.2011

Petition filed before ALC by

petitioner

Ex. W10

11.05.2011

Counter filed before ALC by

Respondent

Ex. W11

January, 2003 Voucher of petitioner

December 2009

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2013

dk- vk-1195-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u c®d ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè eas

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 92@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-5-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@49@2011 vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2013

S.O. 1195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 09.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/49/2011-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 7th March, 2013

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 92/2011

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Indian Bank and their

Workman)

BETWEEN

Sri N. Vasudevan

1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Chairman/General

Manager

2nd Party/

Ist Management

Indian Bank, Head Officer

66, Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

2. The Regional Manager

2nd Party/

Indian Bank, Regional

2nd Management

Office

Thiruvannamalai

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

Sri D. Baskar, Advocate

For the 2nd Party/1st,

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

2nd Management

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/49/2011-IR (B-II)

dated 11.11.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian

Bank, Chennai in not considering the said Sri N. Vasudevan

for the post of Driver and not accommodating in the other

Branches in the even of merger of Tiruvannamalai Regional

Office with Vellore Regional Office is legal and justified?

What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 92/2011 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their Claim, Counter and

Rejoinder Statement as the case may be.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3147

3. The averments in the Claim Statement briefly read

as follows:

The petitioner who has completed 8th Standard, a

holder of Driving License and an employment exchange

registered hand had been employed as Driver since

18.06.1991 to June 2001 by the Respondents to drive vehicle

of Regional Manager, Indian Bank, Tiruvannamalai. It was

at a time when the Drivers and Group "D" Staff were not

recruited through Employment Exchange and by paper

publication. Group "D" and Driver Posts were filled by

persons whose services were used on regular basis

described as contingent staff. They were alleged to be

used on need basis, There were posts which were vacant

for quite a long period but, unfortunately without

recruitment. Only in 2008, Drivers who worked upto 1997

March were recruited. Second batch of Drivers were

recruited in 2009. It shows that Drivers who had worked

continuously for at least 5 years were recruited by the

Respondents. Tiruvannamalai Regional Office was merged

with Vellore Regional Office resulting in the closure of the

former. Petitioner on being asked, when approached the

Head Office, Chennai was promised for being considered

when future permanent postings are made. Having worked

for 10 years continuously he was assured that there would

be posting of Drivers who had worked in the Indian Bank

and for its officials. In 1993, 1994 and 1997 appointment of

persons who worked as Drivers was made. In 1993 and

1994 Driver-cum-Peon was the post for which appointment

order was issued. In 1997 Drivers were appointed as Peons.

The earlier selection was made on the basis of 5 years of

service. Posting of Drivers was made only in the year 2008

and 2010. Due to merger of Tiruvannamalai Office petitioner

was thrown out of employment. Even in 2008, 2009 posting

of Drivers was not considered. He was discriminated and

neglected, against his counterparts absorbed permanently

as Drivers. Some similarly placed persons were given

posting on fresh appointment also. From June 1991 to June

2001 he has been given certificates by various Regional

Managers, 5 in number. He has rendered 10 years of

continuous service. But he was not given employment in

Vellore Regional Office on merger of Tiruvannamalai Office.

He had fulfilled the requirements as the criteria for filling

up the post of Driver-cum-Peon in 2008, 2009 and 2010. His

last representation was rejected. Petitioner was engaged

for the executives of Indian Bank in vehicles not for the

personal use of the Executive but for the work of the Indian

Bank. The entire expense of the Car and Petrol expenses

have been borne by the Indian Bank and the expenses for

engaging Drivers also form part of the Car and was meted

out by it. Personnel like Executives and Officers were given

payment by the Indian Bank towards the entire Car

expenses. In spite of sufficient vacancies Indian Bank was

reluctant to fill post of Drivers which is unfair labour

practice. It is false to state that he completed only three

years of service. The settlement dated 23.07.1994 would

apply to the petitioner. ID raised having ended in a failure

report the reference is occasioned. There existed master-

servant relationship between the Drivers and Indian Bank.

The Drivers employed on temporary basis without being

made permanent for years together, without any break in

service and had worked for Indian Bank for more than 480

days in two consecutive years and that is the reason why

1994 settlement was entered and appointments made in

2008, 2009 and 2010. Setting aside his non-employment as

being illegal and unjustified he is to be reinstated with

permanency and all other benefits.

4. Counter Statement averments briefly read as

follows:

Respondent, a nationalized bank has to follow the

recruitment norms and procedure for employment available

for all eligible citizens of the country. Nobody can bypass

them to get into service merely by reason of seemingly

utilized by or any officials of the Bank. Regional Managers

provided with Bank's Car have permission to engage their

own personal drivers. Some personal drivers might have

been engaged by different Regional Managers but by

reason thereof such drivers cannot be said engaged in the

services of the Bank. With the merger of Tiruvannamalai

Regional Office, the outgoing Regional Manager ceased

to engage the petitioner as his personal driver resulting in

the end of petitioner's engagement in June 2001. The case

is not one of termination of employment of a workman in

the service of the Bank. He was not in the service of the

Bank and no question of his termination does arise. There

cannot be the dispute under Section-2A of the ID Act.

Respondent Bank was not obliged to accommodate him

with the cessation of his engagement. The ID is also barred

by delay and latches after 10 years. During normal course

of recruitment some of the erstwhile personal drivers of

Regional Managers might have been considered for

appointment as any other eligible applicant from the public

but that does not mean any personal driver can be

considered as a matter of right bypassing recruitment rules.

Personal Drivers and Regional Managers were engaged in

terms of the codified guidelines and by means of

transparent system. The settlement dated 23.07.1994 was a

one-time measure purely as a concession in the wake of a

representation by the recognized union. It does not mean

that the settlement should continue to be done forever. It

is denied that Master-Servant relationship existed interse

the Bank and the petitioner. The claim is to be rejected.

5. Rejoinder Statement averments in a nutshell are as

follows:

Though as personal driver they are selected by the

Respondent Bank, the Respondent Bank has not made

any recruitment from 14.02.1996 to 17.05.2008. In view of

petitioner having been in service as Personal Driver for

three years when the settlement was in vogue (1994) he

ought to have been considered after completion of 5 years

from 18.06.1991 to June 2001 as Personal Driver in 2008

recruitment. The Respondent did resort to the recruitment

3148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of Drivers-cum-Peon even in 2008 and thereafter within the

purview of the aforesaid settlement. Cessation of

petitioner's engagement by merger being not due to

petitioner's fault, it can only be a termination of the service.

Insistence of 5 years uninterrupted service and the case

that there is no master-servant relationship is a

contradictory stand of the Bank.

6. Points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether not considering Sri N. Vasudevan for

the post of Driver and not accommodating in

other branches on merger of Tiruvannamalai

Regional Office with Vellore is legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?

7. Evidence consists of the testimony of WW1 and

Ex.W1 to Ex.W19 on the petitioner's side and of MW1 and

Ex.M1 to Ex.M5 on the Respondent's side.

Points (i) & (ii)

8. Heard both sides. Perused the records, documents,

evidence and written arguments on the petitioner's side.

Both sides keenly argued in terms of their case in their

respective pleadings. Reliance was also placed on decisions

of the Supreme Court from either side. Here is the case of a

workman employed as Driver since 18.06.1991 to June 2001,

where after he happened to be thrown out of employment

due to the merger of Tiruvannamalai Regional Office with

Vellore Regional Office on closing down the former. In spite

of sufficient vacancies Indian Bank continued the system

of engaging Personal Drivers to do work of permanent

nature of the Respondent through their Executives by

providing them with Cars but ostensibly with freedom to

engage their own Drivers, to defray expenses in connection

with all the matters thereto payments are made only by the

Bank. It is alien to comprehension why the Bank was

reluctant to fill the post of Drivers. The fact that the Drivers

were being engaged continuously for long years without

regular appointment tends to show the element of unfair

labour practice being played on the said Drivers. As

admitted, while the settlement dated 23.07.1994 was given

rise to ventilate the grievances of persons like the petitioner

why the benefit flowing there from stood not extended to

the petitioner. Can it legitimately be denied stating that it

was as one-time measure? Though as on the date of

settlement the petitioner had only 3 years of service, instead

of 5 years, could he not have been considered for absorption

after completion of 5 years from 18.06.1991 to June 2001 in

a 2008 recruitment? Not doing this relegates the situation

to one of the realm of discrimination and neglect inflicted

upon the petitioner while his counterparts stood absorbed

as Drivers permanently. When in 2008, 2009 and 2010

recruitments to the post of Driver could have been made

and the petitioner could have been considered it was not

done, at which point of time he could be found to have had

attained the eligibility criteria in terms of the settlement

dated 23.07.1994. By not doing so his destiny is allowed to

fall to the realm of a misfortune. Though insistence of 5

years of uninterrupted service is stipulated for the

absorption it is strange to have been alleged by the

Management that there is no master- servant relationship

interse it and the petitioner. The uncontroverted fact that

the Respondent did resort to the recruitments of Drivers-

cum-Peon even in 2008 and there after within the purview

of the said settlement indicates that the petitioner could

have been considered and absorbed as Driver by a resort

to similar recruitment in 2008. Without the supervention of

any reason other than the merger of Tiruvannamalai

Regional Office with the Vellore Regional Office, here the

petitioner happened to be disengaged against his legitimate

expectation for no fault on his part. On the above lines

goes the trend of the arguments on behalf of the petitioner

which should receive valid consideration.

9. On the facts and evidentiary circumstances of the

case suspicion centers round the nature of the employment

of the petitioner whether as a Personal Driver only of the

Bank Executive or as an employee driver under the Bank

Management. It is for the Management to dispel the

suspicion to clinch the issue. The Management itself in

depicting the petitioner whether as an employee of the

Bank Executive or as its own employee blows both hot and

cold in explaining the situation differently in different

context. By saying that in order to ensure the benefit of

absorption as a regular employee under the Management

he should have had put in 5 years of continuous service

signifies thereby that he is an employee actually under

itself and not under the Executive making the so-called

arrangement of Personal Driver System as merely nominal,

sham and pretence. On this aspect the Respondent has no

case of having given rise to any scheme under which Bank

Executives can engage their own personal drivers. It only

says that Regional Managers provided with Bank's Car

have permission to engage their personal drivers. It is

further stated that some personal drivers might have been

engaged by different Regional Managers. These aspects

are as vague as anything. It is beyond comprehension

why and how such a practice of providing Cars to the Bank

Executives and permitting them to engage their personal

drivers had arisen and with what objective. It is not made

known what was the motive behind it. There is no whisper

regarding the details of quantum of payment or such other

details regarding the remuneration payable and paid to

such Personal Drivers. If the payments by way of

remuneration made to the Personal Drivers in no way fell

short of the quantum of payment payable or paid if regular

employees were engaged in the place of such Personal

Drivers, what is the benefit to any? If there is no advantage

of engaging Personal Drivers than when other regular

Drivers are employed what is the purpose behind engaging

Personal Drivers? These are matters to be illuminatively

elucidated by the Respondent, which has not been done.

When a fact is especially within the special knowledge of a

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3149

particular person or party the burden of proving that fact is

upon him. Since the Respondent herein has not ventured

to elucidate that point it is for the Respondent to suffer. It

is illogical for the Management to say that there is no

master-servant relationship between it and the petitioner.

In any view of the matter, it would not be incorrect to say

that the petitioner is entitled to regularization as a regular

employee under the Respondent Management. His

cessation of employment should have been avoided by

considering him in the post of Driver and accommodating

him in other branches on the merger of two Regional Offices.

Discernibly there is unfair labour practice played on him.

There has been discrimination and neglect over him against

his counterpart employees who have had the fortune of

being regularized without any axe to grind to redress their

grievance, what was the rationale behind the practice of

providing Cars to bank's executives with option to them to

engage their own drivers, with nomenclature as Personal

Drivers, yet allowing all payments and expenses made to

them, to be got reimbursed to the said Executives? Is not

such practice of keeping the said Drivers as such apt to fall

into the realm of unfair labour practice? According to me

answer is emphatically in the affirmative. The resultant

termination of petitioner from service on the merger of two

Regional Offices and the cessation of office of employment

in Tiruvannamalai Regional Office is apt to be called a

termination from service which is not legal and justified.

Uma Devi's case has no application at the level of industrial

adjudication where there is presence of unfair labour

practice. While the public right for recruitment is to be

safeguarded, no doubt, rights blossoming under the

Industrial Disputes Act, a benevolent legislation in the

cause of workmen employed in industries has also to be

seen to be equally protected with the required efficacy.

10. In view of all the above considerations, I am to

hold that not considering petitioner N. Vasudevan for the

post of Driver and not accommodating him in other

branches on merger of Tiruvannamalai Regional Office with

Vellore Regional Office is not legal and justified. Though

delay of 10 years and latches on his part stare strongly

against him in the absence of any possible explanation yet

he is not to be without some remedy by way of award of

compensation. It is deemed just that he could be given

compensation as a remedy since reinstatement is always

not an automatic remedy. He is therefore entitled to be

compensated with award of a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs with

interest thereon at 9% per annum from the first day of the

award taking effect in the wake of its due publication in the

Gazette of India, unless the same has been paid in the

meantime. So ordered.

11.The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the the 7th March, 2013)

A.N. JANARDHANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

WW1, Sri N. Vasudevan

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri Ashok

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

27.8.1993

Working Certificate issued by

Executive Mr. V.K. Sundaresan,

Regional Manager for the

period from June 1991 to

August 1993

Ex.W2

03.06.1995

Working Certificate issued by

Executive

Mr.

Chidambaram,

Regional

Manager for the period from

September 1993 to May 1995

Ex.W3

15.07.1996

Working Certificate issued by

Executive Mr. S.P. Manickam,

Regional Manager for the

period from June 1995 to July

1996

Ex.W4

21.01.1999

Working Certificate issued by

Executive Mr. M.K. Mani,

Regional Manager for the

period from August 1996 to

January 1998

Ex.W5

23.06.2001

Working Certificate issued by

Executive Mr. M. Nakeeran,

Regional Manager for the

period from February 1999 to

June 2001

Ex. W6

02.12.1992

Salary receipt for the month of

November, 1992

Ex. W7

01.02.2001

Salary receipt for the month of

January 2001

Ex.W8

06.04.2010

Representation of the petitioner

to the Respondent Bank

Ex.W9

21.04.2010

Reply of the Respondent Bank

Ex.W10

List of Drivers-cum-Peon joined

between 03.01.1992 and

17.05.2008

Ex.W11

23.07.1994

18(1) Settlement entered

between the Respondent Bank

and the recognized Federation

of Indian Bank Employees

Union

Ex.W12

10.06.2010

Petition filed under Section-2A

of the ID Act, 1947 before the

3150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Asstt. Commissioner of Labour,

Chennai

Ex. W13

27.12.2010

Counter

filed

the

Respondent Bank before the

Asstt. Commissioner of Labour,

Chennai

Ex.W14

Rejoinder filed by the petitioner

before the Asstt. Commissioner

of Labour, Chennai

Ex.W15

17.05.2011

Memo filed by the petitioner

before the Asstt. Commissioner

of Labour, Chennai

Ex.W16

22.10.2010

Order of the Madras High Court

in WP No. 15383 of 2009

Ex.W17

27.05.2011

Show Cause Notice issued to

one P. Sudhakar

Ex W18

30.09.2011

Order of the Madras High Court

in WP No. 14391 of 2011

Ex.W19

07.07.2012

Information received by the

petitioner under the RTI Act.

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

23.03.1990

Government of India—Deptt.

of Economic Affairs—Banking

Division -Circular-Personal

Drivers

Ex. M2

18.08.1994

Indian Bank-Circular-IRC-G-

291-94-Personal Drivers

Ex. M3

23.06.1997

Government of India-Ministry

of Finance-Deptt. of Economic

Affairs—Banking Division—

Circular—Personal Drivers

Ex. M4

22.02.2005

Government of India-Circular

D.O. No. 7/48/2004 -BOA.

Enclosing

Annexure

Managerial Autonomy

Ex. M5

27.03.2006

Government of India—

Ministry of Finance-—Banking

Division—Circular—Personal

Drivers

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1196-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flaMhdsV cSad ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñvkjñ uañ 48@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@22@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2013

S.O.1196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (CR. No. 48/2008) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 20.03.2013.

[No. L-12012/22/2008-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT

"SHRAM SADAN",

G.G. PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD,

YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE-560 022

Dated

20th March, 2013

Present

Shri S. N. Navalgund

Presiding Officer

C.R. NO. 48/2008

I Party

II Party

Sri Suresh K. Pagad,

The Assistant

S/o Sri Krishnappa, C/o Sri D. C.

General Manager,

Kalloori, At & Presenting Officer

Syndicate Bank,

Isloor, Sirsi Taluk,

Regional Office,

Uttara Kannada Distt.

Karwar.

Appearances

I Party

Shri M. Rama Rao

Authorised Representative

II Party

Shri Ramesh Upadhayay

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section

(2A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/22/2008-

IR(B-II) dated 23.05.2008 for adjudication on the following

schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate

Bank in dismissing the services of Shri Suresh K.

Pagad w.e.f. 19.2.2007 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After completion of the pleading while raising a

Preliminary Issue touching the fairness of Domestic Enquiry

after receiving the evidence adduced by both the sides the

same was held in the affirmative i.e. Domestic Enquiry is

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3151

fair and proper directing to pay the management full

subsistence allowance for the period after 12 months of

the date of suspension till his actual date of dismissal after

deducting the payments made, when the matter was posted

for evidence of I Party on victimization if any and being not

gainfully employed, on 31.07.2012 counsel for II Party filed

an electronic extract regarding the a/c of the I party at

Dandeli Branch having credited Rs. 128374.45 paise and

copy of an application received from the I party addressed

to Dharwad Branch requesting the said amount to be

adjusted to his Housing loan No. 1205/721/177, 1205/751/

799, 125/733/171 the matter was posted for say of the I

party. The authorised representative of the I party after

taking several adjournments, today i.e., 20.03.2013 filed

Memo of Withdrawal of Representation to I party. Since I

party was also not present accepting his memo of

withdrawal of his representation to the I party taking that I

party is not interested to proceed further challenging the

action of the management regarding his dismissal from

service the proceedings came to be closed.

3. Since it was for the I party to demonstrate from the

evidence placed on record by the management/II party in

the Domestic Enquiry the enquiry finding was perverse or

the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the

misconduct proved against him as he did not made any

effort in that regard I have no reason to interfere in the

Enquiry finding or the punishment imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate

Authority I pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

the management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing the

services of Shri Suresh K. Pagad w.e.f. 19.02.2007 is legal

and justified.

(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 20th March, 2013).

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1197-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flaè

cSad ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2009½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@64@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2013

S.O.1197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. 17/2009) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Punjab and Sindh Bank and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/64/2009-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No.17/2009

Registered on 2.12.2009

Sh. Naresh Kumar, s/o Sh. Faquir Chand, 19, Govind

Puri, Yamunanagar Haryana.

Petitioner

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab and Sind

Bank, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.

