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- 30]

ubZ fnYyh, tqykbZ 21—tqykbZ 27] 2013] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 30—Jko.k 5] 1935

No. 30]

NEW DELHI, JULY 21—JULY 27, 2013, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 30—SHRAVANA 5, 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)

x`g ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh 16 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1447-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ¼1987 esa ;Fkk la'kksfèr½ ds fu;e

10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] x`g ea=ky; ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa esa fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku j[kus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 80

izfr'kr ls vfèd gks tkus ds QyLo:i ,rnn~okjk mUgsa vfèlwfpr djrh gS%

dk;kZy;] iqfyl egkfujh{kd] NÙkhlx<+ lsDVj] dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy] jk;iqj ¼N-x-½

dk;kZy;] mi egkfujh{kd] ¼fpfdRlk½] la;qDr vLirky] dsUnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy] bykgkckn ¼m-iz-½

[la- 12017@1@2012&¯gnh]

voès'k dqekj feJ] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi the 16th July, 2013

S.O. 1447.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union)

Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Home

Affairs wherein the percentage of the staff having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%:

Office of the Inspector General of Police, Chhatisgarh Sector, CRPF, Raipur (C.G.).

Office of the Dy. Inspector General (Medical), Composite Hospital, CRPF, Allahabad (U.P.)

[No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi]

AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA Director (OL)

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1448-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e la- 25½ dh /kkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, >kj[kaM jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] jkaph dh fnukad 15 tuojh] 2013

dh vfèlwpuk la- 6@lhchvkbZ&605@2012&157 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa rFkk {ks=kfèdkj dk

foLrkj lEiw.kZ >kj[kaM jkT; esa fuEufyf[kr vijkèksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy, djrh gS%&

3121GI/13

(3635)

3636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Øe

ekeyk la-

dkuwu dh èkjk

iqfyl Fkkus

la-

dk uke

06@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch] 406

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

,oa 420 rFkk ijØkE; fy[kr vfèfu;e] 1881 ¼1881 dk vfèfu;e la- 26½

dh èkjk 138 ds vèhu

120@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch] 406

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

,oa 420 rFkk ijØkE; fy[kr vfèfu;e] 1881 ¼1881 dk vfèfu;e la- 26½

dh èkjk 138 ds vèhu

96@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 406] 420

iqfyl Fkkuk txukZFkiqj

,oa 34 ds vèhu

¼iqUnkx½

122@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch] 406

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

,oa 420 ds vèhu

91@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk lnj

406] 420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 472 ds vèhu

95@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 511 ds vèhu

¼esljk vks- ih-½

136@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

,oa 420 rFkk ijØkE; fy[kr vfèfu;e] 1881 ¼1881 dk vf/fu;e la- 26½

dh /kkjk 138 ds vèhu

407@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh

406] 420] 467] 468 ,oa 471 ds vèhu

101@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk cfj;krq ¼xksank½

406] 420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 472 ds vèhu

10-

428@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk iaMjk ¼vks- ih-½

,oa 406 ds vèhu

11-

93@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk èqokZ

406] 420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 34 ds vèhu

¼fViqnkuk vks- ih-½

12-

102@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk lnj

406] 420] 467] 468 ,oa 471 rFkk ijØkE; fy[kr vfèfu;e] 1881

¼1881 dk vfèfu;e la- 26½ dh èkjk 138 ds vèhu

13-

122@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk

iqfyl Fkkuk cfj;krq

406] 420] 467] 468] 471] 472 ,oa 34 ds vèhu

14-

134@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 406]

iqfyl Fkkuk ykyiqj

419] 420] 467] 468] ,oa 34 ds vèhu

15-

117@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk lnj

406] 409] 420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 511 ds vèhu

¼esljk vks-ih-½

16-

128@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk lnj

406] 420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 472 ds vèhu

17-

169@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk txukZFkiqj

420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 477, ds vèhu

¼iqankx½

18-

183@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 406 ,oa 420]

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

ds vèhu

19-

188@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

dh èkjk 120&ch] 406] 420] 467] 468] 471] 506 ,oa 34 ds vèhu

20-

198@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

406] 420] 467] 468]469] 471 ,oa 472 ds vèhu

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3637

21-

151@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 420] 467]

iqfyl Fkkuk lnj

468] 471 ,oa 34 ds vèhu

22-

205@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

,oa 420 rFkk ijØkE; fy[kr vfèfu;e] 1881 ¼1881 dk vfèfu;e la- 26½

dh èkjk 138 ds vèhu

23-

297@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk yksvj cktkj

406] 408] 420 ,oa 34 ds vèhu

24-

51@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 406

iqfyl Fkkuk uxM+h

,oa 420 rFkk ijØkE; fy[kr vfèfu;e] 1881 ¼1881 dk vfèfu;e la- 26½

dh èkjk 138 ds vèhu

25-

34@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 120&ch]

iqfyl Fkkuk vux<+k

406] 420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 34 ds vèhu

26-

66@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 406] 420]

iqfyl Fkkuk jkrq

467] 468 ,oa 471 ds vèhu

27-

70@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½

iqfyl Fkkuk vksjek¡>h

dh èkjk 120&ch] 406] 420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 34

ds vèhu

28-

108@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e la- 45½ dh èkjk 406]

iqfyl Fkkuk ukedqe

419] 420] 467] 468] ,oa 471 rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa tutkfr

¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1989 dh èkjk 3 ¼i½ ¼v½ ¼x½ds vèhu

lathouh fcYMdkWu izkbosV fyfeVsM] thbZ,y ppZ dkWEIySDl] jk¡ph ,oa vU; ds fo:) ,oa mijksDr vijkèksa ds lacaè esa ;k muls lEc) vijkèksa

esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa rFkk "kM;a=ksa ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiék dksbZ vU; vijkè ;k vijkèksa esaA

[lañ 228@53@2012&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013

S.O. 1448.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government

of Jharkhand, Home Department, Ranchi vide Notification No.-6/C.B.I.605/2012-157 dated 15th January, 2013, hereby extends

the powers and jurisdication of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Jharkhand

for investigation of offences viz :—

Sl.

Case

Section Laws

Name of Police Station

No.

06/12

Under sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

Police Station Lower Bazar.

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881)

120/12

under sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

Police Station Lower Bazar.

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881)

96/12

under sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

Police Station

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

Jagarnathpur (Pundag)

122/12

under sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

Police Station Lower Bazar

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

91/12

under sections 120-B, 406, 420 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the

Police Station Sadar.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

95/12

under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 511 of the

Police Station Sadar.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

(Mesra O.P.)

3638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

136/12

under sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

Police Station Lower Bazar.

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881)

407/12

under sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian

Police Station Kotwali

Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

101/12

under sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the

Police Station Bariatu.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

(Gonda)

10.

428/12

under sections 120-B, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code,

Police Station Pandra

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

(O.P.)

11.

93/12

under sections 120-B, 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34

Police Station Dhurwa

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

(Tipudana O.P.)

12.

102/12

under sections 120-B, 406 , 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the

Police Station Sadar

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881)

13.

122/12

under sections 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 34

Police Station Bariatu

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

14.

134/12

under sections 406 ,419, 420, 467, 468, and 34

Police Station Lalpur

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

15.

117/12

under sections 120-B, 406 , 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 511

Police Station Sadar

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

(Mesra O.P.)

16.

128/12

under sections 120-B, 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472

Police Station Sadar

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

17.

169/12

under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A

Police Station Jagarnathpur

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

(Pundag)

18.

183/12

under sections 406 and 420

Police Station Lower Bazar

of the Indian Penal Coade, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

19.

188/12

under sections 120-B, 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 34

Police Station Lower Bazar

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

20.

198/12

under sections 120-B, 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471, and 472

Police Station Lower

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

Bazar

21.

151/12

under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34

Police Station Sadar

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

205/12

under sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

Police Station Lower Bazar.

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881)

23.

297/12

under sections 120-B, 406 , 408, 420 and 34

Police Station Lower Bazar

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

24.

51/12

under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

Police Station Nagri

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. 26 of 1881)

25.

34/12

under sections 120-B, 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34

Police Station Angara

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

26.

66/12

under sections 406 , 420, 467, 468 and 471,

Police Station Ratu

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

27.

70/12

under sections 120-B and 406 , 420, 467, 468 471 and 34

Police Station Ormanjhi

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

28.

108/12

under sections 406 , 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471,

Police Station Namkum

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

and section 3(i)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

against Sanjeevani Buildcon Private Limited, GEL Church Complex, Ranchi and others and attempts, abetments and

conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed

in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/53/2012-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3639

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk- 1449

.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 25½ dh

/kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk 1 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fcgkj jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼iqfyl½ foHkkx dh

vf/klwpuk la[;k&1@lh-ch-vkbZ- 80&02&@12&x`-vk-@4673@iVuk fnukad 6 twu 2012 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls vkjk uoknk Fkkuk dkaM lañ 139@2012]

fnukad 01-06-2012 esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 302@34@120ch ,oa vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds varxZr Jh czges'oj flag mQZ czges'oj

eqf[k;k dh gR;k ls lacaf/kr izdj.k ,oa iz;Ru] nz"izsj.k vkSj "kM~;a= rFkk mlh laO;ogkj ds vuqØe esa fd;s x;s vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr fdlh

vU; vijk/k dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL; dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/kdkfjrk dk foLrkj laiw.kZ fcgkj jkT; ij

djrh gSA

[la-] 228@38@2012&,-oh-Mh-&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013,

S.O. 1449.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government

of Bihar, Home (Police ) Department, vide Notification No. 1/CBI/ 80-02/2012 H(P)/4673 dated 06th June 2012, hereby

extends powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar

for investigation of the Case No. 139/2012 dated 1.6.2012 under section 302/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of

Arms Act registered at Ara Nawada-PS, Distt-Bhojpur, Bihar related to the murder of Sri Brahmeshwar Singh @ Brahmeshwar

Mukhiya, including abetment, attempt and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other

offence/offences committed in the course of the same transaction of arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/38/2012-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk- 1450

.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 25½ dh

/kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsjy jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼,e½ foHkkx] fr:ouariqje dh

fnukad 12 twu] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk th-vks- ¼,e,l-½ la- 148@2013@x`g }kjk izkIr lgefr ls usfYy;kEiFkh Hkwfe ?kksVkyk ls lacaf/kr] iqfyl

Fkkuk iMfxjh] ftyk iyDdM+ esa iathd`r vijk/k la[;k 5@12] 6@12] 7@12] 8@12] 9@12 ,oa 10@12 ¼vijk/k 'kk[kk ds vijk/k lañ

706@lhvkj@vkslhMCY;w&III/2012, 707@ lhvkj@vkslhMCY;w&III/2012, 708@lhvkj@vkslhMCY;w&III/2012, 709@lhvkj@vkslhMCY;w&III/2012,

710@lhvkj@vkslhMCY;w&III/2012 ,oa 711@lhvkj@vkslhMCY;w&III/2012) esa rFkk mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijk/kksa ls lacaf/kr ;k muls lEc)

vijk/kksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dk

iathdj.k@vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj leLr dsjy jkT; ds lEcU/k

esa djrh gSA

[la-] 228@50@2013&,ñohñMhñ&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013,

S.O. 1450.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government

of Kerala, Home (M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 148/2013/Home dated 12th June,

2013 hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of

the State of Kerala for investigation of Crime Nos. 5/12, 6/12/, 7/12, 8/12, 9/12, 10/12, rgistered at Police State Padagiri,

Palakkad District (Crime No. 706/CR/OCW-III/2012, No. 707/CR/OCW-III/2012, No. 708/CR/OCW-III/2012, 709/CR/OCW-III/

2012, 710/CR/OCW-III/2012, and 711/CR/OCW-III/2012, of Crime Branch) relating to Nellliyampathy land scam and

attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other

offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/50/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

3640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk- 1451

.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½ Ldhe 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr

c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼³½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj],rn~}kjk] lsUVªy c®d vkQ bafM;k ds fo'ks"k lgk;d Jh xqjcD'k dqekj tks'kh ¼tUe frfFk 10-07-1958½ dks mudh

fu;qfDr dh vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok lsUVªy c®d vkQ bafM;k esa muds deZpkjh ds in ij cus jgus rd vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] lsUVªy c®d vkQ bafM;k ds funs'kd e.My esa deZdkj deZpkjh funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk-la- 6@19@2012&ch vks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013,

S.O. 1451.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of Sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub-clause (1) & (2) of Clause 9 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provision) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Gurbax Kumar Joshi (Date of Birth: 10.07.1958), Special Assistant, Central Bank of India as Workment Employee

Director on the Board of Directors of Central Bank of India for a period of three years with effect form the date of his

notification or until he ceases to be a Workmen Employee of Central Bank of India or until further orders, whichever is the

earliest.

[F. No. 6/19/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk- 1452

.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½ Ldhe 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr

c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼p½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] flafMdsV c®d ds eq[; izca/kd Jh ekatjsdj lat; vuar

¼tUe frfFk 08-01-1960½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok flafMdsV c®d esa muds vf/kdkjh ds

in ij cus jgus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] flafMdsV c®d ds funs'kd e.My esa vf/kdkjh deZpkjh funs'kd fu;qDr

djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 6@2@2013&ch-vks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013,

S.O. 1452.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of Sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub-clause (1) & (2) of Clause 9 of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provision) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government after consultation with the

Reserve Bank of India hereby appoints Shri Manjrekar Sanjay Anant (Date of Birth: 08.01.1960), Chief Manager, Syndicate

Bank as Officer Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Syndicate Bank for a period of three years form the date of

notification of his appointment or until he ceases to be an officer of the Syndicate Bank, until further orders, whichever is

the earliest.

[F. No. 6/2/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk-1453

.—Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ¼leuq"kaxh c®d½ vf/kfu;e] 1959 dh /kkjk 26 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2d½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 25 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,un~}kjk] LVsV c®d vkQ gSnjkckn dh fo'ks"k lgk;d Jherh

,u- y{eh Jhfuokl ¼tUe frfFk 26-06-1956½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok LVsV c®d vkQ

gSnjkckn ds deZdkj deZpkjh ds :i esa muds in ij cus jgus rd vFkok vkxkeh vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] LVsV c®d vkQ gSnjkckn

ds funs'kd e.My esa deZdkj deZpkjh funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk-la- 6@5@2012&ch vks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3641

New Delhi, the 17th July 2013

S.O.1453.—In pursuance of the clause (ca) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 read with sub-section (2A) of Section

26 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Bank) Act, 1959, the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. N. Laxmi

Srinivas (Date of Birth: 26.06.1956), Speical Assistant, State Bank of Hyderabad as Workmen Employee Directors on

the Board of Directors of State Bank of Hyderabad, for a period of three years with effect from the date of her notification

or till she ceases to be a Workmen Employee of the State Bank of Hyderabad, or until further orders, whichever is the

earliest.

[F.No. 6/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1454

.—Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ¼leuq"kaxh c®d½ vfèfu;e] 1959 dh èkjk 26 dh mi&èkjk ¼2d½ ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 25 dh

mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼x d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] LVsV c®d vkQ =ko.kdksj ds fo'ks"k lgk;d

Jh ih- oh- izlkn ¼tUe frfFk% 15-07-1962½ dks fnukad 19-07-2013 ls ;k blds i'pkr muds }kjk in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok LVsV c®d vkQ =ko.kdksj ds deZdkj deZpkjh ds :i esa muds in ij cus jgus rd vFkok vkxkeh vkns'kksa

rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] LVsV c®d vkQ =ko.kdksj ds funs'kd e.My esa deZdkj deZpkjh funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 6@27@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1454.—In pursuance of the clause (ca) of sub-section (1) of Section 25 read with sub-section (2A) of Section

26 of the State Bank of India (subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P.V. Prasad (Date

of Birth: 15.07.1962), Special Assistant, State Bank of Travancore as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Director

of State Bank of Travancore, for a period of three years with effect from the date of his taking over the charge of the post on

or after 19.07.2013 or till he ceases to be a Workmen Employee of the State Bank of Travancore, or until further orders,

whichever is the earliest

[F. No. 6/27/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1455

.—Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955 dk 23½ dh èkjk 21d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 21 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M

¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ,- xksikyd`".ku ¼tUe frfFk%

02-12-1951½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh;

LVsV c®d ds fr#ouariqje LFkkuh; cksMZ esa lnL; ukfer djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 3@53@2012&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1455.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, read with

Section 21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, (23 of 1955), the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve

Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri A. Gopalakrishnan (DOB: 02.12.1951), as a Member on the Thiruvananthapuram

Local Board of State Bank of India, for a period of three years from the date of notification of his appointment or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 3/53/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;

¼bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1456

.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 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] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.k ds varxZr vkus okys lkW¶Vos;j VsDuksykWth ikDlZ vkWQ

3642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

bafM;k] uked Lok;Ùk laLFkk ds 01@ch] baQks VkWoj&1] baQksflVh] ,;jiksVZ jksM] banjksnk lfdZy ds ikl] xkaèhuxj] xqtjkr fLFkr dsUnz] ftlds 80

izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[la- 7¼2½@2005&fg-v-]

jktdqekj xks;y] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Electronics and Information Technology)

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2013

S.O. 1456.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule(4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the centre of Software Technology Park of India, an autono-

mous society under the administrative control of the Department of Electronics & Information Technology, located at 01/B,

Info Tower-1, Infocity, Airport Road, near Indroda Circle, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, more than 80% staff whereof have acquired

the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 7(2)/2005-H.S.]

R. K. GOYAL, Jt. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1457

.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 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] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.k ds varxZr vkus okyh izxr lax.ku fodkl dsUnz ¼lh&MSd½

uked Lok;Ùk laLFkk ds IykWV&bZ 2@1 CykWd&thih] lsDVj&V] foèkuuxj] dksydkrk fLFkr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us

fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[la- 7¼2½@2005&fg-v-]

jktdqekj xks;y] la;qDr lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2013

S.O. 1457.— In pursuance of Sub-Rule(4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), an

autonomous society under the administrative control of the Department of Electronics & Information Technology, located

at Plot-E2/1, Block-GP, Sector-V, Bidhannagar, Kolkata, more than 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi.

[No. 7(2)/2005-H.S.]

R. K. GOYAL, Jt. Secy.

lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1458-

—bl ea=ky; dh fnukad 19-01-2012] 06-03-2013 rFkk 16-02-2013 dh vfèlwpuk lañ Øe'k% 809@2@2011&,Q¼lh½]

809@3@2011&,Q¼lh½] 809@4@2011&,Q¼lh½] 809@5@2011& ,Q¼lh½ rFkk 809@8@2011 ,Q¼lh½ ds vuqØe eas vkSj pyfp= ¼izek.ku½

fu;e] 1983 ds fu;e 7 vkSj 8 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp= vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk 37½ dh èkjk 5 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj fuEufyf[kr O;fDr;ksa dks muds uke ds le{k fofufnZ"V dsanzh; fQYe izek.ku cksMZ ds {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa esa rqjar

izHkko ls nks o"kks± ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] lykgdkj iSuy ds lnL;ksa ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS%

Øe lañ

lnL; dk uke

lykgdkj iSuy

Jh johUnz ¯lg ;kno

fnYyh

Jh v'ouh oekZ

&ogh&

Jh jkds'k dqekj ¯lg

&ogh&

MkWñ ¼Jherh½ p;fudk mfu;ky ikaMk

&ogh&

Jh tliky ¯lg f<Yyksa

&ogh&

Jh vfuy Vsdjhoky

&ogh&

MkWñ ¼Jherh½ vk'kk feJk xks}keh

&ogh&

Jherh lqns'k csuhoky

&ogh&

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3643

Jh txnhi pkSèjh

fnYyh

10-

Jh foØe 'kekZ fMDdh

&ogh&

11-

Jh 'ke'ksj ¯lg

&ogh&

12-

Jh johUnz iky lsBh

&ogh&

13-

Jh egs'k dqekj xkSM+ cksEek

gSnjkckn

14-

MkWñ ,ñ,lñ jked`".k

&ogh&

15-

Jherh iwue jkuh okax[kse ¼HkkfV;k½

dksydkrk

16-

Jh pUnz 'ks[kj jSdokj

eqacbZ

17-

Jh fuf'pr tnqjk; O;kl

&ogh&

18-

MkWñ vfuy dqekj Vh

caxykSj

[Qkñ lañ 809@3@2011&,Q¼lh½ ]

fu#iek dksr:] funs'kd ¼fQYe½

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013

S.O. 1458.—In continuation of Ministry's Notifications No. 809/2/2011-F(C), 809/3/2011-F(C), 809/4/2011-

F(C), 809/5/2011-F(C) and 809/8/2011-F(C), dated 19.01.2012, 06.03.2012 and 16.02.2013 respectively and in exercise

of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7

and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following

persons as members of the Advisory panels at the Regional Offices as specified against each member, of the Central

Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier

: —

S.No. Name of the Member

Advisory

Panel

Shri Ravindra Singh Yadav

Delhi

Shri Ashwani Sharma

-do-

Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh

-do-

Dr. (Smt.) Chayanika Uniyal Panda

-do-

Shri Jaspal Singh Dhillon

-do-

Shri Anil Tekriwal

-do-

Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Mishra Godwami

-do-

Smt. Sudesh Baniwal

-do-

Shri Jagdeep Chaudhary

-do-

10. Shri Vikram Sharma Dickie

-do-

11.

Shri Shamsher Singh

-do-

12. Shri Ravinder Pal Sethi

-do-

13. Shri Mahesh Kumar Goud Bomma

Hyderabad

14. Dr. A.S. Rama Krishna

-do-

15. Smt. Poonam Raani Wangkhem (Bhatia)

Kolkata

16. Shri Chandra Shekhar Raikwar

Mumbai

17. Shri Nishit Jaduray Vyas

-do-

18. Dr. Anil Kumaar T

Bangalore

[F.No. 809/3/2011-F(C)]

NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films)

3644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

fo|qr ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1459-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds iz;ksx ds fy,½

ds vuqlj.k esa ,ltsoh,u fyfeVsM] f'keyk] nkeksnj ?kkVh fuxe] dksydkrk rFkk ,u,pihlh fyfeVsM] Qjhnkckn ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kkèhu

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr deZpkjho`an us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gS%

,ltsoh,u fyfeVsM]

uSVokM+&eksjh,oa tk[kksy lkadjh ty fo|qr ifj;kstuk]

eksjh] ftyk mÙkjdk'kh] ¼mÙkjk[kaM½&249128

,ltsoh,u fyfeVsM]

èkSykfl) ty fo|qr ifj;kstuk]

gkÅl uañ 113] okMZ uañ 1] d`".kk uxj]

gehjiqj&177001 ¼fgekpy izns'k½

fryS;k iufctyh dsanz]

nkeksnj ?kkVh fuxe]

ofj"B izeaMyh; vfHk;ark ¼fo½ dk dk;kZy;]

fryS;k MSe] ftyk&dksMjek] >kj[kaMA

,u,pihlh fyfeVsM]

{ks=h; dk;kZy;]

lsDVj&lh] bZVkuxj]

fiu&791111¼v#.kkpy izns'k½

[la- 11017@4@2010&fgUnh]

jhrk vkpk;Z] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2013

S.O.1459.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule(4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976(use for official purposes

of the union) the Central Government hereby notifies that staff of the following offices, under the administrative control of

SJVN Ltd., Shimla, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata and NHPC Ltd., Faridabad, have acquired 80% working knowledge

of Hindi-

SJVN Limited,

Naitwar Mori & Jakhol Sankri Hydro Electric

Project, Mori, District Uttrakashi,

(Uttrakhand)-249128

SJVN Limited,

Dhaulasidh Hydro Electric Project,

House No. 113, Ward No. 1 Krishna Nagar,

Hamirpur-177001 (Himachal Pradesh)

Tilaiya Hydel Station,

Damodar Valley Corporation,

Office of the Sr. Divisional Engineer (E)

Tilaiya Dam, Distt.-Koderma, Jharkhand.

NHPC Limited,

Regional Office,

Sector-'C', Itanagar

Pin-791111 (Arunachal Pradesh)

[No. 11017/4/2010-Hindi]

RITA ACHARYA, Jt Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3645

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 1460-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½ }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk vgZrk ds uke esa cnyko ds dkj.k mDr vfèfu;e

dh igyh vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèu djrh gS] vFkkZr%

mDr vuqlwph esa&

¼d½ ^^MkW ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okMk** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼2½

ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacafèr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼3½

ds Li esa lanfHkZr] ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr vUr% LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&

¼2½

¼3½

^^us= jksx foKku esa fMIyksek**

Mh vks

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼cky jksx foKku½

,e Mh ¼cky jksx foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼jsfM;ks funku@jsMh;ksykWth½

,e Mh ¼jsfM;ks funku@jsMh;ksykWth½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼laKkgj.k foKku½

,e Mh ¼laKkgj.k foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼QkekZdksykWth½

,e Mh ¼QkekZdksykWth½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½

,e Mh ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼tujy esMhflu½

,e Mh ¼tujy esMhflu½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

3646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vksVks jkbZuks yS¯jxksykWth½

,e ,l ¼bZ ,u Vh½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

yS¯jxksykWth ,oa vksVksykWth esa fMIyksek

Mh ,y vks

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vkaèz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkW

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vkaèz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gksA½

peZ jksx foKku] ;kSu jksx foKku

Mh Mh oh ,y

,oa dq""B jksx esa fMIyksek

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g pyesnk vkuanjko vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku djheuxj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k eas MkWñ

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012

eas vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼tujy esMhflu½**

,eMh ¼tujy esMhflu½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g MkWñ fiUukeusuh fl)kFkZ

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ,oa vuqla/kku QkmaMs'ku fpUukmiYyh vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ

gksA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vfLFk jksx foKku½**

,e,l ¼vfLFk jksx foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g MkWñ fiUukeusuh fl)kFkZ

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ,oa vuqla/kku QkmaMs'ku fpUukmiYyh vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ

gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼tSo jlk;u½**

,eMh ¼tSo jlk;u½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g MkWñ fiUukeusuh fl)kFkZ

vk;qfoZKku laLFkku ,oa vuqla/kku QkmaMs'ku fpUukmiYyh vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ

gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½**

,e Mh ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ihñbZñ,lñ vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku] dqIie] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012

esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼laKkgj.k foKku½**

,e Mh ¼laKkgj.k foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ihñbZñ,lñ vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku] dqIie] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ]

2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

¼2½

¼3½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3647

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼tujy ltZjh½**

,e ,l ¼tujy ltZjh½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ihñbZñ,lñ vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku] dqIie] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okMk] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012

esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼lkeqnkf;d esMhflu½**

,e Mh ¼lkeqnkf;d esMhflu½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ih-bZ-,l- vk;qfoZKku laLFkku]

dqIie] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okMk] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok

mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼peZ jksx foKku] ;kSu jksx foKku

,e Mh ¼Mh oh ,y½

,oa dq"B jksx½**

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ihñbZñ,lñ vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku] dqIie] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okMk] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012

esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼cky jksx foKku½**

,e Mh ¼cky jksx foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ihñbZñ,lñ vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku] dqIie] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okMk] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012

esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼jsMh;ks funku½**

,e Mh ¼jsMh;ks funku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ihñbZñ,lñ vk;qfoZKku

laLFkku] dqIie] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ

,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okMk] vka/kz izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012

esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

lHkh ds laca/k esa uksV % 1-

fdlh LukRdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy, iznÙk ,slh ekU;rk 5 o"kks± dh vf/kdre vof/k ds fy, gksxh] ftlds mijkar

bldk uohuhdj.k djokuk iM+sxkA

2- mi&[kaM&4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr ekU;rk ds le;iwoZd uohuhdj.k laca/kh vis{kk esa vlQy jgus dk vfuok;Zr% ifj.kke

lacaf/kr LukRdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk can djus ds :i esa fudysxkA

[la- ;w- 12012@71@2012&,ebZ¼ih- II½]

vfurk f=ikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2012

S.O. 1460.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the qualifica-

tion namely:—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualifica-

tion' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbre-

viation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

"Diploma in Ophthalmology"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

in respect of students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Insti-

tute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after

May, 2012.)

¼2½

¼3½

3648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

"Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)"

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

in respect of students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute

of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May,

2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis/Radiology)"

MD (Radio Diagnosis/Radiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

in respect of students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute

of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May,

2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)"

MD (Anaesthesia)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

in respect of students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute

of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May,

2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)"

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

in respect of students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute

of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May,

2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

in respect of students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute

of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May,

2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)"

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute of Medical

Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)"

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute of Medical

Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Diploma in Laryngology & Otology"

DLO

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute of Medical

Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Diploma in Dermatology, Venreology & Leprosy"

DDVL

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at Chalmeda Anandrao Institute of Medical

Sciences, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

(2)

(3)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3649

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)"

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhrtha Institute of

Medical Sciences & Research Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhrtha Institute of

Medical Sciences & Research Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)"

MD (Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhratha Institute of

Medical Sciences & Research Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)"

MD (Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery)"

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venerology

MD (DVL)

& Leprosy)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)"

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

"Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)"

MD (Radio Diagnosis)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in respect of

students being trained at P.E.S. Institute of Medical Sciences,

Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.)