The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Hisar

District, Haryana.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. D.R. Sharma Advocate

For the Management

Sh. J. S.Sathi Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 1.5.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

64/2009 IR(B-II)) Dated 10.11.2009, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank Zonal Office, Chandigarh in

terminating the service of Sh. Naresh Kumar a

temporary peon was in violation of Section 25F of

the ID Act? If so, what relief the workman is entitled

to and from which date?"

As per claim statement the workman had been

engaged as a Peon under respondent No. 2 vide letter dated

29.4.1993 and consequently he had joined the services on

10.5.1993., He continued to work as such up to 22.4.2002

when his services along with others were terminated without

following the procedure envisaged under the Act. It has

also been stated in the claim statement that the workman

has completed more than 240 days in all years and has

worked as peon for about nine years. There was no break

in his service except Sundays and Gazetted holidays. His

name was included in the seniority list prepared by the

3152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

management for being absolved on permanent basis and it

is for that reason that even after 1996 he continued to work

as such continuously without any break. Explaining the

delay in submitting the demand notice it has been stated

that the workman and seven others had filed CWP

No. 9951 of 2002 titled Balbir Singh and Others Vs. Punjab

and Sind Bank which was decided by the Hon'ble High

Court vide order dated November 4, 2008.

The claim was contested by the management and it

was stated that the workman had been engaged from time

to time to meet the exigencies of service on the specified

tenures and his engagement came to an end by efflux of

time. He had been engaged subject to the condition that

his services would be purely of temporary nature and he

could be relieved within the stipulated period without

assigning any reason. After having been relieved from

service on expiry of stipulated period he was engaged afresh

upon his request and sometimes break spanned more than

6 months. His engagement was in violation of Article 14/16

of the Constitution of India hence, he has no right for

continuation or regularization of his service. Furthermore

the action of the management does not amount to

retrenchment of the workman in view of Section 2(oo)(bb)

of the Act and the latter is not entitled to any relief. It was

stated that the casual workers/daily workers and temporary

employees engaged without following the procedure for making

regular appointments and that too by an authority without

power to make engagement are not entitled to protection

under Section 25F of the Act. It has been denied that the

name of the workman had been empanelled in the list for

being absorbed in the bank on permanent basis. According

to the respondents the list had been prepared by the bank

forming panel of temporary peons who may be engaged by

different branches to meet the exigencies of service. The

claim was opposed on the ground of delay also.

In evidence the workman filed his affidavit and

examined himself. He has relied on certain documents also.

On behalf of the management the affidavit of Balwinder

Singh Bhatia was filed but he was not produced in evidence.

The workman moved an application for summoning

certain documents from management but the respondents

neither filed any reply to the application nor filed the

documents. Hence the application was allowed on 7.6.2012.

The workman after the close of the evidence filed copies

of register of employees from March 1997 to April 2002.

I have heard the learned counsel for the workman.

Management however submitted written arguments which

were considered by me along with evidence on record.

It is important to note that the reference is about the

violation of Section 25F of the Act in terminating the services.

if the workman. Workman is not demanding regularization.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that he had been in the employment of the management for

about nine years and his name was listed in the panel of

temporary peons and he had worked for more than 240

days in all years yet provisions of Section 25F of the Act

were not complied with and the management failed to

produce the relevant record despite the order of the Tribunal

hence, adverse inference should be drawn against the

management.

The management did not deny the employment and

the alleged length of service of the workman but it's plea is

that he had been engaged intermittently to meet the

exigencies without following the established procedure for

making public appointment. He had been engaged on a

fixed tenure of 60 days subject to the condition that his

services would be of temporary nature and he could be

relieved within the stipulated period without assigning any

reason and after having been relieved from service on expiry

of the stipulated period he was engaged afresh upon his

request. The action of the management does not amount

to retrenchment and comes within the exception provided

under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.

The first question is whether the termination of the

service of the workman is covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of

the Act. It may be noted that the claimant has nowhere

specifically pleaded that he had been in continuous service

for not less than one year of the bank or at least for 240

days in the 12 calendar months preceding the date of his

termination. He has simply stated in his claim statement

that he completed more than 240 days in all years. He has

filed attendance sheet from March 1997 to April 2002 after

the close of the evidence. And as the same were not

tendered in evidence, hence, they can't be relied upon.

However a presumption against the management can be

drawn as it failed to reply the application of the workman

for summoning the attendance register and salary register

also failed to produce the documents. It can be presumed

that if the documents had been produced they would have

supported the workman's case. But the evidence of the

workman supports the plea of the management that he had

been engaged intermittently to meet the exigencies and he

had been engaged on a fixed tenure of 60 days subject to

the condition that his service would be of temporary nature

and he could be relieved within the stipulated period

without assigning any reason. It is important to note that

the workman did not file the appointment letters for the

period of last one year preceding the date of his termination

i.e. 22.4.2002. Instead he has filed appointment letters Exhibit

W2 to W7 for the period 29.4.1993. to 17.11.1994. By each

of these letters he had been given appointment for 60 days

only and the letters show that his appointment was not

continuous. The appointment under letter dated 29.4.1993

lasted on 28.6.1993 but next appointment was given to him

on 28.7.1993. Similarly the appointment under letter dated

28.7.1993 lasted up to 27.9.1993 but his fresh appointment

was given on 5.10.1993. Through appointment letter

20.12.1993 he was supposed to remain under

employment up to 19.2.1994 but his next

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3153

appointment was given on 18.8.1994. The appointment

letters produced by workman further go to prove the

management case that he had been engaged on a fixed

tenure of 60 days subject to the condition that his service

would be on temporary nature and he could be relieved

within the stipulated period even without assigning any

reason and his engagement was not continuous. The fact

that his name was in the panel of the temporary peons of

the bank is of no help to workman in the circumstances of

the case. In the case law cited by the learned counsel for

the management the decision of the Apex Court in

Gangadhar Pillai Vs. Siemens Limited (2007) 1 SCC 533

is important. The Hon'ble Court observed that there had

been breaks in service and the same were not artificial ones.

Considering other circumstances also of the case the

Hon'ble Court held that the appointment given to workman

in the case being the case squarely within the term of Section

2(oo)(bb) of the Act.

The Hon'ble Court also held that only because an

employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary

employee intermittently for number of years, the same by

itself could not imply that unfair labour practice have been resorted to.

In the present case also there is nothing on record to

show that it was a practice of the respondents to re-engage

the service of workman for another 60 days after

completion of 60 days and the breaks in the service were of

artificial nature, and the action of the management in

appointing the workman was mala fide amounting to unfair

labour practice to deprive the workman the protection of

Section 25F of the Act;

On the basis of the above going discussion I agree

with the arguments of the management counsel that the

termination of the service of the workman comes under

Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and is not retrenchment.

Obviously the management in terminating the service of

the workman was not obliged to comply with the provisions

of Section 25F of the Act. I therefore hold that termination

of the services of the workman was not in violation of Section 25F of the

Act.

Reference is accordingly answered against the

workman. Let two hard copies and one soft copy of the

Award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2013

dk- vk-1198-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè eas

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 221@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3-6-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@137@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2013

S.O. 1198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 221/

2004) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 03-06-2013.

[No. L-41012/137/99-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 29th April, 2013

Reference : (CGITA) No. 221/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

...First Party

And

Their Workmen Uda Dhana

Through the President,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Nr. New Railway Colony, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380001

...Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi, by its order No. L-41012/137/99/IR(B-I), dated

31.08.1999 by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Dispute Act,1947, referred the dispute existing

between the employers in relation to the management of

Western Railway, Baroda and their workmen, for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

under the terms of reference in schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Western

Railway through the divisional Railway Manager,

Western Rly., Baroda and other officers in terminating

service of Mr. Uda Dhana, Gangman (Gang No. 8,

C.P.W1, Godhra) by way of removal from the services'

with immediate effect vide N.O.P. dated 24.06.1995 is

legal, proper and justified ?" and

"whether the penalty/punishment of removal from

service, is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. If

not, to what relief the concerned workman Mr. Uda Dhana

is entitled to and what directions are necessary in the matter?"

3154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

2. In response to notice, both parties appeared and

filed respective pleadings- statement of claim (Ext-9) by

the 2nd party (PRKP Union) and the written statement

(Ext-10) by the 1st party.

3. The case of second party, shortly stated, is that

Shri Uda Dhana was serving as Gangman under c.p.w.1

Godhara. On 30.03.1994 standard form no.-5 was served to

Uda Dhana and on 24.06.1995 he was removed from service.

but the railway administration failed to observe D.A rules

and regulations since no proper opportunity was given to

employer (Uda Dhana) for his defence, no show cause

notice was served to him. Further case is that the railway

administration deducted employee pay during his period

of absent and loosing of pay is also punishment and by

removal order he was awarded second punishment which

is against the natural justice. The concerned employee Uda

Dhana is illiterate and he does not know rules and

regulation, in the recent Supreme Court Judgement it has

been held that removal for absent is illegal. On these scores

prayer is made to declare removal order of Uda Dhana to be

null and void and he be reinstated with consequential

benefits, compensation and cost of the litigation.

4. As against this, the case of the 1st party interlia

pleading is that the reference is not maintainable, railway

servants D&A rules are special Act/Rules and this Tribunal

cannot decide the reference, Shri Dhana Ohana , concerned

workman has not filed appeal and revision before the higher

Rly. Authority. The 1st party has admitted contents of para-

1 to 3 of s/c denied para 4,5 and 6 of s/c stating there in that

Rly.administration acted correctly in view of the procedure

and full opportunities have been given to the delinquent

workman. The representative of workman also appeared

and cross examined the management witness. After

departmental enquiry N.I.P for removal from service had

been served on the concerned workman and copy of inquiry

report was also given to him. The content of para 7 and 8

are not correct. Shri Uda Dhana was absent without

adopting proper procedure of Rly rules. He was absent

and had not worked and so his such period is treated as no

work no pay and so Shri Uda Dhana is not entitled for the

pay of such period. Ignorance of railway rules due to

illiterately is no excuse no comments on para 9 of the s/c.

The 2nd party has not mention citation of S.C. judgement

as per para 10, so not possible to offer any comment. On

these scores prayer is made to dismiss the reference since

the concerned workman Shri Uda Dhana is not entitled to

the relief as claimed.

5. In view of pleadings of the parties the following

issues are taken up for arriving as decision in this case :-

Is the reference case maintainable?

ii.

Has the 2nd party Union valid cause of action

to raise the dispute for the workman Shri Uda

Dhana?

iii.

Whether the unauthorised absent of the

workman Shri Uda Dhana was willful or due to

compelling circumstances?

iv.

Whether the standard form-5 (chargesheet)

depict the actual period of unauthorised

absence?

Whether the enquiry report was prepared by

the E.O after conclusion of departmental enquiry

under DAR?

vi.

Whether the punishment of removal from service

with immediate effect imposed upon Shri Uda

Dhana date 24.06.1995 is shockingly

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct?

vii. Whether the concerned workman Shri Uda

Dhana is entitled to the relief as claimed?

viii. What orders are to be passed?

FINDINGS

ISSUE No.-(III), (IV), (V) : — These issues are taken

up together for discussion and consideration. I have gone

through the copies of enquiry files produced by both sides,

2nd party has produced 13 documents as per list Ext-5

marked Ext-5/1 to 5/13. Ext-5/9 is statement of

Shri G.S.Sharma on 16.07.1996 before E.O. and Ext-5/13 is

statement of workman Shri Uda Dhana on 16.07.1994 before

the E.O. From the statement of Shri G.S. Sharma (P.W.I

Godhara) it does not appear that the delinquent was

absented himself from duty wilfully, rather it has come Uda

Dhana was under sick vide DMO No. ED/107 dated

14.10.1993 and C.S.C No. 44 dated 29.10.1993. He does not

remember whether Uda Dhana produced sick C.S.C

certificate personally or by post whereas Uda Dhana in his

statement (Ext-5/13) stated that I do not remember at present

but the facts are that he submitted C.S.C. certificate.

Shri Uda Dhana (workman) in his oral deposition in the

court vide Ext-14 vide para 2 stated he had not attended on

duty from 08.11.1993 to 19.03.1994 due to the reason that

his mother was seriously ill and his father was dead, he

was alone having no brother and his mother died and his

wife was suffering from mental disorder and that he had

informed to P.W.I. Godhara through postcard about these

causes for not going to duty. The 2nd party has submitted

zerox copy of certificate granted by Dr.A.R.Shaikh M.B.B.S.,

, Medical Officer,PH.C/ Gogajipura Ta. Kathal Dist. Kheda

regarding Uda Dhana's wife Mrs. Nandaben suffering from

acute psychosis having debilitated (bed ridden) condition

and was advised for rest and personal daily round the

clock care at home by her near relative husband and others

from 08.11.1993 to 19.04.1994. So as per statement of

Shri Uda Dhana before E.O. on 16.07.1994 and as per his

evidence in court vide Ext-14 it is an evident that he was

earlier on sick leave upto 07.11.1994 and thereafter prevented

from joining duty due to consequetive illness of his widow

mother who died and also due to his wife bed ridden due to

psychosis disease (mental disorder). He claimed that he

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3155

sent information to department through postcard. It may

be said that it was his unauthorised absent from duty due

to compelling circumstances but cannot be said to be

absent from duty wilfully.

6. More so there is vagueness in stand form 5

(chargesheet) vide Ext-5/12 dated 24- 26.02.1994. the

contents of allegation of misconduct go to show that he

remained absent from 08.11.1994 to till date without

permission of P.W.I. Godhara. Admitted Shri Uda Dhana

was Class -IV employee and not very literate and as per

letter of Head office, Western Railway, Churchgate,Mumbai

dated 06.06.1984 not to start disciplinary action against

fourth grade employee of Western Railway in English rather

to take disciplinary action in Hindi. The certificate of doctor

and circular letter of Head office has been submitted with

affidavit of workman Uda Dhana vide Ext- 16. In spite of

that the entire enquiry proceeding was proceeded against

delinquent Uda Dhana in English including issue of

standard form 5(charge sheet) recording statements,

submission of enquiry report and punishment order etc.

7. Further from the enquiry file, it is obvious that

finding of inquiry officer E.O/C.P.W.I(D) is dated 08.05.1994

whereas inquiry was concluded after 16.07.1994 and so

naturally findings of E.O. ought to have been dated after

16.07.1994 and not prior to conclusion of enquiry on

08.05.1994. So the whole episode of conducting enquiry

under DAR appears to be some fishy and more so, not

conducting enquiry in Hindi against class IV employee

Shri Uda Dhana even strict instruction of Head office,

Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai.

8. The management witness Shri Rajesh Ramchandra

Dixit in his oral evidence vide Ext- 20 stated that he had

imposed punishment as per DAR enquiry in standard form

5 (charge sheet). He admitted that in standard form-5 , he

imputed allegation under the charge sheet for absent from

duty from 08.11.1994. He also admitted that allegation under

chargesheet and order of punishment are of different dates.

However he stated that it is not a fact that for absenteeism

from 08.11.1994. He had given standard form 5 (Charge

sheet) to Shri Uda Dhana. He stated that actually charge

sheet was given for the period of absence from 18.11.1993

to 18.04.1994 and the workman Shri Uda Dhana had resumed

duty from 19.04.1994. He admitted that letter dated

19.04.1994 (Ext-20.1) is of Uda Dhana had demanded money

from Railway Dept. for meeting expenses in treatment of

his wife. Management witness during cross examination

also admitted Ext-20/5 the copy of railway rules disciplinary

appeal page 257 to 258 that the 1st date of enquiry sitting

has to be fixed for 1st hearing and after 1st hearing charge

sheeted employee is called on next date but he conducted

the entire enqury under DAR in one day. He admitted that

he conducted entire enquiry in English whereas it had to

conducted in Hindi as per Head office circular. He also

admitted at page 10 (para 21) that he prepared the enquiry

report on 08.05.1994 that meanse before start of DAR

enquiry.

9. From the Scriutinizing the materials, evidence

documentory and oral, I find that the unauthorised absent

of the workman Shri Uda Dhana was not wilful rather it was

due to compelling circumstances of prolonged illness of

his wife and as per doctor advise to attend her round the

vigil. I also find that the standard forms-5 (charge sheet)

regarding period of absent from 08.11.1994 till today depict

not correct state of affairs and appears to be vague. I also

find that the enquiry report was prepared by the E.O.

(management witness) vide Ext-20 much prior to conclusion

of the DAR inquiry on 16.07.1994. These issue no-III,IV &

V are answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No. VI :— In view of the findings arrived

at issue No III,IV, & V in the foregoing paras, I further find

and hold that the punishment of removal from service with

immediate effect imposed upon Shri Uda Dhana dated

24.06.1995 is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of

misconduct and so the discipline authority under DAR

(Disciplinary & Appeal Rules) has imposed excessive and

harsh punishment because there was no wilful absence on

part of Shri Uda Dhana rather he was compelled to remain

absent from duty due to serious mental illness of his wife.

So, I find a fit care for interfering in to the order of

punishment so imposed by invoking the provision of section

11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947. This issue is decided

agaiinst the management of the 1st party.

11. ISSUE No. I & II:— In view of the findings to

issue No. III, IV, V & VI is the forgoings. I am of the

considered view that the reference is maintainable and the

Union (P.R.K.P.) has every right having valid cause of

action to raise dispute for the redressal of grievances of its

workman Shri Uda Dhana.

12. ISSUE No. (VII) :- For the reasons noted above,

the punishment of removal from service of Shri Uda Dhana

with immediate effect is set aside and he (Uda Dhana) is

ordered to be reinstated in service with consequential

benefits and 50% of back wages.

13. ISSUE No. (VIII):- The reference is allowed on

confer. No order of cost. The 1st party is directed to reinstate

the workman Shri Uda Dhana within one month of

publication of this award otherwise the back wages of 50%

will carry inters @ of 9% P.A.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2013

dk- vk-1199-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè eas

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

3156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 114@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03&6&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@19@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2013

S.O. 1199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/

2006) of the Centernal Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 03-06-2013.

[No. L-41011/19/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : BINAY KUMAR SINHA,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 26th April, 2013

Reference: CGIT A No.114 of 2006

The General Manager, Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai-400001

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar, Baroda-390004

The Sr. Divisional Mech. Engineer,

Western Railway, Diesel Shed, Vatva,

Ahmedabad

...First parties

And

Their workmen

Through the Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Rly, Karmchari Parishad,

E/209, Sarvottam Nagar,

Near New Railway Colony, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad-380013

...Second Party

For the first party:

Shri H.B. Shah, Advocate

For the second party:

Shri R.S. Sisodia, president, P. R.

K. P. Western Railway

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi vide its order no. L-41011/19/2002- IR(BI) dated

18-04-2006, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute

Act,1947, referred the dispute between the management of

western Railway and their workmen to Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad for adjudication under the

terms of reference in the schedule:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management Divisional

Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda in denying

promotion to Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri Jamalludin to

the post of SPA Gr. III or equivalent to SPA Gr. III after they

cleared the trade test is legal and justified? If not, then to

what relief the concerned employees were entitled to and

from which date?"

2. Both side appeared in response to notice and filed

respective pleadings statement of claim (Ext-9) by the 2nd

party and written statement (Ext-10) by the 1st party.

3. The case of the Union (2nd party) is that the

workmen Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri Jamaluddin has

also been selected and passed departmental trade test

examination vide letter dated 04-12-1997 for getting benefits

of SPA Gr.III in pay scale of Rs.950- 1500, but the benefit

was not granted to them whereas two persons at Sl. No.

1 and 2 were granted benefits but they as Sl. No. 3 and 4

vide letter dated 04.12.1997 were denied benefits without

any reason whereas actual and anticipated vacancies of

SPA Gr. III were available. Due to the reason Dayashankar

Oza and Jamalludin who are selected for the higher post viz

SPA Gr. III in the year 1997 have not been promoted till 2000

and due to this they suffered losses of Rs. 1500 in wages

per month. The charter of demand was raised by the union

before the employer 1st party. Further case is that the 1st

party employers adopted a pick and choose policy and

granted benefit of selection in higher grade to the employee

of their choice namely Budhabhai B. Baria and Amrish M.

Bhavasar and the same has been denied to these two similar

situated workmen Dayashankar Oza and Jamaluddin. This

show in justice in the matter of giving promotion on these

scores prayer is made by the union for directing the 1st

party employer to grant promotion to Shri Dayashankar

Oza and Shri Jamalludin to the post of SPA Gr.III with all

consequential benefits along with 12% interest.

4. The case of the 1st party as per written statement

pleading inter alia is that the reference is not maintainable,

the promotion sought for is not in accordance with senority

but is subject to passing of departmental trade test and so

non-granting promotion does not fall within the preview of

Industrial Dispute Act. The reference suffered also due to

non-joining of the workmen in the proceeding as necessary

parties, and that the reference is barred by delay, laches

and acquiescence. It has been admitted that the union has

raised charter of demand vide letter dated 04-12-1997 to

grant the benefit of SPA Gr. III in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500.

It has been denied that the workmen Shri Dayashankar Oza

and Shri Jamaluddin had passed the departmental

examination of trade test. It is the case of the 1st party that

Shri Dayashankar Oza was working as BTM/ELF- Vatva

which was under control of D.R.M., W.R., Baroda and from

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3157

01.04.2003, Ahmedabad, W.Rly division was created and

Vatva came under Jurisdiction of D.R.M. , Western Railway,

Ahmedabad. Trade test of D.M plant attendant was to be

held and willingness of concern workmen was also invited

and Shri Dayashankar Oza also vide letter dated 12.04.997

had given consent and willingness of trade test and Shri

Dayashankar Oza was Junior so not called for trade test

and so question of granting promotion to the post of plant

attendant Gr. III to Shri Dayashankar Oza does not arise.

Further case is that no juniors to Shri Dayashankar Oza

was promoted to the post of D.M plant operator. The result

of trade test of D.M. plant operator Gr. III notified on

07.10.1997 and eligible candidate were promoted as per

Annexure-F1/F2&F3. Promotion is solely on the result of

trade test and so there was no pick and choose policy

adopted by the 1st party. The concern workmen Shri

Dayashankar Oza and Shri Jamaluddin were not in selected

list. On these scores prayer is made to dismiss the reference

since the 2nd party is not entitled to get relief as per para 9

(a) or 9 (b) or any other relief sought for in the statement of

claim.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties the following

issues are taken up for determination.

ISSUES

(i) Whether the reference is maintainable?

(ii) Has the Union (P.R.K.P.) got valid cause of action

for raising the industrial dispute for the cause of

its two workman (members of Union)?

(iii) Is the matter referred for adjudication suffered

from and barred by delay, laches and

acquiescence?

(iv) Have the two workmen Shri Dayashankar Oza

and Shri Jamaluddin passed and cleared the trade

test examination and selected for higher post

viz SPA Gr. III vide letter dated 04.12.1997 of the

1st party?

(v) Are the aforesaid two workmen Shri Oza and

Shri Jamaluddin also entitled for the benefits of

pay scale 950-1500 as that of Shri Budhabhai B.

Baria and Shri Amrish M. Bhavsar on the

successful outcome of the trade test vide letter

dated 04.12.1997 of the 1st party.

(vi) Whether the action of the management of

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway,

Baroda

denying

promotion

Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shi Jamaluddin to

the post of SPA Gr.III or equivalent to SPA GR.

III after they cleared the trade test, is legal and

justified?

(vii) What orders are to be passed?

FINDINGS

6. Issue No. III .—The 2nd party union had raised an

industrial dispute by issuing charter of demand dated

04.12.1997 against the 1st party employer for grant of

benefits of SPA Gr. III in pay scale of Rs.950-1500 as per

departmental trade test examination passed by their

workmen Shri Oza and Shri Jamaluddin. The 1st party in its

written statement vide para -7 has categorically admitted

about raising demand by the union vide letter 04.12.1997

for granting benefit of SPA Gr. III in pay scale of Rs.950-

1500. It is not disputed that the conciliation officer submitted

failure report to the appropriate Government but the Central

Government/Ministry of Labour had earlier taken the

decision of not referring the demand of the union for

adjudication. The Union challenged the decision of the

Government of India in SCA No. 177/03 before the Gujarat

High Court and the Hon'ble Court of Gujarat vide order

dated 28.11.2005 set aside the decision of Ministry of

Labour declining reference and directed the Government

to refer the dispute for adjudication. The Government of

India/Ministry of Labour there after reconsidering the

industrial dispute referred, the dispute under the terms of

reference as per schedule for adjudication to this tribunal

vide order dated 18.04.2006. So there is no question of the

reference in any way suffering from delay laches and being

barred by acquiescence. Such objection of the 1st party

taken in its w.s. are only ornamental and having no leg to

stand. This issue is decided accordingly in negative.

7. ISSUE No. IV &V: — Both parties have adduced

oral and documentary evidence in this case. Firstly coming

to the documentary evidence, the 2nd party union through

a list (Ext-11) submitted two documents for admitted in

documentary evidence by making them exhibits and the

copy of documents with list was also received by the

lawyers of the 1st party on 13.01.2012. Ext-20 is letter dated

04.12.1997 of D.R.M Office, Western Railway, Vadodara,

vide EL/1138/3/71 bhag-1 on the subject of giving promotion

in SPA Gr. III scale of Rs. 950-1500 to the workmen declared

(pass) in trade test held in locoshed Mech. Dept., Vadodara

Division. And vide Ext-20 the result of four passed workmen

including the two workmen Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri

Jamaluddin at SL No.3 & 4 respectively were notified for

promotion in SPA Gr.III scale 950-1500. This Ext-20 is

admitted documents since the 1st party has also filed its

xerox copy marked ext-22. The 1st party hopelessly tried to

show vide annexure F/1, F/2 and F/3 attached with w.s and

marked Ext-17, 18 and 19 from the Divisional office, Vadodara

vide letter dated 01.03.1997 application were invited for

trade test Mech.Dept for the post of D.M. plant attendant

and other in Gr.III scale 950-1500 and not for the post of

SPA Gr.lll. but Ext-20/22 itself demolished that as per order

of Divisional Office, Vadodara trade test result was also

notified for SPA Gr. III scale 950- 1500 and as per Ext-22, the

1st party has promoted only two Budhabhai B. Baria and

Amrish M. Bhavsar(Sl. No.1& 2 ) of Ext-20/22 but left to

extend benefit of promotion to Shri Oza and Shri Jamaluddin

(51 No-3 & 4) of Ext-20/22 without assigning any reason.

The discriminating attitude of the 1st party is clearly

reflected as per Ext-24 the letter dated 28.04.1999 of the

3158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Divisional office, Vadodara in abolishing post in cadre at

Diesel.shed, Vatva where in together with surrendering of

other posts two posts in SPA Gr. III scale 3050-4590 were

surrendered. Whereas trade test of four candidates in SPA

Gr. III was held for vacancies including anticipated

vacancies. The passed candidate of Sl No. 1 &:2 of Ext-20/

22 were promoted as Boiler Operator Gr. III scale 3050-4590

i.e. equivalent to SPA Gr. III post but promotion of two

more passed candidates of SL No.3 & 4 Shri Dayashankar

Oza and Shri Jamaluddin was ignored in extending benefits

to them also and two post in SPA Gr. III was surrendered on

28.04.1999. Shri Budhabhai B. Baria and Shri Amrish M.

Bhavsar were granted promotion on 23.04.1998 and the

benefits to two more passed as Sl No. 3 & 4 was withheld

without assigning any cogent reason. The 1st party has

also relied upon the Ext-25 which is letter dated 31.03.2000

of Divisional Office, Vadodara for providing promotion to

the workmen (A) Diesel Mech. Gr. III and (B) Electric Fitter

Gr. III in pay scale 3050-4590. The name of Shri Dayashankar

Oza and Shri Jamaluddin appeared as S1 No.18 & 26 in B

(approved Electric Fitter Gr.III). That clearly reveals that

delayed promotion in approved post Gr. III scale 3050-4590

was granted to Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shi Jamaluddin

for which they were entitled for upgraded scale as that of

Budhabhai B. Baria and Amrish M. Bhavsar on or after

03.04.1998 and much before surrender of two post of SPA

Gr. III on 28.04.1999. Ext- 18(Annexure-F/12) and Ext-19

(Annexure -F/3) produced by the 1st party are not relevant

documents to discredit the claim of 2nd party raising

industrial dispute for grant of benefits to Shri Oza and Shri

Jamaluddin at par with Budhabhai B. Baria and Amrish M.

Bhavsar as per passed result of trade test vide letter dated

04.12.1997 (Ext 20/22) Ext-18 & 19 are letter regarding one

result and one promotion to one passed workmen Suryabali

of Mech. Dept. of D.S. Vatva which is not covering the

entire trade test held and result notified department arise

of Diesel shed, Vatva. Ext- 26 filed on behalf of the 2nd

party (union) is copy of letter no. EP 1130/3 dated 9th

November 1992 of Head Quarters Office,Western Railway,

Churchgate, Mumbai- that go to reveal that number of

candidate to be called for suitability/trade test to fill non-

selection posts should be equal to the actual vacancy

existing and anticipated vacancies so that the persons who

have passed such a test will not have to wait for promotion

for a long period. This instruction of Western Railway,

Headquarters, Churchgate, Mumbai which was as per

Railway Board's letter No -E(NG)66pm1/98 dated 13.10.1967

has been clearly ignored by the 1st party in extending

benefits to Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri Jamaluddin who

had passed trade test for the SPA Gr. III vide Ext.-20/22.

8. Now coming to the oral evidence of the parties.

one of the concerned workman Shri Dayashankar Oza in

his oral evidence vide Ext-12 has supported his case and

also of .Shri Jamaluddin for getting benefits of promotion

to SPA Gr.III where they along with two passed the trade

test vide letter dated 04.12.1997 and two were granted

benefits but he and Jamaluddin were ignored whereas there

was permanent vacancy post already available but the 1st

party employer did not consider my case and not granted

promotion from back date and as such he suffered recurring

monetary loss of Rs.1500 p.m. During cross exam, it has

come that he had applied for S.P.A.Gr. III post on 12.04.1997

and he was allowed for trade test. He denied to such

suggestion of the 1st party's lawyer that he was not called

for the trade test and it is not true that he has not passed

the trade test. He deposed that according to vacancy call

letter was issued to appear in trade test. He stated that

Annexure-1 of 1st party does not include the upgraded

post of SPA (plant attendant). He also stated that D.M.

Plan attendant is called distilled water plant attendant where

as S.P.A is called submersible plant attendant. He stated

that Annexure F/2 is not result of trade test of SPA Gr. III

rather is of D.M. plant to which he has no concern rather

he has concern with result of trade test of SPA Gr. III.

Through Ext-14 , the 1st party witness Shri Ambalal Labona,

Assistant Personal Officer, Western Railway, Baroda has

admitted during examination vide para-10 that the concern

workmen (Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri Jamaluddin) can

raise Industrial Dispute through their Union (P.R.K.P.) vide

para-11 he also admitted that four post of SPA Gr.III,were

anticipated and for these four vacancies four workmen were

called for trade test and Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri

Jamaluddin also passed the trade test. Vide para-12 he

admitted that D.M. plant and SPA both are separated

category and that is SPA Gr.III no one was given promotion

and two post in SPA Gr. II was surrendered. He admitted

that the three Annexures filed with Ext-10 (w.s) has no

relation with this reference case. He admitted that as per

Ext-11/1(Ext-20 pukka Ext) four person had passed trade

test for post of SPA Gr. III He admitted as to letter of G.M.

filed with list Ext-15 vide para 14 the 1st party witness

clearly admitted that four passed candidates of trade test

vide Ext-20 ought to have been given promotion from 1997.

But Shri Dayashankar Oza and Jamaluddin were granted

promotion after three year (i.e. March 2000 vide Ext-25).

9. The evidence of 1st Part witness at Ext-14 vide

para-3 itself go to prove the discriminating of the 1st Party

in differentiating between recognized union and

unrecognized union. He deposed that recognized union is

having right to raise such industrial dispute for workmen

Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri Jamaluddin but P.R.K.P.

since is not recognized union and so dispute raised by the

union P.R.K.P. is legally not maintainable. His such evidence

is clearly violating the constitutional right guaranteed to

every person under the constitution of India. It is immaterial

that the case of two concern workmen were not taken up

by recognized union rather it was take up by P.R.K.P. But

P.R.K.P. is a registered union performing its activity taking

up causes of workmen within Western Railway and as per

admission of 1st party witness at para-l0 concern workmen

can raise dispute through their union. From Ext-21 which is

letter of concern workmen Shri Dayashankar Oza dated

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3159

03.06.1998 through proper channel to D.R.M. (E) Vatva

raising grievences that he was amongst the four successful

candidate passed trade test to SPAGr. III but only two out

of four has been promoted and posted vide letter E/L 839/

5/89 dated 23.04.1998 and requesting through representation

to promote him in SPA Gr. III scale Rs. 3050-4590. And

when the individual grievance of workmen Shri

Dayashankar Oza was not considered than the dispute

was raised through union (P .R.K.P).

10. Thus on scrutinising the evidence as per

discussion made above, I find and hold that the two

workmen Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri Jamaluddin had

also passed the trade test of SPA Gr. III and had been

selected for the higher post vide 1st party letter dated

04.12.1997. I also find and hold that though they have been

promoted vide Ext-25 letter dated 31.03.2000 in Gr. III but

are entitled for benefits of scale 950-1500 corresponding

3050-4590 from the date 23.04.1998 when other two trade

test of SPA Gr. III passed candidates Budhabhai B. Baria

and Amrish M.Bhavsar were promoted and got benefit of

scale 3050-4590. Thus, issue No-IV and V are decided in

favour of 2nd party union.

11.ISSUE No. VI:— In view of the findings to issue

no (IV) and (V) in the foregoing paras, I find and hold that

the action of the management of D.R.M., Western Railway,

Baroda in denying promotional benefits of the scale of

corresponding 3050-4590 to Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri

Jamalluddin to SPA Gr. III or equivalent post after they

cleared and passed the trade test (vide Ext-20/22) is illegal

and unjustified. This issue is decided against the 1st party.

12. ISSUE No. I and II :— In view of findings to issue

No -(III), (IV), (V) and (VI) in the foregoings, I further find

and hold that the reference is maintainable as the Union of

P.R.K.P. has valid cause of action for raising the industrial

dispute for the causes of its workmen Shri Dayashankar

Oza and Shri Jamaluddin.

13. ISSUE No. VIII:— The reference is allowed on

contest. No order as to cost.

The 1st party are directed to grant promotional

benefits of S.P.A Gr. III or equivalent post to the similar

situated passed candidates Shri Dayashankar Oza and Shri

Jamaluddin in the scale 950-1500 corresponding scale 3050-

4590 w.e.f. the date of promotion to the two trade test passed

candidates Shri Budhabhai B. Baria and Shri Amrish M.

Bhavsar within two months of publication of this award,

failing which the amount of calculated monetary benefits

will carry interest @9% P .A.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1200-

—tcfd dsUnz ljdkj dh ;g jk; gS fd layXu

vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ekeyksa ds lacaè esa ctkt bySDVªhdYl fyfeVsM

ds izcaèu ls lac) fu;ksDrkvksa vkSj muds dkexkjksa ds chp ,d

vkS|ksfxd fookn fo|eku gS(

vkSj bl fookn esa jk"Vªh; egRo dk iz'u lekfgr gS vkSj bldh

izd`fr ,slh gS fd ,d ls vfèd jkT; esa fLFkfr ctkt bySDVªhdYl

fyfeVsM ds izfr"Bkuksa dh #fp bl fookn esa gS ;k bl fookn ls mu

izfr"Bkuksa ds izHkkfor gksus dh laHkkouk gS(

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj dh ;g jk; gS fd mDr fookn dk

U;k;&fu.kZ;u ,d jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèdj.k }kjk fd;k tk,(

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 7[k }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

,rr}kjk ,d jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèdj.k dk xBu djrh gS ftldk

eq[;ky; eqEcbZ esa gksxk vkSj dsUnz ljdkj Jh xkSjh 'kadj ljkZQ dks]

tks orZeku esa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; la[;k&1]

eqEcbZ ds ihBklhu vfèdkjh gSa] dks bl U;k;kfèdj.k ds ihBklhu

vfèdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS vkSj mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10

dh mièkjk&1d }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk mDr

fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy, jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kfèdj.k esa

fufnZ"V djrh gSA

vuqlwph

^^D;k eSllZ ctkt bySDVªhdYl fyfeVsM eqEcbZ ds izcaèu

}kjk 20 pkVZj ekaxksa ¼ifjf'k"V ds vuqlkj½ ij fopkj ugha djus dh

dk;Zokgh oSè ,oa U;k;ksfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks lacafèr dkexkj fdl

izdkj dh lgk;rk ds gdnkj gSa\**

[lañ ,y&42012@42@2013&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2013

S.O. 1200.—Whereas the Central Government is of

the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the

employers in relation to the management of Bajaj Electricals

Ltd. and their workmen in respect to the schedule annexed;

And Whereas the dispute involves question of

national importance and is of such nature that the

establishments of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. situated in more

than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected;

And Whereas the Central Government is of the

opinion that the said dispute should be adjudicated by a

National Industrial Tribunal;

And Whereas the Central Government, in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 7 B of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) hereby constitutes a National

Industrial Tribunal with the Head Quarters at Mumbai and

appoint Justice Gauri Shanker Sarraf, presently Presiding

Officer, CGIT No. 1, Mumbai as its Presiding Officer and in

exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 1A of

Section 10 of the said Act, hereby refers the said Industrial

Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for

adjudication. The said National Industrial Tribunal shall

give its award within a period of six months.

3160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s Bajaj

Electricals Limited, Mumbai, in not considering the charter

of 20 demand (as per Annexure), is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

[No. L-42012/42/2013-IR(DU)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ifjf'k"V&1

INDIA BAJAJ ELECTRICALS EMPLOYERS'

FEDERATION AHMEDABAD

CHARTER OF DEMANDS FOR AND OF BEHALF OF

THE EMPLOYERS OF BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LIMITED

SITUATED ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

BASIC WAGE SCALES.