(2)

(3)

3650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Note to all:

1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in

stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/71/2012-ME (P.II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 1461-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh igyh vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj

la'kks/ku djrh gS uker%—

mDr vuqlwph esa —

¼d½ ^^MkW- ,u Vh vkj vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k** ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds :i

esa lanfHkZr ] ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* [blds vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls

lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—

(2)

(3)

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼tujy esMhflu½**

,eMh ¼tujy esMhflu½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dVwjh esMhdy dkWyst]

xarwj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼cky jksx foKku½**

,eMh ¼cky jksx foKku½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dVwjh esMhdy dkWyst]

xarwj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^cky LokLF; esa fMIyksek**

Mhlh,p

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dVwjh esMhdy dkWyst]

xarwj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½**

,eMh ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dVwjh esMhdy dkWyst]

xarwj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vksVks jkbZuks ySfjaxksyksth½**

,e,l ¼bZ ,u Vh½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dVwjh esMhdy dkWyst]

xarwj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vkWFkksZisMhDl½**

,e,l ¼vkWFkksZ-½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dVwjh esMhdy dkWyst]

xarwj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3651

^^MhIyksek bZu vkWFkksZisMhDl**

Mh ¼vkWFkksZ½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dVwjh esMhdy dkWyst]

xarwj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2011 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼izlwfr vkSj L=h jksx½**

,e,l ¼vks ch th½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dVwjh esMhdy dkWyst]

xarwj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼,usfLFkfl;k½**

,eMh ¼,usfLFkf'k;k½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc esfnflVh vk;qfoZKku laLFkku]

?kkuiqj] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkWñ ,u Vh vkj

vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼tujy ltZjh½**

,e,l ¼tujy ltZjh½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g ,e ,u vkj esMhdy

dkWyst ,oa vLirky] lkaxkjsMh] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds

laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa

vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼tujy esMhflu½**

,eMh ¼tujy esMhflu½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g ,e ,u vkj esMhdy

dkWyst ,oa vLirky] lkaxkjsMh] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds

laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa

vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼Ropk jksx] ;kSu jksx] dq"B jksx½**

,eMh ¼Mhoh,y½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g ,e ,u vkj esMhdy

dkWyst ,oa vLirky] lkaxkjsMh] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds

laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa

vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^fMIyksek bZu Ropk jksx] ;kSu jksx] dq"B jksx**

MhMhoh,y

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g MkW ihUukeusuh fl)kFkZ

bULVhV~;wV vkWQ esMhdy lkb±lsl ,oa fjlpZ QkmaMs'ku] fpukSRikYyh] vka/kz izns'k

esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj vk;qfoZKku

fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ

gksA½

^^fMIyksek bZu vkWFkksZisMhDl**

Mh- vkFkksZ

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g egkjktk bULVhV~;wV vkWQ

esMhdy lkb±lsl] usYyhejsYyk] vka/kz izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa

ds laca/k esa MkW- ,u Vh vkj vk;qfoZKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k }kjk ebZ] 2012

esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½

¼[k½ ^^lkSjk"Vª fo'ofo|ky;] jktdksV] xqtjkr** ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk

vgZrk* [blds vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k

ds fy, lais{k.k* [blds vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds vUrxZr vafre

izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk]

vFkkZr~%—

(2)

(3)

3652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼leqnk; fpfdRlk½**

,eMh ¼leqnk; fpfdRlk½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g lh ;w 'kkg esMhdy dkWyst

vkSj vLirky] lqjsanzuxj] xqtjkr esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa

lkSjk"Vª fo'ofo|ky;] jktdksV] xqtjkr }kjk vizSy] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼tujy esMhflu½**

,eMh ¼tujy esMhflu½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g lh ;w 'kkg esMhdy dkWyst

vkSj vLirky] lqjsanzuxj] xqtjkr esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa

lkSjk"Vª fo'ofo|ky;] jktdksV] xqtjkr }kjk vizSy] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vkWFkksZisMhDl½**

,l,l ¼vkWFkksZñ½

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g lh ;w 'kkg esMhdy dkWyst

vkSj vLirky] lqjsanzuxj] xqtjkr esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa

lkSjk"Vª fo'ofo|ky;] jktdksV] xqtjkr }kjk vizSy] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~

iznku dh xbZ gksA½

¼³½ ^^xqtjkr fo'ofo|ky;] vgenkckn] xqtjkr** ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds varxZr 'kh"kZd

^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* [blds vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds

vUrxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr

vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—

^^fMIyksek bu vkWFkksZisMhDl**

Mh- vkFkksZ

¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g ^^ ch ts esMhdy dkWyst]

vgenkckn] esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k** esa ^^xqtjkr

fo'ofo|ky;] vgenkckn] xqtjkr** }kjk vizSy@ebZ] 2012 esa iznku dh xbZ

gksA½

lHkh ds fy;s fVIi.kh % 1- LukRdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy, Lohd`r ekU;rk 5 o"kZ dh vf/kdre vof/k ds fy, gksxh ftlds ckn bldh iqujh{kk

dh tk,xhA

2- mi&/kkjk 4 esa visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij uohdj.k ugha djkus ds QyLo:i lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj

ikB~;Øeksa esa fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk can gks tk,xkA

[la- ;w- 12012@85@2012&,ebZ ¼ih- II½]

vfurk f=ikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2013

S.O. 1461.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely:—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualifica-

tion '[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation

for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)"

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Katuri Medical College, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

(2)

(3)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3653

"Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)"

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Katuri Medical College, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Diploma in Child Health"

DCH

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Katuri Medical College, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)"

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Katuri Medical College, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)"

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Katuri Medical College, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

MS (Ortho.)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Katuri Medical College, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Diploma in Orthopaedics"

D. Ortho.

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Katuri Medical College, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2011.

"Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)"

MS (OBG)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Medical College, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh

on or after May, 2012.

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)"

MD (Anaesthesia)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Katuri Medicity Institute of Medical

Sciences, Ghanpur, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery)"

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at M.N.R. Medical College & Hospital,

Sangareddy, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)"

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at M.N.R. Medical College & Hospital,

Sangareddy, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venerology &

MD (DVL)

Leprosy)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at M.N.R. Medical College & Hospital,

Sangareddy, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

(2)

(3)

3654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

"Diploma in Dermatology, Venreology & Leprosy"

DDVL

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of

Medical Sciences & Research Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli, Andhra

Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

"Diploma in Orthopaedics"

D. Ortho.

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Maharajah Institute of Medical Sciences,

Nellimarella, Andhra Pradesh on or after May, 2012.

(b) against "Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification [herein-

after referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registra-

tion' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)"

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat in respect of students being

trained at C.U. Shah Medical College & Hospital, Surendranagar,

Gujarat on or after April, 2012.

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)"

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat in respect of students being

trained at C.U. Shah Medical College & Hospital, Surendranagar,

Gujarat on or after April, 2012.

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

MS (Ortho.)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat in respect of students being

trained at C.U. Shah Medical College & Hospital, Surendranagar,

Gujarat on or after May, 2012.

[hereinafter referred to as column (2), after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for

Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

"Diploma in Orthopaedics"

D. Ortho.

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat" in respect of students

being trained at B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad only in April/

May, 2012.

Note to all:

1. The recognition so granted to a Post graduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stop-

page of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/85/2012-ME (P.II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

d`f"k ea=ky;

i'kqikyu] Ms;jh vkSj eRL;ikyu foHkkx

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk-1462-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa gsrq½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k

esa] i'kqikyu] Ms;jh vkSj eRL;ikyu foHkkx ds fuEufyf[kr vèhuLFk dk;kZy;ksa esa fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku j[kus okys vfèdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa

dh la[;k 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd gks tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i mUgsa ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrh gS%

1- jk"Vªh; Msjh fodkl cksMZ] uks,Mk

2- jk"Vªh; Msjh fodkl cksMZ] vk.kan

3- dsanzh; HksM+ iztuu QkeZ] fglkj] gfj;k.kk

[Qka- la- 3&4@95&fgUnh]

ih- ,l- pØorhZ] mi lfpo

(2)

(3)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3655

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Animal Husbandary, Dairying and Fisheries Department)

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1462.—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 offices of the Department of Animal Husbandary,

Dairying and Fisheries where the percentage of Hindi knowing staff has gone above 80% :

1. National Dairy Development Board; Noida

2. National Dairy Development Board; Anand

3. Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar, Haryana

[No. 3-4/95-Hindi]

P. S. CHAKARABORTY, Dy. Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk- 1463-

—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkk ek la ¼Hkkx@

lañ

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx½% o"kZ

4581773 2013&04&01 esllZ Jh uk;dh baMLVªhl]

LoPN BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472% 1998

la- 1&A xkaèh lM+d] ch-vkj- iqje]

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

gksi dkWyst] ihyesMq] dks;EcÙkwj&641004

4583272 2013&04&04 esllZ , ds ,e th ,ykW;al izk;osV fyfeVsM]

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa

IS 2830% 2012

,l ,Q lañ 501@1] rqrjh iky;e]

iquosZYyu ds fy, dkWcZu] <yok¡

oh- dYyhiky;e iksLV] iYyMe rkyqd]

bLikr fcysV baxV] fcysV] Cywe

fr#Iiqj&641664

,oa LySc

4583575 2013&04&05 esllZ lsYokl ,Dok

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan½

IS 14543% 2004

14@50] bafM;u cSad dkWyksuh]

feujy ty ds vykok½

enqDdjS CykWd] lqUMDdkeqrqj] dks;EcÙkwj&641010

4585175 2013&04&12 esllZ vUuk vyqfefu;e daiuh izk;osV fyfeVsM] ?kjsyw izs'kj dqdj

IS 2347% 2006

5@210] lsUxkyhiky;e jksM] rsDdYyqj iksLV

vfoukf'k fr#Iiqj&641654

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%11]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013

S.O.1463.— In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifi-

cation) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grants of licence particulars of which are

given in the following schedule:—

3656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence Grant

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Title of the Standard

IS No. (Part/

No.

Date

Party

Sec.) Year

4581773

20130401

M/s. Sree Nayaki Industries

Pumps-Regenerative for clear,

IS 8472 : 1998

No. 1-A, Gandhi Street, B.R. Puram,

cold water

Hope College, Peelamedu,

Coimbatore-641004

4583272

20130404

M/s. AKMG Alloys Private Limited

Carbon steel cast billet ingots,

IS 2830 : 2012

Sf No: 501/1, Thuthari Palayam,

billets,blooms and slabs for re-

V. Kallippalayam (P.O.)

rolling into steel for general

Palladam (Tk), Tiruppur-641664

structural purposes

4583575

20130405

M/s. Selvas Aqua

Packaged Drinking Water (other

IS 14543 : 2004

Madukarai Block, Sundakkamuthur,

14/50, Indian Bank Colony,

Coimbatore-641010

than Packaged Natural Mineral

Water)

4585175

20130412

M/s. Anna Aluminium Co. (P) Ltd.

Domestic Pressure Cookers

IS 2347 : 2006

5/210, Sengalipalayam Road,

Thekkalur (P.O.), Avinashi, Tiruppur-641654

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' and Head

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk- 1464-

—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

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

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkk ek la ¼Hkkx@

la-

dh frfFk o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx½% o"kZ

4601551 10&06&2013 esllZ xk;=h feujYl

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan

IS14543% 2004

462] dyhiky;e] ihñ ,uñ iky;e]

feujy ty ds vykok½

osYykeMS] dks;EcÙkwj&641110

4605963 18&06&2013 esllZ Jh enqjS ehuk{kh vEeu LVhy jh&jksfyax

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa

IS 2830% 2012

fey izk;osV fyfeVsM

iquosZYyu ds fy, dkWcZu] <yok¡

213@2] vIikuk;duiêh] lqywj]

bLikr fcysV baxV] fcysV] Cywe

dks;EcRrwj&641402

,oa LySc

4604052 19&06&2013 esllZ xk:Mk LVhYl

daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp

IS 1786% 2008

,l ,Q lañ 309] dqyrqiky;e iqnqj]

lkeF;Z fodflr bLikr NM+

nsokukeiky;e iksLV]

vkSj rkj

iksYykph rkyqd] dks;EcÙkwj&642120

4604658 19&06&2013 esllZ vYQk iEi VsDuksyksftl

d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 9079% 2002

,l ,Q lañ 259] ohñvksñlhñ uxj]

fctyh ds eksukslsV iEIl

osykUMhiky;e] dks;EcRrwj&641025

4606965 27&06&2013 esllZ ekgh bathfu;fjax izk;osV fyfeVsM&;wfuV 2 [kqys dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh;

IS 14220% 1994

282@2] dkykiV~Vh jksM dks;Ecrwj&641048

iEilsV

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3657

4607159 27&06&2013 esllZ ,Ddh iEIl

fuEetuh; iEilsV

IS 8034% 2002

67&A&10] vRrhiky;e jksM]

osfUdVklkeh uxj] x.kifr]

dks;EcRrwj&641006

4607260 28&06&2013 esllZ ,Ddh iEIl

fuEetuh; iEilsV ds fy,

IS 9283% 1995

67&A&10] vRrhiky;e jksM]

eksVj

osfUdVklkeh uxj] x.kifr]

dks;EcRrwj&641006

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013

S.O.1464.— In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifi-

cation) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are

given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence Grant

Name and Address (Factory) of the Party Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

No.

Date

Sec. Year

4601551 10-06-2013M/s. Gayathri Minerals,

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543: 2004

462, Kalipalayam,

(other than Packaged Natural

P.N. Palayam, Vellamadai,

Mineral Water)

Coimbatore-641110

4605963 18-06-2013M/s. Sri Madurai Meenakshi Amman Steel Carbon steel cast billet ingots, IS 2830: 2012

Re-Rolling Mill India Private Limited ,

Billets, blooms and slabs for

213/2, Appanaikenpatti, Sulur,

rerolling into steel for general

Coimbatore-641402

sturctural purposes

4604052 19-06-2013M/s. Garuda Steels,

High strength deformed steel

IS 1786: 2008

SF No. 309, Kulathupalayam Pudur,

bars and wires for concrete

Devanampalayam (P.O.), Pollachi (Tk),

reinforcement

Coimbatore-642120

4604658 19-06-2013M/s. Alpha Pump Technologies,

Electric Monoset Pumps

IS 9079: 2002

SF No. 259, V.O.C. Nagar,

for Clear, Cold Water for

Velandipalayam,

Agricultural and Water

Coimbatore-641025

Supply Purposes

4606965 27-06-2013M/s. Mahee Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Unit-II, Openwell Submersible

IS14220: 1994

282/2, Kalapatty Road,

Pumpsets

Coimbatore-641048

4607159 27-06-2013M/s. Ekki Pumps,

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034: 2002

67-A-10, Athipalayam Road,

Venkitasami Nagar, Ganapathy,

Coimbatore-641006

4607260 28-06-2013M/s. Ekki Pumps

Motors for Submersible

IS 9283: 1995

67-A-10, Athipalayam Road,

Pumpsets

Venkitasami Nagar, Ganapathy,

Coimbatore-641006

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' and Head

3658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1465-

—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e]1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%&

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds

jí gksus dh

la-

lh ,e@,y&

varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud

frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

6424969

esllZ MsDdu iEil izk;osV fyfeVsM]

fuEetuh; iEilsV ds fy, eksVj]

30&04&2013

,l ,Q la 111@1C2] ,Q lh vkbZ jksM]

IS 9283%1995

lrh jksM] x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641006

[la- lh ,e Mh@13% 13]

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013

S.O.1465.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifica-

tion) Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given

below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. Licence No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Date of

CM/L

Indian Standard covered by

Cancellation

the licence cancelled/

suspension

6424969

M/s. Deccan pumps Pvt. Ltd.,

Motors for Submersible

30-04-2013

SF. No. 111/1/C2, FCI Road

Pumpsets,

Sathy Road, Ganapathy,

IS 9283:1995

Coimbatore-641 006.

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' and Head

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1466-

—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%&

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la

ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds

jí gksus dh

la-

lh ,e@,y&

varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud

frfFk

dk 'kh"kZd

4458168

esllZ Jh y{eh ujflEek ,Dok Vsd]

iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan feujy ty ds

16&05&2013

3@166-A] if'pe vjlqj] lqywj CykWd]

vykok

vjlwj iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj

IS 14543%2004

[la- lh ,e Mh@13%13]

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013

S.O. 1466.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifica-

tion) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given

below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3659

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. Licence No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Date of

CM/L

Indian Standard covered by

Cancellation

the licence cancelled/

suspension

4458168

M/s. SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMMA Packaged Drinking Water

16-05-2013

AQUA TECH

(other than Packaged

3/166-A, WEST ARASUR,

Natural Mineral Water),

SULUR BLOCK, ARASUR (P.O.)

IS 14543: 2004

COIMBATORE-641017

[No. CMD/13: 13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' Head

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1467-

—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,nr~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ

gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ ,l 1470 % 2013 flfydkseSaxuht&

vkbZ ,l 1470%1990 flfydks eSaxuht&

01-07-2013

fof'kf"V ¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

fof'kf"V ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ 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] xqokgVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA

[lanHkZ ,eVhMh 5@Vh&9]

ih- ?kks"k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2013

S.O. 1467.— 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 Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each.

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. No. and Year of the

No. and year of Indian

Date of

Indian Standards Established

Standards, if any,

Established

Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 1470 : 2013 Silicomanganese—

IS 1470 : 1990

07-07-2013

Specification (Fourth revision)

Silicomanganese—

Specification (third revision)

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

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

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

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. MTD 5/T-9]

P. GHOSH, Scientist 'F' and Head (MTD)

3660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk-1468-

— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ

gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 2041% 2009 ;kaf=d

vkbZ,l 11717%2000 ;kaf=d daiu ds

rqjUr

daiu] 'kkWd rFkk daMh'ku ekfuVfjax&

fy, 'kCnkoyh

'kCnkoyh

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 7919&3% 2009 ;kaf=d

vkbZ,l 14773&3%2000 vizR;kxkeh

rqjUr

daiu&?kwf.kZ 'kkÝV dh ekiu ls e'khu

e'khuksa dk ;kaf=d daiu&?kwf.kZ

daiu dk ewY;kadu Hkkx 3 ;qfXer

'kS¶Vksa ij ekiu rFkk ewY;kadu ds

vkS|ksfxd e'khusa

ekunaM% Hkkx 3% vkS|ksfxd ;qfXer e'khusa

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 7919&4% 2009 ;kaf=d

vkbZ,l 14773&4%2000 vizR;kxkeh

rqjUr

daiu&?kwf.kZ 'kkÝV dh ekiu ls e'khu

e'khuksa dk ;kaf=d daiu&?kwf.kZ

daiu dk ewY;kadu Hkkx 4 nzo fQYe

'kS¶Vksa ij ekiu rFkk ewY;kadu ds

ch;fjaxksa lfgr xSl Vjckbu lsV

ekunaM% Hkkx 4 xSl Vjckbu lsV

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 8568% 2007 ;kaf=d

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 8568%1989

rqjUr

'kkWd&ijh{k.k e'khusa&xq.kèeZ ,oa

;kaf=d 'kkWd&ijh{k.k e'khusa&

dk;Zdkfjrk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

xq.kèeZ ,oa dk;Zdkfjrk

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 4866% 2010 ;kaf=d

vkbZ,l 14884%2000 ;kaf=d daiu

rqjUr

daiu vkSj 'kkWd&fLFkj <kapkxr dEiu&

vkSj iz?kkr&bekjrksa dk daiu&

daiu ds ekiu rFkk <kapksa ij muds izHkkoksa

daiu ekiu ds fn'kkfunsZ'k rFkk

ds ewY;k¡du lacaèh ekxZn'khZ fl)kar

bekjrksa ij muds izHkko dk ewY;kadu

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

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 fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjusV ij

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ% ,e-bZ-Mh-@th&2%1]

Vh-oh- flag] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼;kaf=d bathfu;fjax½

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1468.— 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 Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and Year of the

No. and year of Indian Standards,

Date of

No.

Indian Standards Established

if any, Superseded by the

Establishment

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/ISO 2041:2009 Mechanical

IS 11717:2000 Vocabulary on

With immediate

vibration, shock and condition

vibration and shock (first revision)

effect

monitoring—Vocabulary

IS/ISO 7919-3:2009 Mechanical

IS 14773-3:2000 Mechanical

-do-

vibration—Evaluation of

vibration of non-reciprocating

machine vibration by

machines—Measurements on

measurements on

rotating shafts and evaluation

rotating shafts:Part 3 Coupled

criteria : Part 3 Coupled

Industrial machines

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3661

IS/ISO 7919-4:2009 Mechanical

IS 14773-4:2000 Mechanical

with immediate

vibration—Evaluation of

vibration of non-reciprocating

effect

machine vibration by

machines—Measurements on

measurements on rotating shafts:

rotating shafts and evaluation

Part 4 Gas turbine sets with fluid-

criteria: Part 4 Gas turbine sets

film bearings

IS/ISO 8568:2007 Mechanical

IS/ISO 8568:1989 Mechanical

-do-

shock—Testing machines—

Characteristics and performance

(First revision)

IS/ISO 4866:2010 Mechanical

IS 14884:2000 Mechanical

-do-

vibration and shock—

Vibration of fixed structures—

Vibration of buildings—

Guidelines for the measurement of

Guidelines for the measurement

Vibrations and evaluation of

of Vibrations and evaluation of

their effects on structures

their effects on buildings

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

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

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

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On-line purchase of Indian Standard can be made at: http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. MED/G-2:1]

T. V. SINGH, Scientist 'F' & Head (Mechanical Engineer)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk-1469-

—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 vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekud ds la'kksèu dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksfèr Hkkjrh; ekud dh

la'kksèu la[;k

la'kksèu ykxw gksus

la[;k

la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkSj o"kZ

dh frfFk

vkbZ ,l 15757% 2007

la'kksèu la[;k 4

16 vxLr] 2013

vuqlfjr QkeZwyk&vuqiwjd

o"kZ 2013

vkgkj fof'kf"V

bl la'kksèu dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk]

pSUubZ] eqEcbZ] p.Mhx<+ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj]

iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA

[lanHkZ ,Q,Mh@th&128]

dqekj vfuy] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼[kkn~; ,oa d`f"k½

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2013

S.O. 1469.— 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 amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the Indian

No. and year of

Date of which

No.

Standards

Amendment

the Amendment

shall have effect

IS 15757:2007

Amendment No. 4

16 August, 2013

FOLLOW-UP FORMULA-

Year 2013

COMPLEMENTARY FOODS-

SPECIFICATION

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

3662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

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

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 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.

[Ref. FAD/G-128]

KUMAR ANIL, Scientist ‘F’ and Head (Food and Agriculture)

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk-1470-

—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 vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%&

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ

gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ ,l 11721% 2013@

vkbZ ,l 11721% 2005@

31 ebZ] 2013

vkbZ ,l vks 1736% 2008

vkbZ ,l vks 1736% 2000

'kq"d nqXè vkSj 'kq"d nqXè

mRikn&olk dk va'k Kkr

djuk&HkkjkRed&i)fr

¼lanHkZ i)fr½ ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

¼lanHkZ i)fr½ ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 11762 % 2013@

vkbZ ,l 11762% 2005@

31 ebZ] 2013

vkbZ ,l vks 1737% 2008

vkbZ ,l vks 1737% 1999

ok"ihÑr nwè vkSj ehBk

la?kfur nwè&olk dk va'k

Kkr djuk&HkkjkRed&

i)fr ¼lanHkZ i)fr½ ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

i)fr ¼lanHkZ i)fr½ ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 16069 ¼Hkkx 2½%

vkbZ ,l 14920% 2001@

31 ebZ] 2013

2013@vkbZ ,l vks

vkbZ ,l vks 13681% 1995

21527&2% 2008

ekal vkSj ekal mRiknksa&

[kkn~; ,oa i'kq vkgkj

eksYM dkmaV [kkehjksa vkSj

lkefxz;ksa dk lw{e

QQawfn;ksa dh ifjx.kuk&

tSofoKku&[kehj ,oa

dkWyksuh&dkmaV rduhd

QQw¡nh dh x.kuk dh {kSfrt i)fr

Hkkx 2&0-95 ls de ;k led{k ty

xfrfofè okys mRiknksa esa dksyksuh x.kuk rduhd

bu Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ

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

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA

[lanHkZ ,Q,Mh@th&128]

dqekj vfuy] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼[kkn~; ,oa d`f"k½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3663

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2013

S.O.1470.— 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 Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule

hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of Indian

Date of

No.

Indian Standards Established

Standards, if any,

Establishment

Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 11721: 2013/

IS 11721:2005/

31 May, 2013

ISO 1736: 2008

ISO 1736: 2000

Dried milk and dried milk

products—Determination of

fat content—Gravimetric

method (Reference method)

(Second Revision)

(First Revision)

IS 11762:2013/

IS 11762: 2005/

31 May, 2013

ISO 1737: 2008

ISO 1737: 1999

Evaporated milk and

Sweetened condensed milk-

Determination of fat content-

Gravimetric method

(Reference method) (Second

(Reference method) (First

Revision)

IS 16069 (Part 2): 2013/

IS 14920:2001/

31 May, 2013

ISO 21527-2:2008

ISO 13681: 1995

Microbiology of food and

Meat and meat products-

animal feeding Stuffs-

Enumeration of yeasts and

Horizontal method for the

moulds-Colony count

enumeration of yeasts and

technique

moulds

PART 2-Colony count technique in products

with water activity less than or equal to 0.95

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah

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

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

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. FAD/G-128]

KUMAR ANIL, Scientist ‘F’ and Head (Food and Agri.)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1471-

—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e ¼4½ ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa%

3664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la[;k

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o iÙkk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

01-

,y&4807470

03-06-2013

eS- jkBh Liu ikbi]

iwoZ<fyr daØhV ikbi

458

2003

oh-ih-vks- ijukyk]

¼izcyu lfgr vkSj jfgr½

cgknqjx<+&124507]

ftyk >Ttj

¼gfj;k.kk½

02-

,y&4807571

03-06-2013

eS- jkBh Liu ikbi]

iwoZ<fyr daØhV esugksy

12592 &

2002

oh-ih-vks- ijukyk]

ds <Ddu o ÚSe

cgknqjx<+&124507]

ftyk >Ttj

¼gfj;k.kk½

03-

,y&4806064

06-06-2013

eS- ts-ds- ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a

1417

1999

lqukjksa okyh xyh]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

esu ckt+kj] frxk¡o]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk Qjhnkckn

¼gfj;k.kk½

04-

,y&4806165

06-06-2013

eS- ts-ds- ToSylZ]

pk¡nh ,oa pk¡nh feJ/kkrq,a

2112

2003

lqukjksa okyh xyh]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

esu ckt+kj] frxk¡o]

'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

ftyk Qjhnkckn

¼gfj;k.kk½

05-

,y&4808270

13-06-2013

eS- ooZ ,xzks izk- fy-]

iSdstcUn is; ty

14543 &

2004

xk¡o xksikyiqj xkt+h]

¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd feujy

ih-vks- xqfj;kuh dkslyh]

ty ds vykok½

ftyk fjokM+h&123301

¼gfj;k.kk½

[la- lh,eMh@ 13 % 11]

fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1471.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifica-

tion) Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are

given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant

Name & Address

Title of the standard

IS No. Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L-

Date

of the Licensee

01.

L-4807470

03-06-2013

M/S Rathee Spun Pipe,

Precast Concrete Pipe

458

2003

V.P.O. Parnala,

(with and without

Bahadurgarh-124507,

Reinforcement)

Distt. Jhajjar

(Haryana)

02.

L-4807571

03-06-2013

M/s Rathee Spun Pipe,

Precast Concrete

12592 -

2002

V.P.O. Parnala,

Manhole Cover

Bahadurgarh-124507

& Frame

Distt. Jhajjar

(Haryana)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3665

03.

L-4806064

06-06-2013

M/s J.K. Jewellers,

Gold & Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

Sunaro Wali Gali,

Jewellery/Artefacts

Main Bazar, Tigaon,

Fineness and Marking

Distt. Faridabad

(Haryana)

04.

L-4806165

06-06-2013

M/s J.K. Jewellers,

Silver & Silver Alloys,

2112

2003

Sunaro Wali Gali,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Main Bazar, Tigaon,

Fineness and Marking

Distt. Faridabad

(Haryana)

05.

L-4808270

13-06-2013

M/s Verve Agro Pvt. Ltd., Packaged Drinking Water 14543 -

2004

Village Gopalpur Gazi,

(Other Than Packaged

P.O. Guriani Kosli,

Natural Mineral water)

Distt. Rewari-123301

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1472-

—Hkkjrh; 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 ftu Hkkjrh; ekud dh LFkkiuk dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] og LFkfir gks x, gSa%

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k vkSj

Hkkjrh; ekud

la[;k

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

o"kZ] ;fn dksbZ gks] u, Hkkjrh;

izHkkoh gksus dh

ekud n~okjk vf/kØfer

frfFk

vkbZ ,l 8707% 2013 &

vkbZ ,l 8707%1978

16 vxLr 2013

esudkst+sc] rduhdh &

fof'kf"V

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

bl ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh]

dksydkrk] pSUubZ] eqEcbZ] p.M+hx< rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'k~oj dks;e~crwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]

dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouu~rkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ ,Q,Mh@th&128]

dqekj vfuy] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼[kkn~; ,oa d`f"k½

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1472.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule

hereto annexed has been established on the date indicted against it :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the Indian

No. & Year of Indian

Date on which the

No.

Standard Established

Standard, if any, superseded

Indian Standard

by the New Indian Standard

shall have effect

IS 8707:2013 Mancozeb,

IS 8707: 1978

16 Aug. 2013

Technical-Specification

(First Revision)

3666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Copies of the Standard 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, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

Branch offices: Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. FAD/G-128]

KUMAR ANIL, Scientist ‘F’ and Head (Food & Agri.)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1473.—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 ekud ¼dksa½ esa la'kkfs/kr fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k]

la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj frfFk

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkbZ,l 15298 ¼Hkkx 2½% 2011@vkbZ,lvks

la'kks/ku la[;k ua 1

30 twu 2013

20345%2004 futh lqj{kk miLdj Hkkx 2

twu 2012

lqj{kk QqVfo;j ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 15298 ¼Hkkx 3½%2011@vkbZ,lvks

la'kks/ku la[;k ua 1

30 twu 2013

20346%2004 futh lqj{kk miLdj Hkkx 3

twu 2012

laj{kh QqVfo;j ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 15298 ¼Hkkx 4½%2010@vkbZ,lvks

la'kks/ku la[;k ua 1

30 twu 2012

20347%2004 futh lqj{kk miLdj Hkkx 4

twu 2012

O;olk; esa iguus ds QqVos;j ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYYh]

dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh gSnjkckn] t;iqj]

dkuiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk

tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ lh,pMh 19@vkbZ,l 15298 ¼Hkkx 2] 3 vkSj 4½]

Mkñ jktho ds >k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1473.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given

in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the Indian

No. and Year of the amendment

Date from which the

No.

Standards

amendment shall have

effect

IS 15298 (Part 2):2011/ISO

Amendment No.1

30 June 2013

20345:2004 Personal Protective

June 2012

equipment Part 2 Safety

Footwear (first revision)

IS 15298 (Pat 3): 2011/ISO

Amednemnt No. 1

30 June 2013

20346:2004 Personal Protective

June 2012

equipment Part 3 Protective

Footwear (first revision)

IS 15298 (Pat 4): 2010/ISO

Amednemnt No. 1

30 June 2012

20347:2004 Personal Protective

June 2012

equipment Part 4 (Occupational/

Footwear (first revision)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3667

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

Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional offices: New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at;http//www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. CHD 19/IS 15298 (Part 2, 3 and 4]

Dr. RAJIV K. JHAScientist ‘F’ and Head (CHD)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1474-

—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 ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkfir gks x;s gSa%

vuqlwph

Øe

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

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

vkSj 'kh"kZd

vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud

vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 14065% 2013 xzhugkml

31 vxLr 2011

xSl&izU;k;u vFkok ekU;rk ds vU; :iksa

esa iz;ksx gsrq xzhugkÅl xSl ds oS/khdj.k vkSj

lR;kiu djus okys fudk;ksa dh vis{kk,W

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;kW Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ

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

t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ lh,pMh 34@vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks@ 14065]

Mkñ jktho dsñ >k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1474.—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 Standards, particulars of which are given in the schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicted against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. & Year of the

No. and year of Indian

Date of Established

Indian Standard Established

Standards, if any,

Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS/ISO 14065:2007 Greenhouse Gases-

31 August 2011

Requirement of greenhouse gas validation

and verification bodies for use in accreditation

or other forms or recoginition

Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 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, Thiruvanathapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in

[Ref. CHD 34/IS/ISO 14065]

Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist ‘F’ and Head (CHD)

3668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1475-

— 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, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k

la'kks/ku dh la[;k

la'kks/ku ykxw gksus dh frfFk

la[;k

vkSj o"kZ

vkSj frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l 6938%2005 nzopkfyr

la'kks/ku la[;k 2-

31 tqykbZ] 2013

njokt+kas ds fy, jLlk Mªe vkSj psu

tqykbZ 2013

J`a[kyk gkbLVksa ds fMtkbu & jhfr lafgrk

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

bl la'kks/ku dh izfr;kW Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {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 fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjuSV }kjk

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ MCY;w vkj Mh 12@Vh&4]

ts- lh- vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2013

S.O. 1475. —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 amendment to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No., Title and Year of

No. and Year of the

Date from which the

No.

the Indian Standards

amendment

amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 6938:2005 Design of

Amendment No. 2

31-07-2013

Rope Drum and Chain

July 2013

Hoists for Hydraulic Gates-Code

of Practice (Second Revision)

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

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 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, Thiruvanathapuram. Indian Standard can be purchased from BIS sales portal :http://www.standardsbis.in

[Ref. WRD 12/T-4]

J.C. ARORA, Scientist ‘F’ and Head (Water Resources Depatt.)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1476-

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3669

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud dh

la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj frfFk

la'kks/ku ykxw gksus

la[;k

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

dh frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 4031 ¼Hkkx 6½% 1988

la'kks/ku la[;k 4] tqykbZ 2013

31 tqykbZ] 2013

bl la'kks/ku dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002] {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 22nd July, 2013

S.O. 1476.—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 amendment 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)

IS 4031 (Part 6):1988

Amendment No. 4, July 2013

31 July, 2013

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

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 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.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

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

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1477

& dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh

/kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa] rkjh[k 23 twu] 2012 dks Hkkjr ds jkti= esa izdkf'kr] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl

ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k 2097 rkjh[k 12 twu] 2012 esa fuEufyf[kr :i ls la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&

mDr vf/klwpuk dh vuqlwph ds] LrEHk 1 esa ^^Jherh fct;k pkS/kjh** ds LFkku ij ^^vfM+'uy MsI;qVh dfe'uj dke:i esVªksIyhVu

fMfLVªDV xqokgkVh] Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k 'kk[kk** 'kCn j[ks tk,axsA

;g vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA

[la- vkj&25011@14@2012&vksvkj&I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2013

S.O. 1477.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification

of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2097 dated 12th July, 2012, published

in the Gazette of India on the 23rd June' 2012, namely:-

In the said notificafation, in the schedule, in column 1, of the words "Smt. Bijaya Choudhary" the words "Additional

Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati, i/c, Land Acquisition Branch" shall be substituted.

This notifiaiton is applicable from the date of issue.

[No. R-25011/14/2012-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

3670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1478-

µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj]

,e-lh-Mh-] ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 85@2011½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&06&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@67@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2013

S.O. 1478.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour-Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the Commissioner

(MCD) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24-06-2013.

[No. L-42011/67/2010-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 85/2011

The General Secretary,

Nagar Nigam Karmchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624

Sultanpuri, New Delhi

......Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

MCD, Town Hall,

Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006

.......Management

AWARD

A Chowkidar employed at MC Primary School,

Nangloi Village (inner), West Zone, Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (in short the Corporation) claimed

payment of overtime allowance, since he was made to

work beyond normal duty hours. His claim was not

conceded to by the Corporation. He approached the Nagar

Nigam Karamchari Sangh (Delhi) (in short the union) for

redressal of his grievances. Union served notice on the

Corporation seeking overtime allowance for duties

performed in excess of normal working hours, wages for

weekly holidays, gazetted holidays and casual leaves, which

notice was not responded to. A dispute was raised before

the Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation contested

the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a 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-42011/67/2010-IR(DU) dated 11-03-2001

with following terms:

"Whether demand of the Nagar Nigam

Karamchari Sangh, Delhi Pradesh, Delhi, for

payment of overtime allowance and encashment

of leave, weekly holidays and gazetted holidays

to Shri Kesho Ram, Chowkidar of MCD Primary

School of Nangloi Village, Delhi, since date of

appointment is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to.

2. Claim statement was filed by the chowkidar,

namely, Shri Kesho Ram, pleading therein that he was

working as such at MC Primary School, Nangloi Village

(inner), Delhi since 18.11.1988. He has been serving at

the aforesaid school without any break. His services were

regularised by the Corporation with effect from

01.01.1997. He works round the clock without availing

any weekly offs, gazetted holidays or leave of any other

kind. He is entitled for overtime wages for duties perfomed

beyond normal duty hours, in accordance with the

provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He is also

entitled for leaves admissible under the rules. He claims

that the Corporation may be called upon to pay him

overtime allowances for duties performed more than

normal working hours and encashment of weekly off days,

gazetted holidays and other holidays admissible to him

under the rules.

3. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading

that no notice of demand was served by the claimant and

as such the dispute has not acquired status of an industrial

dispute. Generally, duty hours of chowkidars are 10 hours

a day. Whenever he performs duties beyond period of 10

hours in a day. Corporation was paying intermittent

allowance to the chowkidars @ Rs. 130.00 per month for

duty hours less than 12 hours, @ Rs. 180.00 per month if

his duty hours are more than 12 hours but less than 16

hours and @ Rs. 190.00 per month if his duty hours are

more than 16 hours in a day. Workers' union demanded

overtime allowances in lieu of intermittent allowance.

Keeping in view demand raised by the workers, a

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3671

resolution was passed for payment of overtime allowance

in place of intermittent allowance. On the basis of

resolution, the Corporation, vide its decision dated

15.03.1997 decided to pay overtime allowance to a

maximum of 50 hours in a month. Besides overtime

allowance, chowkidars are entitled to 15 days casual leave,

3 national holidays and compensatory leaves in lieu of

performing work on Sundays and gazetted holidays.

Workers' union raised a demand for enhancement of

maxima limit of 50 hours overtime allowance, which

demand was conceded to and the Corporation enhanced

maxima of overtime allowance from 50 hours in a month

to 100 hours in a month. As such, a chowkidar gets

Rs. 1250.00 per month towards overtime allowance.

4. The Corporation pleads that the claimant is also

being paid overtime allowance amounting to Rs. 1250.00

per month, as paid to his counterparts. Since overtime

allowance, casual leave, national holidays and

compensatory leaves for working on Sundays and gazetted

holidays are being accorded to the claimant, no dispute

exists for adjudication. The Corporation presents that in

view of these facts, claim projected is unfounded. His

claim may be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

5. Claimant abandoned the proceedings with effect

from 30.01.2012. None responded on his behalf on dates

when case was adjourned from time to time and as such

the Tribunal was constrained to proceed with the matter

under rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957, vide its order dated 04.01.2013.

6. Ms. Krishna Sharma, Deputy Director

(Education) tendered her affidavit as evidence on behalf

of the Corporation. Since the claimant had abstained away

from the proceedings, opportunity could not be accorded

to him to purify contents of affidavit of Ms. Sharma by an

ordeal of cross examination.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.

Shri Vishwajit Mangla, authorized representative, raised

submissions on behalf of the Corporation. I have given

my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at

the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on

issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

8. In her affidavit dated 08-10-2012, tendered as

evidence, Ms. Krishna Sharma unfolds that no notice of

demand was served by the claimant on the Corporation.

She declares that the dispute is not an industrial dispute

and as such, it is not maintainable. At the cost of repetition,

it is pointed out that the claimant had not come forward

to rebut facts testified by Ms. Krishna Sharma. Therefore,

facts unfolded by Ms. Krishan Sharma are to be accepted.

9. Question for consideration would be as to

whether the dispute raised by Shri Kesho Ram has acquired

status of an industrial dispute. For an answer, definition

of the term 'industrial dispute' as enacted under section

2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the

Act) is to be construed. For sake of convenience,

definition of the term industrial dispute is extracted thus:

"Industrial dispute" means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the

terms of employment or with the conditions of

labour of any person;

10. The definition of "Industrial dispute" referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz. (a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen

and workmen, (3) subject matter of the dispute, which

should be connected with—(i) employment or non

employment, or (ii) terms of employment, or (iii)

condition of labour of any person, and (4) it should relate

to an "industry".

11. The definition of "Industrial dispute" is worded

in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word "workman" it would seem to include

all "employers", all "employmant" and all "workmen",

whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be.

Therefore, except in the case where there can be a dispute

between the employers and employers and workmen and

workmen, one of the parties to an industrial dispute must

be an employee or a class of employees. The first point,

therefore, to be noted, perhaps self evident, is that he

phrase "employer and workmen", the plural may include

singular on either side or any permutation of singular or

plural, the masculine including the feminine. In order,

therefore, to determine as to whether a controversy or

difference or a dispute is an "an industrial dispute" or not,

it must first be determined whether the workman

concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the

conditions of clause (s) of section 2 of the Act. There is

no dispute on the proposition that the claimant is a

workman.

12. The object of the Act is to protect workman

against victimization by the employer and ensure

termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner.

The Act, however, does not provide for any set of social

and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting

interests. Such norms have been evolved and devised by

industrial adjudication, keeping in view the social and

economic conditions, the needs of the workmen, the

requirement of the industry, social justice, relative

interests of the partis and common good. These norms

have given rights to the industrial employees what may be

called industrial rights, as such rights may not be available

at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of

employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique

3672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

known as collective bargaining. This tool is resorted to

between an employer or group of employers and a

bonafide labour union. Policy behind this is to protect

workmen as a class against unfair labour practices. What

imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of an

"Industrial dispute" is that it affects the right of the

workmen as a class.

13. An industrial dispute comes into existence when

the employer and the workman are at variance and the

dispute/difference is connected with the employment or

non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions

of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when

a demand is made by the workman on the employer and it

is rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement

Corporation Ltd. 1968(1) LLJ 834], the Apex Court has

held that mere demand, asking the appropriate Government

to refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised

by the workmen with their employer, regarding such

demand, cannot become an industrial dispute. Hence, an

industrial dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless

a demand is made by the workman or workmen on the

employer and it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd

Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1970 Lab. I.C. 421), High Court

of Delhi went a step ahead and held that "....demand by the

workman must be raised first on the management and

rejected by it, before an industrial dispute can be said to

arise and exist and that the making of such a demand to

the Conciliation Officer and its communication by him

to the management, who rejected the demand, is not

sufficient to constitute an industrial dispute."

14. The above decision was followed by Orissa High

Court in Orissa Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1976 Lab. I.C. 285)

and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt.

Ltd. (1993 Lab. I.C. 99). However, the Apex Court in

Bombay Union of Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had

ruled that an industrial dispute must be in existence or

apprehended on the date of reference. If, therefore, a

demand has been made by the workman and it has been

rejected by the employer before the date of reference,

whether direct or through the Conciliation Officer, it

would constitute an industrial dispute. In Shambhunath

Goyal [1978(1) LLJ 484], the Apex Court appreciated

facts that the workman had not made a formal demand for

his reinstatement in service. However, he had contested

his dismissal before the Enquiry Officer and claimed

reinstatement. Against the findings of the Enquiry Officer,

he preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, claiming

reinstatement on the ground that this dismissal was bad in

law. Then again, he claimed reinstatement before the

Conciliation Officer in the course of conciliation

proceedings, which was contested by the employer.

Appreciating all these facts, the Apex court inferred that

there was impeccable evidence that the workman had

persistently demanded reinstatement, rejection of which

brought an industrial dispute into existence.

15. In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979(39)

FLT 195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath

Goyal had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd.

But it had distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed out

that decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu Resettlement

Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by two Judge bench

in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court concluded that

decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd., in case of any

conflict between the two decisions, must prevail. The High

Court held that making of the demand by the workman on

the management was sine qua non for giving rise to an

industrial dispute.

16. The High Court of Madras in Management of

Needle Industries [1986(1) LLJ 405] has held that dispute

of difference between management and the workman,

automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from

service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute of

difference between the management and the workman. The

Court further observed that "it is nowhere stipulated in

the Act, particular in section 2(k), that existence of the

dispute as such is not enough but then there should be a

demand by the workman on the management to give rise

to an industrial dispute". However, this decision appears

to be inconsistent with the ratio of decision in Bombay

Union of Journalists (supra) and Sindhu Resettlement

(supra). No dobut, for existence of an industrial dispute,

there should be a demand by the workman and refusal to

grant it by the management. However, a demand should

be raised, cannot be a legal notion of fixity and rigidity.

Grievances of the workman and demand for its redressal

must be communicated to the management. Means and

mechanism of the communication adopted are not matters

of msuch significance, so long as demand is that of the

workman and it reaches the management. Reference can

be made to the precedent in Ram Krishna Mills

Coimbatore Ltd. [1984(2) LLJ 259].

17. The Act nowhere contemplates that the

industrial dispute can come into existence in any

particular, specific or prescribed manner nor there is any

particular or prescribed manner in which refusal should

be communicated. For an industrial dispute to come into

existence, written claim is not sine qua non. To read into

the definition, requirement of written demand for bringing

an industrial dispute into existence would tantamount to

rewriting the section, announced the Apex Court in

Shambunath Goyal (supra). In other words, oral demand

and its rejection will as much bring into existence an

industrial dispute, as written one. If facts and

circumstances of the case show that the workman had been

making a demand, which the management had been

refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an industrial

dispute between the parties.

18. When facts are taken into consideration, it is

evident that Ms. Krishna Sharma deposes that no demand

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3673

notice was served by the claimant on the Corporation.

Copy of notice dated 01.12.2008 is on the file, which is

purportedly addressed to the Corporation. However,

Claimant had not come forward to open his mouth to press

the said notice into service. Therefore, it does not come

over the record that the said notice was actually sent to

the Corporation. Bold words of Ms. Krishna Sharma bring

it to the light of the day that no notice of demand was

served by the claimant or the union on the Corporation.

Constrained by these facts, it is concluded that the

claimant has not been able to establish that demand was

raised, which was rejected by the Corporation and as such

dispute has acquired status of an industrial dispute. In view

of these facts, it is concluded that the claimant has failed

to establish that the dispute has acquired status of an

industrial dispute.

19. Factual matrix unfolded by Ms. Krishna Sharma,

in her affidavit, bring it to the light that the Corporation

was paying intermittent allowance to chowkidars @ Rs.

130.00 per month who performed duties for more than

10 hours but less than 12 hours, @ Rs. 180.00 per month

who performed duties for more than 12 hours but less

than 16 hours and @ Rs. 190.00 per month who performed

duties more than 16 hours in a day. Workers' Union

agitated the demand for payment of overtime allowance

in lieu of intermittent allowance. Keeping in view that

demand, the Corporation passed a resolution on the basis

of which decision dated 15.03.1997 was taken and it was

decided to pay overtime allowance to the chowkidars at

maxima of 50 hours in a month. Chowkidars were paid

overtime allowance amounting to Rs. 635.00 pe rmonth

on the strength of circular Ex. MW1/B. They were allowed

15 days casual leave, 3 national holidays and

compensatory leaves in liew of duties performed on

Sundays and gazetted holidays.

20. Ms. Krishna Sharma declares that Workers'

Union further demanded for enhancement of overtime

allowance, which demand was acceded to and limit of 50

hours was enhanced to 100 hours overtime allowance in

a month. The chowkidars are paid Rs. 1250.00 per month

towards overtime allowance, in pursuance of office order

dated 09.05.2011, which is Ex.MW1/C. She declares that

the claimant does not perform duties round the clock and

has been paid overtime allowance, granted 15 days casual

leave, 3 national holidays and compensatory leaves in lieu

of duties performed on Sundays and gazetted holidays.

21. When facts referrred above are appreciated, it

came to light that a demand was raised by the Workers

Union for payment of overtime allowance in lieu of

intermittent allowance, which demand was acceded to by

the Corporation. The Corporation started paying overtime

allowance, subject to a cap of 50 hours per month.

Workers' Union again raised a demand for enhancement

of maxima limit for payment of overtime allowance, which

demand was again conceded to by the Corporation and

limit of 50 hours was enhanced to 100 hours overtime

allowance in a month. Thus, it is evident that demand for

payment of overtime allowance was accepted by the

Corporation. When demand of the Workers' Union was

accepted and overtime allowance was enhanced, the said

demand has not acquired character of an industrial dispute.

15 days casual leave, 3 national holidays and

compensatory leaves in lieu of duties performed on

Sundays and gazetted holidays are being provided to the

chowkidars, including the claimant. Consequently, it is

evident that there was no rejection of demand, if any,

raised by the Workers' Union in that regard. As such, no

dispute relating to grant of overtime allowance, casual

leaves, national holidays and compensatory leaves in lieu

of working on Sundays and gazetted holidays had reached

the pedestal of an industrial dispute. As such, the claim is

liable to be brushed aside on this count too.

22. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that Ms.

Krishna Sharma deposed that the claimant is being paid

overtime allowance @ Rs. 1250.00 per month. Besides

payment of overtime allowance, he is granted 15 days casual

leave, 3 national holidays and compensatory leaves in lieu

of work perfomed on Sundays and gazetted holidays. Her

testimony remained un-assailed. Through unchallengd

facts unfolded by Ms. Krishna Sharma, the Corporation

has been able to establish that overtime allowance and

other benefits in the form of casual leave, national holidays

and compensatory leaves were granted to the claimant.

His claim is unfounded, even on merit too. These reasons

persuade me to announce that no industrial dispute existed

and as such reference of the dispute by the appropriate

Government for adjudication was incompetent. Even

otherwise, Shri Kesho Ram was being granted overtime

allowance, casual leave, national holidays and

compensatory leaves, which facts denude substance out

of his claim statement. In view of these reasons, his claim

statement is brushed aside. An award is passed in favour

of the Corporation and against the claimant. It be sent to

the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 18-03-2012

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1479-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ uhjk

dE;qfuds'kul ¼bafM;k½ izkñ fyñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 24&06&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

3674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2013

S.O. 1479.—In pursuance of Section 2A (2) of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the M/s. Nera Telecom-

munications (India) Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24.06.2013.

[No. L-42025/03/2013-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 39/2013

Sh. Shivram Upadhya

Through All India General Mazdoor

Trade Union (Regd.),

170, Balmukund Khand, Giri Nagar,

Kalkaji,New Delhi-110019.

...Workman

Versus

M/s. Nera Telecommunications (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

2nd Floor, 256, Okhla State,

Phase-3, New Delhi-110020.

...Management

AWARD

Shri Sriram Upadhyay was working as Field Executive

with M/s. Nera Telecommunications (India) Pvt. Ltd. (in

short the management). His services were dispensed with

on 05.11.2011. He raised an industrial dispute before the

Conciliation Officer. Management appeared before the

Conciliation Officer and on 17.05.2012 settlement was

entered into between the parties. In pursuance of the said

settlement, Shri Upadhyay was reinstated in service by the

management with 50% of back wages and continuity. His

services were again dispensed with on 01.09.2012. He raised

a demand for reinstatement vide letter dated 13.09.2012,

but to no avail. Consequently, he approached the

Conciliation Officer, who entered into conciliation

proceedings. When period of 45 days elapsed from the

date he made an application before the Conciliation Officer

for conciliation of the dispute, he raised an industrial

dispute before this Tribunal under sub-section (2) of Section

2A of the Indusutrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).

2. Arguments on maintainability of the dispute were

heard. Shri Anil Rajput, authorized representative, was

heard on behalf of Shri Sriraram, Upadhyay. I have given

my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at

the bar and cautiously perused the records. My findings

on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

3. Clause (a) of section 2 of the Act defines

appropriate Government. It would be expedient to know

the definition of phrase 'appropriate Government'.

Consequently, definition of the phrase is extracted thus:

“2(a) “appropriate Government” means-

(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning

any industry carried on by or under the authority

of the Central Government or by a railway

company or concerning any such controlled

industry as may be specified in this behalf by the

Central Government or in relation to an industrial

dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board

established under Section 5A of the Dock Workers

(Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948),

or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India

Limited formed and registered under the

Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Employees'

State Insurance Corporation established under

Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees and

the State Board of Trustees section 5A and

section 5B, respectively, of the Employees'

Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance

Corporation of India established under section 3

of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of

1956), or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956

(1 of 1956), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit

Gurantee Corporation established under Section

3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation Act, 1961 (147 of 1961), or the Central

Warehousing Corporation established under

section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act,

1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India

established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of

India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food

Corporation of India established under Section

3, or a Board of Management established for two

or more contiguous States under section 16, of

the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964),

or the Airports Authority of India constituted

under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India

Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional Rural Bank

established under section 3 of the Regional Rural

Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export

Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the

Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India

Limited, the National Housing Bank established

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3675

under Section 3 of the National Housing Bank

Act, 1987 (53 of 1987) or the Banking Service

Commission Act, 1975 or an air transport service,

or a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an

oil field, a Cantonment Board, or a major port, an

company in which not less than fifty one per cent

of the paid up share capitalis is held by the Central

Government, or any Corporation, not being a

Corporation referred to in this clause, established

by or under any law made by Parliament, or the

Central Public Sector Undertaking, subsidiary

companies set up by the principal undertaking

and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by

the Central Government, the Central Government,

and

(ii) in reltion to any other industrial dispute, the

State public sector undertaking, subsidiary

companies set up by the principal undertaking

and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by

the State Government, the State Government.

Provided that in case of a dispute between a

contractor and the contract labour employed

through the contractor in any industrial

establishment where such dispute first arose, the

appropriate Government shall be the Central

Government or the State Government, as the case

may be, which has control over such industrial

establishment";

4. In relation to an industrial dispute, appropriate

Government can either mean the Central Government or

the State Government. The Central Government has been

defined under section 3(8) and the State Government

under Section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In

relation to an industrial dispute concerning—

an industry carried on or under the authority of the

Central Government, or a railway company or,

an such controlled industry as may be specified in

this behalf by the Central Government, or

a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A

of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment)

Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or

the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited

formed and registered under the Companies Act,

1956, or

the Employees' State Insurance Corporation

established under Section 3 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or

the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A

of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948),

the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards

of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section

5B, respectively, of the Employees' Provident Fund

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of

1952), or

the Life Insurance Corporation of India established

under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation

Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or

the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or

10.

the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation established under section 3 of the

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or

11.

the Central Warehousing Corporation established

under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations

Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or

12.

the Unit Trust of India established under section 3

of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963),

13.

the Food Corporation of India established under

section 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37of

1964), or

14.

a Board of Management established for two or more

contiguous States under section 16 of the Food

Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or

15.

the Airports Authority of India constituted under

section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act,

1994 (37 of 1994), or

16.

a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3

of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of

1976), or

17.

the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation

Limited, or

18.

the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited,

19.

the National Housing Bank established under

section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987

(53 of 1987), or

20.

an air transport service, or

21.

a banking company, or

22.

an insurance company, or

23.

a mine, or

24.

an oil-field, or

25.

a Cantonment Board, or

26.

a major port, or

3676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

27.

any company in which not less than fifty-one per

cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the

Central Government, or

28.

any corporation, not being a corporation referred

to in this clause, established by or under any law

made by Parliament, or

29.

the Central public sector undertaking, or

30.

subsidiary companies set up by the principal

undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or

controlled by the Central Govenment, the

appropriate Government would mean the Central

Government".

5. In relation of any industrial dispute, other than

those specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section

2 of the Act, appropriate Government would be State

Government. In other words, all industrial disputes,

outside the purview of sub-clause (i), are within the

competence of the State Government, under sub- clause

(ii) of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act. Thus, the general

rule is that an industrial dispute raised between employer

and his employee would be referred for adjudication by

the State Government, except in cases falling under

section 2(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, where industrial

dispute which does not fall within the ambit of section

2(a)(i) of the Act, appropriate Government cannot be the

Central Government.

6. Statement of claim, filed by Shri Upadhyay,

nowhere projects that the management runs an industry

which is carried on by or under the authority of the Central

Government or which is controlled by the Central

Government or one of an industry, detailed in para 4,

referred above. Hence, Central Government is not the

appropriate Government. Indsutry, which is being carried

on by the management is an industry which falls within

sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Act and

for that industry, the State Government is an appropriate

Government. Thus, it is obvious that Government of NCT

Delhi is the appropriate Government for this industrial

dispute.

7. Proviso to clause (a) of section 2 of the Act

presents that in case of dispute between a contractor and

the contract labour employed through the contractor in

any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose,

appropriate Government shall be Central Government or

the State Government, as the case may be, which has

control over such industrial establishment. Claimant does

not project himself to be a contract labour. He does not

spell that he was employed in the establishment of

principal employer over which establishment control as

exercised by the Central Government. Consequently, it is

obvious that this cases does not fall within the ambit of

proviso to clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act also. As such,

this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

8. The dispute was raised by the claimant under

sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Act, without being

referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government

under Section 10(1) (d) of the Act. Claimant can invole

jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority constituted by

the appropriate Government, within whose control the

industrial establishment lies, where he was employed by

the management. As pointed out above, claimant has not

been able to project that the management runs on industry

which is carried on by or under the authority of the Central

Government or it was controlled by the Central

Government as provided under sub-clause (i) of clause

(a) or the case falls within the ambit of proviso to clause

(a) of section 2 of the Act. Consequently, it is evident

that this Tribunal is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the

dispute. The Tribunal refrains its hands from the matter.

An award is, accordingly passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 22-03-2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1480-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lqifjuVsuMsUV

bathfu;j] bathfu;j dksvksjfMus'ku] lfdZy ¼bySDVªhdy½ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 65@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj 24&06&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@128@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2013

S.O. 1480.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the The

Superintendent Engineer Coord. Circle (Electrical) and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 24-06-2013.

[No. L-42011/128/2011-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE Dr. R.K.VADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 65/2012

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3677

The General Secretary,

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan,

House No. 4823, Gali No. 13,

Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara,

Delhi -110032.

...Workman

Versus

The Superintending Engineer,

Coord. Circle (Elect.),

East Block, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi.

...Management

AWARD

A plumber engaged on muster roll by Central Public

Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the

management) was appointed in service on 22.10.1980.

He appeared for competitive departmental trade test in

September 2002 for promotion to the post of work

assistant. The management declared result on 09.10.2002,

wherein he was declared successful. He secured 53 marks

in the trade test. On the basis of result declared in

competitive departmental trade test, the management

promoted successful candidates to the post of work

assistant. Up to January 2008. promotions was made on

sole criteria of marks obtained in competitive

departmental trade test. However, in February 2008, Circular

No. 41/1/2007-EC(V) dated 15.02.2008 was issued by the

management wherein it was detailed that candidates, who

have qualified the trade test, would be appointed to the

post of work assistant on the basis of their seniority instead

of their rank in the test. The management promoted various

persons, who obtained less marks than the plumber, to the

post of works assistant, in view of aforesaid circular.

Subsequently circular No. 41/1/2007/EC(V) dated 15.05.2009

was issued, wherein it was reiterated that sole criteria for

appointment to the post of works assistant shall be merit in

competitive departmental trade test. In view of these shifts

in policy of the management, the plumber could not get

promotion to the post of work assistant. He raised a demand

for his promotion to the post of work assistant, which was

not acceded to. He approached the CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan, Delhi (in short the union) for

redressal of his grievance. The union espoused his cause

and raised an industrial dispute. Since the management

contested his claim, conciliation proceedings ended into

failure. On consideration of failure report, submitted by

the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No. L-42011/128/2011/IR(DU), New Delhi dated

23.02.2012, with following terms:

"Whether the action of the Management of

CPWD, in not promoting the workman, Shri Ravi

Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Raj Kumar Sharma,

Plumber, and promoting his juniors is legal and

justified? What relief the workman in entitled to?"

2. Claimant statement was filed on behalf of the

plumber, namely, Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma, pleading

therein that he was appointed by the management on

22.10.1980 against a vacant post. He passed trade test

for promotion to the post of work assistant in the year

2002. His name appears at serial No. 93 of list of

successful candidates, declared by the management. On

08.02.2009, Superintending Engineer, Co-ordination

Circle (Electrical) issued promotion order wherein

Shri Sanjay Kumar, plumber, Shri Deshraj Chawla, plumber

and Shri Devi Sharan, carpenter were promoted to the post

of work assistant. As per seniority, Shri Sanjay Kumar

was appointed as plumber on 21.12.1992, Shri Deshraj

was appointed as plumber on 24.10.1980 and Shri Devi

Sharan was appointed as carpenter on 21.06.1988. Shri

Sanjay Kumar and Shri Devi Sharan were junior to him,

pleads the claimant union.

3. On 31.01.2008, another promotion order was

issued by the management wherein Shri Vinod Kumar,

Carpenter, engaged in service on 24.11.1992, was

promoted as work assistant. Another promotion order was

issued, wherein 16 persons senior to Shri Sanjay Kumar,

Shri Devi Sharan, Shri Desh Raj Chawla and Shri Vinod

Kumar, were promoted to the post of work assistant.

4. The union claims that CPWD (Sub Office) Work

Assistant, Road Inspector Recruitment Rules, 1970 (in

short the Recruitment Rules), were amended by the

Government of India vide notification dated 30.07.1978.

Through the amendment, it was added in the rules that

separate competitive departmental test, theoretical and

practical, will be held. Persons for appointment to the

post will be selected from amongst the categories of staff

on the basis of their merit in the test. The union agitates

that without making any amendment to the Recruitment

Rules, the management issued circular No. 41/1/2007/

EXV dated 15.02.2008 wherein it was mentioned that

merit was relevant only for passing competitive

departmental test and after passing the test, qualified

candidates will be appointed to the post of work assistant

on the basis of their seniority instead of their rank in the

test. The above circular is whimsical and unwarranted.