The Company shall revise the present basic wage

scales with effect from 1.1.2008 and shall pay basic

wages to the employees as per the following revised

wage scales every month with effect from 1.1.2008.

Grade A: Rs. 3000-50-3250-60-3550-70-3900

Grade B: Rs. 3600-80-4000-90-4450-100-4950

Grade C: Rs. 4200-110-4750-120-5350-130-600

Grade D: Rs. 5000-140-5700-150-6450-160-7250

FITTING IN THE EXISTING EMPLOYEES IN THE

REVISED SCALES.

The Company shall add Rs. 1400 per month to the

monthly the basis wage of the employees in Grade A,

Rs. 1650/- per month to the monthly basic wage of the

employees in Grade B, Rs. 1950 per month to the basic

wage of the employees in grade C, Rs. 2400/- to the

monthly basic wage of the employees in Grade D and

shall fit them at the proper step of their respective

grade. In the event of any employee not falling in the

proper step of the Grade, he shall be fitted in the next

higher step of the Grade.

STAGNATION INCREMENT

The employees reaching the ceiling of their grade shall

be paid the last drawn increment as annual increment

every year treating the employee as if never stagnated.

FIXED DEARNESS ALLOWANCE

The Company with effect from 1.1.2008 shall add

Rs. 600 per month, to the existing fixed dearness

allowance paid to each employee.

VARIABLE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE

With effect from 1.1.2008 the Company shall pay

Variable Dearness allowance every month to the

employees linked with All India Consumer Price Index

base (1949=100) or the consumer price index for the

city concerned whichever is higher at the rate of 1%

the basic wage of the month per point rise above the

datum point arrived at for calculating variable dearness

allowance to be paid to the employees as per the

settlement dtd. 11.12.2004.

MONTHLY ALLOWANCES

a) House Rent Allowance

The Company with effect from 1.1.2008 shall pay

House Rent Allwance every month to each

employee at the following rates as per the grade

as under:

Grade A: Rs. 1200/- every month

Grade B: Rs. 1500/- every month

Grade C: Rs. 1800/- every month

Grade D: Rs. 2100/- every month

b) Education Allowance

With effect from 1.1.2008 the Company shall pay

Rs. 1000 to each employee every month as

education allowance.

c) Domiciliary Medical Allowance

With effect from 1.1.2008 the Company shall pay

10% of the wages (Basic+FDA+VDA) as

domiciliary medical allowance to each employee

every month.

d) Vehicle Maintenance Allowance

The Company shall pay (i) Rs. 1000 every month

to each employee owning two wheelers

(ii) Rs. 2000 every month to each employee

owning four wheelers as vehicle Maintenance

Allowance every month with effect from

1.1.2008.

PETROL EXPENSES

The Company shall reimburse the petrol/diesel

expenses of the workmen every month to a maximum

of 75 liters every month.

LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION

The Company shall pay 2Tier A/c. class Rail fare upto

a maximum of 5000 kms. To and fro of the workmen and

their dependents as Leave Trael Concession once in a

year with effect from the calendar year of 2008.

REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES

The Company shall reimburse the medical expenses

including Hospitalization charges in full incurred by

the employees and their dependents.

10. LUNCH ALLOWANCE

The Company shall pay Rs.100 per day to each

employee as Lunch allowance with effect from 1.1.2008.

11. OUTFIT ALLOWANCE

The Company shall pay rs. 500 every month to each

employee as Outfit Allowance.

12. GRATUITY

The Company with effect from 1.1.08 shall pay 45 days

salary per year of completed service to the employees

as Gratuity.

13. EXGRATIA PAYMENT

The Company with effect from the calendar year 2008

shall pay 25% of the total annual income of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3161

employee as ex-gratia payment every year before

Diwali.

14. RETIREMENT AGE

The retirement age of the employees in the Company

shall be 65 years with effect from 1.1.2008.

15. RETIREMENT-CUM-DEATH BENEFIT

The Company shall pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the employee

who retires from service and to the dependents of the

employee who dies while in service of the Company

as retirement-cum-death benefit.

16. LOANS

The Company shall advance the following loans to

the employees without interest and shall recover the

same in each equal monthly instalments.

(i) Personal Loans Rs. 1,00,000/-

(ii) Vehicle Loan

80% of the cost of Vehicle

(iii) Housing Loan

80% of the cost of the House.

17. TEMPORARY WORKMEN

All employees working as Temporary or casual shall

be confirmed as permanent employee with effect from

1.1.2008.

18. YEARLY INCENTIVE

The Company with effect from 1.1.2008 shall pay yearly

incentive to the employees as under:

(i) Employee in Grade A- Rs. 25,000/-

(ii) Employee in Grade B- Rs. 35,000/-

(iii) Employee in Grade C- Rs. 50,000/-

(iv) Employee in Grade D- Rs. 75,000/-

The actual payment of the incentive shall be made in

the month of December every year.

19. CONTRACT LABOUR

The assurance to settle all the issues regarding

Contract Labour employed in the Company should be

fulfilled.

20. EXISTING TERMS AND CONDITIONS

All the existing terms and conditions of Service in

which no revision is sought for shall continue as if

they form a part of this settlement.

P. CHIDAMBARAM, President

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1201-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkjk 88 n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk psUubZ

isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku] ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa

dks bl vfèfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrs gSA ;g NwV] bl

vfèlwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, ykxw

jgsxhA

mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds vèhu gS( vFkkZr~%µ

¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj j[ksxh]

ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke fn[kk;s tk;saxs(

¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e ds vèhu ,slh

izlqfoèk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl vfèlwpuk

n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanÙk va'knkuksa

ds vkèkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vofè ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd, tk

pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(

¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vofè dh ckcr ftlds

nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vfèfu;e ¼ftls blesa

blds i'pkr~ mDr vofè dgk x;k gS½ izorZeku Fkk ,slh

foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks

deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lkèkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 ds vèhu mls

mDr vofè dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha(

¼5½ fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e dh èkjk 45

dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lkekftd

lqj{kk vfèdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkfèd`r dksbZ vU;

inèkjh(

¼i½

èkjk 44 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] mDr vofè dh

ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir

djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

¼ii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;

chek ¼lkèkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vofè ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k

ugha( ;k

¼iii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh] fu;kstd

n~okjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds QyLo:i bl

vfèlwpuk ds vèhu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq

:i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

¼iv½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vofè ds

nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds lacaè esa vfèfu;e ds

micaè izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèksa dk vuqikyu fd;k

x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr

gksxk%µ

¼d½

izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd

og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr vfèdkjh

;k vU; inèkjh bl vfèfu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ

vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok

¼[k½

,sls izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vfèHkksxkèhu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj

mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa

ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèr

,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls

3162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa

vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa

ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½

izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa

ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k

¼?k½

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m)j.k ysuk(

¼³½

;FkkfuèkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks tk,xh

vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr

ysuh gksxhA

[lañ ,l&38014@13@2011&,l ,l&I]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2013

S.O. 1201.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of Chennai Petroleum Corporation from the

operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective

from the date of issue of notification for a period of one

year.

The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:—

(6) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees';

(7) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(8) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(9) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees' State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(10) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of:—

(v)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1)

of Section 44 for the said period; or

(vi)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(vii)

Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and kind being

benefits in consideration of which

exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(viii) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to:

(f)

require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as

he may consider necessary for the

purpose of this Act; or

(g) at any reasonable time enter any

factory, establishment, office or other

premises occupied by such principal

or immediate employer at any

reasonable time and require any person

found in charge thereof to produce to

such inspector or other official and

allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the

employment of personal and payment

of wages or to furnish to him such

information as he may consider

necessary; or

(h) examine the principal or immediate

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee;

(i)

make copies of or extracts from any

document maintained in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises,

(j)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3163

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/13/2011-SS-I]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1202-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkjk 88 n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fgUnqLrku U;wtfizaV

fyñ dksêk;ke] dsjy ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa

dks bl vfèfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl

vfèlwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, ykxw

jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds vèhu gS( vFkkZr~%&

¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs(

¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e ds vèhu

,slh izlqfoèk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vfèlwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vkèkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vofè ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(

¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vofè dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vfèfu;e

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vofè dgk x;k gS½

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lkèkj.k½

fofu;e] 1950 ds vèhu mls mDr vofè dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkha(

¼5½ fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e dh èkjk

45 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vfèdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkfèd`r

dksbZ vU; inèkjh(

¼i½

èkjk 44 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] mDr vofè

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

¼ii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek ¼lkèkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk

;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vofè ds

fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha( ;k

¼iii½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds

QyLo:i bl vfèlwpuk ds vèhu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

¼iv½ ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vofè

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds lacaè esa vfèfu;e

ds micaè izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

¼d½ izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

vfèdkjh ;k vU; inèkjh bl vfèfu;e

ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok

¼[k½ ,sls izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds

vfèHkksxkèhu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr

le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls

;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu

vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèr ,sls ys[kk]

cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k

vU; inèkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh

ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os

vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½ izèku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds

vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr

dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k

vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus

dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS]

ijh{kk djuk( ;k

¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh

;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k

m)j.k ysuk(

¼³½ ;FkkfuèkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks tk,xh

vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr

ysuh gksxhA

[lañ ,l&38014@08@2012&,l ,l&I]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2013

S.O. 1202.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of Hindustan Newsprint Ltd., Kottayam,

Kerala from the operation of the said Act. The exemption

shall be effective from the date of issue of notification for a

period of one year.

3164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:—

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees';

(2) Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees' State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of:—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1)

of section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the

Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees

continue to be entitled to benefits provided

by the employer in cash and kind being

benefits in consideration of which

exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions

of the Act had been complied with during

the period when such provisions were in

force in relation to the said factory to be

empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as

he may consider necessary for the

purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or

immediate employer at any reasonable

time and require any person found in

charge thereof to produce to such

inspector or other official and allow him

to examine accounts, books and other

documents relating to the employment

of personal and payment of wages or

to furnish to him such information as

he may consider necessary; or

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

document maintained in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/08/2012-SS-I]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1203-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,;j

bf.M;k fy- ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

59@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@04@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@34@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2013

S.O. 1203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 59/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of

M/s. Air India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 05/04/2013.

[No. L-11012/34/1998-IR(CM-I]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3165

ANNEXURE

BEFORE Dr. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D No. 59/1999

All India General Mazdoor

Trade Union (Regd.)

163, Balmukund Khand,

Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

...Workman

Versus

The Director General.

M/s. Air India Limited,

Northern India,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi.

...Management

AWARD

Watch and ward jobs were awarded to M/s. Marshal

Securities & Detectives Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the

contractor) by M/s. Air India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to

as the management). To carry out is contractual obligations,

the contractor engaged Smt. Mithlesh besides others. Smt.

Mithelesh was engaged as a filed worker by the contractor

on 26.12.94. She worked till 15.6.96, the date when contract

agreement between the contractor and the management

came to an end. She approached the contractor many a

times for reinstatement of her services. When her request

was not conceded to she raised a demand on 25.11.97 for

reinstatement of her services. When her demand was not

conceded to by the management, she raised an industrial

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since her claim was

contested by the management, 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-11012/34/98-IR(C-I), New

Delhi, dated 16.02.1999, with following terms:

"Whether the security guards working as contract

labourer in the estt. of M/s. Air India Ltd. for number

of years just before judgement of Supreme Court in

"Air India statutary Corpn. etc." Are entitled to

preferential treatment for recruitment in the estt.?"

2. Claim statement was filed by Smt. Mitlesh pleading

therein that she was appointed with the management

through the contractor as a field worker on 26.12.94. Her

wages were Rs. 1974/- per month. She worked sincerely

without giving any chance of complaint to her superiors.

She use to perform her duties on directions of officers of

the management, who use to mark her attendance. She was

exploited by engaging her through the contractor. Work

performed by her was of perennial nature. She raised a

demand with the management to appoint her in their

services, which demand was not conceded to.

The Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation

[1996 (9) scale 70] has ruted that engagement of contract

labour in the establishment of the management was illegal.

Despite the judgement of the Apex Court, she was not

given appointment by the management. Her services were

terminated by the management on 15.6.96, without any

notice or charge sheet. Since the date of her termination

she is unemployed. She claims reinstatement in services of

the management with continuity and full back wages.

4. Claim was demurred by the management that

persons similarly situated, as the present claimant is, filed

a writ petition bearing CWP No. 881/98 before High Court

of Delhi, which petition was dismissed vide order dated

23.2.98. Letter Patent Appeal was also dismissed on 2.4.98.

Special Leave Petition No. 5400/98, titled as Survinder

Kumar Vs. Air India, filed by them, could not evoke

response since the Apex Court asked them to await the

judgement of larger bench in the matter of FCI vs. Transport

and Dock Workers Union, vide its order dated 20.7.2000.

5. The management presents that the claiment was

an employee of the contractor, to whom work of watch and

ward duties was assigned. Since there was no relationship

of employer and employee between the parties, here claim

is laible to be dismissed. She was appointed by the

contractor and controlled by him in all matters. Since she

was under the direct control and supervision of the

contractor, her services were dispensed with by the latter

on 15.6.96, when his contract came to an end. The

management projects that the judgment of the Apex Court

in Air India Statutory Corporation case (supra) have been

complied with. Her claim has become infrcutuous. Her

demand for absorption in the services of the management

is uncalled for, hence may be dismissed, claims the

management.

6. In rejoinder, facts were reiterated by the claimant.

7. Claimant had testified facts to substantiate her

claim. Shri Azim Akbar, entered the witness box to fend

facts on behalf of the management. No other witness was

examined by either of the parties.

8. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II) New Delhi

11.2.2008, case was transferred to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi for adjudication by

the appropriate Government.

9. On consideration of pleadings, evidence adduced

by the parties and submissions made at the bar, the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi passed

an award on 14.5.2008 announcing therein that the claimant

is no entitled to any preferential treatment for her

recruitment in the establishment. Relevant portion of the

award is extracted thus:

3166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

"The workman has admitted in here cross-

examination that she was appointed with Marshal Security

and Detective Services w.e.f. 26.12.1994. She has further

admitted that she was issued identity Card by the Air India

as a token of her being employee of M/s. Marshal Security

and Dectetives. She has also admitted that it is correct to

suggest that her services were not terminated by M/s Air

India.

The workmant has admitted that Identity Card were

issued reflecting her as workman of M/s. Marshal Security

and Detective Services and her services were not terminated

by Air India. She has not filed any document to show that

she worked under the control and supervision of the

management. She was engaged by M/s. Marshal Security

and Detective Services and her services were terminated

by M/s. Marshal Security and Detective Services. So there

is no question of relationship of master and servant. The

workman is a contract workman and her services have been

terminated by the contractor.

The reference is replied thus:—

The Security Guards working as contract labourers

in the establishment of M/s. Air India Limited for number

of years just before judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Air India Statutory Corporation etc." are not entitled for

preferential treatment for recruitment in the establishment.

The award is given accordingly".

10. On 26.6.2008, the claimant moved an application

for setting aside the award dated 14.5.2008. On hearing the

parties, the award dated 14.5.2008 was set aside by the

Tribunal, vide its order dated 23.7.2008.

11. Vide notification No. A-11016/3/2009-CLS-II, New

Delhi dated 03.04.2013, additional charge of the post of the

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No. II, New Delhi, was assigned to the undersigned by the

appropriate Government and thus, this case reached this

Tribunal for adjudication.

12. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B.K. Prasad,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri V.P. Gaur, authorised representative,

raised submissions on behalf of the management. 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:—

13. In her affidavit Ex. WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

the claimant swears that she was working with the

management since 26.12.1994 as a failed worker. She places

reliance on photocopy of identity card and extracts of duty

diary to project her to be an employee of the management.

However she concedes that she was appointed through

the contractor. She claims to have been working under

supervision and control of the officer of the management.

She asserts that her work is of permanent in nature. In

order to deprive of legitimate right, she was placed under

the contractor. However during the course of her cross

examination she concedes that identity card issued in her

favour, shows that it was issued by the management, on

her being an employee of the contractor. She admits that

her services were not terminated by the management. She

declares that her services were terminated on 15.6.96. when

contract between the management and the contractor came

to an end. She admits that she approached the contractor

3-4 times for job and thereafter served a notice of demand

on the management on 15.11.97.

14. Shri Azim Akbar swears in his affidavit Ex. MW1/

A, tendered as evidence, that contract was awarded to the

contractor to perform security related jobs. The claimant

was an employee of the contractor. She was paid wages by

the contractor. She worked upto 15.6.96 and thereafter the

contractor withdrew its staff from the establishement of

the management. Her services could not have been

regularised in terms of the judgement of the Apex Court,

handed down on 6.12.96.

15. When facts unfolded by the claimant and

Shri Azim Akbar are appreciated, it came to light that the

claimant projects to have been engaged through a

contractor, which fact was dispelled by Shri Akbar. Question

for consideration would be as to whether the claimant has

been able to establish that she was an employee of the

management? She nowhere projects that the contractor

engaged her as an agent of the management. She failed to

rebut the facts testified by Shri Akbar to the effect that

security related jobs were awarded by the management to

the contractor. Thrust of his testimony had been that the

contract, entered into between the management and the

contractor, was on principal to principal basis. He rejects

the theory of contractor being an agent of the management.

The claimant places reliance on photocopy of identity card

Ex.WW1/1. When this document is carefully scrutinised, it

came to light that temporary pass was issued in favour of

the claimant, being an employee of the contractor. Extract

of duty diary, which are Ex.WW1/2 to Ex.WW1/17, nowhere

projects that work of the claimant was being supervised by

the management. These documents nowhere give an

inference that the claimant was under financial,

administrative managerial and disciplinary control of the

management.

16. The claimant fails to discount testimony of

Shri Akbar to the effect that her wages were paid by the

contractor, under whose supervision and control she was

working. Her admission to this effect that her services came

to an end on 15.6.96, when the contract between the

management and the contractor came to an end, crystallises

that she was under the commend and supervision of the

contractor. The facts and circumstances testified by

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3167

Shri Azim Akbar and those conceded by the claimant make

it apparent that all ingredients, required for determination

of an employee and employer relationship between the

claimant and the contractor, are established to the hilt. I am

constrained to conclude that the claimant was engaged by

the contractor to carry out his contractual obligation. He

paid her wages, exercised supervision and control over her

and lastly terminated her services on 15.6.96, when his

contract came to an end. Thus it is declared that relationship

of employer and employee existed between the claimant

and the contractor. There was no privy of contract between

the claimant and the management.

17. Whether the claimant, who was an employee of

the Contractor, can maintain a dispute against the

management? For an answer to this proposition, the

Tribunal has to take note of the law contained in section 10

of the Contract Labour Act, which makes provision for

prohibition of employment of contract labour. For sake of

convenience provisions of section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act are reproduced thus:

"10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour:—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

the appropriate Government may, after

consultation with the Central Board or, as the

case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by

notification in the Official Gazette, employment

of contract labour in any process, operation or

other work in any establishment.