Subsequently, the management issued circular No. 41/1/

2007/EC(V) dated 15.05.09 on the strength of which

criteria for promotion to the post of work assistant was

changed to merit, obtained in the departmental trade test.

The said shift in the policy has caused prejudice to the

claimant.

5. The union presents that Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma

and Others were not promoted to the post of work assistant

by the management. Aggrieved by the said act,

representation dated 27.11.2009 was made. The

3678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

management had not responded to the said representation.

When Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma approached the union, his

case was espoused. The union claims that the management

may be directed to promote Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma to

the post of work assistant from the date when his juniors

were promoted to that post.

6. Claim was demurred by the management pleading

that promotion to the post of work assistant is made solely

on the basis of merit in competitive departmental test.

Recruitment Rules lay emphasis on merit in departmental

competitive test and not on seniority of incumbent in

service. However, Recruitment Ruls were amended, vide

circular No. 41/1/2007-EC(V) dated 15.02.1998 and

promotions were made on the basis of seniority instead

of merit in the test. The above procedure was again

amended vide Circular No. 41/1/2007-EC(V) dated

15.05.09, on the strength of which order dated 15.02.08

was withdrawn. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Shri Devi Sharan and

Shri Deshraj were promoted to the post of work assistant

on their merit in the test, since they obtained 63 marks,

61 marks and 61 marks respectively. Shri Ravi Kumar

Sharma obtained only 53 marks in the trade test, hence he

could not be promoted. Shri Vinod Kumar, Carpenter,

obtained 72 marks in the trade test, accordingly, he was

promoted as work assistant, vide order dated 31.01.08.

His promotion was based on merit and not on seniority.

Promotion order dated 30.01.2009 was issued on the basis

of seniority, which was in vogue at the relevant time on

the strength of circular No. 41/1/2007-EC(V) dated

15.02.2008. Name of Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma did not

appear in that list since last candidate of general category,

promoted as works assistant, was having seniority of

05.12.1976. Since Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma was much

junior, he could not be promoted. Panel for promotion

was prepared on 16.06.2009 on merit in trade test and

not on seniority. Last candidate of general category, whose

name was there in the panel for promotion, had secured

57 marks. Promotion order dated 02.04.2010 was also

based on merit and not on seniority. Candidates of general

category, who had secured 57 marks each, were promoted.

To grant promotion, the management can take policy

decision, either to promote on merit or on seniority basis.

Since Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma did not fall in merit, hence

he was not promoted to the post of work assistant. Claim

put forward by the union is unfounded, hence it may be

dismissed.

7. Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma and Satish Kumar

Sharma entered the witness box to substantiate the claim.

No evidence was adduced by the management since

circular Ex.WW2/M1 was not disputed by the claimant.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Satish

Kumar Sharma, authorized representative, advanced

arguments on behalf of the claimant union. Shri R.M.

Sharma, authorized representative, presented his point of

view on behalf of the management. I have given by careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar

cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:—

9. Notification dated 30.07.1978, on the strength of

which Recruitment Rules were amended, has been proved

by Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma as Ex. WW1/2. When

contents of Ex. WW1/M2. are perused, it came to light

that separate competitive departmental test (theoretical

and practical) was made essential for promotion to the

post of work assistant. Persons, for appointment to the

post of work assistant, were to be selected on the basis of

their merit in the test. Therefore, it is evident that for

promotion to the post of work assistant, emphasis on

merit of a candidate in competitive departmental test was

laid.

10. Circular No. 41/1/2007-EC(V) dated

15.02.2008 has been proved as Ex. WW2/M2. This circular

was issued by the management, mentioning therein that

merit of a candidate was relevant only for passing

competitive departmental trade test. Once a candidate

passes the test, he was to be appointed on the post of work

assistant on the basis of this seniority, instead of rank in

the test. Thus it emerges over the record that a decision

was taken by the management to the effect that once a

candidate qualifies competitive departmental trade test,

his marks in test would not matter for this promotion,

since this seniority was to prevail. It is cystal clear that

merit in test, which was sole criteria for promotion to

the post of work assistant, was given a go by.

11. Question for consideration would be as to what

is the effect of circular Ex. WW2/M2? A glance on

Recruitment Rules as well as on notification Ex. WW1/2

would highlight that Recruitment Rules were made by the

President under rule making power, available under

Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Recruitment

Rules were amended by the President on 30th July 1978,

under rule making power, referred above. The Parliament

may legislate and provide for and to regulate conditions

of service by even altering the Recruitment Rules and

putting end to the service subject to the provisions of

Article 311 of the Constitution. It is also open to rule

making authority, viz. the President or such person as he

may direct in that behalf to change the Recruitment Rules

from time to time and in doing so he is empowered to

change the method of selection, according to exigencies

of service. Recruitment Rules can be supplemented and

not supplanted by an executive instruction. Government

cannot by an executive order undo or annual the rights of

a Government servant provided in the Recruitment Rules.

No. Administrative instruction can override, enlarge or

reduce scope of rules, duly framed under the Proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution. However Government

can fill up gaps in conditions of service by means of an

administrative instruction.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3679

12. Circular Ex. WW2/M2 was not issued by the rule

making authority or by a person directed by him in the

regard. It is crystal clear that Ex. WW2/M2 was issued by

an authority incompetent to alter, amend, modify, override,

enlarge of reduce scope of the Recruitment Rules. Ex. WW2/

M2 was not issued under the powers available under the

Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Therefore it is

apparent that Ex. WW2/M2 cannot acquire a status higher

than an administrative instruction. It does not attempt to

fill in the gaps or supplement the Recruitment Rules. Ex.

WW1/2 contains provisions, relating to service conditions

of employees of the management, inconsistent to rights

available to them under the Recruitment Rules. Therefore it

is announced that Ex. WW2/M2 could not modify the

Recruitment Rules, allowing the management to exercise

jurisdiction to promote persons to the post of work

assistant, placing reliance on seniority.

13. There is other facet of the coin. Section 23 of the

General Clauses Act, 1897, prescribes antecedent publicity

of the draft rules or bye-laws with a view give the persons

likley to be affected an opportunity of making objections

and considerations of objections, if any, before rules or

bye-laws are finally made. The section also contains a

conclusive evidence clause that the publication in Official

Gazette of a rule or bye-laws purporting to have been made

in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after

"previous publication" shall be conclusive proof that the

rule or bye-laws has been duly made. As records tell Ex.

WW1/2 was given previous publication, while no such

procedure was followed in the case of Ex. WW2/M2. This

fact brings it over record that Ex. WW1/M2 was ineffective

and could not acquire status of a rule. Natural justice

requires that before a law can become operative. It must be

promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some

recognizable way so that all men may know what it is, or, at

the very least, there must be some channel by or through

which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise

of due and reasonable diligence. No such steps were taken

when Ex. WW2/M2 was issued. Hence it looses efficacy

on that count too.

14. Circular No. 41/1/2007-EC(V) dated 15.05.09 was

issued by the management. On the strength of this circular,

management withdrew circular Ex. WW2/M2. Withdrawal

of circular Ex. WW2/M2 was within the competence of the

management. Therefore, it is announced that when circular

dated 15.5.09 was issued by the management, it attempted

to rectify the mistake. After issuance of circular dated

15.5.09, merit was again made sole criteria for promotion to

the post of work assistant. However, during the intervening

period from 15.02.2008 to 14.05.2009, various persons were

promoted on the basis of seniority criteria. Some of them

have secured less marks than Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma in

Competitive departmental trade test. S/Shri Ashok Kumar

S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad,Virender, Ram Chander, Kishan

Chander, Ashok Kumar S/o Shri C.P. Dehel, Kalyan Sahai,

Yuvraj Singh, Ghamendi Singh. Laxman Prasad. Mishri Lal

Sharma, Lachman Singh, Brij Pal Singh, Laxmi Narain, who

secured less marks competitive departmental test than what

Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma has secured, were promoted to

the post of work assistant, with effect from 30.01.2009 and

with effect from 11.02.2009. Thus, it is evident that by

resorting to seniority criteria, the management has

promoted many persons to the post of work assistant, who

had secured less marks in departmental competitive test,

than Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma. This led in denial of rights to

the claimant, Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma for his promotion to

the post of work assistant.

15. Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma unfolds that he passed

competitive departmental trade test for promotion to the

post of work assistant in the year 2002. He secured 53

marks in the test. In its written statement, management

has conceded that Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma had obtained

53 marks in competitive departmental trade test. In that

competitive departmental trade test, Shri Ravi Kumar

Sharma was declared successful. There is no dispute in

that regard. Therefore, it is emerging that Shri Ravi Kumar

Sharma took competitive departmental trade test in

September 2002 and was declared successful in the test.

Result of the test was declared by the management on

09.10.2002, wherein incumbents who qualified the test

were detailed. Name of Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma figured

at serial No. 93 of the said list, which has not been disputed

by the management. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the

claimant Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma had qualified

competitive departmental trade test for promotion to the

post of work assistant.

16. As unfolded by Shri Ravi Sharma in his affidavit

Ex. WW1/A, the management promoted persons, who

qualified competitive departmental trade test, on the basis

of merit obtained in the list till 14.02.2008. Thereafter,

various persons were promoted as work assistant on the

basis of their seniority. As pointed out above, some

persons, who obtained less marks in competitive

departmental trade test than Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma, were

promoted. It is apparent that though Ravi Kumar Sharma

obtained 53 marks in competitive departmental trade test,

yet persons who secured less maks than him were

promoted on the basis of their seniority. It was so done in

violation of Recruitment Rules.

17. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that

the management had violated Recruitment Rules when it

acted on circular No. 41/1/2007-EC(V) dated

14.02.2008. Persons who had obtained less marks in

competitive departmental trade test than Shri Ravi Kumar

Sharma were promoted, adhering to the principles of

senirority. However, Recruitment Rules make merit in

3680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

competitive departmental trade test as sole criteria for

promotion. Whether this treatment by the management can

withstand stands of equality before law and equal

protection of law? For an answere, legal provisions are to

be noted. Equality before law and equal protection of laws

are fudamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14

of the Constituion. The guiding principle laid in Article

14 are that persons, who are similarly situated, shall be

treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability

imposed, which means that amongst equals the law should

be equal and should be equally administered and that likes

should be treated alike. Article 16 of the Constitution

guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any

office under the State. What is guaranteed is the equality

of opportunity. Like all other employers, government is

also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large

number of candidates offering themselves for

employment. But the selection process must not be

arbitrary. The guarantee given by clause (a) of Article 16

of the Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments

(b) promotions (c) termination of employment (d) and

matters relating to salary, periodical increments, leaves,

gratuity, pension, age of superannuation etc. Matters

relating to employment or appointments include all

matters in relations to employment both prior and

subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the

employment and form part of the terms and conditions of

such employment.

18. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14

forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification

or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of

discretion. Classification is the recognition of the

relations, and in making it, the government must be allowed

a wide latitude of discretion and judgement. In a way, the

consequences of such classification would undoubtedly

be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from

others. the classification must be unded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are

grouped together from others left out of the group and

the differentia must have a rational relation to the object

sought to be achieved. Classification may be made

according to the nature of persons, nature of business,

and may be based with reference to time.

19. Concept of equlity guaranteed by Article 16 of

the Constitution is something more than formal equality

and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share

by having more than equal chance and enables the state to

give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real

equality with reference to social needs. "Protection

discrimination' enabled the state to adopt new strategy to

bring underprivileged at part with the rest of the society,

by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to

them.Therefore a class may be allowed to have

preferential treatment in the matter relating to

employment or appointment.There cannot be rule of

equality between members of separate and independent

group of persons. Persons can be classified in different

groups, based on in terms of nature of persons, nature of

business and with reference to time.

20. Factual matrix unfolds that Shri Ravi Kumar

Sharma obtained 53 marks in competitive departmental

trade test. Despite that persons, who had obtained less

marks that him, were promoted adhering to their seniority

in service. As detailed above,circular No. 41/1/207/EC(V)

dated 15.02.2008 was not issued under rule making power.

It had not acquired status of Recruitment Rules.

Consequently, promotion of persons, who secured less

marks in competitive departmental trade test than

Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma, was not justified. When they were

promoted to the post of work assistant, the management

ought to have taken into consideration their merit

incompetitive departmental trade test. Since seniority was

not a criteria for promotion to the post of work assistant,

they were not placed in better position in terms of nature

of persons than that Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma.

21. Can management be permitted to treat equals

differently? Answer lies in negative. In Bal Kishan [1990

(I) LLJ 61] the Apex Court announced that no junior shall

be confirmed or promoted without considering the case

of his senior. The observations made by the Apex Court

are reproduced thus:

"In service, there could be only one norm for

conferment or promotion of persons belonging

to the same cadre. No junior shall be confirmed

or promoted without considering the case of his

senior. Any deviation from this principle will

have demoralizing effect in service apart from

their being contrary to Article 16 (1) of the

Constitution."

22. Since juniors to Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma were

promoted to the post of work assistant, the management

is under an obligation to promote Shri Ravi Kumar Sharma

to the post of work assistant from 30.01.2009, the date

when his juniors were so promoted. In case there was no

post left on 30.01.09, for promotion of Shri Ravi Kumar

Sharma as work assistant, the management shall create

supernumerary post for him following rule 11(2) of

Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978 till post

accrues in that regard.

23. In view of above findings, it is apparent that

action of the management in not promoting Shri Ravi

Kumar Sharma as work assistant on 30.01.2009 was

neither legal nor justified. Managment discriminated him

when juniors to him were promoted while adhering to

seniority criteria. Consequently, it is announced that the

management is under an obligation to promote Shri Ravi

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3681

Kumar Sharma as work assistant with effect from

30.01.2009, the date when his juniors were promoted.

An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 19.02.2013

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2013

dk- vk- 1481-&

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 7 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj],eñ lhñ

Mhñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsunzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@2012½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&06&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y& 42012@105@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2013

S.O. 1481.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 58/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the The Commissioner

(MCD) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/105/2011-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX DELHI

I.D.No. 58/2012

The General Secretary,

Municipal Employees Union,

Agarwal Bhavan, G.T. Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054

. . .Workmen

Versus

The Commissioner,

MCD, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi - 110006.

...Management

AWARD

A driver was engaged by Municipal Corporation of

Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Corporation) on

12.08.2004 for a period of six months on contract basis.

His term of engagement was extended from time to time.

His services were discontinued on 26.04.2007 with

immediate effect. Aggrieved by the act of discontinuation

of his service, he raised a demand for reinstatement. His

demand was not conceded to by the Corporation.

Ultimately he approached the Conciliation Officer. Since

his claim was contested by the Corporation, conciliation

proceedings resulted into a failure. On consideration of

failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide order No. L-42012/105/

2011-IR(DU), New Delhi dated 21.02.2012, with

following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in

termainating services of the wrokman,

Shri Madan Lal, Driver, with effect from

26.04.2007 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. Claim statement was filed by the driver, namely,

Shri Madan Pal, pleading therein that he joined srevices

of the Corporation on 12.08.2004. he was assigned job

on contract basis and after every six months fresh

appointment letter was issued in his favour. It was so done

by the Corporation with a view to circumvent law. He

continuously served the Corporation for a period of three

years. His services were abruptly discontinued on

26.04.2007, without assigning any specific reasons. Work

of driver is of regular and permanent nature and still

continues with the Corporation. Action of the Corporation

in depriving job to him amounts to unfair labour practice

as per section 2(ra) read with section 25 T of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). He was deprived of

status, salary and privileges of a regular employee, which

act also amounts to unfair labour practice under the

aforesaid section read with item No. 10 of the Fifth

Schedule appended to the Act. Action of the Corporation

is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39 (d) of the

Constitution. It is nothing but sheer exploitation of labour.

No seniority list was displayed nor any notice or pay in

lieu thereof, besides retrenchement compensation was

paid to him at the time of termination of his services. He

was meted out with hostile discrimination, while a number

of persons junior to him have been regularized in the job.

Action of the Corporation is violative of the provisions

of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act, besides rule

76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957 (in short the rules). He is unemployed since the

date of termination of his services. He pleads that order

of the Corporation in terminating his services may be

declared as illegal and unjustified. He claims reinstated

in service with continuity and full back wages, besides

cost of litigation.

3. Claim was resisted by the Corporation pleading

that the claimant was engaged on contract basis on certain

3682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

terms and conditions, mentioned in letter of appointment

dated 11.04.2004. Discontinuation of services of the

claimant was done in accordance with conditions,

mentioned in appointment letter referred above. Initially,

he was engaged for a period of six months. The Corporation

does not dispute extension granted to the claimant in

service. However, It projects that his services were

dispensed with in consonance with terms and conditions

of his services, contained in initial letter of appointment.

His services were required temporarily for a specific period.

No claim for reinstatement is made out. Claim put forth by

Shri Madan Pal may be dismissed, being devoid of merits,

pleads the Corporation.

4. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

(1)

Whether services of the claimant were

dispensed

with in pursuance of non-

renewal of contract of employment in

accordance with the stipulation contained

therein?

(2)

Whether the claimant rendered continuous

service for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar

months from the date of termination of his

service?

(3)

As in terms of reference.

5. Claimant has examined himself in support of his

claim. Corporation opted not to adduce any evidence to

substantiate its defence.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Rajiv

Aggarwal, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the Corporation. Shri Naveen Singla,

authorized representative, presented facts on behalf of

the Corporation. I have given my careful considerations

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:—

1. Issue No. 2

7. In his affidavit, Ex. WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

the claimant unfolds that he joined employment of the

Corporation on 12.08.2004. He served continuously as

driver till 26.04 2007, the date when his services were

dispensed with without any specific reason. He proves

order dated 11.08.2004 as Ex.WW1/4, besides orders

Ex.WW1/6, Ex.WW1/7, Ex.WW1/8, Ex.WW1/9, and

Ex.WW1/10, on the strength of which his services were

extended from time to time by the Corporation.

8. Facts unfolded by the claimant were not disputed

by the Corporation. No efforts were made to attack

genuineness of the documents, proved by the claimant.

Neither his deposition was questioned nor any evidence

was put forward to dispel facts deposed by the claimant.

Resultantly, facts testified by the claimant are to be

accepted and appreciated to ascertain the period for which

he served the Corporation. Out of this testimony, it is

evident that claimant served the Corporation from

12.08.2004 to 26.04.2007, the date when his services

were dispensed with. When period of services rendered

from 26.04.2007 in the preceding 12 months is reckoned, it

comes to 309 days. Therefore, it is apparent that the claimant

had rendered continuous services of move than 240 days

in preceding 12 months from the date of termination of his

services. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2

9. Claimant details in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A that

he was working against a job which was regular and

permanent. He lays emphasis on the proposition that job

of driver is still continuing with the Corporation.

According to him, he was exploited by the Corporation

when he was initially engaged for period of six months

and subsequently his terms of employment were extended

from time to time. He claims that action of the

Corporation amounts to unfair labour practice, when his

engagement was extended from time to time.

10. Testimony of the claimant is laced with notions

of justice, perceived by him. Whether his perceptions get

substantiated from attending facts and circumstances? For

an answer, it is expedient to give meaning to ocular facts

become detailed by him. His ocular testimony clear and

vivid, when reconciled with contents of his appointment

letter, which is Ex.WW1/4, facts detailed in this document

make it clear that oral depositions of the claimant cannot

be accepted on their face value. For sake of convenience,

contents of the said document are reproduced in extenso:

"Shri Madan Pal, S/o Shri Chhattar Singh, R/o

123, Village Bhadola, Delhi- 33, is hereby

engaged as Driver on contract basis, subject to

following terms and conditions:

the workman shall be paid a consolidated amount

of Rs. 6500.00 only per month.

The engagement shall be for a period of six months

with effect from his joining.

The workman will draw his wages/contract amount

against the sanctioned post of Driver.

The engagement on contract basis will not confer

any right on Shri Madan Pal for appointment any

post in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

The engagement on contract basis can be

discontinued at any time without assigning any

reason.

On his engagement on contract basis as Driver,

Shri Madan Pal, S/o Shri Chhatar Singh is hereby

posted in the officer of Chairman/Standing

Committee, MCD.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3683

This issues with the prior approval of the

Commissioner.

11. As pointed out above, the claimant was engaged

on a consolidated amount of Rs. 6500.00 per month for a

period of 6 months. It was clarified to him that his

appointment was on contract basis and it will not confer

any right on him for appointment to any post in the

Corporation. He was posted in the office of the Chairman,

Standing Committee of the Corporation. There was no

post of driver in the office of the Chairman, Standing

Committee, since his contract amount was to be drawn

every month from the Education Department, Head Office

of the Corporation, against a vacant post of driver, as

detailed in Ex.WW1/5. When read in between the lines,

Ex.WW1/4 nowhere unfolds that post of driver was

advertised, applications form eligible candidates were

received and eligible candidates underwent process of

recruitment, out of whomthe claimant was selected. Tone

and tenor of Ex.WW1/4 make it apparent that despite that

fact that there was no post of driver in the office of

Chairman, Standing Committee, the clamant was engaged

on that post, without following any recruitment process.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the Corporation

recruits employees in its service through the Delhi State

Subordinate Service Selection Board. All these aspects

make it apparent that the claimant was well aware on the

date of his engagement that he could get employment on

the basis of his connection and had not entered into the

job through a recruitment process.

12. For recruitment, on incumbent should be within

age group of 18-25 years, subject to relaxation in age to

candidates of reserved categories Claimant does not

project that he was engaged against a reserved categories.

post and eligible for relaxation in age of unfordable by

him. He was aged 34 years in August 2012, the date when

he entered the witness box. Thus in August 2004, when he

was engaged for the first time he was 26 years of age and

apparently above the age of recruitment connection of

the claimant made him to get engagement with the

Corporation that too on contract basis. Therefore, claim

put forward by the claimant that it was unfair labour

practice on the part of the Corporation to engage him on

contract basis against a regular post, was uncalled for. On

the other hand it was the claimant, who managed the show

through his connections and obtained job with the

Corporation.

13. Above factual matrix would guide the Tribunal

to ascertain as to whether termination of the services of

the claimant amounts to retrenchment? For an answer,

definition of the term retrenchment is to be construed.

Clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act defines retrenchment,

which definition is extracted thus:

"(oo) "retrenchment" mans the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any

reason whatsoever, other than as a punishment

inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does

not include—

(a)

Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a

result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation in that

behalf contained therein; or

(c)

termination of the services of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health".

14. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service

of a workman by the employer "for any reason whatsoever"

otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of services, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further

excludes (i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii)

retirement of workman on reaching the age of

superannuation, or (iii) termination of the service of a

workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of

employment, or (iv) termination of contract of

employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the

contract of employment in that behalf, or (v) termination

of service on the ground of continue ill health of the

workman. Reference can be made to the precedents in

Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ1] and Mahabir [1979 (ii) LLJ 363].

15. Sub-Clause (bb) purports to exclude from the

ambit of the definition of retrenchment (i) termination

of the service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of

the contract of employment between the employer and

the workman concerned, on its expiry, or (ii) termination

of the contract of employment in terms of a stipulation

contained in the contract of employment in that behalf.

The first part relates to termination of service of a

workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the workman

concerned on its expiry. Thus "non-renewal of contract

of employment": pre-supposes an existing contract of

employment, which is not renewed. When services of an

employee is terminated on account of non-renewal of

contract of employment, between the employer and the

workman, it does not amount to retrenchment. The second

part refers to such contract:" being terminated under a

3684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

stipulation in that behalf contained therein. The cases

contemplated, under this part too, would not amount to

retrenchment. However this sub-clause, being in the nature

of an exception to clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act is

ruled to be construed strictly when contractual agreement

is used as modus operandi to frustrate claim of the

employee to become regular or permanent against a job.

The adjudicator has to address himself to the question

whether the period of employment was stipulated in the

contract of employment as a device to escape the

applicability of the definition of retrenchment. See

Shailendra Nath Shukla (1987 Lab. I.C. 1607), Dilip

Hanumantrao Shrike (1990 Lab. I.C. 100) and Balbir Singh

[1990 (1) LLJ 443]. On review of law laid by the Apex

Court and various High Courts, a single Judge of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Madhya Pradesh Bank

Karamchari Singh 1996 Lab. I.C. 1161) has laid following

principles of interpretation and application of sub-clause

(bb) or clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act:

"(i)

that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) are to be

construed benevolently in favour of the workman.

(ii)

that if the workman is allowed to continue in service

by making periodic appointments from time to time,

then it can be said that the case would not fall under

Section 2(oo)(bb).

(ii)

that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) are not be

interpreted in the manner which may stifle the main

provision.

(iv)

that if the workman continues in services, the non-

renewal of the contract can be deemed as mala fide

and it may amount to be a fraud on statute;

(v)

that there would wrong presumption of non-

applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) where the work

is of continuous nature and there is nothing on

record that the work for which a workman has been

appointed had come to an end".

16. Whether provisions of retrenchment, enacted

in the Act, provide for any security of tenure? Answer

lies in negative. Provisions of retrenchment provide for

certain benefits to a workman in case of termination of

his service, falling within the ambit of definition of

retrenchment. On compliance of the requirements of

Sections 25F or 25N and 25G of the Act, it is open to the

employer to retrench a workman.

17. Termination of service of an employee during

the period of probation was held to be covered by the

exception contained in sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo)

of the Act, in C.M. Venugoapl [1994 (1) LLJ 597]. As per

fact of the case, Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1962 empowered

the Corporation terminate the service of an employees

within the period of probation. The employees was put on

probation for a period of one year, which was extended

by another year. Since he could not achieve the target to

earn confirmation, his service was terminated in terms of

Regulation 14 as well as order of appointment. The Apex

Court ruled that the cause was covered by the exception

contained in sub-clause (bb), hence it was not

retrenchment.

18. In Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1996

Lab. I.C. 221) a sugar factory used to employ certain

number of workmen during crushing season and at the

end to the crushing season their employment used to cease.

The Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the

workmen worked for more than 240 days in a year,

cessation of their employment at the end of crushing

season would not amount to retrenchment in view of the

provisions of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act.

It was observed as follow:

"4. It would thus be clear that the respondents

were not working throughout the season. They

worked during crushing seasons only. The

respondents were taken into work for the season

and consequent to closure of the season, they

ceased to work.

5. The question is whether such a cessation

would amount to retrenchment since it is only a

seasonal work, the respondents cannot be said

to have been retrenched in view of what is stated

in sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act.

Under these circumstance, we are of the opinion

that the view taken by the Labour Court and the

High Court is illegal. However, the appellant is

directed to maintain a register for all workmen

engaged during the seasons enumerated herein

before and when the new season starts the

appellant should make as publication in

neighbouring places in which the respondents

normally live and if they would report for duty,

the appellant would engage them in accordance

with seniority and exigency of work".

19. Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex

Court in Anil Bapuro Banase [1997 (10) S.C.C. 599]

wherein it was noted as follows:

"3. The learned counsel for the appellant

contents that the judgment of the High Court

of Bombay relied on in the impugned order dated

28.3.1995 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994 is

perhaps not applicable. Since the appellant has

worked for more than 180 days, he is to be treated

as retrenched employees and if the procedure

contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, is applied, his retrenchment

is illegal. We find no force in this contention.

In Morinda Coop. sugar Mills Ltd. V. Ram Kishan

in para 3, this Court has dealt with

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3685

engagement of the seasonal workman in

sugarcane crushing, in para 4, it is stated that it

was not a case of retrenchment of the workman,

but of closure of the factory after the crushing

season was over. Accordingly, in para 5, it was

held that it is not 'retrenchment' within the

meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act, As a

consequence the appellant is not entitled to

retrenchment as per sub-clause (bb) of Section

2(oo) of the Act. Since the present work is

seasonal business, the principles of the Act have

no application. However, this Court has directed

that the respondent management should maintain

a register and engage the workmen when the

season starts in the succeeding years in the order

of seniority. Unit all the employees whose names

appear in the list are engaged in addition to the

employees who are already working, the

management should not go in for fresh

engagement of new workmen. It would be

incumbent upon the respondent management to

adopt such procedure as is enumerated above."

20. In Harmohinder Singh (2001 (5)S.C.C. 540) an

employees was appointed as a salesman by kharga canteen

on 1.6.74 and subsequently as a cashier on 9.8.75. The

letter of appointment and Standing Orders, inter alia,

provided that his service could be terminated by one

month's notice by either party. He was served with a notice

to the effect that his service would be relinquished with

effect form 30.6.1989. Relying precendent in Uptron India

Ltd. [1998 (6) S.C.C. 538] the Apex Court ruled that contract

of service for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of

retrenchment. Decision in Balbir Singh (supra) was held to

be erroneous. It was also ruled that principles of natural

justice are not applicable where termination takes place on

expiry of contract of service.

21. In Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. [2005 (8) S.C.C.

481] an employees was engaged on casual basis on daily

wages for specific work and for a specific period. He was

engaged on 1.4.1986 and worked upto 12.2.94. The Labour

court concluded that termination of his services was

violative of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, hence

ordered for his reinstatement with 50% back wages. Relying

precedents in Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills (supra) and Anil

Bapurao Kanase (Supra) the Apex Court ruled that since

his engagement was for a specific period and specific work,

relief granted to him by the Labour Court cannot be

maintained.

22. The Apex Court dealt with such a situation again

in Darbara Singh (2006 LLR 68) wherein an employees was

appointed by the Punjab State Electricity Board as peon

on daily wage basis from 8.1.88 to 29.2.88. His services

were extend from time to time and finally dispensed with in

June 1989. The Supreme Court ruled that engagement of

Darbara Singh was for a specific period and conditional.

His termination did not amount to retrenchment. His case

was found to be covered under exception contained in

sub-clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. In Kishore

Chand Samal (2006 LLR 65), same view was maintained by

the Apex Court. It was ruled there in that the precedent in

S.M. Nilajhar [2003 (II0 LLJ 359] has no application to the

controversy since it was ruled there in that mere mention

above the engagement being temporary without indication

any period attracts Section 25F of the Act if it is proved

that the concerned workman had worked continuously for

more than 240 days. Case of Darbara Singh and Kishan

Chand Samal were found to be relating to fixed term of

appointment.

23. In BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (2006 LLR 1144)

Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Copyist on 29.9.89, initially

for a period of three months as a daily wager. His term of

appointment was extended up to 20.9.90. No further

extension was given and his services were dispensed with

on 20.9.90. On consideration of facts and law High Court of

Delhi has observed thus:

"…In the present case, the respondent was

appointed as a copyist for totalling the accounts

of ledger for the year 1986—87 and then for 1987-

88. His initial appointment was for the period of

three months. It was extended from time to time

and no extension was given after 20th September,

1990. He was appointed without any regular

process of appointment, purely casual and on

temporary basis for specific work of totalling of

ledger. When this work was over, no extension

was given. I consider that appointment as that of

the respondent is squarely covered under Section

2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Giving of non extension

did not amount to termination of service, it was

not a cause of retrenchment".

24. Precedents, handed down by Allahabad High

Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla (supra), Bombay High

Court in Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke (supra), Punjab &

Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh (supra) and Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari

Sangh (supra) castrate sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo)

of the Act. Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates

statutory provisions of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo)

of the Act without even discussing the legality or

constitutional validity of the clause. On the other hand

the Apex Court in C.M. Venugoapl (supra), Morinda co-

operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), Anil Bapurao Kanase

(supra), Harmohinder Singh (supra), Batala coop. Sugar

Mills Ltd. (supra), Darbar singh (supra) and Kishore Chand

Samal (supra) and High Court of Delhi in BSES Yamuna

Power Ltd. (supra) spoke that case of an employee,

3686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

appointed for a specific period which was extended from

time to time, would be covered by the exception contained

in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, in case his

services are dispensed with as a result of non-renewal of

the contract of employment between him and his employer,

on its expiry or termination of the contract of employment

in terms of stipulation contained in the contract of

employment in that behalf. The law, so laid, holds the water

and would be applied to the case of the claimant.

25. As Ex.WW1/4 unfolds the claimant was appointed

on contract basis for a period of six months. His appointment

was extended from time to time on the strength of Ex.WW1/

6 to Ex.WW1/10, on terms and conditions contained in

Ex.WW1/4. He was well aware throughout that there was

no post of driver in the office of the Chairman, Standing

committee and could manage his engagement on account

of his connection in the Corporation. Therefore, he cannot

deny that his services were to be governed by terms and

conditions, contained in Ex.WW1/4. His service were

dispensed with on 26.04.2007 with immediate effect. As

spelled in Ex.WW1/4, his services could be dispensed

with at any time without assigning any reason.

Consequently, it is clear that his case squarely fell within

the ambit of exception available in sub-clause (bb) of clause

(oo) of section 2 of the Act. It cannot be said that termination

of his services amounts to retrenchment. The issue is,

therefore, answered accordingly.

Issue No. 3

26. in Ex.WW1/A a case has been projected that a

number of persons junior to him have been regularized

by the Corporation. Except this bald statement, the

claimant has not been able to put forward even name of a

single person, who was junior to him as driver and got

regular appointment in the Corporation. Therefore, it is

evident that none junior to him was there in the

Corporation, whose services were retained when the

claimant was bade farewell. In such a situation, provisions

of section 25-G of the Act does not come into play.

27. It has also not been deposed by the claimant

that after termination of his services, the Corporation

engaged someone else as driver without offering him

opportunity of re-employment. To seek re-employment

under provisions of section 25-H of the Act, claimant

should satisfy following conditions:

(i)

He should be a citizen of India;

(ii)

He should have been retrenched prior to re-

employment.

(iii) He should have been retrenched from the same

category of service of the industrial establishment

in which re employment is proposed.

(iv)

He should have offered himself for a re-

employment in response to the notice by the

employer under rule 76 of the Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules 1957.

28. In plain language section 25-H of the Act speaks

of re-employment of retrenched workman. As pointed out

above, service of the claimant was dispensed with in

accordance with stipulation contained in Ex.WW1/4 and

action of the coproration is covered by exeception

contained in sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of section 2

of the Act and it cannot be termed as retrenchment.

Therefore it is postulated that provisions of section 25-

H of the Act are not satisfied here in the present case. I

conclude that the corporation is not bound to offer job to

the claimant under the provisions of section 25-H of the

Act.

29. In view of these reasons, neither provisions of

25-F, 25-G or 25-H of the Act have any application to the

present controversy. Precedents in Harjinder Singh [2010

(1) LLJ 277], Delhi Cantonment Board [2006)(1) LLJ

752], Municipal Corporation of Delhi [WP (c) No. 6024/

99 decided on 25.08.2011], Delhi Transport Corporation

[1982 (2) LLJ 191], and S.M. Nilajkar [2003(2) LLJ 359],

have no application to the present controversy. Though

the claimant rendered continuous service for more than

240 days, in preceding 12 months from the date of his

disengagement, yet action of the Corporation is found

not to be retrenchment within section 2(oo) of the Act.

30. There is other facet of the coin. The claimant is

beneficiary of fraudulent system of employment, who

entered service not only but unfair means by as a back

door appointee. A good deal of illegal employment market

has developed in this country. Number of unemployed

youths wait in queues to entry in public appointment,

whileless meritorious persons eat cake of employment

by unlawful means. In such instances, this Tribunal had to

refuse reinstatement to an employee who got entry in

public employment by fraudulent means or an beneficiary

of favouritism or a back door appointee. The claimant had

used all dubious means as detailed above. His claim is

discarded. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to

the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated 08.03.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2013

dk-vk-1482-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'kuj ,e-lh-

Mh- ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k uñ 1 ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 87@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@68@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3687

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2013

S.O. 1482.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 14 of 1947, the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/

2011 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the Commissioner

(MCD) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24.06.2013

[No. L-42011/68/2010-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 87/2011

The General Secretary,

Nagar Nigam Karmchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624,

Sultanpuri, New Delhi.

. . .Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

MCD, Town Hall,

Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006.

.. .Management

AWARD

A Chowkidar employed at MC Primary School, B-I

Block, Janakpuri, West Zone, Municipal Corporation of

Delhi (in short the Corporation) claimed payment of

overtime allowance, since he was made to work beyond

normal duty hours. His claim was not conceded to by the

Corporation. He approached the Nagar Nigam Karamchari

Sangh (Delhi) (in Short the Union) for redressal of his

grievances. Union served notice on the Corporation

seeking overtime allowance for duties performed in

excess of normal working hours, wages for weekly

holidays, gazetted holidays and casual leaves, which notice

was not responded to. A dispute was raised before the

Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation contested the

claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a 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-42011/68/2010-IR(DU) dated 04.04.2001,

with following terms :

"Whether demand of the Nagar Nigam

Karmachari Sangh, Delhi Pradesh, Delhi, for

payment of overtime allowance and encashment

of leave, weekly holidays and gazetted holidays

since date of appointment of Shri Ajay Kumar,

Chowkidar of MCD Primary School of Nangloi

Village, Delhi, is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. Claim statement was filed by the Chowkidar,

namely, Shri Ajay Kumar, pleading therein that he was

working as such at MC Primary School, B-1 Block,

Janakpuri, New Delhi, since 20.07.1990. He has been

serving at the aforesaid school without any break. His

services were regularised by the Corporation with effect

from 01.04.1999. He works round the clock without

availing any weekly offs, gazetted holidays or leave of

any other kind. He is entitled for overtime wages for duties

performed beyond normal duty hours, in accordance with

the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He is also

entitled for leaves admissible under the rules. He claims

that the Corporation may be called upon to pay him

overtime allowances for duties performed more than

normal working hours and encashment of weekly off days,

gazetted holidays and other holidays admissible to him

under the rules.

3. Claims was demurred by the Corporation pleading

that no notice of demand was served by the claimant and

as such the dispute has not acquired status of an industrial

dispute. Generally, duty hours of chowkidars are 10 hours

a day. Whenever he performs duites beyond period of 10

hours in a day, the Corporation was paying intermittent

allowance to the chowkidars @ Rs. 130.00 per month for

duty hours less than 12 hours, @ Rs. 180.00 per month if

his duty hours are more than 12 hours but less than 16

hours and @ Rs. 190.00 per month if his duty hours are

more than 16 hours in a day. Workers' union demanded

overtime allowance in lieu of intermittent allowance.

Keeping in view demand raised by the workers, a

resolution was passed for payment of overtime allowance

in place of intermittent allowance. On the basis of

resolution, the Corporation, vide its decision dated

15.03.1997, decided to pay overtime allowance to a

maximum of 50 hours in a month. Besides overtime

allowance, chowkidars are entitled to 15 days casual leave,

3 national holidays and compensatory leaves in lieu of

performing work on Sundays and gazetted holidays.

Workers' union raised a demand for enhancement of

maxima limit of 50 hours overtime allowance, which

demand was conceded to and the Corporation enhanced

maxima of overtime allowance from 50 hours to 100 hours

in a month. As such, a chowkidar gets Rs. 1250.00 month

towards overtime allowance.

4. The Corproation pleads that the claimant is also

being paid overtime allowance amounting to Rs. 1250.00

3688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

per months, as paid to his counterparts. Since overtime

allowance, casual leaves, national holidays and

compensatory leaves for working on Sundays and gazetted

holidays are being accorded to the claimant, no dispute

exists for adjucation. The Corporation presents that in view

of these facts, claim projected is unfounded. His claim may

be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

5. Claimant abandoned the proceedings with effect

from 30.01.2012. None responded on his behalf on dates

when case was adjourned from time to time and as such

the Tribunal was constrained to proceed with the matter

under rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957, vide its order-dated 04.01.2013.

6. Ms. Krishna Sharma, Deputy Director

(Education) tendered her affidavit as evidence on behalf

of the Corporation. Since the claimant had abstained away

from the proceedings, opportunity could not be accorded

to him to purify contents of affidavit of Ms. Sharma by an

ordeal of cross-examination.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.

Shri Vishwajit Mangla, authorized representative, raised

submissions on behalf of the Corporation. I have given

my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at

the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on

issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

8. In her affidavit dated 08.10.2012, tendered as

evidence, Ms. Krishna Sharma unfolds that no notice of

demand was served by the claimant on the Corporation.

She declares that the dispute is not an industrial dispute

and as such it is not maintainable. At the cost of repetition,

it is pointed out that the claimant had not come forward

to rebut facts testified by Ms. Krishna Sharma. Therefore,

facts unfolded by Ms. Krishna Sharma are to be accepted.

9. Question for consideration would be as to

whether the dispute raised by Shri Ajay Kumar has

acquired status of an industrial dispute. For an answer ,

definition of the term 'industrial dispute' as enacted under

Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act) is to be construed. For sake of convenience,

definition of the term industrial dispute is extracted thus:

"Industrial dispute" means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the

terms of employment or with the conditions of

labour, of any person;

10. The definition of "Industrial dispute" referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz. (a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen

and workmen, (3) subject matter of the dispute, which should

be connected with—(i) employment or nonemployment, or

(ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition of labour of any

person, and (4) it should relate to an "industry".

11. The definition of "industrial dispute" is worded

in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word "workman" it would seem to include

all "employers", all "employments" and all "workman",

whatever the nature of scope of the employment may be.

Therefore, except in the case where there can be a dispute

between the employers and employers and workmen and

workmen, one of the parties to an industrial dispute must

be an employee or a class of employees. The first point,

therefore, to be noted, perhaps self evident, is that the

phrase "employer and workmen", the plural may include

singular on either side or any permutation of singular of

plural;, the masculine including the feminine. In order,

therefore, to determine as to whether a controversy or

difference or a dispute is an "an industrial dispute" or not,

it must first be determined whether the workman

concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the

conditions of clause(s) of section 2 of the Act. There is

no dispute on the proposition that the claimant is a

workman.

12. The object of the Act is to protect workman

against victimization by the employer and ensure

termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner.

The Act, however, does not provide for any set of social

and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting

interests. Such norms have been evolved and devised by

industrial adjudication, keeping in view the social and

economic conditions, the needs of the workmen, the

requirement of the industry, social justice, relative

interests of the parties and common good. These norms

have given rights to the industrial employees what may be

called industrial rights, as such rights may not be available

at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of

employment can resolved by resorting to a technique

known as collective bargaining. This tool is resorted to

between an employer or group of employers and a

bonafide labour union. Policy behind this is to protect

workmen as a class against unfair labour practices. What

imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of an

"industrial dispute" is that it affects the right of the

workmen as a class.

13. An industrial dispute comes into existence when

the employers and the workman are at variance and the

dispute/difference is connected with the employment of

non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions

of labour. In other words, dispute of difference arises when

a demand is made by the workman on the employer and it

is rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement

Corporation Ltd. [1968(1)LLJ 834], the Apex Court has

held that mere demand, asking the appropriate Government

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3689

to refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised

by the workmen with their employer, regarding such

demand, cannot become an industrial dispute. Hence, an

industrial dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless

a demand is made by the workman or workmen on the

employer and it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd

Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1970 Lab.I.C.421), High Court of

Delhi went a step ahead and held that "...demand by the

workman must be raised first on the management and

rejected by it, before an industrial dispute can be said to

arise and exist and that the making of such a demand to

the Conciliation Officer and its communication by him

to the management, who rejected the demand, is not

sufficient to constitute an industrial dispute."

14. The above decision was followed by Orissa High

Court in Orissa Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1976 Lab.I.C. 285]

and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt.

Ltd. (1993 Lab.I.C. 99). However the Apex Court in

Bombay Union of Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had

ruled that an industrial dispute must be existence or

apprehended on the date of reference. if, therefore, a

demand has been made by the workman and it has been

rejected by the employer before the date of reference,

whether direct or throught the Conciliation Officer, it

would constitute an industrial dispute. In Shambhunath

Goyal (1978 (1) LLJ 484), the Apex Court appreciated

facts that the workman had not made a formal demand for

his reinstatement in service. However, he had contested

his dismissal before the Enquiry Officer and claimed

reinstatement. Against the findings of the Enquiry Officer,

he preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, claiming

reinstatement on the ground that his dismissal was bad in

law. Then again, he claimed reinstatement before the

Conciliation Officer in the course of conciliation

proceedings, which was contested by the employer.

Appreciation all these facts, the Apex Court inferred that

there was impeccable evidence that workman had

persistently demanded reinstatment, rejection of which

brought an industrial dispute into existence.

15. In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979 (30)

FLT 195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath

Goyal had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd.

But it had distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed out

that decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu bench in

Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. could not have been

overrules by two Judge bench in Shambunath Goyal. The

High Court concluded that decision in Sindhu Resettlment

Pvt. Ltd., in case of any conflict between the two decision,

must prevail. the High Court held that making of the

demand by the workman on the management was sine

qua non for giving rise to an industrial dispute.

16. The High Court of Madras in Management of

Needle Industries [1986 (1) LLJ 405] has held that dispute

or difference between management and the workman,

automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from

service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or

difference between the management and the workman. The

Court further observed that "it is nowhere stiputed in the

Act, particular in Section 2(k), that existence of the

dispute as such is not enough but then there should be a

demand by the workman on the management to give rise

to an industrial dispute". However, this decision appears

to be inconsistent with the ratio of decision in Bombay

Union of Journalists(supra) and Sindhu Resettlement

(supra). No doubt, for existence of an industrial dispute,

there should be a demand by the workman and refusal to

grant it by the management. However, a demand should

be raised, cannot be a legal notion of fixity and rigidity.

Grievances of the workman and demand for its redressal

must be communicated to the management. Means and

mechanism of the communication adopted are not matters

of much significance, so long as demand is that of the

workman and it reaches the management. Reference can

be made to the precedent in Ram Krishna Mills

Coimbatore Ltd. [1984 (2) LLJ 259].

17. The Act nowhere contemplates that the

industrial dispute can come into existence in any

particular, specific or prescribed manner nor there is any

particular or prescribed manner in which refusal should

be commuicated. For an industrial dispute to come into

existence, written claim is not sine qua non. To read into

the definition,requirement of written demand for bringing

an industrial dispute into existence would tantamount to

rewriting the section, announced the Apex Court in

Shambunath Goyal (supra). In other words, oral demand

and its rejection will as much bring into existence an

industrial dispute, as written one. If facts and

circumstances of the case show that the workman had been

making a demand, which the management had been

refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an industrial

dispute between the parties.

18. When facts are taken in to consideration, it is

evident that Ms. Krishna Sharma deposes that no demand

notice was served by the claimant on the Corporation.

Copy of notice dated 01.08.2009 is available on the file,

which is purportedly addressed to the Corporation.

However, claimant had not come forward to open his

mouth to press the said notice into service. Therefore, it

does not come over the record that the said notice was

actually sent to the Corporation. Bold words of Ms.

Krishna Sharma bring it to the light of the day that no

notice of demand was served by the claimant or the union

on the Corporation. Constrained by these facts, it is

concluded that the claimant has not been able to establish

that demand was raised, which was rejected by the

Corporation and as such dispute has acquired status of an

industrial dispute. In view of these facts, it is concluded

that the claimant has failed to establish that the dispute

has acquired status of an industrial dispute.

3690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

19. Factual matrix unfolded by Ms. Krishna Sharma,

in her affidavit, bring it to the light the Corporation was

paying intermittent allowance to chowkidars@ Rs. 130.00

per month who performed duties for more than 10 hours

but less than 12 hours, @ Rs. 180.00 per month who

performed duties for more than 12 hours but less than 16

hours and @ Rs. 190.00 per month who performed duties

more than 16 hours in a day. Workers' Union agitated the

demand for payment of overtime allowance in lieu of

intermittent allowance. Keeping in view that demand, the

Corproation passed a resolution on the basis of which

decision dated 15.03.1997 was taken and it was decided

to pay overtime allowance to the chowkidars at maxima

of 50 hours in a month. Chowkidars were paid overtime

allowance amounting to Rs. 625.00 per month on the

strength of circular Ex.MW1/B. They were allowed 15

days casual leave, 3 national holidays and compensatory

leaves in lieu of duies performed on Sundays and gazetted

holidays.

20. Ms. Krishna Sharma declares that Workers

Union further demanded for enhancement of overtime

allowance, which demand was acceded to and limit of 50

hours was enhanced 100 hours overtime allowance in a

month. The chowkidars are paid Rs. 1250.00 per month

towards overtime allowance, in pursuance of office order

dated 09.05.2011, which is Ex.MW1/C. She declares that

the claimant does not perform duties round the clock and

has been paid overtime allowance, granted 15 days casual

leave, 3 national holidays and compensatory leaves in lieu

of duties performed on Sundays and gazetted holidays.

21. When facts referred above are appreciated, it

came to light that a demand was raised by the Workers'

Union for payment of overtime allowance in lieu of

intermittent allowance, which demand was acceded to

by the Corporation. The Corporation started paying

overtime allowance, subject to a cap of 50 hours per

month. Workers' Union again raised a demand for

enhancement of maxima limit for payment of overtime

allowance, which demand was again conceded to by the

Corporation and limit of 50 hours was enhanced to 100

hours overtime allowance in a month. Thus, it is evident

that demand for payment of overtime allowance was

accepted by the Corporation. When demand of the

Workers' Union was accepted and overtime allowance

was enhanced, the said demand has not acquired character

of an industrial dispute. 15 days casual leave, 3 national

holidays and compensatory leaves in lieu of duties

performed on Sundays and gazetted holidays are being

provided to the chowkidars, including the claimant,

Consequently, it is evident that there was no rejection

of demand, if any, raised by the Wokers' Union in that

regard. As such, no dispute relating to grant of overtime

allowance, casual leaves, national holidays and

compensatory leaves in lieu of working on Sundays and

gazetted holidays had reached the pedestal of an

industrial dispute. As such, the claim is liable to be

brushed aside on this count too.

22. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that

Ms. Krishna Sharma deposed that the claimant is being

paid overtime allowance @ Rs. 1250.00 per month.

Besides payment of overtime allowance, he is granted 15

days casual leave, 3 national holidays and compensatory

leaves in lieu of work performed on Sundays and gazetted

holidays. Her testimony remained un-assailed. Through

unchallenged facts unfolded by Ms. Krishna Sharma, the

Corporation has been able to establish that overtime

allowance and other benefits in the form of casual leave,

national holidays and compensatory leaves were granted

to the claimant. His claim is unfounded, even on merit

too. These reasons persuade me to announce that no

industrial dispute existed and as such reference of the

dispute by the appropriate Government for adjudication

was incompetent. Even otherwise, Shri Ajay Kumar has

been granted overtime allowance, casual leave, national

holidays and compensatory leaves, which fact denude

substance out of his claim statement. In view of these

reasons, his claim statement is brushed aside. An award is

passed in favour of the Corporation and against the

claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

dated : 18-3-2012

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1483-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

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

d'ehj cSad fyñ ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

2@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@01@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O.1483.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.

2/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

28.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/01/2010-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3691

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.P. SINGH, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-

1, CHANDIGARH

Case I.D. No. 2/2010

Shri Mohd. Shafi Bhat son of Late Ali Mohd. House No.

14, Mustafabad, Near Masjid Riaz, Zamakot, HMT, Srinagar

(J&K).

... Workman

Versus

The Chairman Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Corporate

Headquarter, Srinagar (J&K)

... Management

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Shri P.K. Longia,

For the Management

Shri Ashok Jagga.

AWARD

Passed on 12.04.2013

Government of India vide notification no. L-12012/

01/2010 (IR(B-I) dated 10.5.2010 has referred the

following industrial dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the Chairman of the J&K

Bank by terminating the services of Sri Mohd.

Safi Bhatt, Cashier-cum-clerk vide order dated

17.9.2001 invoking the clause 522(1) of the

Sastri Award was justified without issue of any

charge sheet and without conduct of an inquiry

in the circumstances where the embezzlement

of huge bank money was involved? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference notices were

issued to the parties. Parties appeared: Workman

filed the claim statement. The brief facts of the case

according to the Applicant/workman Mohd. Shafi Bhatt

are that he has served the Management bank for

about 29 years with unblemished record. It is pleaded by

the workman that on 19.03.2001, the branch manager

directed the workman to hold the charge of cash as the

person who was performing the duties of cashier had fallen

ill. the workman complied the order of the branch manager

and on 27.03.2001 when the workman reached the bank

for his routine duty, he came to know that some burglary

has taken place during the intervening night of 25/26

March 2001 in the said branch and Rs. 7,79, 361.81 paisa

were missing. A police report FIR No. 89 of 2001 under

Section 457,380 of Ranbir Penal Code lodged by the

management. Workman along with Branch Manager was

arrested and after that police came to the conclusion that

workman was not involved and no formal challan was filed

against the workman before any court of law. It is further

pleaded by the workman that crime branch Jammu and

Kashmir State investigated the matter. In that investigaton

also the workman was proved innocent. The report was

also filed by the workman along with claim statement.It

is pleaded by the workman that after release from the

custody of the police, the workman reported to the

authorities for resumption of his duties but he was not

allowed and ultimately by adopting hire and fire policy,

the service of the workman were terminated by invoking

Clause 522(1) of the Shastri Award. It is pleaded by the

workman that although the order ex-facie is a termination

simplicitor but in reality this provision was invoked only

to avoid the enquiry in the serious charges leveled against

the workman in order to cover up the blue-eyed person

who in fact had been involved in the incident of burglary.

It is pleaded by the workman that although the workman

challenged the termination order before the Hon'ble High

Court but the same was not entertained on technical ground

and the workman was given the liberty to approach the

appropriate forum. It is further pleaded by the workman

that action of the management by invoking Clause 522(1)

of Shastri Award is totally arbitrary, unjust and against the

public policy and it is just slapped upon the petitioner in

order to deprive him the right of hearing and to prove his

innocence. It is pleaded that this provision has been held

against the public policy and void by the Apex Court. It is

pleaded that the termination order being passed without

holding enquiry against the principle of natural justice

and is a result of malafide exercise. Bringing abrupt end

of his 29 years unblemished service without affording

any opportunity of being heard to the workman in gross

violation of principle of natural justice. It is prayed by

the workman that order dated 17.09.2001 may be set aside

and he may be reinstated in service with full back wages

along with all consequential service benefits.Workman

mentioned that his service career is attaining age of

superannuation in the month of 12/2010.

3. Written statement filed by the management.

Preliminary objection has been taken that present reference

is not maintainable as the workman was simply discharge

from Service under Para 522(1) of Shastri Award and the

discharge is not stigmatic in the circumstances of

the case and the enquiry was not held because of

considering the grim State of law and order situation in

valley. It is pleaded that banking is as public utility service

upon which the entire economy and commerce is based.

Brief facts as enumerated by the management in the written

statement are that domestic investigation was conducted

in the matter which revealed that the workman after

taking over the charge of cashier on 19.3.2001 had a

3692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

chance of deal with the cash and during this period an

amount of Rs. 7,79,361.81 paisa was found to have

disappeared. It is revealed during the course of domestic

enquiry that on 24.03.2001 there was general strike in the

valley but the branch was opened and customer of the

bank who was proprietor of Valley view Services-Station

deposited 3,06,000/- in cash with the branch in their

account and obtained a demand-draft. The workman took

the cash and master-key from the branch manager and

kept the cash in the safe. Previous day balance was

5,73,361.81 Paisa. At around 1.25 PM being Saturday,

public transactions were entertained upto 12:00 O'clock. One

customer Nazir Ahmed Wagay came and requested for

payment on third party cheque for Rs. 1,00,000. Firstly, the

branch manager refused the payment but on insistence,

the branch manager instructed the workman to make payment

of cheque and again handed over the master key of the

cash to the workman. After having the master key the

workman brought the cash from the same and made the

payment to the customer and handed over the master key

to the branch manager in the presence of the staff. After

3.30 PM when all the staff member left the branch, the

workman as per domestic investigation, operated the safe

himself. And on 27th March it was found the cash, was

missing from the safe. FIR was lodged by the bank under

Sections 457 and 380 and police arrested the workman

along with staff and questioned the staff member. Police fail

to nail the culprit and closer report was filed in the Court

in which departmental action was suggested. It is further

pleaded that in the trouble torn State of J & K the police

could not succeed in investigation and bringing the accused

to book and concluded the investigation in perfunctory

manner and in view of the report of the domestic

investigation it was legitimately considered that disciplinary

proceedings not possible against the workman and as the

bank management lost the confidence in the workman,

therefore, competent authority simply terminated the

services of the workman by invoking Clause 522(1) of Shastri

Award, Relevant Clause 522 is produced below:-

"Section IV-Procedure for termination of

employment.

522 We now proceed to the subject of termination

of employment. We give the following directions:-

(1) In cases not involving disciplinary action for

misconduct and subject to clause (6) below the

employment of a permanent employee may be

terminated by three months 'notice or an payment

of three months' pay and allowances in lieu of

notice. The services of probationer may be

terminated by one month's notice or on payment

of a month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice.

(2)

A permanent employee desirous of leaving the

service of the bank shall give one month's notice

in writing to the manager. A probationer desirous

of leaving service shall give 14 days' notice in

writing to the manager. A permanent employee or a

probationer shall, when he leaves service, be given

an order of relief signed by the manager.

(3)

If any permanent employee leaves the service of

the bank without giving notice he shall be liable to

pay the bank one month's pay and allowances. A

probationer, if he leaves service without giving

notice, shall be liable for 14 days pay and allowances.

(4)

The services of any employee other than a permanent

employee or probationer may be terminated, and he

may leaves service, after 14 days notice. If such an

employee leaves service without giving such notice

he shall he liable for a weeks pay (including all

allowances).

(5)

An order relating to discharge or termination of

service shall be in writing and shall be signed by

the manager. A copy of such order shall be supplied

to the employee concerned.

(6)

In cases of contemplated closing down or of

retrenchment of more than five employees, the

following procedure shall be observed:-

(a)

two months' notices of such proposed action shall

be given individually to all the employees

concerned, with a statement of the reasons for

such proposed action:

(b)

the manager or an officer empowered in this behalf

shall within the period of such notice hear any

representation from the employees concerned or

any registered union of bank employees:

(c)

after the hearing of such representation and the

receipt of a report in the matter, if necessary, by

the management. if it decides to give effect to the

contemplated closing down or retrenchment in the

original or an amended from the services of the

employees may be terminated by giving notice or

payment in lieu thereof for the periods prescribed

above."

4. It is further pleaded by the management that

bank is within its right to resort to this provision which

has been even upheld by this Hon'ble Tribunal in five

cases decided by this Tribunal earlier. It is further pleaded

in the written statement that in case this Tribunal hold the

view that some enquiry or others synonymous

proceedings were required in the instance case: The

Hon'ble Tribunal may inquire into entire episode itself

about the genuineness of the action of the bank which

seek permission in that eventually to permit both the

parties to lead their respective evidence though the

Bank management is not accepting anything wrong with

its decision to proceed under Clause 522. It is further

pleaded that this reference is not maintainable as the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3693

Shastri Award or bipartite settlement is not under

challenge in the present reference. Workman is not

entitled to any relief and the workman has no right to

be reinstated in service. The Pension Regulations

applicable to the bank are not attracted in the present

case as the resignation or dismissal or removal or

termination of an employee from the service of the bank

shall entail fore-feature of his past service and the

workman was not qualify for pensionary benefits. At

present the workman was being paid approximately Rs.

6000 per month as compassionate allowance as per IBA

guideline. It is further pleaded that the termination of

service of the workman is without any stigma, therefore,

he cannot raise any grievance. Other contention of the

workman have been denied and it was submitted that the

action of the management in terminating the service of

the workman is legal and justified and the workman is not

entitled to any relief. Along with the written statement

the management placed on record the order dated

17.09.2001 i.e. termination order and copy of the award

dated 06.09.2005 passed by this Tribunal in five cases.

Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 25.04.06

has also been placed on the file. The management also

placed on record the order dated 12.11.2003 whereby Mr.

Mohammed Ayoub Khan Senior Manager the co-accused

of the workman was given punishment of stoppage of one

increment as and when fall due with permanent effect for

two years and also warned to remain cautious and careful

in future. Another order dated 30.09.2003 of Mr. Mustaq

Ahmed Sheikh who was working as clerk-cum-cashier

along with the workman has also been placed on record in

which punishment of censure and warning to remain

cautious and careful in future was awarded.

5. The workman filed detailed replication to the

written statement in which it is categorically submitted

that other two persons i.e. branch manager and cashier

were given the punishment after holding departmental

enquiry and the workman was punished without providing

any opportunity of defence as his service was terminated

by invoking the Clause 522(1) of the Shastri Award

without holding any domestic enquiry. Other co-accused

i.e. manager and cashier were let-off by awarding minor

punishment whereas the workman was awarded

punishment of termination from service under the garb

of non-stigmatic termination having far reaching effects

on the life and family of the workman who was having 29

years of unblemished record of service and he was not

even allowed pension as not covered under the Pensionary

Regulations applicable to the bank.

6. I have heard at length the learned counsel of both

the parties and gone through the record and relevant

provision 522(1) of the Shastri Award.