(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-

section (1) in relation to an establishment, the

appropriate Government shall have regard to the

conditions of work and benefits provided for

the contract labour in that establishment and

other relevant factors, such as—

(a)

whether the process, operation or other

work is incidental to, or necessary for the

industry, trade, business, manufacture or

occupation that is carried on in the

establishment,

(b)

whether it is of perennial nature, that is to

say, it is of sufficient duration having

regard to the nature of Industry, trade,

business, manufacture or occupation

carried on in that establishment;

(c)

whether it is done ordinarily through

regular workmen in that establishment or

an establishment similar thereto;

(d)

whether it is sufficient to employ

considerable number of whole-time

workmen.

Explanation—If a question arises whether any

process or operation or other work is of perennial nature,

the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall

be final."

18. As emerge out of the provisions of sub-section

(1) of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, the appropriate

Government may, by notification in the official gazette,

prohibit employment of contract labour in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment. When

employment of contract labour is prohibited, by issuance

of a notification in official gazette by the appropriate

Government, what would be the status of the contract

labour employed in the establishment? Such a question

arose before the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.

[2001 (7) S.C.C.I]. The Apex Court ruled therein that there

cannot be automatic absorption of contract labour by

principal employer on issuance of notification by the

appropriate Government on abolition of contract labour

system, under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the law laid

by the Apex Court, which is extracted thus:

“.....they fall in three classes: (1) where contract labour

is engaged in or in connection with the work of an

establishment and employment of contract labour is

prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court

ordered abolition of contract labour or becuase the

appropriate Government issued notification under section

10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of contract

labour working in the establishment was ordered, (2) where

contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a

camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in

the establishment of the principal employer were held, in

fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer

himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to the abolition of

contract labour but present instances wherein the court

pierce the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at

the stage after employment of contract labour stood

prohibited, (3) where in discharge of a statutory obligation

of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal

employer availed the services of the contractor, the courts

have held that the contract labour would indeed be

employees of the principal employer”.

19. The Court ruled that neither section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of

a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-

section (1) of section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case [1974 (3)

SCC 66], the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR

1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory by the

3168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in

the canteen were held to be employees of the establishment.

The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall in class (3)

mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai (1978 Lab. I.C.

1264) was considered by the Apex Court in the said

precedent and it was ruled therein that the said precedent

falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court concluded

that on issuance of prohibitive notification under section

10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract labour 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 of the establishment under a

genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade

compliance of various beneficial legislation so as to deprive

the workers of the benefit thereunder. 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 establishment

concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified

by it for that purpose.

20. As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance of

a prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of his 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 in the establishment or for

supply of the contract labour for the work of the

establishment under a genuine contract or it is a mere ruse/

camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial legislation

so as to deprive the workers of the benefits therein. Thus it

was ruled that a contract labour can raise a dispue befoe

the industrial adjudicator in regard to his conditions of

service and in case 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.

Also see Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd.

[1960(II) LLJ. 233], which was referred with approval in

Steel Authority of India.

21. In Shivnandan Sharma [1955(1) LLJ 688], the

respondent Bank entrsted its Cash Department under a

contract to the Treasures who appointed cashiers,

including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before

the Apex Court was; was the appellant an employee of the

Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into the

Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

"If a master employs a servant and authorizes him to

employ a number of persons to do a particular job and to

guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a cash

consideration, the employees thus appointed by the servant

would be equally with the employer, servant of the master."

In the above precedent the Apex Court for the first

time laid down the cruicial test of supervision and control

for determining the relationship of employer and employee.

22. In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was

manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor

who engaged his own workers. When, after some time, the

workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial dispute

that they were denied employment by the petitioner. On

reference of that dispute, the labour court passed an award

against the petitioner. When matter reached the Apex Court,

on examination of various factors and applying the effective

control test, it was held that though there was no direct

relationship between the petitioner and the workers yet on

lifting the veil and looking at the conspectus of factors

governing employment, the naked truth, though draped in

different perfect paper arrangement, was that the real

employer was the petitioner, not the immediate contractor.

The Apex Court stated law in following words:

"Where a worker or group of workers labours to

produce goods or services and these goods or services

are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the

employer. He has economic control over the workers's

subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for

any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The

presence of intermediate contractor with whom alone the

workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu

is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at

the conspectus of factors governing employment, we

discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect

paper arrangement, that the real employer is the

management, not the immediate contractor***. If the

livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour

rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit

and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct

relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or

the make-believe trappings of detachment from the

management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may

vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot

be shaken off. Of course, if there is total dissociation in

fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved

workmen, the employment is, in substance and real-life

terms, by another. The management's adventitious

connections cannot ripen into real employment."

As noted above, this precedent does not present an

illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance

where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position to the effect that the contract labours were

employees of the principal employer and not of the

contractor.

23. In Steel Authority of India (supra) it has been

ruled that the term "contract labour" is a species of workman.

A workman may be hired: (1) in an establishment by the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3169

principal employer or by his agent with or without the

knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in connection

with the work of an establishment by the principal employer

through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the

knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is hired

in or in connection with the work of an establishment by

the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts

as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship

between the principal employer and the workman. But when

a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an

establishment by a contractor, either because he has

undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment

or because he supplies workmen for any work of the

establishment, a question might arise whether the

contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai's case

(supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation case [1999

(6) S.C.C. 439] etc.; if the answer is in affirmative, the

workman will be in fact an employee of the principal

employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workman

will be a contract labour.

24. In view of the legal proposition, referred above, it

is concluded that the claimant can maintain this dispute

against the management since he agitates that the contract

agreement between the management and the Contractor is

sham and nominal.

25. Whether any directions for deeming the contract

labour as having become the employee of the principal

employer can be issued, when the contractor or the principal

employer had violated the provisions of the Contract

Labour Act? To find an answer, provisions of that Act are

to be examined. The Contract Labour Act regulates

conditions of workers in contract labour system and

provides for its abolition by the appropriate Government

as provided by section 10 of that Act. In regard to regulatory

measures section 7 requires the principal employer to get

itself registered, while section 12 obliges every contractor

to obtain a licence, under the provisions of that Act. Section

9 places an embargo on the principal employer of an

establishment from employing contractor labour in the

establishment, when either it is not registered or its

registration has been revoked. Section 12 of the Contract

Labour Act imposes a liability on a contractor not to

undertake or execute any work through contract labour

except under and in accordance with a licence. Sections 23,

24 and 25 make contraventions of the provisions of that

Act or Rules made thereunder penal. In Dena Nath (1992

Lab. I.C .75) the Apex Court considered the question,

whether non-compliance of the provisions of sections 7

and 12 by the principal employer and the contractor

respectively would make the contract labour employed by

the principal employer as the employee of the latter. It was

ruled that only consequence of non-compliance either by

the principal employer of section 7 or by the contractor in

complying the provisions of section 12 is that they are

liable for prosecution under the said Act. But the employees

employed through the contractor cannot be deemed to be

the employees of the principal employer.

26. In the Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex

Court laid emphasis ".....the consequence of violation of

Section 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicity provided in

Section 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or this 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 if absorption of

contract labour in the establishment of principal employer

or a lesser or 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". The above authoritative pronouncements

make it clear that on violations of the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act or Rules made thereunder, the contract

labour could not be deemed to have become the employee

of the principal employer.

27. Now I would turn to the facts of the present

controversy. It is not a case where an employee of a

contractor, employed in a statutory canteen, has invoked

the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This matter, as projected

by the claimant, is left to be approached on the proposition

as to whether contract agreement entered into between the

management and the contractor was sham and nominal. To

establish that contract agreement entered into between

the management and the contractor was a perfect paper

arrangement, neither the claimant took steps to seek a

command for the management to place contract agreement

on record nor questioned Shri Akbar to establish that the

contract agreement was nominal. No evidence was brought

over the record to establish that the said contract agreement

was entered into with a view to evade beneficial labour

legislations. When claimant claims that the said contract

was a device to exploit her, onus was on her to establish

those facts. No effort was made on her behalf to get that

document placed over the record. The claimant never tried

to envoke jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 11(3)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short the Act)

seeking a direction for the management to produce the

contract agreement before the Tribunal. It is appearent that

at no point of time claimant made efforts to question the

said contract as a device for her exploitation. For

desideratum of evidence it cannot be concluded that the

contract agreement was sham and bogus. When no

question is raised to assail the contract agreement, it cannot

be held to be bogus.

28. Much hue and cry has been raised by Shri Prasad

to the effect that in compliance of Air India statutory

Corporation case (supra) the management has regularised

various contract labours in its service. According to him,

the management is under an obligation to regularise

services of the claimant too. As admitted by claimant, she

was withdrawn from service by the contractor 15-6-96, the

3170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

date when his contract came to an end. As projected by

Shri Akbar, a new contractor was awarded work relating to

security jobs. The claimant ceased to be deployed in the

establishment of the management w.e.f. 16.6.96. The Apex

Court gave its verdict in Air India statutory corporation

case on 6.12.96, on which date claimant was not deployed

in the established of the management. Since she was not

deployed in the establishment of the management on

6.12.96, her services could not be regularised with the

management.

29. Steel Authority of India (supra) over rules the

judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation (supra)

prospectively and delcares that any direction issued by

any industrial adjudicator/any court including the High

Court, for absorption of the contract labour following the

judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation case shall hold

good and the same shall not be set aside altered or modified

on the basis of this judgement in cases where such a

direction have been given effect to and has become final.

Thus it is evident that the contract labours who have been

ordered to absorbed, would continue to be the employees

of the management. Since the claimant was not abosorbed,

she cannot claim absorption now.

30. Question would be as to whether the claimant

can seek preferential treatment in the matter of her re-

employment with the management? For answer to this

proposition, she has to justify her claim under the

provisions of section 25-H of the Act. For sake of

convenience provisions of section 25-H of the Act are

reproduced thus :

"25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—

Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer

proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in

such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to

the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer

themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched

workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall

have preference over other persons".

31. Section 25-H of the Act prescribes certain

conditions for the workmen to be entitled to claim the benefit

under it. In order to claim preference in employment, the

following conditions should be satisfied :

(1) He should be a citizen of India.

(2) The workmen should have been 'retrenched'

prior to re-employment.

(3) He should have been retrenched from the same

category of service in the industrial

establishment in which the re-employment is

proposed, and

(4) He should have offered himself for re-

employment in response to the notice by

employer under Rule 76 of the Industrial

Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, or under any Rule

framed by a State.

32. For seeking preferential treatment, the claimant

has to show that she was retrenched by the management

from the category of service in which category re-

employment is proposed. As projected above services of

the claimant were not retrained by the management. In such

a situation the claimant is not entitled to seek preferential

treatment in the matter of her re-employment by the

management.

33. In view of the above discussion it is apparent

that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. Her claim is,

therefore, brushed aside. An award is, accordingly, passed

in favour of the management and against the claimant. It be

sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 28.05.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1204.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk c®d ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè eas

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y&12012@85@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2013

S.O. 1204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2012) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Canara Bank and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 06.06.2013

[No. L-12012/85/2011-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 1st May, 2013

Present : A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 2/2012

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Canara Bank and their workmen]

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3171

BETWEEN

Sri K. Selvaraj

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Dy. General Manager

2nd Party/Management

Canara Bank, HRM Section,

Circle Office 166, T. V.

Samy Road, R. S. Puram

Coimbatore

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

M/s. G. B. Saravana

Bhavan, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. P. Amirtharaj,

Management

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of labour vide its

Order No. L-12012/85/2011 IR (B-II) dated 13.12.2011

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of Canara

Bank, Coimbatore of terminating the services of Sri

K. Selvaraj, Ex-Peon 08.10.2008 vide order dated

24.10.2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 2/2012 and issued notice to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their claim and counter

statement as the case may be.

3. The allegations in the Claim Statement, bereft of

unnecessary details are as follows:

Petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wager in

the Accounts Services on 20.04.1991 and thereafter as a

Daily Wager Probationary Peon at Respondent's office by

reference dated 08.09.1994. Staff number allotted to him

was 64267 dated 19.10.1994. His service had been

regularized by order of General Manager dated 11.03.1994.

He was thereafter transferred to Coimbatore Currency Chest

as per order dated 12.04.2003. He had availed leave for the

treatment of his widowed mother for her ailment on

emergency situations and when not supposed to seek leave

in person he sent a communication through phone or by

messengers/ relatives. He availed leave from 16.05.2008 for

his mother's treatment at Ayurvedic Hospital in Kerala. He

was not in the station to attend to the communications

sent to him. Thereafter he was bedridden and was under

treatment in Kerala. He was not able to submit explanation

to get leave extended or to reply to the communications

sent to him. Respondent denied hearing his grievances.

Reasonable opportunity was not given by the Respondent.

Respondent mechanically by order dated 24.10.2008 held

him to be deemed to have vacated with effect from

08.10.2008. Termination order is not sustainable both in

law and on facts. No reasonable opportunity had been

given to him to explain his grievance by way of personal

enquiry. Natural justice or any process of law was not

followed. His unblemished service was not taken into

account. The order is against the statute and the other

laws. ID raised having ended in a failure report the reference

is occasioned. Termination is to be set aside and the

petitioner is to be reinstated into service with full back

wages and all other attendant benefits.

4. Counter Statement averments briefly read as

follows:

Clause-33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005

deals with voluntary cessation of employment for

workman. It was circulated by Circular No. 157 of

2005 dated 20.06.2005. The claim is to be rejected for

delay and latches. After lapse of two years raising

the matter without explaining the delay is to be

viewed against him since no right accrues to a person

sleeping on his rights. He has not stated the correct

and true facts of the case. Petitioner appointed as

Probationary Peon on 22.09.1994 was confirmed as

Peon on 22.03.1995. He had been habitually absent

unauthorizedly without leave violating leave rules.

As on November, 2001 he had availed 360 days on

loss of pay and 237 days of his absence was treated

as absence without leave. Hence he was cautioned

to restrict his leave taking and adhere to the leave

rules under letter dated 28.11.2001. While on transfer

to Currency Chest, Coimbatore on 12.04.2003 he

continued his unauthorized absenteeism. As on

November 2003 he had availed 360 days leave on

loss of pay and 592 days also as on loss of pay being

absence without leave. He was again advised by

letter dated 06.11.2003. Even after the letters he has

not corrected himself. He again remained absent

unauthorizedly from 02.01.2006 to 02.02.2006,

13.02.2006 to 04.03.2006, 17.04.2006 to 27.04.2006 and

02.05.2006 to 11.05.2006 which periods were treated

as absence without leave and hence on loss of pay.

He was issued Charge Sheet on 11.04.2006 for

violating the leave rules of the Bank and imposed

punishment of be brought down to a lower stage in

the scale of pay by one stage for a period of 6 months

without cumulative effect on 13.06.2006. Despite all

he remained un-authorizedly absent from 27.06.2006

and he was informed by letter dated 10.07.2006 that

his frequent/continuous absence had hampered the

smooth functioning of the Branch. On 19.07.2006 he

availed 130 days leave, 360 days leave on loss of pay

and his absence for 961 days had been treated as

absence without leave and hence on loss of pay. He

unauthorizedly absented thereafter from 03.03.2008.

He was instructed to report for duty on or before

12.05.2008 by letter dated 06.05.2008. After reporting

for duty on 15-5-2008 he again absented from

16-5-2008. By letters dated 12-6-2008, 22-7-2008 and

9-8-2008 though instructed he failed to report for

duty. Since he was absent from duties continuously

3172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

for more than 90 days and not responding to the

notices to report back to duty, Bank issued final

notice dated 01.09.2008 to report within 30 days from

the date of receipt of the letter failing which he would

be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his

employment under the clause of the Bipartite

Settlement. The communication was acknowledged

but he neither reported nor replied. Being so, it was

recorded by the Bank dated 24.10.2008 that he had

voluntarily vacated the employment w.e.f. 08.10.2008.

The act of the Bank is in accordance with law and

cannot be faulted. Averments with regard to his

family background are not to the knowledge of the

Respondent. The reasons mentioned for his

absenteeism are all afterthoughts to suit his

convenience. He was afforded sufficient

opportunities to report for duty in which he failed.

The order is valid. His mother's illness was not to the

knowledge of the Bank in the absence of likely

reasoned application for leave. He also did not

intimate the reason for his long absence. He did not

show interest in reporting for duty. Bank therefore

invoked the provision of voluntary cessation of

employment and treated the petitioner as having

voluntarily vacated his services. The claim is to be

dismissed.

5. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether termination of the services of Sri

K. Selvaraj, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 08.10.2008 is legal and

justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?

6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1

and Ex.W1 to Ex.W13 on the petitioner's side and that of

MW1 and EX.M1 to Ex.M12 on the Respondent's side.

Points (i) and (ii)

7. Heard both sides. Perused the records, documents,

evidence and written arguments on behalf of the

Respondent. On behalf of the petitioner his learned counsel

argued that the impugned action is illegal and not

sustainable in the absence of any enquiry held. The action

was based on Clause-33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement dealing

with voluntary cessation of employment of workman. The

said clause is not applicable in the case of the concerned

workman. The charge sheet shows only absenteeism of

the workman. The petitioner has not had any

communication before 01.09.2008. For the particular clause

to work out 3 opportunities should have been given. He

has not taken any employment elsewhere, the relevant

clause is applicable only to such persons. Here he met with

capital punishment which is putting him on economic death.

The action is to be set aside which is prayed for.

8. The contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent

are that the action on hand is not a punishment of the

employee. The petitioner continuously remained absent

unauthorizedly w.e.f. 16.05.2008. Notices were sent to him

in terms of 8th Bipartite Settlement provisions but he neither

reported for duty nor gave any response entailing in his

being treated as having voluntary vacated the employment

w.e.f. 08.10.2008. Till November 2001 he had availed 360

days leave on loss of pay and his absence for 237 days

was without leave and hence on loss of pay. Though he

was cautioned he did not correct himself. Upto November

2003 he remained unauthorizedly absent for 592 days. He

was again cautioned. He continued his unauthorized

absenteeism frequently. He had been once punished for

previous violation of leave rules, despite which he did not

respond positively. He has not proved that due to treatment

of his mother he had to be with her in Kerala. Even the

Medical Certificate for self stating treatment for five months

dated 20.09.2009 relates to the period after cessation of

employment. His claim is false and not tenable. Notices

which is Ex.ME9 and ME11 sent to him to Coimbatore

address has been received by him but with no response.

He has not submitted any leave application. The action is

not a punitive one. Similar action was upheld by the Hon'ble

High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide 2010-III-LLJ-702.

The claim is to be dismissed.

9. The termination of services of the petitioner, which

according to the Management was voluntary cessation of

employment due to the self working of Section-33 of the

8th Bipartite Settlement is not a punitive one. According to

the petitioner the action of bringing about cessation of

employment of the petitioner invoking Section-33 of the

8th Bipartite Settlement is illegal and is not to be sustained

in the absence of any enquiry held. According to him charge

sheet shows only absenteeism of the workman. The

petitioner has not had any communication before 01.09.2008.

For the self working out of the clause, three opportunities

should have been.

10. Evidently, the relevant clause is applicable

where a workman absents himself from work for 90 or

more consecutive days without prior sanction or where

there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up

employment elsewhere in India or outside. In such

situations he shall be given a notice at his last known

address calling upon him to report for work within 30

days of the date of notice. If not complied with the notice

employee shall be given a further notice to report for

work within 30 days failing which he is to be deemed to

have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry

of the said notice and advised accordingly by registered

post. If again he fails, he shall be given a final notice to

report for work within 30 days failing which he will be

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3173

deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on

the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by

registered post. Here what is called in question is his

absenteeism from 16.05.2008. It is for more than a period

of consecutive 90 days. According to the Management

he was issued letters dated 12.06.2008, 22.07.2008 and

09.08.2008 wherein he was instructed to report for duty

but he failed. Final notice was issued on 01.09.2008.

According to the Management communication was

acknowledged by the petitioner but the petitioner did

not respond. But the case of the petitioner is that after

16.05.2008 he has not received any letter from the Bank

except the final notice. According to the witness of the

Management examined as MW1 the acknowledgement

cards of letters dated 22.07.2008 and 01.09.2008 are with

them. The acknowledgement cards either in original or

in xerox in respect of other letters have not been

produced.

11. That no enquiry was held and therefore the action

is not sustainable as argued on behalf of the petitioner is

not acceptable in as much as the action taken was on the

basis of Clause-33 of the Bipartite Settlement provided for

voluntary cessation of employment of workmen on

fulfillment of the conditions of the said clause. The other

contention that for the self working out of the clause three

opportunities should have been given is to be merited.

That clause is applicable only to employ taking employment

elsewhere or abroad is nothing but a fallacy. Whether the

petitioner has had received the three notices as

contemplated in Clause-33 is an important consideration

to ascertain whether the principle underlying the clause

has worked in the true sense and spirit of the same. As

admitted by MW1, no original or xerox copy of the postal

receipts or acknowledgement cards of the whole of the

letters sent to the petitioner have been produced but only

a few of them have been produced. The categorical version

of WW1 is that he has not received any letters except the

final notice. In such a situation it cannot be said that

Clause-33 of the 8th Bipartite Settlement could have worked

out itself to the peril and prejudice of the petitioner to

effect voluntary cessation of his employment bringing

about his termination from service. Again discernibly the

three notices alleged to have been sent, do not seem to

keep up the time frame within which they have to be sent.

In other words the conditions for the self-working out of

the clause, cannot be found to have been satisfied for the

clause to work out and bring about cessation of his

employment resulting in termination of his services.

Therefore, the said cessation of his employment and the

resultant termination from service are to be set aside and

he is to be reinstated into service and is ordered accordingly.

12. In the result it is held that the termination from

service of the petitioner is not legal and justified. He is to

be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of

service and all attendant benefits but without back wages.

13. The reference is answered as above. (Dictated to the

P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this day the 1st May, 2013)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 151 Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri K. Selvaraj

For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1, Sri R. Viswanathan

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

20.04.1991

Appointment order issued by the

Respondent Bank as a daily wages in

account section to the petitioner

Ex.W2

08.09.1994

Order of appointment as a Probationary

Peon issued by the Respondent

Ex. W3

23.09.1994

Proceeding of the General Manager

by the Respondent Bank

Ex.W4

22.10.1994

Letter issued by the Respondent Bank

Ex. W5

11.03.1995

Proceeding of the General Manager

by the Respondent Bank

Ex.W6

12.04.2003

Proceedings of the Deputy General

Manager by the Respondent Bank

Ex.W7

29.04.2005

Receipts.

Ex. W8

09.03.2006

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex. W9

24.10.2008

Order of dismissal issued to the

petitioner

Ex.W10

20.09.2009

Doctor's report

Ex. W11

07.04.2011

Petition filed under Section2(A)(2) of

the IA Act.

Ex. W12

01.06.2011

Reply by the Respondent

Ex.W13

29.07.2011

Failure Report in M.7/53/2011-A/M.

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

20.06.2005

Circular 157/89 regarding Voluntary

Cessation of Employment

Ex.M2

28.11.2001

Letter addressed to K. Selvaraj

Ex. M3

06.11.2003

Letter addressed to K. Selvaraj

Ex.M4

13.06.2006

Proceedings of Deputy General

Manager imposing punishment

Ex.M5

10.07.2006

Letter addressed to K. Selvaraj

Ex.M6

19.07.2006

Letter addressed to K. Selvaraj

Ex.M7

24.10.2008

Proceeding of Deputy General

Manager

Ex.M8

30.05.2008

Letter regarding absence of K. Selvaraj

without information

Ex.M9

22.07.2008

Letter addressed to K. Selvaraj

Ex.M10

22.07.2008

Postal acknowledgement card of letter

dated 22.07.2008

Ex.M11

01.09.2008

Letter addressed to K. Selvaraj

Ex.M12

06.09.2008

Postal acknowledgement card of letter

dated 01.09.2008

3174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1205.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; iq.ks% ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y.&12012@180@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2013

S.O. 1205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/2006) of

the Industrial Tribunal, Pune (Maharashtra) as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 06.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/180/2005-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRA

AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No. 06 of 2006

The Assistance General Manager,

State Bank of India,

2320, East Street, Pune 411001

......First Party

AND

Shri Jaganath Balkrishna Mane

53, Chimanpura Peth,

Opp., Garecha Ganapati,

Satara-415002

......Second Party

CORAM: M.G. Choudhary, Presiding Officer.

Appearances: Shri D.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for First Party.

Shri J.B. Mane, Second Party in Person.

AWARD

(05.03.2013)

The Government of India through Ministry of Labour

by order dated 23.2.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 10(d)(1)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, referred the industrial dispute between abovenamed

parties as mentioned in the Schedule of the reference order

which reads as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India in imposing the punishment of discharging

the services of Shri Jaganath Mane w.e.f. 30.9.2002 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?"

2. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunal,

the Second Party appeared and filed statement of claim in

the matter at Exh. U-1/U-2, and contended that he was in

the employment of the First Party initially appointed on

5.2.1979 as "Seeper-cum-Waterman", and thereafter from

1986 made permanent in the employment. According to

Second Party, he worked with the First Party honestly and

the Bank was under consideration to give him Best Worker

Award. According to him, his service record is clean. it is

also contention of the Second Party that people against

him made false complaint against him to the Bank. On that

basis, chargesheet was given to him. Thereafter, enquiry

was held, and on the basis of the enquiry report, he was

discharged from the services. According to Second Party,

as he has not committed any misconduct, as such, the

punishment awarded to him is illegal and wrongful, and

lastly requested to allow the reference.

3. The First Party in written statement at Exh. C-7

contended that, the Second Party while working as Sub-

ordinate Cadre employed at Satara (A.D.B.) Branch during

the year 1999 committed very grave and serious

misconducts which were gross misconduct such as

preparing bogus salary slips, forging the signatures of

Branch Manager, issuing false acknowledgement of pay-

in-slips etc. Therefore, he was served with the chargesheet

dated 8.8.2000 in pursuance of term as defined major

misconduct of para 521(4)(d)(j) of Sastry Award and as

modified by Desai Award and the bipartite settlements from

time to time. It is also contention of the First Party that in

pursuance of the said chargesheet regular full-fledged

departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman

in accordance with the provisions of the above Awards

and bipartite settlements. It is also contention of the First

Party that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on

12.3.2001 concluding therein that the charges levelled

against the workman at Charge No. 1 and 2 are proved,

while charge No. 3 is not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary

authority accordingly issued show cause notice dated

6.7.2002, inter-alia starting that the disciplinary authority

is not aggreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer so

far as it relates to charge No. 3 is concerned and thus, is

not in agreement with the said findings of charge No. 3

thereafter the disciplinary authority recorded its own

reasons in that findings, and proposed punishment of

discharged with superannuation benefits under the relevant

service rules. According to First Party, the workman was

also offered an opportunity of personal hearing which he

himself availed alongwith his defence representative on

17.9.2002 as to the proposed punishment tentatively

proposed in terms of the show cause notice dated 6.7.2002.

According to First Party, the disciplinary authority passed

the final order dated 30.9.2002 discharging the workman

from Bank services, he was further advised that if he

chooses to prefer an apeal to the appellate authority, he

can prefer the same within the stipulated period accordingly

the workman preferred an appeal but the same was rejected

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3175

by the appellate authority. Thus, according to the First

Party, the Second Party has committed serious acts of

misconducts amounting to fraud, falsification of Bank

records cheating, embezzlement of funds of customers

among others cannot be offered for continuation of such

employees in the service of the Bank where integrity, trust,

and utmost confidence on the hallmark of banking business,

and as such by order dated 30.9.2002 discharged the

workman from services with superannuation benefits i.e.

pension, Provident Fund, and Gratuity but without

disqualification for future employment. It is denied that

said action of the First Party is illegal and wrongful as

alleged.

4. Following issues are framed in the matter at Exh.

0-6 by my Ld. Predecessor on 15.2.2007 which arise for my

determination—

(1) Whether enquiry was just, fair, and proper?

(2) Whether findings recorded in an enquiry

are perverse?

(3) Whether the misconduct as alleged against

the Second Party is proved on strength of evidence

in enquiry or before the Court?

(4) Whether the action of First Party in

dismissing Second Party is legal and just?

(5) To what relief the Second Party is entitled?

(6) What Award?

My findings to above issues for the reasons recorded

below are as under:—

(1 & 2) Issue No. 1 and 2 were decided on

13.6.2012 as preliminary issue and it was declared

that the enquiry held against the Second party is fair,

and proper and findings recorded in the enquiry are

not at all perverse;

(3) On the strength of enquiry

(4) Yes

(5) No

(6) Reference is answered in negative, as per

order below.

REASONS

5. The First Party has produced entire enquiry papers

(xerox copies) with list Exh. C-9. The First Party also

produced copy of show cause notice with list Exh. C-17,

and findings of the Enquiry Officer with list Exh. C-16. The

Second Party workman relied on certified copy of the

Judgement dated 1.9.2012 in Regular Criminal Case No. 305

of 2000 decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, and

copy of the same is produced with list Exh. U-7. The Second

Party has not led any oral evidence in this matter in support

of his case. The First Party filed purshis at Exh. C-19

informing this Court that he does not want to lead oral

evidence in this matter.

6. With the help of material on record I have heard the

argument of Second Party in person and Advocate for First

Party at length and both of them have submitted their case as

per material on record. In addition to that the Second party

workman also filed his written synopsis of argument at Exh.

U-8, and Advocate for First Party in support of his argument

relied on the case law reported in 2009-13-SCC-729, Vishnu

Dutt Sharma Vs. Smt. Daya Sapra; 1998-LAB-IC 2514, Union

Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan and 2011-1-SCC(LS)-721,

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Natwaya.

Considering the ratio of the case law cited by

Advocate for First Party and considering the facts of the

present case, I am deciding this reference.

7. It appears that the Second Party workman was

working with the First Party in Subordinate Cadre at Satara,

and he was given chargesheet dated 8.8.2000, and on the

basis of enquiry report, and show cause notice, the

punishment of discharge was given to him on 30.9.2002.

This Tribunal tried Issue No. 1 and 2 as preliminary issue,

and by an order dated 13.6.2012, as per order on preliminary

issue Exh. 0-9, this Tribunal declared that the enquiry held

against the Second Party is just, fair and proper and findings

recorded in the enquiry are not at all perverse. In view of

this, I answer Issue No. 1 and 2 accordingly.

8. As the charges levelled against the Second Party

workman were duly proved in view of the findings recorded

on Issue No. 2, I hold that the misconduct as alleged against

Second party is proved on the strength the evidence in the

enquiry, as such there is no question that the First Party

should justify its action by leading oral evidence before

the Court. In view of this, I answer Issue No. 3 accordingly.

9. Now the question is about legality and justifiability

of the punishment of discharge award to the Second Party

by the First Party. In this repsect, the Second party

contended that for the same allegations the criminal case

was also filed bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 305 of

2000 decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, in which

on 1.9.2012, he was acquitted from the offence levelled

against him U/s 408, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code,

and submitted that as he is acquitted in the criminal trial, as

such his discharge from the services is illegal, unjust and

improper, and requested to allow the reference.

10. On the other hand, the Advocate for First Party

submitted that test in criminal trial and test in departmental

enquiry are entirely different, and as charges levelled against

the Second Party workman are duly proved in the domestic

enquiry which are of grave and serious nature, as such

punishment awarded by the punishing authority as well as

appellate authority is just, legal and proper, and relied on the

case law in support of his arguments as referred above.

11. It appears from the record, that as per

chargesheet, following charges were levelled against the

Second Party:

(i) Accepting Rs. 46,800/- from Shri Prakash

Murlidhar Kulkarni for entertaining his loan

3176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

application, giving him false receipts later on taking

back on the pretext that they were required to be

enclosed to the loan application, non-submission of

the loan application and non-refunding the money

upto 31.12.1998 as promised to him.

(ii) Obtaining a loan of Rs. 45,000/- from S.B.I.

Employees Shri Ganesh Cooperative Credit Society,

Sangli by submitting false salary certificates and

forging thereon the signature of the Branch Manager.

(iii) Cheating Smt. Ranjana Dilip Jagadale by

accepting Rs. 190/- against water bill and giving false

receipts by using bank's cash received stamp and

non-accounting the said sum by not crediting to

bank's account.

12. I have already pointed out that in view of my

finding on issue No. 2 and 3 charges levelled against the

Second Party workman are duly proved, as such,

considering the gravity of the misconducts committed by

the Second Party workman, which are duly proved in

enquiry, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to exercise

power conferred upon this Court U/s 11 A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to show lineancy in this matter. There

is no doubt in my mind that test in criminal trial and test in

domstic enquiry are entirely different, and on this point

the ratio of the case law cited by Advocate for First party

are helpful to the case of First Party, as such acquittal of

Second party workman in criminal trial will not help the

Second Party in present proceeding as the charges

levelled against Second Party which are duly proved in

the enquiry are of serious nature. On this background, I

am of the considered view that the punishment of

discharge awarded to him by the First Party w.e.f. 30.9.2002

is legal and justified, as such Second Party is not entitled

for any relief in this proceedings. Hence, I answer Issue

No. 4 and 5 accordingly.

13. In view of my finding on above Issues, it is clear

that the present reference is liable to be answered in the

negative, hence demand of Second Party, workman is liable

to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass the following

award:

AWARD

1. The Reference (IT) No. 06/2006 is answered in

negative.

2. The demand of the Second Party workman stands

rejected.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Copies of this award be sent to Central

Government for necessary action.

M. C. CHOUDHARY, Presiding Officer

Pune

Date : 05.03.2013

ubZ fnYyh] 12 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1206.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ

116@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

03@06@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@103@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e. ds. flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2013

S.O. 1206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/

2003 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

B.C.C.L. and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 03.06.2013.

[No. L-20012/103/2003-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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. 116 of 2003

Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of

M/s B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

: Sri R.R. Ram, Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry :

Coal

Dated 23-5-2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/103/2003-IR (C-I), dt. 10/

11/2013, 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:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3177

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Janta Khan

Mazdoor Sangh from the management of BCCL, Sijua

Area to regularise Md. Sadique Ansari as Clerk from

the date of engagement as such is proper and

justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 24.11.2003/1.12.2003. After notice both parties appeared.

The workman files their written statement on 29.06.2005.

The Management files their written statement-cum-

rejoinder on 22.12.2005. Thereafter the workman files their

rejoinder and documents on 08.08.2006. Evidence from both

sides adduced.

3. The workman initially appointed as underground

munsi. subsequently he was assigned work on the surface

and promoted to the post of clerk Grade III w.e.f. 17.2.1985

and after certain transfer to various unit the management

upgraded the concerned workman in clerical Grade-I w.e.f.

01.07.1995 under service link gradation.

4. The workman prays for regularization of his service.

Since the management in its rejoinder at para-7 has clearly

admitted that the concerned workman is in clerical Grade I

w.e.f. 01.07.1995 under Service link up gradation. Hence

there is no problem to regularize the workman in clerical

Grade I w.e.f. 01.07.95.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold

that the demand of Bihar Janta Khan Mazdoor Sangh from

the management of BCCL, Sijua Area to regularise Md.

Sidique Ansari as clerk from the date of engagement as

such in proper and justified. Accordingly the management

is directed to regularise the workman w.e.f. 01.07.1995 if in

the meantime the workman is already promoted to higher

grade, that should not be disturbed and beneficial provision

to be given to the workman as per the service rules of the

management.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1207.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 36@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@05@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@33@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2013

S.O. 1207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Southern Railway and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 30.05.2013.

[No. L-41011/33/2001-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 28th February, 2013

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute 36/2011

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Southern Railway and their Workman]

BETWEEN

The Dvision Secretary

1st Party/Petitioner Union

All India Station Masters Association

Room No. 10, Ananda Buildings,

3, Station Road, West Mambalam

Chennai-600033

Vs.

The General Manager

2nd Party/Respondent

Southern Raillway

Chennai-600003

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : M/s Ratio Legis, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Management

: Sri P. Srinivasan, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-41011/33/2001-IR (B-1)

dated 11.04.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demands of the AlI/India Station

Master Association, South Zone, Madras Division

(as enumerated in the Claim Statement) are legal and

justified?" To what relief the union is entitled?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

numbered it as ID 36/2011 and issued notices to both sides.

Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel

and filed Claim and Counter Statement as the case may be.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement bereft of

unnecessary details are as follows:

First Party Petitioner raised Industrial Dispute in 1999

with the following demands, which are referred in

Section-10(i)(d) of ID Act. Albeit mandatory

3178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

conciliation was initiated which ended in a failure

report resulting in the reference, of course as per

order of the High Court of Madras in WP No. 8070 of

2002 dated 27.10.2010.

FILLING UP OF ALL THE EXISTING VACANCIES

AND CREATION OF POSTS AGAINST ALL THE

NEWLY OPENED STATIONS

In Order to cater to the need for transportation of the

travelling public, "STATIONS" are developed on the railway

lines connecting different destinations as per Rule 1.02(51)

of the Indian Railway (Open Lines) General Rules, 1976.

The said stations are know as 'JUNCTION STATIONS',

'LARGE STATIONS" and SMALL/WAYSIDE STATIONS".