7. It is a case where the bank management choose

to resort to the Clause 522(1) of the Shastri Award and

terminated the services of the workman. It is contended

by the learned counsel for the workman that as per

admitted facts, four persons were taken into custody for

the theft of Rs. 7,79,361.81 paisa which came to the

knowledge of the bank on 27th March, 2001. Police

investigation failed to nail the culprits and police filed

the closure report. It is submitted by the learned counsel

for the workman that against the other three accused,

departmental proceedings were held and after concluding

of the departmental proceedings, all three were let off by

awarding minor punishments but no enquiry was conducted

against the workman and his services were terminated

simply by invoking Clause 522 of the Shastri Award. This

action of the management is arbitrary, malafide and against

all canon of the principle of natural justice which is against

the settled law of land. The workman was punished without

affording any opportunity of being heard & defence. He

was awarded the punishment of most severe nature without

even serving of any charge-sheet or show cause notice

under the garb of non-stigmatic order which have fare

reaching effects on the life and family of the workman.

The management was acting malafidely as the co-accused

were given the opportunity of defence in the departmental

proceeding and the workman was simply turned-out from

the service by passing order under Clause 522 which is

not mandatory but directory in nature. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in various case laws settled the principle

of law that no one should be condemned without

affording him on any opportunity of hearing and defence.

Therefore, the action of the management which is

discriminatory, malafide and against the principle of

natural justice may be set aside and the workman may be

ordered to be reinstated in service with full back-wages

and the consequential benefits from services with effect

from 17.09.2003.

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the

management submitted during arguments that the order

has been passed as per the Sastri Award which is applicable

to the bank and the other five awards passed in favour of

the management by this Hon'ble Tribunal on the same

question on validity of Clause 522 were decided in favour

of the management and the action and management in the

cases which was taken under Clause 522 were held to be

legal and justified. It is further submitted during arguments

that as the order under Clause 522 is not a stigmatic,

therefore, no enquiry is required and at that time there was

militancy in the State of J&K, and in the case of the

workman, the domestic enquiry was not possible though it

is admitted by the learned counsel for the management

that domestic enquiry was conducted against other three

accused and punishment has been awarded as per their

role found in the theft of bank money which came to the

knowledge of the bank on 27th March, 2001. Therefore,

action of the management is legal and justified and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

3694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

9. The management submitted that services of the

workman were terminated by invoking clause 522(1) of

Sastry Award. In this context, the management cited order

dated 17.09.2001 passed by the Chairman of the J&K Bank

wherein it is mentioned that in the interest of the bank

hereby order the termination of the service of Mohd. Shafi

Bhat son of Shri Ali Mohd. Bhat (Workman). In this order it

has also been mentioned that workman shall get three

months pay in lieu of notice as envisaged under clause

522(1).

10. Although there is no mention of any reason for

termination of the services of the workman but as the

workman has already put in 29 years of services with the

institution yet he has not been issued any show cause

notice or change sheet. Although there is no mention of

any fact but chain of facts and circumstances reveal that

the workman services were terminated consequent upon

the incident of theft in the bank on 25/26 March 2001. It

is pertinent to mention here that in the theft of Rs.

779361.81 paisa, not only workman but also the branch

manager and clerk-cum-cashier and peons were

interrogated by the police and police could not collect

sufficient evidence and police submitted the closure

report. From the perusal of the file. It reveals that senior

Manager Mr. Mohd Ayub Khan, Mr. Mustaq Ahmed Sheikh

Cashier-cum-clerk were charge sheeted in the matter of

theft of Rs. 779361.81 paisa for negligence. Order dated

12.11.2003 shows that Mohammad Ayoub Khan Senior

Manager was punished for stoppage of one increment as

and when fall due with permanent effect for two years

and also warned to remain cautious and careful in future.

Mr. Mustaq Ahmed Sheikh cashier-cum-clerk vide order

dated 30-09-2003 was censured Ahmed Sheikh cashier-

cum-clerk vide order dated 30-09-2003. was censured

and warning to remain cautious and careful in future. But

the workman was neither given any charge sheet, nor any

show cause notice. Thus the workmen was discriminated

with other co employees who were involved in this

incident.

11. Learned counsel for the workmen placed

reliance on 2004 (4) SCT 125 Kulwant Singh Vs. State of

Haryana. 2010 (5) SLR 285 State of PunjabVs. Baljinder

Singh 2005(1) SCT 106 Surinder Pal Kaur Vs. State of

Punjab 2011 (4) SLR 192. The Dhotian Cooperative

Agricultural Service Society Ltd. Vs. Wirsa Singh and

other ,2010 (4) LLJ 821 Union of India Vs. Mahaveer

C.Singhvi,2009(1) SCT 225 The Ambala Cooperative

Bank Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

1996(4) SCT 772 Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

and 1993(2) SLR 640. The management of New Delhi

Tuberculosis Centre Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi. In all these

case laws it has been held that if the order has been passed

on the basis of some misconduct without holding proper

enquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice

the same is liable to be quashed.

12. Thus from the facts and circumstances, the

termination order dated 17.09.2001 passed by the

Chairman of J&K Bank is stigmatic to the workman and

without conducting any enquiry and without providing

the workman any opportunity of defence can not be

sustained and the same is set aside.

13. It is pertinent to mention here that the workmen

moved SWP No. 1975/2001 before the Hon'ble J&K High

Court Photocopy of the order dated 6-9-05 passed by the

Hon’ble J&K High Court have been filed. Relevant

portion of the order is as under :—

"Under the said order the bank has among other

things directed release of Rs. 3310/-PM in

favour of the petitioner as compassionate

allowance in lieu of pension which they claim is

not payable to the petitioner. Petitioners counsel

stated that this part of matter along with the other

be made subject to the out come of writ petition.

Accordingly the petition is disposed of with the

observation that the aforesaid order passed by

respondent bank petitioners representation shall

be subject to out come of writ petition. CMP

disposed of accordingly."

14. Thereafter the Hon'ble' J&K High Court on

25.4.2006 passed the following order:

"In view of the full bench judgment passed in SWP

No. 960-A/1992.1137/94&2133/2000 titled

Firdous Ahmed Tanki Vs. J&K Bank Ltd. and

others. Chandji Koul Vs. J&K Bank Ltd. & others

and Sham Lal V. The J&K Bank Ltd. And others,

on 3.4.2006. the present petition is not

maintainable. This petition is therefore,

dismissed. The petitioner may seek appropriate

remedy from the appropriate forum. Dismissed."

15. The workman is his claim statement mentioned

that he attained the as of superannuation is the month of

December 2010. Management in its written statement

mentioned that at present the workman is getting

compassionate allowance approximately Rs.6000 per

month.

16. As regards relief to the workman is concerned.

As the order dated 17.9.2001 has been quashed. The

natural consequences would be the reinstatement in

service. But the workman attained the age of

superannuation in 12/2010. Therefore. Reinstatement in

this case is not possible. But taking into consideration

facts and circumstances of the present case and also taking

into consideration the fact that there is a loss of bank

amount to the tune of Rs. 779361.81 paisa, the end of

justice would be met if the workman is allowed 40% of

the back wages from the date of termination i.e. 17.9.2001

to the date of superannuation after adjusting

compassionate allowance and amount of three months pay

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3695

already paid to the workman. Wages to be computed on

the basis of the pay drawn on the date of termination. The

amount so paid to the workman shall be subject to the

result of the departmental enquiry. The management is

directed to conduct and conclude the department enquiry

according to rule within three months from The date of

receipt of the copy of this award. The reference is answered

accordingly. Central Govt. Be informed.

Chandigarh.

12.4.2013

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1484-

— vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1974

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esMhdy

lqifjuVsUMsUV] lQnjtax gksLfiVy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 122@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 24&6&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@238@2010&vkbZ-vkj- ¼Mh- ;w-½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1484.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum- Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the The

Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/238/2010-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA

COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 122/2011

The General Secretary,

Safdarjung Aaspatal

Karamchari Sangharsh Union,

Office: G-484, Sri Niwas Puri,

New Delhi-110065

....Workman

Versus

The Medical Superintendent,

Safdarjung Hospital,

New Delhi-110029

. . .Management

AWARD

Reduction of exisiting hours of work in the standard

working day and working week without loss of wages has

been a long standing traditional goal of trade unions.

Normally reasons are given that reducation in existing

hours of work will, (i) improve health of workers, and

(ii) generate additional employment. Under existing

labour enactments weekly hours do not exceed 48 hours.

Where in an establishment there are 3 shifts working,

hours of work amount of 45 per week, as each shift is

generally of 8 hours duration including half an hour rest

interval. The trade unions have been striving to seek and

suggest a 40 hours week, a 5 day week with 8 hours a

day.

2. The Factories Act 1948 makes provision to the

effect that every week the workman should have atleast

one day as holiday, either on Sunday or any other day.

Development of paid holiday and leave practice,

consisting largely of paid leave and paid holiday, reflects

what might be called "a quest for leisure". Various

enactments such as the Factories Act, the Shops and

Commercial Establishment Act or any other analogous

Acts have made reasonable provisions for leave. The

labour enactments provide for minimum statutory leave

to which employee are entitled. However an employer

may provide for additional earned leave facilities for his

employees. Within the prescribed limits, the employers

have right to alter the period of work or weekly off day

provided he gives necessary intimation of the change as

required by the Standing Order or other provisions of

law applicable to him. Unilateral action on the part of the

employer changing conditions of service to the prejudice

of his employees have been prevented by the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 (in short the Act). By compliance of

provisions of Section 9-A of the Act, an employer may

effect change in conditions of service of his employees.

3. The Safdarjung Hospital Karamchari Sangharsh

Union (in short the union) felt aggrieved when Safdarjung

Hospital (in short the hospital) issued an office order dated

13-08-08 wherein it was declared that group C & D staff,

working in the main kitchen of the hospital, would be entitled

to weekly day off as per the staff working in the other

departments. Natural corollary was that office order dated

03-08-04, on the strength of which group C & D employees

working in the main kitchen of the hospital used to get 8

days off in a month plus 3 National Holidays or 3

additional day off in lieu of national holidays, was

withdrawn to their prejudice. The union took up the matter

and raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation

3696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Officer. Since the hospital contested the claim,

conciliation proceedings ended into failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No. L-42012/238/2010-IR(DU) New Delhi, dated

11.04.2011 with following terms:

“Whether the action of the management of

Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi in depriving the

8 days off in a month and 3 National Holidays in

a year i.e. 99 days (12x08=96+03) to the group

'C' & 'D' staff of main kitchen of the Safdarjung

Hospital after granting the same to them in

compliance of Ministry of Health & Family

Welfare (D/o Health) Office Order dated 11-09-

1997 implemented by the management of

Safdarjung Hospital vide their Office Order

No.1-1/2004 Coordn. dated 03-08-2006 for 02

years and withdrawing/stopping the same to them

under their office order No. 2-19/2008-Coordn.

dated 13-08-2008, without following the

Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

is legal and justified? What relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to and from which date?”

4. Claim statement was filed by the union pleading

that 44 group 'C' & 'D' employees, working in the main

kitchen of the hospital, work in shift duties. The hospital

vide order dated 3-8-04, in compliance of order dated

11-09-90 issued by Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi, extended benefit of

8 days off in a month plus 3 additional days off in lieu of

national holidays to them. The kitchen staff, working in

the main kitchen, availed facility of 8 days off in a month

for more than 4 years. However the hospital, in a vindictive

manner, issued order dated 13-8-2004 and declared that

the kitchen staff would be entitled to weekly off days as

applicable to the employees working in other departments.

The union presents that claim of the hospital, that there

was no shift duty in the kitchen, was patently wrong. The

employees work in 2 shifts from 6 am to 1 pm and 1 pm

to 8 pm, with a 30 minutes break in rotation. They are

performing duties for 39 hours per week. They get one

off day in week, besides 16 days Gazetted Holidays in a

year. Employees working in other departments work from

9 am to 4 pm with half an hour break in between. They

perform 5 days duties in a week. Therefore, employees

working in main kitchen cannot be put at par with

employees working in other departments.

5. The union presents that kitchen staff, working in

RML Hospital, Lady Harding Medical College and Sucheta

Kriplani Hospital and Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi,

are getting 8 days off in a month. The employees of the

aforesaid hospitals are working in shift duties and

principles of practice previlant in region cum industry

basis would make kitchen staff of the hospital eligible

for 8 days off in a month. A claim has been made that an

award may be passed in favour of the kitchen staff of the

hospital granting them benefit of 99 days off in a year

with effect from14-8-08.

6. Claim was demurred by the hospital pleading that

it is not an industry hence provisions of the Act are not

applicable to it. It has also been projected that group 'C'&

'D' employees, working in the main kitchen, do not perform

shift duties. They perform morning and evening duties.

They are not required to work in night shift and hence are

not entitled to 8 days off in a month, besides 3 additional

days off in lieu of National Holidays. The hospital projects

that order dated 3-8-2004 was rightly withdrawn since the

kitchen staff does not work in 3 shifts. Claim put forward

by the union has no substance. The hospital pleads that

the claim may be dismissed and an award may be passed

against the union.

7. Shri Rajbeer Gaur and Dharam Pal testified facts

on behalf of the union. Shri Lokmanya Singh deposed facts

on behalf of the hospital. No. other witness was examined

by either of the parties.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Sunil Kumar,

authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the union. Shri Atul Bharadwaj, authorised

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the hospital.

Written arguments were also filed by the parties. 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.

9. At the outset Shri Bhardwaj argued that the hospital

is not an industry. According to him no economic activity,

which can be said to be analogous to trade or business, is

being carried out by the hospital. He presents that the

activities and functions of the hospital are sovereign

functions, hence it cannot be termed as an industry. Contra

to it, Shri Sunil Kumar presents that the activities of the

hospital satisfy triple test, laid down by the Apex Court in

Banglore Water Supply and Severage Board Case (1978

Lab. I.C. 467). He presents that the hospital is an industry

and contention advance by Shri Bhardwaj are unfounded.

10. Since the hospital claims not to be an industry,

it would be expedient to have a glance on the definition

of the term "industry". Sec 2(j) of the Act defines

"industry", which definition is extracted thus:

"Industry" means any business, trade, undertaking,

manufacture or calling of employers and

includes any calling, services, employment,

handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation

of workmen.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3697

11. The definition of "Industry" is both exhaustive

and inclusive. It is in two parts. The first part says that if

"means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or

calling of employers" and then goes to say that it "includes

any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial

occupation or avocation of workmen." Thus one part

defined it from the stand point of the employer, and the

other part from the stand point of the employees. The

first part of the definition gives the statutory meaning of

the industry, whereas the second part deliberately refers

to several other items of industry and bring them in the

definition in an inclusive way. The first part of the

definition determines any industry by reference to

occupation of employers in respect of certain activities

viz., business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling.

The second part views the matter from the angle of

employees and is designed to include something more in

what the term primarily denotes. By this part of the

definition any calling, employment, handicraft, industrial

occupation or avocation of workmen is included in the

concept of industry. This part gives extended connotation.

12. Gloss was put on the definition of word "industry"

by the High Courts and the Apex Court time and again.

The question as to what is "industry" has continuously

baffled and perplexed the courts. A graph of the cases

decided by the Apex Court, if plotted on the background

of the expression used in two parts of the definition of

"industry", would represent rather a zig zag curve. There

have been various judicial ventures in this rather volatile

area of law. The decided cases show that the efforts were

made to evolve test by reference to characteristics

regarded as essential for constituting an activity as an

"industry", Various cases would show that the Apex Court

have been guided more by empirical rather than a strictly

analytical approach. Most of the decision have centered

around the expression "undertaking" used in the definition.

In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra)

the Apex Court reviewed the earlier decisions on

interpretation of the wide encompassed in the definition

and formulated positive and negative principles for

identifying "industry", as enacted by clause (j) of Section

2 of the Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the

authoritative pronouncement of the Court, in the very

words set out in the majority decision, handed down by

Justice Krishna Iyer, which are extracted thus:

"industry" as defined in S. 2(j)—and explained

in Banerji (AIR 1953 S.C. 58) has a wide import.

(a)

Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by

co-operation between employer and employee

(the direct and substantial element is chemirical)

(iii) for the production and /or distribution of

goods and services calculated to satisfy human

wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but

inclusive of material things or services geared

to celestial bliss i.e. making, on a large scale

prasad or foods) prima facie, there is an

"industry" in that enterprise.

(b)

Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint,

private or other sector.

(c)

The true focus is functional and the decisive test

is the nature of the activity with special emphasis

on the employer-employee relations.

(d)

If the organization is a trade or business it does

not cease to be one because of philanthropy

animating the undertaking.

II.

Although section 2(j) uses words of the widest

amplitude in its two limbs, the re-meaning

cannot be magnified to overreach itself.

(a)

"Undertaking" must suffer a contextual and

associational shrinkage as explained in Banerjee

and in this judgment, so also, service, calling and

the like. This yields the inference that all

organized activity possessing the triple elements

in I (supra), although not trade or business, may

still be 'industry' provided the nature of activity,

viz. the employer—employee basis, bears

resembalance to what we find in trade or

business. This takes into the fold 'industry'

undertaking, calling and services, adventures,

"analogous to the carrying on the trade or

business". All features, other than the

methodology of carrying on the activity viz in

organizing the co-operation between employer

and employee, may be dissimilar. It does not

matter, if on the employment terms there is

analogy.

III.

Application of these guidelines should not short

of their logical reach by invocation of creeds,

cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense

of motivation for a resultant of the economic

operations. The ideology of the Act being

industrial peace, regulation and resolution of

industrial disputes between employer and

workmen, the range of their statutory ideology

must inform the reach of the statutory definition.

Nothing less, nothing more.

(a)

The consequences are (i) professions, (ii) clubs

(iii) education institutions, (iv) co-operatives (v)

research institutes, (vi) charitable projects and

(vii) other kindered adventures, if they fulfil the

triple tests listed in 1 (supra), cannot be

exempted from the scope of Section 2(j).

(b)

A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-

operatives and even gurukulas and little research

labs may qualify for exemption if in simple

3698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ventures, substantially, and going by the dominant

nature criterion, substantively no employees are

entertained but in menial matters, marginal

employees are hired without destroying the non

employee character of the unit.

(c)

If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ

themselves, free or for small honoraria or like

return, mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or

cause, such as lawyers volunteering to run a free

legal services clinic or doctors serving in their

spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites

working at the bidding of the holiness, divinity or

like central personality, and the services are

supplied free or at nominal cost and those who

serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the

basis of master and servant relationship, then,

the institution is not an industry even if stray

servants, manual or technical, are hired. Such

eleemosynary or like undertakings alone are

exempt not other generosity, compassion,

developmental passion or project.

IV.

The dominant nature test:

(a)

Where a complex of activities, some of which

qualify for exemption, other not, involves

employees on the total undertaking, some of

whom are not "workmen" as in the University of

Delhi case (AIR 1963 SC 1873) or some

departments are not productive of goods and

services if isolated, even then, the predominant

nature of the services and the integrated nature

of the departments as explained in the

Corporation of Nagpur (AIR 1960 SC 675) will

be the true test. The whole undertaking will be

industry although those who are not "workmen"

by definition may not benefit by the status.

(b)

Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign

functions, strictly understood (alone) qualify for

exemption, not the welfare activities or

economic adventures undertaking by govt. or

statutory bodies.

(c)

Even in department discharging sovereign

fuctions, if there are units which are industries

and they are substantially severable, then they

can be considered to come within S. 2(j).

(d)

Constitutional and competently enacted

legislative provisions may remore from the

scope of the Act categories which otherwise may

be covered thereby.

We overrule Safdarjung (AIR. 1970 SC 1407),

Solicitors' case (AIR 1962 SC 1080), Gymkhana

(AIR 1968,SC.554), Delhi University (AIR 1963 SC

1873), Dhanrajgirji Hospital (AIR 1975 SC

2032) and other rulings whose ratio runs counter

to the principles enunciated above, and the

Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 SC 610) is

hereby rehabilitated."

13. The Hospital attempts to place reliance on a

precedent which has been overruled by the Apex Court.

Commenting on observations made in Safdarjung Hospital

case (supra), the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply

and Sewerage Board (Supra) ruled that it could not possibly

agree that running a hospital which is a welfare activity

and not a sovereign function, cannot be "industry".

Hospital facilities, research products and training services

are "service", hence "industry" and absence of profit or

functions of training and research would not take the

institution, out of the scope of "industry". Accordingly the

Apex Court ruled that its decision in Safdarjung Hospital case

was wrong and activity of running a hospital was not legal

activity of the State, hence would fall within the definition of

"industry" in as much as the activity would be industry if run

by private citizens. Thus it is crystal clear that the hospital

took a wrong stand and the same is discarded.

14. Next question, which requires consideration, is

as to whether the hospital was under an obligation to comply

with the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act, before altering

conditions of service of group 'C' and 'D' employees working

in the kitchen. It would be expedient to consider provision

of Section 9-A of the Act which are reproduced below:

"9A. Notice of change.—No, employer, who

proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service

applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified

in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change,—

(a)

without giving to the workmen likely to be affected

by such change a notice in the prescribed manner

of the nature of the change proposed to be

effected; or

(b)

within twenty-one days of giving such notice—

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting

any such change—

(a)

where the change is effected in pursuance of any

(settlement or award) or

(b)

where the workmen likely to be affected by the

change are persons to whom the Fundamental

and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil

Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised

Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians

in Defence Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway

Establishment Code or any other rules or

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3699

regulations that may be notified in this behalf by

the appropriate Government in the Official

Gazette, apply".

15. As noted above proviso to Section 9A of the Act

dispenses with the requirement of notice in the following

cases:—

(a)

Where the change is effected pursuant to any

settlement or award or

(b)

Where the workman likely to be affected by the

change are the persons to whom the following

statutory rules apply:

(i)

Fundamental and Supplementary Rules;

(ii)

Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal)

Rules;

(iii) Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules;

(iv)

Revised Leave Rules;

(v)

Civil Service Regulations;

(vi)

Civilians in Defence Services (Classification,

Control & Appeal) Rules; or

(vii) Indian Railway Establishment Code;

(viii) Any other Rules or Regulations that may be notified

in this behalf by the appropriate Govt. in the Official

Gazette.

16. Though Shri Lokmanya Singh opts not to speak

even a single word to the effect that group 'C' & 'D'

employees of the hospital, working in the main kitchen,

are subject to Fundamental and Supplementary Rules,

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, and Revised Leave Rules, yet Shri Sunil Kumar

could not dispel that these rules are applicable to them.

Admittedly group 'C' & 'D' employees of the hospital

are Govt. servants, under control and supervision of

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India,

New Delhi. Being Govt. servants, Fundamental and

Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, and Revised Leave Rules are

applicable to them. It is nobody's case that group 'C' &

'D' employees of the hospital, working in the kitchen,

are not governed by the aforesaid rules. Consequently it

is clear that the case falls within the exception contained

in proviso to Section 9A of the Act. The hospital was

not under an obligation to comply with the provisions

of Section 9A of the Act, before altering the conditions

of service of group 'C' & 'D' employees of their

prejudice. No illegality was committed by the hospital

when office order dated 13.08.2008 was issued, wihtout

serving a notice on them as contemplated by the

provisions of Section 9A of the Act. The hospital was

under no obligation to serve a notice on group 'C' & 'D'

employees to afford them an opportunity to consider the

effect of proposed change and if necessary to present

their point of view on the proposal.

17. However there is other facet of the coin. Shri

Rajbeer Gaur unfolds in his affidavit Ex. WW1/A,

tendered as evidence, that vide order dated 3-8-04 the

hospital extended benefit of 8 days off in a month plus 3

additional days off in lieu of National Holidays to its group

'C' & 'D' employees. Group 'C' & 'D' employees perform

duties in shifts. Above benefits were withdrawn vide order

dated 13-8-08, copy of which is Ex. WW1/4. He further

declares that kitchen staff, working in Ram Manohar

Lohiya Hospital, Lady Harding Medical College and

Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital

and Lok Nayak Hospital, perform their duties in 2 shifts.

They get 8 days off in a month, besides 3 additional off

days in lieu of National Holidays in year. Facts unfolded

by Shri Rajbeer Gaur were not disputed by the hospital.

Shri Lokmanya Singh presents that group 'C' & D'

employees of the kitchen work in morning as well as

evening duties.

18. Admittedly group 'C' & 'D' employees of the

kitchen do not perform night shift duties. However they

work on 6 days, since one day off is given to them in a

week. Employees, working in other department of the

hospital, perform duties from 9 am to 4 pm and get 52

offs being Sundays, 52 half day off on Saturdays and 16

gazetted holidays in a year. On the other hand group 'C' &

‘D' employees working in the kitchen get 52 offs on

Sundays and 16 gazetted holidays in a year. Thus they get

26 less off days then the staff working in other

departments of the hospital.

19. Now it would be considered as to whether

employees, working in the kitchen of the hospital, are to

be treated alike as employees working in other

departments are treated. For an answer legal provisions

are to be taken note of. Equality before law and equal

protection of laws are fundamental rights of every person,

ordains Article 14 of the Constitution. The guiding

principles laid in Article 14 are that persons, who are

similarly situated, shall be treated alike both in privileges

conferred and liability imposed, which means that amongst

equals the law should be equal and should be equally

administered and that like should be treated alike. Article

16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of

opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to

employment or appointment to any office under the State.

What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity. Like all

other employers, government is also entitled to pick and

choose from amongst a large number of candidates

offering themselves for employment. But the selection

process must not be arbitrary. The guarantee given by

clause (a) of Article 16 of the Constitution will cover (a)

initial appointment,s (b) promotions, (c) termination of

employment, (d) and matters relating to salary, periodical

3700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

increments, leaves, gratuity, pension, age of

superannuation etc. Matters relating to employment or

appointments include all mattes in relations to employment

both prior and subsequent to the employment which are

incidental to the employment and form part of the terms

and conditions of such employment.

20. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14

forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification

or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of

discretion. Classification is the recognition of the

relations, and in making it the Government must be

allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment. In a

way, the consequences of such classification would

undoubtedly be to differentiate persons belonging to that

class from others. The classification must be founded on

an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or

things that are grouped together from others left out of

the group and the differentia must have a rational relation

to the object sought to be achieved. Classification may

be made according to the nature of persons, nature of

business, and may be based with reference to time.

21. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16

of the Constitution is something more than formal

equality and enables the under privileged groups to have a

fair share by having more than equal chance and enables

the State to give favoured treatment to those groups by

achieving real equality with reference to social needs.

'Protection discrimination' enabled the State to adopt new

strategy to bring underprivileged at par with the rest of

the society, by providing all possible opportunities and

incentives to them. Therefore a class may be allowed to

have preferential treatment in the matter relating to

employment or appointment. There cannot be rule of

equality between members of separate and independent

group of persons. Persons can be classified in different

groups, based on in terms of nature of persons, nature of

business and with reference to time.

22. Now it would be seen as to whether group 'C' &

'D' employee of the hospital, working in the kitchen, are

on the same pedestal on which employees of the hospital,

working in the other departments, are? As projected above,

employees working in the other department of the hospital

work for 1/2 day on Saturdays. They work from 9 am to 4

pm with half an hour break in between. Thus their working

hours are six and a half hours a day. Group 'C' & 'D'

employees of the kitchen perform morning or evening

duties viz. from 6 am to 1 pm and 1 pm to 8 pm with 30

minutes break in rotation. Thus they also perform 6 and a

half hours duty in a day. They get one weekly off, besides

16 gazetted holidays in a year. In addition to these weekly

off and gazetted holidays an employee working in the other

departments of the hospital, gets half day off on Saturdays.

He gets 26 more off days in a year. Therefore an

employee, working in the other departments of the

hospital, is better placed them group 'C' & 'D' employees

of the hospital, working in the kitchen. Resultantly, it is

clear that employees working in other department of the

hospital are differently placed then the employees working

in the kitchen. Unequals have been treated as equals by

the hospital. This treatment is discriminatory and cannot

be allowed to sustain.

23. Facts can be considered from another angle also.

It is well known that the Act and industrial adjudication

seek to attain similarity or uniformity in terms of service

in the same industry existing in the same region, as far as

it may be practicable or possible, without doing injustice

or harm to any particular employer or a group of employer.

In the matter of providing off days, industrial adjudication

prefers to have same conditions of service in the same

industry situated in the same region. Precedent in Rai

Bahadur Dewan Badri Das [1962 (2) LLJ 366] lays down

the same proposition relating to conditions of earned

leaves prevailing in the comparable industry in the region.

Same legal position was reiterated in Gramophone

Company Ltd. (1964 (2) LLJ 131) and Indian Oxygen Ltd.

[1963 (1) LLJ 264]. Thus it is crystal clear that off days

in a week granted in comparable hospitals to the kitchen

staff would lead this Tribunal to command the hospital

not to make any discrimination with its group ‘C’ & 'D'

employees, working in the kitchen.

24. Resultantly the Tribunal is of the view that the

hospital cannot deal group 'C' & 'D' employees in a

different manner then the employees at par, working in

different hospitals in the same region. Employees,

working in kitchen of Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Lady

Harding Medical College and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital,

Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital and Lok Nayak Hospital,

enjoy two days off in a week, besides three additional off

days in lieu of national holidays in a year. These hospitals

are comparable industries in the same region. Employees

of the hospital, working in the kitchen, are entitled to same

facility in the matter off days in a week as employees in

comparable industries in the same region are getting. The

order dated 13/8/08 cannot sustain on this court too.

25. In view of forgoing reasons order dated

13/8/08 issued by the hospital is liable to be set aside.

The order dated 13/8/08 is consequently brushed aside.

The hospital is commanded to maintain the very position

in respect of off days in a week available to group 'C' &

'D' employees, working in the kitchen, as was in existence

prior to issuance of order dated 13/8/08. Resultantly

group 'C' & 'D' employees of the hospital, working in the

kitchen, shall avail 8 days off in a month, besides 3

additional off days in lieu of national holidays in a year.

An award is, accordingly, passed in favour of the union

and against the hospital. It be sent to appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 14.06.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3701

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1485-

— vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ tjuy

eSustj] ,e-Vh-,u-,y- ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fu£"nV vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k uñ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

201@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-06-

2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y&40012@191@2002&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1485.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 201/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the The Chief General

Manager, MTNL and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 24.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/191/2002-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KAR KARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.No. 201/2011

Shri Ashok

A-187, West Vinod Nagar,

New Delhi-92.

. . .Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

MTNL, Janpath,

New Delhi-110001

...Management

AWARD

A part-time sweeper was engaged by Mahanagar

Telephone Nigam Limited (in short the Nigam). He

performed his duties intermittently. His services were

dispensed with in October 1996. Feeling aggrieved by that

Act, he approached the Central Administration Tribunal

(in short the CAT) for relief. His petition was disposed of

by the CAT for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the part-

time sweeper, alongwith others, approached the High

Court of Delhi for redressal of his grievance. His writ

petition also came to be dismissed. Ultimately, he

approached the Conciliation Officer, who entered into

conciliation proceedings. Since the Nigam contested his

claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a 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-40012/191/2002-IR(DU) New Delhi dated 21.03.2003, with

following terms:

"Whether action of the management in

terminating services of Shri Ashok ex Part-time

worker with effect from 31.10.1996 is justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to

and from which date?"

2. Claim statement was filed by the part time

sweeper, namely, Shri Ashok, pleading therein that he was

appointed by Nigam as sweeper on 07.04.1994, on his

name being sponsored by the employment exchange.

Initially, he performed his duties from 07.04.1994 till

October 1994 at ISBT office of the Nigam. After a break,

he was again engaged as a sweeper with effect from August

1985. He performed his duties sincerely to the entire

satisfaction of his superiors. He served the Nigam till

December 1996, when his services were abruptly

terminated by way of oral orders.

3. Claimant projects that he rendered continouous

services with the Nigam till the date of termination of his

service, without any break. He was entitled to be conferred

temporary status, in pursuance of scheme notified by the

Government of India. No termporary status was conferred

on him. On the other hand, after termination of his

services, the Nigam employed fresh candidates, namely,

Dharmender, Vinod Sonu, Babu, Ajay, Shyam, Sikander,

Jaipal, Naresh, Ms. Bobby and Bala without giving him an

opportunity of re-employment. He presents that action

of the Nigam in terminating his services a arbitrary and

illegal. He claims to be unemployed since the date of his

termination of service. Relief of reinstatement in services

with continuity and full back wages has been claimed by

the claimant.

4. The Nigam demurs the claim projecting that

services of the claimant were never requisitoned through

employment exchange. It has been denied that initially

he was appointed as sweeper on 07.04.1994. It has also

been denied that in the first spell, he worked with the

Nigam from 07.04.1994 till October 1994. It has also

been disputed that after a break, he was again engaged with

effect from August 1994. It is denied that he worked till

December 1996. The Nigam presents that he was engaged

as a part time sweeper on daily basis subject to availability

of work. He had not rendered continous service of 240

days in a calendar year, as claimed by him.

5. His case is not covered under the scheme for

grant of temporary status. He had not rendered continuous

3702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

service required for grant of temporary status, as

mentioned in the scheme. Being part time weeper, he has

no case for grant of temporary status. When no work was

available, his services were not engaged. Claim put forward

by Shri Ashok for rinstatement in service with continuity

and full back wages is liable to be dismissed, being

misconceived, pleads the Nigam.

6. On persual of pleadings, following issues were

settled by my predecessor.

(1)

Whether claim is liable to be rejected in view of

preliminary objection No. 1, taken in the written

statement?

(2)

As in terms of reference.

(3)

Relief.

7. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II), New

Delhi dated 11.02.2008, case was transferred to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi for

adjudication by the appropriate Government. It was

retransferred to this Tribunal vide order No.Z-22019/6/

2007-IR(C-II) dated 30.03.2011 for adjudication by the

appropriate Government.

8. Claimant examined himself in support of his

claim. Shri Jarjap Singh, entered the witness box to fend

facts on behalf of the Nigam. No other witness was

examined by either of the parties.

9. Arguments were heard at the bar, Shri G.V.

Gopinathan, authorized representative, advanced

arguments on behalf of the claimant. Ms, Neha Bhatnagar,

authorized representative, presented facts on behalf of

the Nigam. I have given my careful consideration to the

arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously persued the

record. My findings on issues involved in the controvery

are as follows:—

Issue No. 1

10. As record tells, services of the claimant were

dispensed with in the year 1996. He approached the

Conciliation Officer in the year 2002, seeking redressal

of his grievances. When concillation proceedings ended

into a failure, concilliation Officer submitted his report

to the appropriate Government, vide order No. ALF-II/7/

83/01 dated 05.08.2002. On consideration of failure

report, the appropriate Government referred the dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication on 21.03.2003. Thus thrus

of contention of the Nigam has been that the appropriate

Government has not taken into account delay caused in

raising the dispute. In the written statement, a claim was

made to the effect that reference of the dispute was made

for adjudication to the Tribunal without application of

mind to the facts. Shri Gopinathan presents that this delay

in making reference would not come in the way of the

claimant.

11. Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947

( in short the Act) does not prescribe any period of

limitation for making reference of the dispute for

adjudication. The words 'at any time' used in sub section

(1) of Section 10 of the Act does not admit of any limitation

in making an order of reference. Law of limitation, which

might bar any Civil Court from giving remedy in respect of

lawful rights, cannot be applied by Industrial Tribunals.

However, policy of industrial adjudication is that stale claim

should not be gnerally encouraged or allowed unless there

is satisfactory explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works

Ltd. [(1959 (2) LLJ 26)], the Apex Court pointed out that

though there is no limitation prescribed in making reference

of the dispute to Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only

reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as

possible after having arisen and on failure of conciliation

proceedings. In Western India Match Company [1970 (2)

LLJ 256)] the Apex Court observed that in exercising its

discretion, the Government will take into account time

which has lapsed between its earlier decision and the date

when it decides to consider it in the interest of justice and

industrial peace to make the reference for adjudication.

Same view was taken in Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [1975(2)LLJ

326)].

12. In Gurmail Singh [2000(1) LLJ 1080)] industrial

adjudicator dismissed the reference on the ground that

there was delay of 8 years in raising the dispute, which

delay was condoned by the Apex Court and it was ordered

that the workman would not be entitled to any back wages

for the period of 8 years but would be entitled to 50% of

wages from the date he raised the dispute till the date of his

reinstatement. In Prahalad Singh [2000 (2) LLJ 1653)], the

Apex Court approved the award of the Tribunal in not

granting any relief to the workman who preferred the claim

after a period of 13 years without any reasonable or

justifiable grounds. From above decisions, it can be said

that the law relating to delay in raising a reference of dispute

is bereft of any principles, which can be easily

comprehended by the litigants.

13. Thus, it is evident that law relating to frustration

of claim on account of delay is not consistent. The Apex

Court had taken a zigzag way on the issue of frustration of

a relief, when stale claim has been made. Therefore, present

controversy is to be addressed to in the light of the facts

raised by the parties. As projected above, claimant

approached the CAT for redressal of his grievance and

lost there on account of want of jurisdiction. He tried to

seek a relief from High Court of Delhi also, but in vain.

These facts highlight that the claimant was taking steps

for redressal of his grievance before various forums. He

was not sleeping over the matter. Consequently, I am

constrained to conclude that delay in presentation of claim

before the authorities under the Act resulted when the

claimant was harping on one string before the CAT as well

as the Writ Court. I do not find the delay as such a long

one, which may frustrate his claim. Resultantly, it is

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3703

concluded that delay in presentation of the claim would

not come in the way of claimant. Issue, is therefore,

answered in favour of the claimant and against the Nigam.

Issue No.2

14. In his affidavit Ex. WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

the claimant highlights that initially he was engaged as a

casual worker from 07.04.1994 to October1994. Thereafter,

he was again engaged as a sweeper on casual basis with

effect from August 1995. He continued to perform his duties

with utmost dedication to entre satifaction of his superiors.

His attendance record is there in docoments Ex.WW1/1 to

Ex. WW1/22. He worked with the Nigam till December

1996. During the course of his cross examination, he

conceded that his name was not registered with the

employment exchange for a job. He also made a candid

admission that no junior sweeper was there when his

services were dispensed with.

15. Shri Harjap Singh unfolds in his affidavit

Ex.MW1/A, tendered as evidence, that the Nigam has been

engaging services of daily wagers as safai karamchari on

part time basis. Claimant was engaged on daily wage basis

for part time work. He is not entitled for grant of temporary

status or reinstatement in service. During the course of

cross examination, he concedes that the claimant was

working with the Nigam since 1994. He does not dispute

genuineness of Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/22, which

documents speel the period for which claimant was

engaged in 1995 and 1996.

16. When fact unfolded by the claimant and those

detailed by Shri Harjap Singh are appreciated in the light

of the documents proved by the parties, it came over the

record that the claimant was engaged as a part-time

sweeper for four hours in a day. Ex. WW1/21 is a

document which details the days on which the claimant

rendered his services with the Nigam in 1996. Documents.

detailed above, project that the claimant was working for

four hours a day. Consequently, it is abundantly clear that

the claimant was engaged as a part time sweeper. Question

for consideration would be as to whether part time

employee can be termed as workman? For an answere to

this proposition, it would be expedient to have a glance

on definition of the term 'Workman', enacted by section

2(s) of the Act. For sake of convenience, definition of

term 'workman' is reproduced thus:

"2(s) Workman means by person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in

connection with, or as a consequence of that

dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or

retrenchement has led to that dispute, but does

not include any such person:—

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act,

1950

(45 of 1950), or theArmy Act,

1950 (46 or 1950) or the Navy Act.

1957(62 of 1957), or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service

or as an officer or other employee or a

prison, or

(iii) who is, employed mainly in a managerial

or administrative capacity, or

(iv)

who, being employed in a supervisory

capacity, draws wages exceeding one

thousand six hundred rupees per

mensem or exercises, either by the

nature of the duties attached to the

office or by reason of the powers

vested in him, function mainly of a

managerial nature".

17. The first part of the definition gives statutory

meaing of the term workman. This part of the definition

determines a workman by reference to a person (including

an apprentice) employed in an "industry" to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or

supervisory work for hire or reward. This part determines

what a " workman" means. The second part is designed to

include something more in what the term primarily

denotes. By this part of the definition, person (i) who have

been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

with an industrial dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute,

for the purposes of any proceedings under the Act in

relation to such industrial dispute, have been included in

the definition of "workman". This part gives extended

connotation to the expression "workman". The third part

specifically excludes the categories of persons specified

in clauses (i) to (iv) of this sub-section. The third part

connotes that even if a person satisfies the requirements

of any of the first two parts but if he falls in any of the

four categories in the third part, he shall be excluded from

the definition of 'workman'. Not only the persons who

are actually employed in an industry but also those who

have been discharged, dismissed or retrenched in

connection with or as a consequence of an industrial

dispute, and whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment

has lead to that dispute, would fall within the ambit of the

definition. In other words, the second category of persons

included in the definition would fall in the ambit of the

definition, only for the purpose of any proceedings under

the Act in relation to an industrial dispute and for no other

purposes. Therefore, date of reference is relevant and in

3704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

case a person falls within the definition of workman on

that day, the Tribunal would be vested with jurisdiction to

entertain it and the jurisdiction would not cease merely

because subsequently the workman ceases to be workman.

18. For an employee in an industry to be a workman

under this definition, it is manifest that he must be employed

to do skilled or unskilled manual work supervisory work,

technical work or clerical work. If the work done by and

employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a

workman. The specification of the four types of work

obviously is intended to law down that an employee is to

become a workman only if he is employed to do work of

one of those types, while there may be employees who,

not doing any such work, would be out of the scope of the

word' workman', without having resort to the exceptions. It

cannot be held that every employees of an industry was to

be a workman except those mentioned in the four

exceptions as in that case these four classifications need

not have been mentioned in the definition and a workman

could have been defined as a person employed in an

industry except in cases where he was covered by one of

the exceptions.

19. In cases where an employee is employed to do

purely skilled or unskilled manual work, or supervisory

work or technical work or clerical work there would be

no difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the

appropriate classification. Frequently, however, an

employee is required to do more than one kind of work.

In such cases, it would be necessary to determine under

which classification he will fall for the purpose of finding

out whether he does not go out of the definition of

'workman under the exceptions. The principle is now well

settled that, for this purpose, a workman must be held to

be employed to do that work which is the main work he is

required to do even though he may incidentally doing other

type of work.

20. As projected above, definition of wokman does

not make any difference between part time of full time

employees. The Apex Court in Birdichand Sharma

[1961(3) SCR (161)] and Siliver Jubilee Tailoring House

[1974 (3) SCC 498] was confronted with a proposition

as to whether part time employee answers definition of

workman. It was conclusively ruled therein that there was

absolutely no distinction between full time and part time

employee and that an employee who was working on part

time basis would not loose his status of workman, if he

answers ingredients of section 2(s) of the Act.

21. In General Manager Telecom, Nagpur (2001

Lab. I.C. 2127), the Bombay High Court also reaffirmed

the same proposition. It was ruled therein that definition

of workmen as given in the Act does not make any

distinction between full time employee and part time

employee. It does not lay down that only a person

employed for full time will be said to be a workman and

that the one who is employed for part time should not be

taken as workman. What is required is that the person

should be employed for hire to discharge work manual,

skilled or unskilled etc. in any industry. If this test is

fulfilled, part time employee can also be said to be a

workman.

22. When facts of the present controversy are

assessed on the above proposition of law, it emerges that

the claimant was engaged as part time sweeper. He was

required to do manual unskilled work. The Nigam nowhere

disputes that the claimant was performing manual unskilled

work while working as part time sweeper. Work performed

by the claimant clothes him with the status of a workman,

as projected under section 2(s) of the Act. Therefore, these

facts make me to comment that the claimant was a

workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act,

though he was working on part time basis.

23. In his testimony, the claimant presents that he

worked continuously with the Nigam. He places reliance

on attendance record Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/20. When

these documents are perused, it came to light that

Ex. WW1/1 is the attendance register for April 1994,

wherein names of Smt. Sushila and Shri Amit do appear.

Ex. WW1/2 is also attendeance register for the aforesaid

employees. Name of the claimant does not figure in the

two documents. Ex.WW1/3 is an attendance register

wherein names of the Rajesh Kumar, Amit, Subhash and

Sushil do figure. However this document nowhere

projects the month and year to which it pertains. Ex.WW1/

4 is the attendance register relating to Smt. Sushila. This

document nowhere projects the month and year for which

the attendance of Sushila is recorded therein. Ex.WW1/5

is an attendance register for June 94 in respect of Anil.

Ex.WW1/6 is attendance register for Rajesh Kumar,

Subhash and Amit. Though this document projects that it

is for July, the year is not legible therein. Ex.WW1/7 is

again attendance of Sushila, wherein month and year do

not appear. Attendance of Anil Kumar, Amit, Subhash and

Rajesh were recorded on Ex.WW1/8. This document is

also deficient relating to month and year to which it

pertains. Attendance of Sushila was recorded in Ex.WW/

9. Ex.WW1/10 relates to Septemeber 1994, wherein

attendance of Amit Kumar, Subhash and Rajesh were

recorded. Attendance of Sushila for September was

recorded in Ex.WW1/11. This document is also deficient

relating to the the year for which it was prepared.

Ex.WW1/12 relates to attendance of Amit, Anil and

Subhash. Ex.WW1/13 relates to attendance of Sushila and

Mukesh. There two documents are for the month of

October but it is very difficult to make out the year.

Attendance of Novermber 94 in respect of Sushila,

Mukesh, Dinesh and Subhash were recorded in Ex. WW1/

14. Ex.WW1/15 projects attendance of Sushila, Mukesh,

Subhash and Dinesh for the month of December. However,

year is not visible in the document. Ex.WW1/16 projects

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3705

attendance of Anil for December without specifying the

year. Attendance of Subhash, Mukesh, Sushila and Dinesh

were recorded for January 1995 in Ex. WW1/17.

Attendance of Sushila, Mukesh, Vinesh and Subhash are

recorded in Ex.WW1/18 without specifying the year.

Ex.WW1/19 is attendance register for June 1995 in

respect of Subhash, Vinesh, Ajay and Sushila. Ex.WW1/

20 projects attendance of Shri Amit and Sushila without

specifying the month and year. Thus, it is evident that these

documents nowhere project working days of the claimant.

These documents are not relevant as far as the period for

which the claimant allegedly worked with the Nigam.

24. Ex.WW1/21 and Ex.WW1/22 were pressed in

service by the claimant Genuineness of these two

documents remained above board. Ex.WW1/22 highlights

that the claimant worked with the Nigam on the 3rd and

7th of October 1995. Ex.WW1/21 brings it over the

record that the claimant rendered continuous service of

250 days with the Nigam in the year 1996.

25. Question for consideration would be as to

whether the claimant had rendered continuous service for

a period of one year with the Nigam. For an answer to this

proposition, it would be ascertained as to what term

"continuous service" means. "Continuous Services" has

been defined by section 25-B of the Act. Under sub-

section (1) of the said section. "continuous service for a

period" may comprise of two period viz.(i) uniterrupted

service, and (ii) interrupted service on account of (a)

sickness (b) authorized leave, (c) an accident, (d) a strike

which is not legal, (e) a lock-out, and (f) a cessation of

work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman,

shall be included in the "continuous service. "Sub-section

(2) of the said section introduces a fiction to the effect

that even if a workman is not "continuous service" within

the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to in continuous service for

the period under an employer if he has actually worked

for the days specified in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In

Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968 Lab. I.C. 1180) it was held

that one year's period contemplated by sub-section (2)

furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of

measure the period of service actually rendered by the

workman is 240 days, then he can be considered to have

rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose

of the section. The idea is that if within a unit period of

one year person had put in at least 240 days of service,

then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act.

Consequently, an enquiry has to be made to find out

whether the workman actually worked for not less than

240 days during the period of 12 calendar months

immediately preceding the retrenchment.

26. In Ramkrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306],

Apex Court announced that when a workman renders

continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar

months, he is deemed to have completed one years' service

in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce

observation made by the Apex Court in that regard, which

are extracted thus:

"Under Section 25-B a workman who during the

period of 12 calendar months has actually

worked in an industry for not less than 240 days

is to be deemed to have completed One year's

service in the industry. Consequently an enquiry

has to be made to find out whether the workman

had actually worked for not less than. 240 days

during period of 12 calender months immediately

preceding the retrenchment. These provisions of

law do not show that a workman after satisfying

the test under Section 25B has further to show

that he has worked during all the period he has

been in the service of the employer for 240 days

in the year".

27. As projected above, claimant had rendered

continuous sevice of 250 days in the year 1995 with the

Nigam. Shri Harjap Singh could not dispel contents of

Ex. WW1/21. Thus, it is crystal clear that in the year 1996,

the claimant had rendered continuous service of a year as

contemplated by the provisions of section 25F of the

Act.

28. Claimant presents that his services were abruptly

terminated by the Nigam. He claims act of termination to

be arbitrary and illegal. Shri Harjap Singh presents that

the claimant was engaged on daily wage basis, in case of

exigency. Therefore, the Nigam does not present a case

of grant of one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof at

the time of termination of services of the claimant, not

to talk of payment of retrenchment compensation.

Obviously, provision of section 25F of the Act were

violated by the Nigam, when services of the claimant were

dispensed with.

29. In Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC 1] the Apex Court

considered the proposition as to whether the persons who

got employment, without following of a regular procedure

or even from the back door or on daily wages can be

ordered to be made permanent in their posts, to prevent

regular recruitment to the psots concerned. Catena of

decisions over the subject were considered and the Court

declined the submissions of the workmen to be made

permanent on the posts which were held by them in

temporay or adhoc capacity fo a fairly long spell. The

Court ruled thus:

"With respect, why should the State be allowed

to depart from the normal rule and indulge in

temporary employment in permanent posts? This

Court, in our view, is bound to insists on the State

making regular and proper recruitments, and is

bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the

3706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

persistent transgression of the rules of regular

recruitment. The direction to make permanent -

the distinction between regularization and making

permanent was not emphasized here—can only

encourage the State, the model employer, to flout

its own rules and would confer undue benefits

on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete.

With respect the directions made in Piara Singh

[1992 (4) SCC 118] is to some extent

inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 of

the said judgement therein. With great respect,

it appears to us that the last of the directions

clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme

of employment recognized in the earlier part of

the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this

decision has laid down the law that all ad-hoc,

temporary or casual employees engaged without

following a regular recruitment procedure should

be made permanent."

30. Taking note of some of recent decisions, the

Apex Court held that the State does not enjoy a power to

make appointments in terms of Article 162 of the

Constitution. The Court quoted its decision in Girish Jyanti

Lal Vaghela [2006(2) SCC 482] with approval, wherein it

was ruled thus.

"The appointment to any post under the State can

only be made after a proper advertisement has

been made inviting applications from eligible

candidates and holding of a selection by a body

of experts or a specially constituted committee,

whose members are fair and impartial, through a

written examination or interview or some other

raitonal criteria for judging the inter se merit

of candidates, who have applied in response to

the advertisement made. A regular appointment

to the post under the State or Union cannot be

made without issuing advertisement in the

prescribed manner which may in some cases

include inviting applications from the

employment exchange, where eligible candidate

get their names registered. Any regular

appointment made on a post under the State or

Union without issuing advertisement inviting

applications from eligible candidates and

without holding a proper selection where all

eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete

would violate the guarantee enshrined under

Article 16 of the Constitution".

31. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others [2006

(7) SCC 488] the Apex Court referred Ume Devi's case

(supra) with approval. It also relied the decision in Uma

Rani [2004 (7) SCC 112] and ruled that no regularization

is pemrissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred

in Article 162 of the Constitution, if the appointments

have been made in contavention of the statutory rules. In

Somveer Singh [2006 (5) SCC 493] the Apex Court ruled

that appointment made without following due procedue

cannot be regulaized. In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

Ltd. [2007 (1) SCC 408] the Apex Court reiterated the

law and announced that the rules of recruitment can not be

relaxed and court can not direct regularisation of tempoary

employees dehors the rules, nor can it direct continuation

of service of a temporary employee (whether called a casual,

ad-hoc or daily rated employee) or payment of regular

salaries to them.

32. In Uma Devi (supra) it was laid that when a person

enters a temporary employment or get engagement as

contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not

based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant

rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequence of the

appointment being tempoary, casual or contractual in

nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate

expectation for being confirmed for the post when an

appointment to the post could be made only by following

a proper procedure or selection in any concerned cases, in

consultation with the public service commission. Therefore,

the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully

advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees.

It cannot also be held that the State held out any promise

while engaging these persons either to continue them where

they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot

constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obivious

that the theory cannot be invoked to seek relief of being

made permanent in the post. In view of those precedent

neither continuance for regularization of services of the

claimants

can

orderd.

33. Mere completion of 240 days service in a

calendar year does not confer any right on an employee

to claim regularization in service. In B.N. Nagarajan [1979

(4) S.C.C. 507], the Apex Court construed the words,

"regular" or "regularization" and ruled that these words do

not cannote permanence and cannot be construed so as to

convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments.

These terms are calculated to condone any procedural

irregularity and are meant to cure only such difficulties

as are attributable to methodology followed in making

the appointments. In Anil Kumar Mishra [2005 (5) S.C.C.

122] the Apex Court ruled that completion of 240 days

work does not confer right to claim regularization under

the Act (it merely imposes certain obligations on

employment at the time of termination of services of an

employee). In Manoj Srivastava [2006 (2) SCC 702] the

Apex Court considered the catena of decisions over the

subject and reiterated that only cause that a person had

been working for more than 240 days he does not derive

any legal right to be regularized in services. The same

view was reiterated in Ganga Dhar Pilai [2007 (1)

S.C.C. 533].

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3707

34. Whether a daily wager is vested with a right to

claim regularization, was a proposition with which Apex

Court was confronted in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals

Ltd. [2007 (1) S.C.C. 408]. The Apex Court ruled that no

such right accrues in favour of a casual labour, on

completion of 240 days of continuous service. It would be

expedient to re-produce observations made by the Apex

Court, which are extracted thus:—

"Thus it is well settled that there is no right vested

in any daily wager to seek regularizaiton.

Regularization can only be done in accordance

with the rules and not dehors the rules. In case of

E. Rama Krishnan and others Vs. State of Kerala

and others [1996 (10) S.C.C. 565] this court held

that there can be no regularization dehors the rules.

Same view was taken in Dr. Kishore Vs. State of

Maharashtra [1997 (3) S.C.C. 209] the Union of

India and others Versus Bishamber Dutt [1996 (II)

S.C.C. 341]. The direction issued by the services

Tribunal for regularizing the services of the

persons who had not been appointed on regular

basis in accordance with the rules was set aside

although the petitioner had been working

regularly for a long time.

In Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal and another vs. state of

Jammu and Kashmir and others (AIR 1966 S.C. 2775) it was

held that ad-hoc appointment does not give any right for

regularization as regularization is governed by the statutory

rules".

39. As conceded by the claimant in his cross

examination, his name was not registered with employment

exchange for a job. When claimant was not registered with

employment exchange, there cannot be any situation in

which his name could be sponsored by the employment

exchange for a job with the Nigam. As projected by Shri

Harjap Singh, claimant was engaged on casual basis in

case of exigencies. Thus, it had not been an area of dispute

that the claimant was engaged by the Nigam dehors the

rules of recruitment. Resultantly, it is evident that the

claimant was engaged on casual basis, without following

procedure for recruitment against vacant permanent post.

under such circumstances, relying law referred above, it is

concluded that it is not a case where reinstatement in service

should be granted to the claimant.

40. When retrenchment of the claimant was found to

be violative of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act

and his reinstatement cannot be ordered, since it would

amount to back door entry in the government job, in that

situation compensation in liew of reinstatement would

be the appropriate relief. However, no definite yardstick

for measuring the quantum of compensation is available.

In S.S. Shetty [1957 (11) LLJ 696] the Apex Court

indicated some relevant factors which an adjudicator has

to take into account in computing compensation in liew

of reinstatement, in the following words:

"The industrial Tribunal would have to take into

account the terms and conditions of employment,

the tenure of service, the possibility of termination

of the employment at the instance of either party,

the possibility of retrenchment by the employer

or resignation or retirement by the workman and

even of the employer himself ceasing to exist or

of the workman being awarded various benefits

including reinstatement under the terms of future

awards by industrial Tribunal in the event of

industrial disputes arising between the parties in

future. In computing the money value of the

benefits of reinstatement, the industrial

adjudicator would also have to take into account

the present value of what his salary, benefits etc.

would be till be attained the age of

superannuation and the value of such benefits

would have to be computed as from the date when

such reinstatement was ordered under the terms

of the award.

Having regard to the consideration detailed above,

it is impossible to compute the money value of this benefit

of reinstatement awarded to the appellant with mathematical

exactitude and the best that any tribunal or court would do

under the circumstances would be to make as correct as

estimate as is possible bearing, of course in mind all the

relevant factors pro and con".

41. A Divisonal Bench of the Patna High Court in

B. Choudhary Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Jamshedpur (1983) Lab.1.1755 (1758) deduced certain

guidelines which have to be borne in mind in determining

the quantum of compensation viz.(i) the back wages

receivable (ii) compensation for deprivation of the job

with future prospect and obtainability of alternative

employment; (iii) employee's age (iv) length of service

in the establishment (v) capacity of the employer to pay

and the nature of the employer's business (vi) gainful

employment in mitigaiton of damages; and (vii)

circumstances leading to the disengagement and the

past conduct. These factors are only illustrative and

not exhaustive. In addition to the amount of

compensation, it is also within the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal to award interest on the amount determined as

compensation. Furthermore, the rate of such interest is

also in the diection of the Tribunal. Reference can be

made to Tabesh Process, Shivakashi (1989 Lab. I.C. 1887).

42. In Assam Oil Co. [1960 (1) LLJ 587] the Apex

Court took into account countervailing facts that the

employer had paid certain sums to the workmen and her

3708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

own earning in the alternative employment and ordered

that "it would be fair and just to direct the appellant to pay

a substantial sum as compensation to her. "In Utkal

Machinery Ltd. [1960 (1) LLJ 398] the amount

compensaiton equivalent to two year salary of the employee

awarded by the Industrial Tribunal was reduced by the

Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one year salary

of the employee in view of the fact that she had been in

service with the employer only for 5 months and also took

into consideration the unusual manner of her appointment

at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State. In A.K.

Roy [1970 (1) LLJ 228] compensation equivalent to two

years salary last drawn by the workmen was held to be fair

and proper to meet the ends of justice. In Anil Kumar

Chakaraborty [1962 (11) LLJ 483] the Court converted the

award of reinstatement into compensation of a sum of Rs.

50000 as just and fair compensation in full satisfaction of

all his claims for wrongful dismissal from service. In O.P

Bhandari [1986 (11) LLJ 509], the Apex Court observed

that it was a fit case for grant of compensation in view of

reinstatement. The Court awarded compensation equivalent

to 3.33 years salary as reasonable. In M.K. Aggarwal (1988

Lab. I.C. 380), the Apex Court though confirmed the order

of reinstatement yet restricted the back salary to 50% of

what would otherwise be payable to the employee. In

Yashveer Singh (1993 Lab. I.C. 44) the court directed

payment of Rs. 75000 in view of reinstatement with back

wages. In Naval Kishore [1984 (11) LLJ 473], the Apex Court

observed that in view of the special circumstances of the

case adequate compensation would be in the interest of

the appellant. A sum of Rs. 2 lac was awarded as

compensation in liew of reinstatement. In Sant Raj [1985

(11) LLJ 19], a sum of Rs. 2 Lac was awarded as

compensation in liew of reinstatement. In Chandu Lal (1988

Lab. I.C. 12225) a compensation of Rs. 2 Lac by way of

back wages in liew of reinstatement was awarded. In Ras

Bihari (1988 Lab. I.C. 107) a compensation of Rs. 65000 was

granted in liew of reinstatement, since the employee was

gainfully employed elsewhere. In V.V. Rao (1991 Lab. I.C.

1650) a compensation of Rs. 2.50 lac was awarded in liew

of reinstatement.

43. Claimant worked for about two years with the

Nigam. His services were discontinued in 1996. Now,

the Tribunal is handing down its award in the year 2013.

Consequently, it is clear that period of 17 years have

elapsed. Relying the above law relating to grant of

compensation, I am of the considered opinion that a

sum of Rs. 75,000.00 would be appropriate

compensaiton to the claimant in lieu of his

reinstatement in service. Since the claimant had to

contest the case for a decade, an amount of Rs.

25,000.00 is also granted to him as cost of litigation,

which shall be brone by the Nigam.