As per Rule 1.02(53) of Indian Railway (Open Lines) General

Rules, 1976 "STATION LIMITS" situated between the

outermost signals of the Station or may be specified by

special instructions. Station Masters are for time being

responsible for the working of the traffic within station

limits in independent charge of the working of any signals

and responsible for the working of trains under the system

of working in force. As per General Rules 5.01 the Station

Masters shall be responsible for (i) efficient discharge of

duties devolving upon the staff employed, permanently or

temporarily under his orders at the station or within the

station limits and such staff shall be subject to his authority

and direction in the working of the station (ii) to see that all

signals, points, gates and level crossings and whole

machinery of the station are in proper working order and

shall immediately report all defects therein to the proper

authority (iii) to see that the working of the station is carried

out strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations

for the time being in force (iv) to ask or give line clear or

give authority to proceed, which shall be done by himself

without delegating the said work to any other person. As

per Railway Act, 1989 and General Rule 5.02 the Station

Master shall ensure (1) that every railway servant

subordinate to him be supplied with a copy of the working

rule with authorized translation of these rules whenever

required, (2) that the working time table in force together

with all corrections slips and appendices, if any, working

rules and instructions, and other notices having reference

to the working of the line are properly distributed or exhibited

in such manner as may be prescribed under special

instructions'(3) that both the sheet time-tables and fare

lists are correctly exhibited at the Station if it is opened for

the booking of traffic; (4) copies of the Act and the goods

and coaching tariffs are available for inspection by the

public; (5) first aid shall be rendered by the Station Masters

themselves. Rule 5.03 of the General Rules postulates that

the Station Master shall see that all orders and instructions

are duly conveyed to the Staff concerned and are properly

carried out and that all books and returns are regularly

written up and neatly kept. Again (1) the Station Master

shall make himself thoroughly acquainted with the duties

of the Staff employed in the signal cabins at his Station

and shall satisfy himself that they perform the duties

correctly and in order to maintain an effective supervision

over the said staff frequently visit the signal cabins, if any

(2) the Station Master shall ensure that the prescribed

equipment is readily available in signal cabins and

maintained in good working order (iii) signal cabins shall

be kept neat and clean and no unauthorized persons shall

enter such cabins. As per General Rules 5.04 neglect of

duty by Railway Servant under his orders shall be reported

immediately to his superior as per General Rules 5.05.

Further, apart from the above said executive functions

Station Master are involved in isolated train passing duties

in Junction/Major/Large Platforms, yards and cabins, train

passing duties, combined with commercial duties Including

booking of passengers (Current and Advance), booking of

parcels and goods in medium and small/wayside stations

in terms of the operating manual general rules, commercial

manuals, coaching and goods tariffs, etc. In Chennai

division there are 8 junctions/large stations, 10 medium

stations and 79 small and wayside stations. Further it is

stated that among the 102 stations in Chennai, traffic are

being dealt with at 177 work spots. In terms of available

period of rest sans, the active discharge of duties, the duty

hours at work spot is determined as continuous, intensive

and essentially intermittent as per the Hours of Employment

and Period of Rest Rules, 2005. As for Intensive is one

hour or six hours in a cycle of 24 hours, continuous is two

or more upto six hours and for Essentially Intermittent is

above six hours. In Chennai Division, except at Chennai

Central Power Cabin, Basic Bridge Cabin, Vyasarpadi Cabin,

Ambattur Cabin, Arakkonam Power Cabin, Jolarpettai Power

Cabin, Korukkupet and Kodambakkam panel i.e. 8 work

spots where the duty hours are classified as INTENSIVE.

At the rest of the work spots the duty hours are classified

as CONTINUOUS, which means 645 working posts are

required for whom 101 rest givers shall be made available

as per the mandatory periodical weekly rest as per hours of

employment rules. In addition 197 persons shall be included

as leave reserve in order to fulfill the mandatory provisions

in Chapter-5 of IREC and other supplementary provision

made by the Railway Board. That apart there are about 30

stations wherein traffic is being dealt with by the Clerk In-

charge/Halt agents who are not competent as per General

Rules. A detailed representation demanding the said posts

was already submitted to the Respondent. Railway

Administration conceded the demanded strength on

15.07.2010, it later confirmed on 16.10.2011. Demand for 229

Trainee Reserve Posts against the existing 16 posts and

increase in the cadre strength by 43 posts towards ex-

cadre utilization was never responded.

PAYMENT OF OVERTIME ALLOWANCE IN TERMS

OF PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936

As per Section-132 of the Railway Act, 1989 (i)

intermittently employed Railway Servant shall not be

employed for more than 75 hours in a week (ii) continuously

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3179

employed Railway Servant shall not be employed for more

than 54 hours a week on an average in two-weekly period

of 14 days (iii) intensively employed Railway Servant shall

not be employed for more than 45 hours on an average in a

two-weekly period (iv) there can be temporary exemption

of the operation of the above provisions by prescribed

authority to avoid serious interference with the ordinary

working of the Railway or in case of accident, actual or

threatened, or when urgent work is to be done to the Railway

or to rolling stock which could not have been foreseen or

prevented or in cases of exceptional pressure of work.

Provided that such exemptions where results in the increase

of hours of employment of a railway servant, he shall be

paid overtime for no less than two times his ordinary rate

of pay for the excess hours of work. Railway Board has

issued many orders in connection with the "Criterion to

Reckon Right of Overtime", "Payment of Arrears of

Overtime Allowance", "Principles of Averaging", "Proper

Maintaining of Overtime Registers", but Respondent does

not implement the statutory provisions uniformly and

deviate in registering over work assignments, maintaining

overtime registers, claiming and payment of Overtime

Allowance as sought in the mandatory provisions. For

example, Overtime Allowance to the Stations Masters is

not to be paid alongwith monthly salary as being done in

the case of Running Staff, payment of Overtime Allowance

is sought to be claimed by the Station Masters doing

overwork, payment of overtime allowance of Station Master

alongwith certain other categories of railway employees is

being pre-audited, extra hours of labour is being

compensated with compensatory off, contrary to the

mandatory provisions.

PAYMENT OF TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE AND

DAILY ALLOWANCE, STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE

WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN THE

ESTABLISHMENT CODE

Albeit the mandatory provisions in IREC made under

proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution of India enunciates

set of rules regulating claims and payment of travelling

allowance and daily allowance, claims of the Stations Masters

are denied, contrary to the mandatory stipulations. For

example, though TA/DA on stay or duty outside

headquarters beyond 8 kms. from the date of leaving

headquarters till return to the headquarters, TA/DA is eligible,

it is being restricted on applying daily movements as well as

on the basis of periodical weekly rest.

POSTING OF ADDITIONAL STATION MASTERS AT

STATIONS IN THE SECTIONS BETWEEN

ARAKKONAM-KATPADI AND AT STATIONS

CHENGALPET TO TAMBARAM. CHENNAI EGMORE,

CHENNAI

CENTRAL,

VYASARPADI AND

THIRUNINRAVUR WHERE THE WORK LOAD HAS

VIRTUALLY DOUBLED

Due to increase in work load in Chennai Division

apart from the above Stations additional Station Masters

are sought to be posted in all the Stations wherever the

end cabins are abolished and the entire traffic is being

dealt with by Station Masters. Specific Stations are Vandalur,

Guduvancheri, Kattankulathur, Singaperumal Koil,

Tindivanam, St. Thomas Mount, Pallavaram,

Kodambakkam, Tiruvottriyur, Ennore, Minjur, Ponneri,

Gummidipundi, Elavur, Sulurpeta, Sholingur, Walajah Road,

etc.

PAYMENT OF HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE IN TERMS

OF EXISTING MANDATORY PROVISIONS

Grievance of the Stations Masters in this regard is

restricted against non- payment of HRA w.r.t. place of

residence in specific cases as prescribed in Para-707 of

IREM, 1968 edition and non-payment of HRA w.r.t. the

stay in the old station by family members of transferred

railway employees.

TO STOP RECRUITMENT OF TRAFFIC APPRENTICE

AND TO CREATE A NEW POST AGAINST EX-CADRE

OPERATION

With the pre-arrangement of the academic

qualification for direct recruits as Asstt. Station Master

with pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of

Rs. 2,800 to "Graduation" and such recruits being

subjected to advance training in the transportation and

commercial duties on their promotion to higher grade pays

in Station Master category, the provision for recruitment in

the immediate grade is misconceived. In the wake of the

fact that vacancies arising out of ex-cadre posts utilization,

assessed to be vacancies for empanelment in terms of

Chapter-2 of IREM Respondent continues to deny

disclosure of the exact ex-cadre utilization and continue to

employ such utilization within the cadre strength otherwise

assessed at, thus operate the required strength and

handicap the incumbents to avail the privileged duty viz.

leave, periodical weekly rest etc.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF POLICY FOR

REGISTRATION OF TRANSFER AND CONSEQUENTIAL

INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Albeit mandatory provisions in Rule-26 to Rule-232

in IREC and Master Circular No. 24 issued by Railway Board

enunciates for procedure for transfer in the railway service,

Respondent adopts their own transfer policy in consistent

with the above giving -undue advantage to the recognized

union employees contrary to Chapter-25 of IREM.

PROVlSION OF BASIC AMENITIES

Almost all the wayside stations and certain work

spots in Chennai Division viz. platform Station Master in

major/junction stations lack minimum basic amenities which

expected to be ensured by the Respondent in terms of

Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution.

CHECK ON IMPOSITION OF SAFETY VIOLATIONS

Despite representation against imposition of safety

violations viz. compelling Station Masters to work as Guards

3180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

without declaring their competence to such work, cleaning

of points by Station Pointsmen violating the mandatory

operating manual, permanent way manual, signal and

telecommunication etc., maintaining vacancies of Group

"D" staff at stations, non-provision of phone

communications (P&T and Auto) in important cabins where

block working is being carried out etc. which will jeopardize

safety of the travelling public and their property, the

Respondent continues the safety perils.

4. Counter Statement averments briefly read as

follows:

The ID is not maintainable not being one espoused

representing the whole of the Station Masters. The dispute

issues come within the domains of policy decisions. The

reference by Ministry is as per High Court's order dated

27.10.2010 in WP No. 8070/2002 against which review

application filed by the Respondent is pending. Filling up

of vacancies and creation of posts against the newly

opened stations are done as per the IREM Volume-I

provisions. The overall vacancies are proposed to be filled

up as follows:

(i) 5-Compassionate Ground Candidates are under

going training for the post of ASM from 18.04.2011

(Duration of the training period is 4-1/2 months).

(ii) 4-RRB candidates are under going training for

Traffic Apprentice from 24.01.2010. (Duration of

the training period is 2-years).

(iii) Out of 23 vacancies reserved for Assistant Station

Master against Limited Departmental Competitive

Examination quota 7 were selected and undergoing

training from 21.11.2011.

(iv) 50-RRB candidates out of 64 candidates have

reported and sent for training as Assistant Station

Master with effect from 21.11.2011.

(v) 13-Vacancies are reserved for Traffic Apprentice

against Direct Recruitment Quota, for which

Indent is being placed.

(vi) 6-Surplus Cabin Masters are to be absorbed as

Assistant Station Master, after successful

completion of the Assistant Station Master initial

training.

(vii) Indent to Railway Recruitment Board has already

been placed for 109 Assistant Station Masters on

30.12.2010 and 11 more on 05.07.2011.

Vacancies being filled up in accordance with

recruitment rules gives no room for grievance to the

petitioner. Vacancies are filled up meticulously to avoid

payment of OT and extra work load to existing Station

Masters. It only got delayed due to filing of various cases

and stay orders obtained by petitioner in the past. The

delay is also due to elaborate procedure involved in a time-

consuming process. It cannot be an ID because filling up

the vacancies is a policy matter. Regarding OTA the same

is paid as per Payment of Wages Act. 1936. Any grievance,

not hitherto brought out as an individual grievance cannot

be an ID. A vague and general grievance cannot be an ID.

As per a joint procedural order issued in letter dated

29.09.1999 despite regulation for timely claim of OTA, due

to un-prompt submission of OTA slips by the employees,

payment gets delayed to certain extent and in certain cases,

which with 6th Pay Commission instructions dated

17.02.2010 receive strict adherence. DA and TA are being

paid strictly in accordance with Rules IREC. TA/DA is

claimed for the entire period of halt at outstations except

for the periods of authorized, un-authorized absence. Being

a routine matter TA/DA payment cannot be ID. Individual

grievances can be got redressed through the higher

authorities. Posting of staff for manning the stations being

a policy matter Tribunal cannot intervene. Work load is

periodically assessed consulting with organized labour and

not with the unrecognized. Grievance can be solved under

the Railways Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest),

Rules, 2005. This reference is not justified. Posting of

additional Station Masters being a policy matter taking

into account the workload is left to the expert bodies.

Creation of post subject to the concurrence of the Accounts

Department also is a time-consuming process. Additional

Station Masters can be done only after creation of additional

posts for the stations. After study/job analysis as per

Railway Board's letter dated 14.03.2007 creation of 127

Assistant Station Masters post for Madras Division has

been finally signified by Finance Advisor and Chief

Accounts Officer and approval by the General Manager.

Pinpointing of the posts remains to be done in consultation

with he recognized labour unions. HRA Payment is on the

basis of a policy upon recommendations of pay

commissions and is not to be called in question before this

Tribunal. Regarding HRA, CCA, Ministry of Railways

decided that a certificate of the Collector/Dy. Commissioner

fulfilling only the conditions in Clauses-(i) to (ii) of the

Prescribed certificate circulated in Railway Board's letter

dated 16.02.1976 shall be necessary in terms of Para-2 of

Railway Board letters dated 22.07.1965 and 07.12.1989 as

amended periodically. In the wake of Railway Board's letter

dated 12.09.2008 consequent on 6th Pay Commission in

modification of Railway Board's earlier letters dated

21.07.1965, 16.10.1997 and 28.01.2005 CCA stands abolished

and regarding HRA earlier classifications of cities has been

revised viz. A-1 to "X", A, B-1 and B-2 to "Y" and C &

unclassified to "Z" for which revised classification the

population of urban agglomeration of the city has been

taken into consideration. Rates of House Rent Allowance

in terms thereof shall be:

Classification

Rate of House Rent Allowances as a

Of Cities/Towns

percentage of (Basic Pay + NPA where

applicable)

30%

20%

10%

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3181

The Traffic Apprentices are regularly recruited in

Railways as scheme thereto stands approved by the High

Court. In regard to periodical transfers of Station Masters

in Chennai Division in order to ensure transparency a

scheme was finalized and notified considering views of the

recognized unions but not of other unions and with the

approval of the Divisional Railway Manager. Transfer is

the prerogative of the management in the absence of rule

violation or malafide which has been confirmed by the

Ministry of Labour by letters dated 03-08-2005 and

09-06-2006. At all the stations minimum basic amenities are

provided with top most priority for creating necessary

infrastructure for the traveling public, with improvements

attended to as and when representations are received.

Safety checks matter in the running of trains safety is given

the top most priority which is a policy matter and cannot

be adjudicated. Petitioner seeks only to further the

ideological aspirations of the All India Station Masters

Association and does not purport to represent the work

ethos of the Station Master Cadre of Chennai Division in

general. The petition is frivolous and highly vexatious and

all the nine demands are not in the nature of disputes to be

adjudicated. The petition is to be dismissed.

Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the demands of the All India Station

Masters Association, South Zone, Madras Division

enumerated as 1 to 9 are legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the petitioner union is entitled?

6. Evidence consists of the testimony of WW1 and

Ex.W1 to Ex.W4 on the side of the petitioner but with no

evidence, oral or documentary on the Respondent's side.

Points (i) and (ii)

7. Heard both sides. Perused the records, documents,

evidence and written arguments on either side. The claim

is challenged on ground, interlia, that it is only to further

the ideological aspiration of the All India Station Masters

Association not representing the work ethos of Station

Masters Cadre. The demands are not of the nature of

disputes to be adjudicated by the Tribunal, but is utilized

by unrecognized association to air their grievances rather

than as a real cause.

8. Examining the nine demands one by one, while the

supporting arguments for the petitioner for the first demand,

among other are that as per the worked out cadre strength

at the instance of the petitioner, of 943 Station Masters

including 645 working force, 101 Rest Giving Station

Masters and 197 Leave Reserve Station Masters at Chennai

Division with 8 junction/large stations, 10 medium stations

and 79 small/wayside stations further providing for 177

work spots, Station Masters being the only competent

railway employees to deal with traffic at 177 work spots,

645 working force are necessitated for the reasons that out

of 177 work spots in the 8 work spots classified as intensive

and 169 work spots classified as continuous, duration for

each shift under intensive classification being 6 hours,

four Station Masters are required for a day at one spot.

The duration for each shift under "continuous" being 8

hours, three Station Masters are required for a day in terms

of Hours of Work and Periods of Rest Rules, 2005. For the

645 work spots 101 rest givers are required for giving

periodical weekly rest and 197 Leave Reserve are required

with reference to Chapter-5 of IREC and Railway Board

Supplementary Orders. The determined cadre strength does

not stand disputed by the Management. According to the

Respondent as argued, as per IREM Vol.-I, filling up of

vacancies and creation of posts against all the newly

opened stations is done as per provisions in IREM

Volume-I and the same was proposed and directions issued

by the Management creating 127 additional posts of Asstt.

Station Masters. They are by way of 5 compassionate

ground candidates undergoing training for the post of Asstt.

Station Masters, four RRB candidates undergoing training

for Traffic Apprentice, 7 out of 23 vacancies reserved for

ASMs out of departmental competitive examination quota

undergoing training, 50 RRB candidates out of 64 sent for

training, 13 reserved for traffic apprentice against DR quota

for which indent is being placed, 6 surplus cabin masters

to be absorbed as ASMs on completion of ASMs initial

training, for 109 ASMs indent placed to RRB on 30.12.2010

and 11 more on 05.07.2011. The argument that creation of

posts is a policy matter is not tenable. In the absence of

any objection against the declared strength of 943, the

Respondent should examine the same and if the same is

the correct strength, steps should be taken to fill up the

vacancies and create the posts. If engagement of Clerks-

in-Charge to deal with the traffic at 30 work spots being

violative of IRGR, 1976 is illegal and therefore Station

Masters should be posted there that also has to be looked

into. It is also has to consider the demand for the increased

trainee reserve posts as per Ex.W1- AISMA/Trainee

Reserve, 1999.

9. Regarding second demand of Overtime Allowance

the question whether OT A can be paid to Station Masters

alongwith monthly pay as in the case of running staff as

per Payment of Wages Act, 1936 without subjecting the

claim for pre-auditing if not inconsistent with Railway Board

letter No. PC-V/2008/A/0/3(OTA) dated 17.02.2010 in the

wake of 6th Pay Commission Report, shall be examined.

10. Regarding third demand of TA/DA the

Management shall examine whether the payment of

TA/DA is being made to Station Masters strictly in

accordance with the mandate of the statute and if not it is

to be ensured that statutory provisions are substantially

complied with.

11. As regards fourth demand of providing ASMs at

Stations wherever end cabins were abolished and

centralized cabins were established as partly conceded

under Ex.W4 it should be examined whether the ASMs

have to be posted and the same process have to be

expedited.

3182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

12. In regard to payment of HRA which is the fifth

demand the Management shall examine whether it has to

be paid as per Chapter-17 of IREC or the same has to be

regulated by Railway Board's letters, circulars or

communications, if and by having overriding effect on the

earlier rules.

13. As regards the sixth demand i.e. the stoppage of

recruitment of Traffic Apprentice and creation of new posts

against ex-cadre operation, the same shall be examined and

appropriate action shall be taken since it is seen that the

Management has not picked up any quarrel with the same.

14 As regards the seventh demand the Management

is directed to devise unbiased transfer policy and to adopt

the same without showing any favouritism under any

pretext like undue advantage to the recognized union

employees contrary to IREM contending that transfer is

prerogative of the Management. This is admitted to have

been settled by formulating a scheme which has been

accepted and finalized and notified.

15. Regarding eighth demand of providing basic

amenities as coming within the directive principles of state

policy as enshrined in the Indian Constitution the

Management shall provide the minimum basic amenities

and endeavour to ensure that no work spots lack the same

in reality.

16. Regarding the ninth demand of check on

imposition of safety violations the same does not appear

to have been met in the real sense and spirit of it. White

Management assures safety to be given the top most priority

it appears to have ignored the aspects of compelling Station

Masters to work as Guards without declaring their

competence, cleaning of points by Station Pointsmen

against mandatory operating manual, permanent way

manual, signal and telecommunication manual. etc.,

maintaining vacancies of Group "D" staff at stations.. non-

provision of phone communications (P &T and Auto) in

important cabins where block working is being carried out.

If the above acts are actually at risk of safety violations

Management shall examine whether the same can be

confirmed without jeopardizing the safety of public or

anybody, concerned.

17. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that

the demands cannot be said to be not legal or unjustified.

They are not merely ideological aspirations of the

petitioners as stated by the Respondent. They are also not

purely matters of policy decisions of the Government or

the Department of Railway. They deserve active

consideration by the Government and followed up with

final decisions so as to ventilate the grievances of the

petitioner union. Though they do not represent members

of recognized unions yet they are not totally strangers to

be shunned away from making the demands.. sought to

ventilate the grievances, which if and when accomplished

would enure to the benefit of the public as wet! as to the

workers and all others concerned. The Management shall

endeavour to consider the demands and grant appropriate

remedies wherever it is feasible and necessary. Ordered

accordingly.

18. The industrial dispute is answered as above.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 28th February, 2013)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri R. Sethumadhavan

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked:-

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

Nil

No. AISMA/Trainee Reserve/99

Ex.W2

25.03.2011

No. AISMA/OTA/2011

Ex. W3

30.06.2011

No. AISMA/Cadre Strength/2011

Ex.W4

12.07.2011

No. M/P.535/1/OPTG/SM

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 12 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1208.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh ,y

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 187@1997½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@6@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@316@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼lh-,e-&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2013

S.O. 1208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 187/1997)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. B.C.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/06/2013.

[No. L-20012/316/1996-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL ( No. 1), DHANBAD.

In the matter of Reference U/s 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. ACT,

1947.

Ref. No. 187 of 1997

Employers in relation to the management of Barora Area

M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3183

Present :— Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers: None

For the workman : Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry:—Coal

Dated 29.05.2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/316/1996-IR(C-I), dated

06.11.1997, 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

“Whether the claim of the Union for the placement/

regulation of Sh. Babuchand Prasad as Pharmacist/

Compunder w.e.f. July 1987 is legal and justified ? if

so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 17.11.1997. After notice both parties appeared, the

workman files their written statement on 27.08.1998 and

after that the management files written statement-cum-

rejoinder on 19.01.2000, the workman examined himself as a

witness and produced documents as per list.

3. The short claim of the workman is, he joined under

the management as fitter apprentice, but he has been

performing the duty of the pharmacist since 04.07.1987 and

prays to be regularized in the said post.

4. Admittedly the workman has no qualification or

certificate that he is a pharmacist, nor in the meantime he

has obtained any certificate of pharmacist for which his

claim has been denied. Hence this dispute.

5. Before, this Tribunal, no certificate of pharmacy

has been filed by the workman, nor he has been sponsored

by the management to complete the course of a pharmacist.

Merely working in a particular stream for a long period can

not give him the right to be regularised in the said post

unless management desires.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold

that this Tribunal does not feel it proper order to regularise

the workman in the post of pharmacist. Accordingly the

claim of the Union for the placement/regularisation of Sh.

Babuchand Prasad as Pharmacist/Compounder w.e.f. July

1987 is not legal and justified. Hence the workan is not

entitled to any relief. The reference answered against the

workman.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1209.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1 èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

154@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-6-2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@194@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2013

S.O. 1209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/1997) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

11.06.2013.

[No. L-20012/194/1996-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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. 154 of 1997

Employers in relation to the management of Dugda Coal

Washery of M/s. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen.

Present:— Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman

: Sri R. Ranjan, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated: 29.05.2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/194/96-IR(C-I), dated

27.08.1997, 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:

3184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the demand of the union for the

regularisation of the Services of Sh. Jai Prakash

Prasad Singh, Ex-Salesman of Dugda Coal Washery

Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd. with the

management of Dugda Coal Washery is justified? if

so, to what relief the concerned workman entitled?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 15.09.1997. After notice both parties appeared. The

Sponsoring Union/workman files their wirtten statement

on 09.07.1999. The management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 03.08.1999. Thereafter rejoinder

and documents received by the workman. The workman

examined as witness and cross-examined.

3. The case of workman is, he was working as a sales-

man in Dugda consumer co-operative society which was

managed by the Dugda Coal Washery unit. He has stated

that one Subhas Sukla was working in the Society

subsequently joined in the management after winding up

of the co-operative society.

4. He has also filed the appointment letter of Mr. Sukla.

From the appointment letter it appears that, Sir Sukla was

wroking initially in the Washery unit subsequently transferred

to co-operative society and after it being winded up, he was

taken to washery unit. But the case of the present workman

is completely different. He has not filed any document that

he was an employee of the washery unit. He has also stated

in the corss examination (WW-1) that I have got no paper to

show that any person working in the co-operative society

has been regularized by the management.

5. Since he was working in the co-operative society

unconnected to Washery unit, his claim to be absorbed in

the washery unit of Dugda does not arise.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold

that the demand of the union for the regularisation of the

services of Sri Jai Prakash Prasad Singh, Ex-salesman of

Dugda Coal Washery Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd.

with the management of Dugda Coal Washery is not

justified. Hence he is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered agaisnt the workman.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1210.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

51@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@06@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@105@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2013

S.O. 1210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. B.C.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/06/2013.

[No. L-20012/105/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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. 51 of 2007

Employers in relation to the management of E.J. Area of

M/s. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen.

Present:—Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers.: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman: Sri R. Rai, Rep.

State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal.

Dated 27.05.2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/105/2007-IR-(C-I), dated

25-10-2007, 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

"Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih

COCP of M/s. BCCL in denying wages as Shovel

Operator, Cat-"B" to Sh. Ganga Das B.P. Shovel

Operator, Cat-"D" is justified and legal? If not, to

what relief is the concerned workman entitled and

from which date.?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 07.11.2007. After ntoice both parties appeared. The

Sponsoring Union files their written statement on

15.05.2008. The management files their written statement-

cum-rejoinder on 19.02.2009. Thereafter rejoinder and

documents received by the workman.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3185

3. The claim of the workman is, that he has been

working as heavy Shovel Operator CK. 300 from 17.11.2003

and as such he be regularized as Shovel Operator Grade

"B" from that date but the management regularized him in

Category "B" w.e.f. 30.10.2012.

4. From the machinery quality, category it is seen

that the workman is operating CK 300 Shovel. CK-300

Shovel's strength 2.1 to 3.0 as per the literature, a persons

operating such shovel must be a trained workman. He must

have three years experience to operate the same. So also

he must known certain minor repair of such shovel.

5. When the management is allowed the workman to

operate said shovel, as per WW-1 dated 17/19.11.2003

which is the work of a shovel operator "B". The pay of the

workman should be protected. But the management

submitted that as there was no post, the workman Ganga

Das was not given promotion. But when the senior Shovel

operator post was there, workman was there, as to why

Ganga Das was allowed to operate such heavy shovel.

Therefore the pay is to be protected in Grade "B" Shovel

operator w.e.f. 19.11.2003.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold

that the action of the management of Sudamdih COCP of

M/s. BCCL in denying wages as Shovel Operator, Cat-"B"

to Sh. Ganga Das B.P. Shovel Operator, Cat-"D" is not

justified and legal. Hence the pay of the workman is

protected in Gr. "B" w.e.f. 19.11.2003.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 twu] 2013

dk. vk. 1211.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ ch lh lh ,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@1996½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 03-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@35@1995&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2013

S.O. 1211.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/1996)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. B.C.C.L.

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

03.06.2013.

[No. L-20012/35/1995-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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. 18 of 1996

Employers in relation to the management of South Tisra

Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen.

Present:—Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers. : None

For the workman.

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal

Dated : 24.5.2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/35/95-IR(C-1), dated 16.02.1996.

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

"Whether the action of the management in not

referring the case of Shri Munsi Gope, Under Ground

Trammer of South Tisra Colliery to the Medical Board

for re-assessment of his age is justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 05.03.1996. After notice both parties appeared. The

Sponsoring Union/workman files their written statement

on 19.03.1996. The management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 25.07.1996. Thereafter rejoinder

and documents received by the workman. The workman

has been examined as witness.

3. The short point to be decided in the case, is whether

the workman to be referred for determination of his age

when he urged. As the management did not refer the

workman for determination of age to medical board, the

present dispute has been raised.

4. The claim of the workman, is that in his I.D. Card of

the company, the date of birth of the workman is 1943. But

from where the I. Card was created, i.e. the Form "B" register,

the date of Birth at some place 1935 and at some place there

is interpolation, though those documents have been filed

some of such documents appears to be tampered. It was at

3186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

that point of time the case of the workman was to be

considered.

5. The workman has been retired, taking his date of

birth 1935 i.e. he has been retired from service in 1995. At

this stage no fruit full result will yield, if the workman will

be referred for medical board for age determination.

Moreover in more and more documents the date of Birth of

the workman appears as 1935. Hence his present claim is

not entertainable.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1212.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

flD;ksfjVh isij fey] gksa'kaxkckn ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@,yñlhñ@vkjñ@46@05½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12&06&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&16011@01@2005&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼Mhñ;wñ½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1212.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/46/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The General Manager, Security Paper

Mill, Hoshangabad, which was received by the Central

Government on 12-06-2013.

[No. L-16011/01/2005-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/46/05

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The General Secretary,

SPM Employees Union,

Type-II/63, Phase-II,

SPM, Hoshangabad

...Workman/Union

Versus

The General Manager,

Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of March, 2013

1. As per letter dated 26-5-05 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-16011/

1/2005-IR(DU) dated 26-5-05. The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad is not

giving promotion as a Senior Foreman in E & I

Section and not giving benefits to Shri B.K. Gupta

since 1983 upto till date is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After notice, 1st party/workaman failed to appear

and submit statement of claim. 1st party is proceeded

exparte on 10-9-09. IInd party filed Written Statement. IInd

party submits that Ist party wokman was appointed as

Electrician Higher Scale Gr. II in the scale of pay Rs. 330-8-

390. He had filed an application under Section 15 of Payment

of Wages Act before Labour Court No. 2 Bhopal in 1986

claiming amount Rs. 3615.50 towards difference of wages

for the period. His application was dismissed. The Ist party

prefered appeal against the said order. The said appeal was

decided by Industrial Court, Bhopal on 10-9-98. The appeal

was allowed. IInd party filed Write Petition No. 1842/99.

However, duing pendency of Writ Petition, wages

Rs. 11,212 were paid.

3. IInd party further submits that Ist party workman

was working as Electrician in Electrical Section when the E

& I Section was newly created due to modernization. Ist

party/workman had worked for 5 months and 5 days and

he was transfered to his original section. He is not fulfilling

the eligibility for promotion post claimed by him. Such post

requies 2 year experience. IInd party prays for rejection of

the claim of Ist party.

4. Ist paty has not filed statement of claim nor

produced any evidence. IInd party filed evidence of his

witness Shri Mahapatra denying claim of the Ist party

covering all contention in the Written Statement filed by

IInd party. There is absolutely no evidence for establishing

claim of Ist party for permanent post. Therefore the claim

of Ist party deserves to be rejected.

5. In the result, award is passed as under:—

"The demand of 1st Party workman under reference

is not supported by any evidence of Ist party workman.

His claim is rejected."

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1213.—tcfd dksM la[;k Mh,y@17669 ds varxZr

fnYyh ¼nf{k.k½ {ks= esa eSllZ g~;wftt dE;wfuds'kUl bafM;k fyfeVsM

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3187

¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè

,oa izdh.kZ micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr

vfèfu;e ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-03-1996 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

micaèksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@23@2013&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1213.—Whereas M/s Hughes Communications

India Ltd. [under Code No. DL/17669 in Delhi (South) region]

(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied

for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section

17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as

the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not

less favourable to employees therein than those specified in

section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in

enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under

the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme,

1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the

employees in any other establishment of similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.03.1996

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/23/2013-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1214.—tcfd dksM la[;k ,e,p@11403 ds varxZr

{ks=h; dk;kZy;] dkaMhfoyh esa eSllZ VsdfueksaV vkbZlhch izkbZosV

fyfeVsM ¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr

vfèfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-02-1987 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèksa

ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@13@2013&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1214.—Whereas M/s Technimont ICB Pvt. Ltd.

[under Code No. MH/17403 in Regional Office, Kandivili]

(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied

for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section

17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as

the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.02.1987

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/13/2013-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1215.—tcfd dksM la[;k ,e,p@,uthih@66371

ds varxZr ukxiqj {ks= esa eSllZ fcYV xzkfQd isij izksMDV~l fyfeVsM

3188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè

,oa izdh.kZ micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr

vfèfu;e ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-03-2008 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèksa

ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@17@2012&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1215.—Whereas M/s. Bilt Graphic Paper

Products Ltd. [under Code No. MH/NGP/66371 in Nagpur

region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has

applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of

section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter

referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.03.2008

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/17/2012-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1216.—tcfd dksM la[;k ,e,p@,uthih@63746

ds varxZr ukxiqj {ks= esa eSllZ ,ihvkj lsDl fyfeVsM ¼,rnqijkUr

izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè ,oa izdh.kZ

micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr vfèfu;e ds

:i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds

varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-03-2003 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèksa

ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@07@2012&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1216.—Whereas M/s APR Sacks Ltd. [under

Code No. MH/NGP/63746 in Nagpur region] (hereinafter

referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption

under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.03.2003

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/07/2012-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1217.—tcfd dksM la[;k ;wih@5417 ds varxZr

vkjvks esjB {ks= esa eSllZ Mkcj bafM;k fyfeVsM ¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku

ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3189

vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr vfèfu;e ds :i esa

lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV

ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-04-1977 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

micaèksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@40@2000&,l,l-II [k.M-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1217.—Whereas M/s Dabur India Ltd. [under

Code No. UP/5417 in RO Meerut region] (hereinafter referred

to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under

clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees'

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.04.1977

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/40/2000-SS-II Vol. II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1218.—tcfd eSllZ ,fjdlu bafM;k izkbZosV fyñ

[dksM la[;k ,pvkj@thth,u@26237 ds varxZr vkjvks xqM+xkao esa]

¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè

,oa izdh.kZ micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr

vfèfu;e ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-08-2007 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèksa

ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@15@2013&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1218.—Whereas M/s Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd.

[under Code No. HR/GGN/26237 in RO Gurgaon]

(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied

for exemption under clauses (a) of sub-section (1) of section

17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as

the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.08.2007

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/15/2013-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1219.—tcfd dksM la[;k ,pvkj@9550 ds varxZr

xqM+xkao] gfj;k.kk {ks= esa eSllZ csdVsy bafM;k izkbZosV fyfeVsM

¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè

3190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

,oa izdh.kZ micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr

vfèfu;e ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 20-12-2007 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèksa

ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@3@2013&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1219.—Whereas M/s Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd.

[under Code No. HR/9550 in Gurgaon, Haryana region]

(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied

for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section

17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as

the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 20.12.2007

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/3/2013-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1220.—tcfd dksM la[;k vksvkj@2911 ds varxZr

,lvkjvks D;qu>kj esa eSllZ VkVk LikWt vk;ju fyfeVsM ¼,rnqijkUr

izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè ,oa izdh.kZ

micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr vfèfu;e ds

:i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds

varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-09-1993 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

micaèksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@12@2013&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1220.—Whereas M/s Tata Sponge Iron Ltd.

[under Code No. OR/2911 in SRO, Keonjhar] (hereinafter

referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption

under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.09.1993

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/12/2013-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1221.—tcfd dksM la[;k ,pvkj@29165 ds varxZr

xqM+xkao] gfj;k.kk {ks= esa eSllZ bZ-vkbZ- M~;wiksaV bafM;k izkbZosV fyfeVsM

¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % twu 29] 2013@vk"kk<+ 8] 1935

3191

,oa izdh.kZ micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr

vfèfu;e ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 26-06-2008 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

micaèksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@17@2013&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1221.—Whereas M/s E.I. Dupont India Pvt.

Ltd. [under Code No. HR/29165 in Gurgaon, Haryana

Region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has

applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of

section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter

referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 26.06.2008

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/17/2013-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1222.—tcfd dksM la[;k ,e,p@46135 ds varxZr

eqacbZ&I {ks= esa eSllZ ,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku

ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè

vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr vfèfu;e ds :i esa

lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV

ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-03-2000 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèksa

ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@49@2007&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1222.—Whereas M/s HDFC Bank Ltd. [under

Code No. MH/46135 in Mumbai-I region] (hereinafter

referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption

under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.03.2000

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/49/2007-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1223.—tcfd dksM la[;k ,pvkj@9115 ds varxZr

{ks=h; dk;kZy;] Qjhnkckn esa eSllZ us'kuy vkbZMªksySDVªhd ikWoj

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ¼,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952

3192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 29, 2013/ASHADHA 8, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr vfèfu;e ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh

mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-09-1985 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

micaèksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@5@2013&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1223.—Whereas M/s National Hydroelectric

Power Corporation Ltd. [under Code No. HR/9115 in

Regional Office, Faridabad] (hereinafter referred to as the

establishment) has applied for exemption under clauses (a)

of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident

Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)

(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.09.1985

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/5/2013-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2013

dk.vk. 1224.—tcfd dksM la[;k ,e,p@28124 ds varxZr

ckaæk esa eSllZ bafM;u baLVhV~;wV vkWQ cSafdax vkSj Qkbusal ¼,rnqijkUr

izfr"Bku ds :i esa lanfHkZr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufè ,oa izdh.kZ

micaè vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ ¼,rnqijkUr vfèfu;e ds

:i esa lanfHkZr½ dh èkjk 17 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds

varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæh; ljdkj ds fopkj esa] va'knku dh njksa

ds lacaè esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufè fu;e mDr vfèfu;e dh

èkjk 6 esa fofufnZ"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh mDr vfèfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufè ;kstuk] 1952 ¼,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr½ ds varxZr

ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaè esa nh

tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufè izlqfoèkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs gSaA

3- vr%] dsUæh; ljdkj] vc mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 17 dh

mi èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

bl lacaè esa le;≤ ij fofufnZ"V 'krks± ds v/;èhu] mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèlwpuk rd 01-03-2003 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèksa

ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gSA

[lañ ,l&35015@2@2012&,l,l-II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2013

S.O. 1224.—Whereas M/s Indian Institute of

Banking & Finance [under Code No. MH/28124 in Bandra

Regional Office, Kandivili] (hereinafter referred to as the

establishment) has applied for exemption under clauses (a)

of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident

Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)

(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund f the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are

also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided

under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds

Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in

relation to the employees in any other establishment of

similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard

from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts

the said establishment from the operation of all the

provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01.03.2003

until further notification.

[No. S-35015/2/2012-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.