Relief

44. As projected above, it is not a case for grant of

reinstatement in service. However, taking into account

entire facts of the controversy, alongwith surrounding

circumstances, I am of the view that compensation of

Rs. 75,000.00 in liew of reinstatement in service and cost

of Rs. 25000 would meet ends of justice. Consequently,

the Nigam is commended to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh,

as compensation in liew of his reinstatement in service and

cost of litigation, within a period of one month from the

date of the award becomes operative. An award is,

accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publicaiton.

Dated : 07.06.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1486-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsdsVªh]

,uñMhñ,eñlhñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k eas fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uñ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

83@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&6&2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@34@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1486.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the The Secretary,

NDMC and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24.06.2013.

[No. L-42011/34/2012-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.No 83/2012

The General Secretary

Municipal Employees Union,

Agarwal Bhawan,

G.T. Road, Tis Hazari,

Delhi-110054.

.......Workman

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3709

Versus

The Secretary

New Delhi Municipal Council,

13th Floor, Palika Kendra,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001.

....Management

AWARD

A mail on muster roll was engaged by New Delhi

Municipal Council (in short the council) with effect from

01.01.1987. His services were regularized by the Council

on 01.04.1997. In his attestation from, got filled for

verification of his antecedents, the mali gave false

information to the Council with regard to pendancy of a

criminal case against him. When facts came to light,

memo dated 23.04.1999 was served, which was followed

by another memo dated 19.07.1999. Services of the mali

were terminated by the Council, vide order dated

26.03.2001. He preferred an appeal, which also came to

be dismissed.

2. The mali, namely, Shri Ved Ram raised a demand

for reinstatement in service of the Council, which was

not conceded to. Aggrieved by that act, he raised an

industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer

(Government of NCT of Delhi). Since his claim was

contested by the Council, conciliation proceedings ended

into a failure. On consideration of failure report, submitted

by the Conciliation Officer, Government of NCT of Delhi

referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court

No. VIII, located at Karkardooma courts complex, Delhi,

vide order No. F-24(4379/2001-Lab 4783-87-Delhi

dated 01.04.2002 with following terms:

"Whether termination of Shri Ved Ram, son of

Shri Inder Singh from service is illegal and/or

unjustified by the management, and if so, to what

sum of money as monetary relief, alongwith

consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/

Government. Notification and to what other

relief is he entitled and what direction are

necessary in this espect?"

3. Claim statement was filled by Shri Ved Ram

before the Labour Court. Facts detailed therein were

demurred by the Council through its written statement.

Claimant testified facts in support of his claim. Shri R.S.

Chauhan was examined by the Council. On consideration

of pleadings, fact testified by the aforesaid witnesses and

submissions made by the parties, the Labour Court found

no illegality in order dated 26.03.2001, on the strength

of which services of the claimant were terminated by the

Council. Award dated 12.10.2006 was passed by the

Labour Court in favour of the Council and against the

claimant.

4. It is not a matter of dispute that the said award was

published by the Government of NCT of Delhi under sub-

section (1) of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). On expiry of 30 days from the

date of publication of the award dated 12.10.2006, it

became enforceable under provisions of Section 17A of

the Act. It attained finality under provisions of sub section

(2) of Section 17 of the Act. When the award attained

finality, the claimant raised an industrial dispute before

the Conciliation Officer (Central), who aslo entered into

conciliation proceedings. Since the matter was again

contested by the Council, conciliation proceedings ended

into failure. On consideration of failure report, so

submitted by the Conciliation Officer (Central), the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication, vide orders dated L-42011/34/

2012-IR(DU) New Delhi dated 13.06.2012 with following

terms:

"Whether action of the management of NDMC

in terminating services of Shri Ved Ram, ex-

mali, Horticulture Department with effect from

26.03.2001 is legal and justified? If so, to what

relief workman is entitled to?”

5. Claim statement was filed by Shri Ved Ram pleading

therein that initially he was engaged as a mali on muster

roll by the Council with effect from 01.01.1987. His services

were regularized with effect from 01.04.1997. He had an

unblemished record of service to his credit. Memo dated

23.04.1999 was served on him alleging therein that he had

given false information with regard to pendancy of criminal

case against him in attestation form, filled in for verification

of his antecedents. He submitted reply dated 10.05.1999

wherein he explained that he was falsely framed in that

case. Another memo dated 19.07.1999 was served, which

was also suitably replied by him However, his services

were terminated by the Council in an illegal and malafide

manner, vide order dated 26.03.2001. He preferred an appeal

on 02.05.2001, to which the competent authority has not

taken any cognizance.

6. He unfolds that against the said illegal and malafide

termination, he raised an industrial dispute bearing Id No.

855/06/02 before the Labour Court constituted by the

Government of NCT of Delhi. The said dispute culminated

into an award dated 12.10.2006, wherein action of

termination of his service was held to be legal and justified.

7. He admits that he was convicted by the Court of

Shri V. K. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi

vide judgement dated 31.05.2008 and released of

probation. After expiry of period of probation, he moved

application before the Council for reinstatement of his

services. He projects that the action of the Council

in not reinstating him in service is illegal and uncalled

3710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

for. According to him, he was a regular employee of the

Council. He had rendered more than 240 days continuous

service in a calendar year, as contemplated by Section

25B of the Act. Action of the Council amounts to unfair

labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and

39(d) of the Constitution of India. He projects that no

charge sheet was served upon him, not to talk of initiating

domestic action for his alleged misconduct. Council had

discriminated him in the matter of reinstatement of service

while, Shri D.P. Vats, Shri Sanjay Verma and Shri Raj

Kumar were reinstated in service after conclusion of

criminal case(s). Action of the Council is also violative

of the provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the

Act, besides rule 76,77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. He claims that an award may be

passed declaring action of the Council in terminating his

services vide order dated 26.03.2001, as illegal and

unjustified. He also claims continuity in service with full

back wages, besides all consequential benefits.

8. Demurral was made by the Council pleading that

contention raised by the claimant were considered and

rejected by the Labour Court vide its award dated

12.10.2006. Services of the claimant were dispensed with

on account of concealment of facts in the attestation form,

wherein he had not disclosed pendancy of criminal case

against him. Claim put forth by the claimant that after his

conviction and release on probation, he is entitled to

reinstatement in service, is misconceived and baseless.

Factum of his release on probation by the criminal court

nowhere ameliorates his position, pleads the Council. It

has been claimed that the case projected by the claimant

is devoid of merits, hence it may be dismissed with heavy

and exemplary cost.

9. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

Whether award dated 12.10.2006, passed by the

Labour Court constituted by Government of NCT

of Delhi, operates as res judicata?

Whether termination of services of the claimant,

in view of provisions of Temporary Civil Service

Rules 1965, does amount to retrenchment under

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

As in terms of reference.

10. Since facts were not in dispute and issues are

legal, parties were not called upon to lead evidence in the

matter.

11. Pradeep Kaushik, authorised representative of

the claimant, opted to file written arguments, instead of

making oral submissions. Shri Vikas Nagpal, authorised

representative of the Council, also followed suit. Thus

parties filed their written submissions and opted not to

present parole facts. I have given my careful

considerations to the facts and cautiously perused the

records. My findings on issues involved in the controversy

are as follows:

Issue no. 1

12. Award dated 12.10.2006 passed by the Labour

Court, constituted by the Government of NCT of Delhi,

has been placed on record. Claimant nowhere projects that

he sought judicial review of the said award before the writ

court. It has also not been a matter of dispute that the

award was published by the Government of NCT of Delhi

in pursuance of provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section

17 of the Act. No case has been projected by the claimant

to the effect that Government of NCT of Delhi formed an

opinion to reject or modify the award under the provisions

of Section 17A of the Act. Thus, it is apparent that the

award attained finality under sub-Section (2) of Section

17 of the Act, after expiry of 30 days from the date of its

publication and it became enforceable.

13. Question for consideration comes as to whether

the said award operates as res-judicata? For an answer to

the proposition law relating to the doctrine of res-judicata

is to be considered. Law contained in Section 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short the Code)

embodies he doctrine of res-judicata or the rule of

conclusiveness of a judgment, as to the point decided

either of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every

subsequent suit between the same parties. It enacts that

once a matter is finally decided by a competent Court, no

party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent

litigation. The doctrine of res-judicata has been explained

in the simplest possible manner by Das Gupta J. in the

case of Statyadhyan Ghosal (AIR 1960 S.C. 941) in the

following words:

"The principle of res-judicata is based on the

need of giving a finality to judicial decision.

What it says is that once a res-is judicata, it shall

not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as

between past litigation and future litigation.

When a matter-whether on a question of fact or

a question of law—has been decided between two

parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision

is final, either because no appeal was taken to a

higher court or because the appeal was dismissed,

or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed

in a future suit or proceedings between the same

parties to convass the matter again."

14. It is not every matter decided in a former suit

that will operate as res-judicata in a subsequent suit. To

constitute a matter as res-judicata under Section 11 of

the Code, the following conditions must be satisfied:

The matter directly and substantially in issue in the

subsequent suit must be the same matter which was

directly and substantially in issue either actually or

constructively in the former.

The former suit must have been a suit between the

same parties or between parties under whom they

or any of them claim.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3711

Such parties must have been litigating under the

same title in the former suit.

The court which decided the former suit must be a

court competent to try the subsequent suit or the

suit in which such issue is subsequently raised.

The matter directly and substantially in issue in the

subsequent suit must have been heard and finally

decided by the court in the former suit.

15. Section 11 of the Code bars trial of any suit as

well as an issue which had been decided in a former suit.

Issues are of three kinds: (i) Issue of fact; (ii) Issue of

law; and (iii) Mixed issues of law and fact. A decision on

an issue of fact, however erroneous it may be, constitutes

res judicata between the parties to the previous suit and

cannot be reagitated in collateral proceedings. Law to this

effect was laid in Mathura Prashad (1970 (1) SCC 613).

A mixed issue of law and fact also, for the same reasons,

operates as res-judicata.

16. To invoke plea of res judicata it should be shown

that the court which decided the former suit must have

been a court competent to try the subsequent suit. Thus,

the decision in a previous suit by a court, not competent

to try the subsequent suit, will not operate as res judicata.

The expression "competent to try" means "competent to

try the subsequent suit if brought at the time the first suit

was brought." In other words, the relevant point of time

for decided the question of competence of the court is

the date when the former suit was brought and not the

date when the subsequent suit was filed. In order that a

decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the

court which decided that suit must have been either - (a) a

court of exclusive jurisdiction, or (b) a court of limited

jurisdiction; and (c) a court of concurrent jurisdiction.

17. In industrial jurisdiction principles analogus to

res-judicata are applicable. In Nawab Hussain (1977 Lab.

IC 911) an enunciation of general principle of doctrine

of res-judicata are ruled as follows:

“is not based on prevailing circumstances but on

right claimed long existing but bound by the

Labour Court as non existence and there is no

scope for any change of the rights or in the claim

of the workman on the employer by reasons of

change of circumstances. In this state of affair,

there can be no dispute that in such case,

principle of res-judicata will have full

application."

19. In Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. (1975 (2) LLJ 345),

three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has gone to the

extent of even applying principle of constructive res-

judicata and ruled as follows:

"The doctrine of res-judicata is a wholesome one

which is applicable not merely to matters

governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure but to all litigations. It proceeds on

the principle that there should be no unnecessary

litigation and whatever claims and defences are

open to parties should all be put forward at the

same time provided no confusion is likely to

arise by so putting forward all such claims."

20. In Mumbai Kaamgaar Sabha (1976 (2) LLJ 186),

the Apex Court observed that it is clear law. So long as

above relating circumstances stands, that industrial

litigation is no exception to the general principle

underlying the doctrine of res-judicata. It expressed a

doubt about the extension of the sophisticated doctrine

of constructive res-judicata to industrial law which is

governed by special methodology of conciliation,

adjudication and considerations of peaceful industrial

relations where collective bargaining and pragmatic

justice claim precedence over formalised rules of

decision based on individual contests, specific causes of

action and findings on particular issues.

21. Now it would be considered as to whether the

ingredients of principles analogous to res-judicata are

available for the present controversy. For an answer to

this proposition, it would be noted as to whether the

Labour Court, constituted by the Government of NCT of

Delhi, is competent to entertain the present dispute. For

an answer to this proposition, definition of appropriate

Government is to be taken note of Consequently,

definition of the phrase is extracted thus:

"2(a) "appropriate Government" means—

(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning

any industry carried on by or under the authority

of the Central Government or by a railway

company or concerning any such controlled

industry as may be specified in this behalf by the

Central Government or in relation to an industrial

dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board

established under Section 5A of the Dock

Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948

(9 of 1948), or the Industrial Finance

Corporation of India Limited formed and

registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of

1956) or the Employees' State Insurance

Corporation established under Section 3 of the

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of

1948), or the Board of Trustees and the State

Board of Trustees Section 5A and Section 5B,

respectively, of the Employees' Provident Fund

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of

1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India

established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance

Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the Oil

and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered

under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or

3712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation established under section 3 of the

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the

Central Warehousing Corporation established

under section 3 of the Warehousing

Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit

Trust of India established under section 3 of the

Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the

Food Corporation of India established under

section 3, or a Board of Management established

for two or more contiguous States under section

16, of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37 of

1964), or the Airports Authority of India

constituted under section 3 of the Airports

Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a

Regional Rural Bank established under section

3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of

1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee

Corporation Limited or the Industrial

Reconstruction Corporation of India Limited, the

National Housing Bank established under section

3 of the National Housing Banks Act, 1987 (53 of

1987) or the Banking Service Commission Act 1975

or an air transport service, or a banking or an

insurance company, a mine, an oil field, a

Cantonment Board, or a major port, an company

in which not less than fifty one percent of the

paid up share capital is held by the Central

Government, or any Corporation, not being a

Corporation referred to in this clause,

established by or under any law made by

Parliament, or the Central public sector

undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the

principal undertaking and autonomous bodies

owned or controlled by the Central Government,

the Central Government, and

(ii) In relation to any other industrial dispute,

the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary

companies set up by the principal undertaking

and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by

the State Government, the State Government;

Provided that in case of a dispute between a

contractor and the contract labour employed

through the contractor in any industrial

establishment where such dispute first arose, the

appropriate Government shall be the Central

Government or the Stated Government, as the

case may be, which has control over such

industrial establishement;

22. In relation to an industrial dispute, appropriate

Government can either mean the Central Government or

the State Government. The Central Government has been

defined under section 3(60) and the State Government under

section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In relation

to an industrial dispute concerning—

an industry carried on or under the authority of the

Central Government, or a railway company, or

an such controlled industry as may be specified in

this behalf by the Central Government, or

a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A

of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment)

Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or

the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited

formed and registered under the companies Act,

1956, or

the Employees' State Insurance Corporation

established under section 3 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or

the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A

of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948),

the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards

of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section

5B, respectively, of the Employees' Provident Fund

and Miscellneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of

1952), or

the Life Insurance Corporation of India established

under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation

Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or

the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or

10.

the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation established under section 3 of the

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or

11.

the Central Warehousing Corporation established

under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations

Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or

12.

the Unit Trust of India established under section 3

of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963),

13.

the Food Corporation of India established under

section 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37

of 1964), or

14.

a Board of Management established for two or more

contiguous States under section 16 of the Food

Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or

15.

the Airports Authority of India constituted under

section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994

(55 of 1994), or

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3713

16.

a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3

of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of

1976), or

17.

the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation

Limited, or

18.

the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited,

19.

the National Housing Bank established under

section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987

(53 of 1987), or

20.

an air transport service, or

21.

a banking company, or

22.

an insurance company, or

23.

a mine, or

24.

an oil-field, or

25.

a Cantonment Board, or

26.

a "major port, or

27.

any company in which not less than fifty-one per

cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the

Central Government, or

28.

any corporation, not being a corporation referred

to in this clause, established by or under any law

made by Parliament, or

29.

the Central public sector undertaking, or

30.

subsidiary companies set up by the principal

undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or

controlled by the Central Government, the

appropriate Government would mean the Central

Government."

23. In relation to an industrial dispute appropriate

Government can either mean Central Government or

State Government. Central Government has been defined

under section 3(8) and State Government under section

3(60) of the General Clauses Act 1897. In relation to

any industrial dispute, other than those specified in sub

clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Act,

appropriate Government would be State Government. In

other words, all industrial disputes which are outside

the purview of sub-clause (i) are concern of the State

Government under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of

Section 2 of the Act. Thus, the general rule is that an

industrial dispute raised between employer and his

employee would be referred for adjudication by the State

Government, except in cases falling under section 2(a)(i)

of the Act. Consequently, where industrial dispute which

does not fall within the ambit of section 2(a)(i) of the

Act, appropriate Government cannot be the Central

Government.

24. Who shall be the appropriate Government for

the present dispute? Answer has been provided in clause

(a)(ii) of section 2 of the Act, which contemplates that in

relation to any other industrial dispute the State

Government is the appropriate Government. However, this

Tribunal is not oblivious of the proposition that union

territory of Delhi enjoins a special status under the

Constitution Delhi is a Union Territory having some

special provision with respect to its administration.

Article 239 of the Constitution speaks that every union

territory shall be administered by the President acting, to

such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to

be appointed by him with such designation as he may

specify. Article 239 AA makes special provisions with

respect to Delhi, detailing therein that the union territory

of Delhi shall be called the National Capital Territory of

Delhi and the administrator thereof appointed in article

239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor. There

shall be Legislative Assembly, and provisions of article

324 to 327 and 329 shall apply in relation the Legislative

Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi as

they apply in relation to a State. The Legislative Assembly

shall have power to make laws for the whole or any part

of the National Capital Territory with respect to the matters

enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List except

the matter with respect to entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State

List and entries 64, 65 and 66 of that list, in so for they

relate to the said entries 1, 2 and 18. The Council of

Ministers shall be headed by the Chief Minister to aid

advise the Lt. Governor in exercise of his functions in

relation of the matters with respect to which the

Legislative Assembly has power to make laws. In case

difference of opinion between Lt. Governor and his

ministers on any matter, the Lt. Governor shall refer it to

the President for decision and act according to the

decision given thereon by the President and pending such

decision the Ld. Governor is competent to take action in

urgent matters. The Chief Minister shall be appointed by

the President and Ministers shall be appointed by the

President on the advise of the Chief Minister. Therefore,

it is evident that though a Legislative Assembly is there in

National Capital Territory of Delhi, yet it is a union

territory administered by the President through the

Administrator appointed by him. In case of difference of

opinion between the Administrator and the Ministers, it

is the decision of the President that prevails.

Consequently the State Government merges with the

Centre when Lt. Governor administer the Union Territory

or in case of difference of opinion the President decides

the issue.

25. State Government has been defined in clause

(60) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897,

in respect of anything done or to be done after

commencement of the Constitution (7th Amendment)

Act, 1956 in a case of State, the Governor and in a Union

3714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Territory, the Central Government. Therefore, it is evident

that for a Union Territory, no distinction has been made

between the State and the Central Government. The President

administers the Union Territory, through an Administrator

appointed by him. In case of National Capital Territory of

Delhi, it is being administered by the President though the

Lieutenant Governor. Though there is a legislative Assembly

and Council of Ministers, yet in case of difference of

opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and Council of

Ministers, the decision of the President shall prevail, which

fact make it clear that for the purpose of administration of

the union territory, the Central and the State Government

merges over certain matter.

26. High Court of Delhi was confronted with such

a proposition in M.K. Jain (1981 Lab. I.C. 62) wherein it

was laid as follows:

“The award was sought to be voided, inter alia,

on the ground that by virtue of the constitution

and composition of the Corporation, Central

Government was the only authority competent

to make a reference of the dispute to the

Industrial Court and that the reference by the

Lieutenant Governor of Delhi was, therefore, in

excess of powers. Even otherwise no exception

could be taken to the order of reference, even if

it be assumed that Central Government was the

appropriate Government, in as much as the

distinction between the Central and the State

Government in relation to the Union Territory

in our constitutional framework is rendered

illusory, Union Territory is administered by the

President of India under Article 239 of the

Constitution of India, acting to such extent as he

thinks fit. Therefore the Administrator, to be

appointed by him, in the case of Union territory,

there is an amalgamation of the constitutional

classification of legislative and executive powers

between the Centre and the States. According to

section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act, the

“Central Government” in relation to the

administration of Union Territory means the

Administrator acting within the scope of

authority given to him under article 239 of the

Constitution of India and in terms of section

3(60) of the General Clauses Act, "State

Government" as respects anything done or to be

done in the Union Territory means the Central

Government. In the case of Union Territory,

therefore, the Central and State Governments

merge and it is immaterial whether an order of

reference is made by one or the other. This

contention must, therefore, fail.”

27. Again in Mahavir [97 (2002) DLT 922] the High

Court was confronted with the same proposition. Relying

the precedent in M.K. Jain (supra) with profit it was ruled

that reference made by the Government of NCT of Delhi

was not bad despite the fact that appropriate Government

was the Central Government. Difference of State

Government and Central Government goes to the brink

of abolition when State Government has been defined as

the Central Government by clause (60) of section 3 of

the General Clauses Act and Delhi is being administered

by the President through the Administrator appointed by

him. Therefore, the aforesaid precedents make it clear

that a status of Union Territory of Delhi can be termed as

Central Government in certain matters.

28. Whether the Central Government can be termed

as State Government for any purpose? Article 53 of the

Constitution provides that the executive power of the

Union shall vest in the President and shall be exercised

by him either directly or through officers subordinate to

him in accordance with the Constitution. Article 73

defines extent of executive power of the Centre, that is,

on matters which shall be controlled and administered by

the Central executive. It has been detailed therein that the

executive power of the union shall extend—(a) to the

matters with respect to which Parliament has power to

make laws and (b) to the exercise of such rights, authority

and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of

India by virtue of any treaty or agreement. The extent of

the State's executive power is set out in Article 161 of

the Constitution. Administrative relations between the

union and the states is to be dealt in accordance with the

provisions of Article 256, 257, 258, 258A, 260 and 261

of the Constitution. Article 258A was added by 7th

Amendment Act, 1956 to make a matching provision to

clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution. While

exercising powers contained in clause (1) of Article 258,

the President is empowered to enstrust union functions

to a State Government or its officers. There was no

provisions enabling the Governor of a State to entrust state

functions to the Central Government or its officers. That

lacuna was found to be of practicable difficulty and

provisions of Article 258A were inserted in the

Constitution. Thus it is evident that arena of union

executive powers and the state executive powers are well

defined.

29. Clause (8) of section 3 of the General Clauses

Act defines the Central Government in relation to

administration of Union Territory, the Administrator

thereof acting within the scope of authority given to him

under Article 239 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is

evident that Administrator of Government of N.C.T. Delhi

has been defined to mean as Central Government to

administer the Union Territory of Delhi. Hence for the

limited purposes, provided in the Constitution, executive

functions of the Central Government can be entrusted to

Government of a State or its Officers. The Central

Government would not be termed as the State Government,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3715

when those functions are being executed by the State

Government or its officers. So executive power of the

Union can be exercised, in certain matters by the State

Government or its officers.

30. As detailed above, in case of Union Territory of

Delhi, the concept of appropriate government stood

blurred. State Government loses its identity in certain

matters and reference order by the State Government would

be treated as reference by the Central Government and

vice versa. Therefore, reference of the dispute to the Labour

Court constituted by Government of NCT of Delhi would

be reference or order made by the Central Government.

The Labour Court, constituted by the Government of NCT

of Delhi, is competent to adjudicate subsequent reference

order. Parties in the dispute happens to be the same and

gravamen of the dispute is one and the same. Dispute

adjudicated by the Government of NCT of Delhi does not

relate to the change of circumstances. Case raised before

the Labour Court constituted by the Government of NCT

of Delhi, was not passed on prevailing circumstances, but

on a right claimed to have been existing in favour of the

claimant, which were held to be non-existent by the

industrial adjudicator. Thus, it is crystal clear that all

ingredients of the principles analogous to doctrine of

resjudicata are applicable in the present controversy. Award

dated 12.10.2006 operates as resjudicata. Issue is, therefore,

answered in favour of the Council and against the claimant.

Issue No. II

31. In award dated 12.10.2006, industrial adjudicator

places reliance on the precedent in Shamim Akhtar Khan

[2005 (2) AD (Delhi) 324], handed down by High Court of

Delhi, with profit. Law laid therein was reproduced by the

Industrial Adjudicator in the Award, which runs as

follows:

"It is, therefore, established from the aforesaid

factual matrix that the petitioner not only

supressed material and factual information in the

attestation form but he also furnished false

information. No information was given by the

petitioner regarding the institution and pendancy

of the aforesaid criminal case against him in

which even a charge sheet is filed against him or

of his arrest. The aforesaid information that a

criminal case is instituted and pending against

him was required to be disclosed by the

petitioner at the time of his enrolment and at the

time of filling up of the aforesaid attestation

form. The petitioner deliberately gave wrong

information to the respondents as against the

queries made under clause 12 of the attestation

form and also suppressed material facts. The fact

of pendancy of criminal case against the

petitioner came to light and to the knowledge of

the respondents only on receipt of the report

from the District Magistrate and the police

authorities. The petitioner was also given an

opportunity to explain his position by issuing a

show cause notice. Even at that stage the

petitioner did not clearly state regarding the

pendancy of the said case against him and feigned

ignorance about the said case. Therefore, we are

of the considered opinion that the action taken

by the respondents in discharging the petitioner

from service is legal and justified. We find no

reason to interfere with the order of discharge

passed by the respondents. The writ petition has

no merit and is accordingly dismissed."

32, Considering facts of the controversy, the

industrial adjudicator ruled in the Award referred above,

as follows:

"In view, of the above discussion, I am satisfied

that the services of the workman having been

dispensed with under section 5 (1) of Central

Civil Temporary Services Rules 1965 on account

of concealing of factual information in the

attestation form. Such termination of service

does not attract section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The concealment of such facts has

been sufficiently proved by the management in

the court and as such, there is no illegality in the

order of termination of service dated

26.03.2001. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided

against the workman."

33. Thus it is evident that findings were recorded

by the Industrial adjudicator that termination of services

of the claimant under the provisions of Central Civil

Service Temporary Service Rules 1965 does not amount

to retrenchment. The said findings has become final, since

Award was neither challenged before the writ court not

modified or rejected by the appropriate Government under

provisions of section 17A of the Act. Consequently, it is

concluded that the termination of services of the claimant

does not amount to retrenchment under provisions of the

Act. Issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the Council

and against the claimant.

Issue No. III

34. While award dated 12.10.2006 was in force,

appropriate Government referred the present dispute for

adjudication of this Tribunal. Record tells that on the

strength of earlier reference order, a dispute between Ved

Ram son of Shri Inder Singh and the Council was referred

for adjudication to the Labour Court, constituted by the

Government of NCT of Delhi. The terms of reference

raised a question as to whether act of terminating the

services of Shri Ved Ram by the Council is illegal and or

unjustified and if so what relief the workman is entitled

to? This dispute was adjudicated in favour of the Council

3716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vide award dated 12.10.2006, which came in operation

after expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication.

Thus it is evident that the aforesaid award is in operation

and binds the parties.

35. Question for consideration would be as to

whether the approrpriate Government was justified in

making the present reference, during the period when award

dated 12.10.2006 subsists. As the facts highlight, the

subsequent reference is between the same parties on the

same facts. When award dated 12.10.2006 is in force, in

respect to the industrial dispute, the appropriate

Government cannot refer the said dispute afresh to this

Tribunal, by merely changing the phraseology of the

dispute. This Tribunal will not have any jurisdiction to

entertain the fresh reference in respect of the subject

matter, on which the award dated 12.10.2006 binds the

parties. There could be no reference when a valid award

subsists. The Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to

entertain this subsequent reference made by the

appropriate Government, without application of mind. In

case precedents are needed then reference can be made

to British India Corporation Ltd., (13 FJR 352) and

Bangalore W-C-&-Mills Ltd. [1968 (1) LLJ 555].

36. In view of the above reasons, it is apparent that

precedents in Sandeep Kumar [2011 (1) SCC (L&S) 734]

has no application to the facts of the present controversy.

The said precedent cannot provide accolade to the

claimant. His claim is devoid of merits. Claimant dragged

the Council into an unwarranted controversy. However,

considering the fact that the claimant is out of job, no

cost is imposed upon him. His claim is brushed aside. An

award is, accordingly, passed against the claimant and in

favour of the Council. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 29.05.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1487-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fMIVh lqifjuVsUMsUV]

vkjDyksftdy losZ vkWQ bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ldjkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 156@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&06&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@22@1997&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1487.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 156/

1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the The Dy.

Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.06.2013.

[No. L-42011/22/1997-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 156/1997

The General Secretary,

A.B.P. Sarvekshan Kamgar Union,

E-26, Raja Bazar,

Baba Kharak Singh Marg,

New Delhi

......Workman

Versus

The Dy. Superintendent,

Archaeological Survey of India,

North Division No. 2,

Safdarjung Tomb,

New Delhi.

.....Management

AWARD

Putti Lal, Babu Lal, Satya Dev, Hare Ram, Ravinder,

Kedar Prasad and Phool Kali were engaged by

Archaeological Survey of India (in short the management)

for casual jobs since long. Temporary status was not

granted to them by the management. They raised a demand

for according termporary status, which was not considered

by the management. Constrained by these facts, they raised

a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, in which he

entered into conciliation proceedings. Since claim was

contested by the management, hence conciliation

proceedings ended into failure. Conciliation Officer

submitted failure report of the appropriate Government

vide his letter No. ALC-II/8(13)/96 dated 12.05.1997.

On consideration of failure report, so submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No. L-42011/22/97-IR(DU), New Delhi dated

23.09.1997, with following terms:

"Whether the action of Archaeological Survey

of India in terminating services of S/Shri Putti

Lal, Babu Lal, Satya Dev, Hare Ram, Ravinder,

Kedar Prasad and Phool Kali is just, fair and

legal? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?"

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3717

2. Claim statement was filed by the claimants

pleading that they are in the service of the managements,

particulars of which are detailed as follows:

S/Shri

Father/

Year of

Date

Husband's

Engage-

termi-

Name

ment

nation

Putti Lal

Shukru

1982

09.2.96

Babu Lal

Nanaku

1986

24.1.96

Satya Dev

Alagu

1988

24.1.96

Hare Ram

Ram Nath

1989

09.2.96

Ravinder

Babu Lal

1989

09.2.96

Kedar Prasad

Mohan Shah

1990

24.1.96

Phool Kali

W/o Mewa Lal 1990

09.2.96

3. Claimants unfold that on 22.10.1995, they raised

a dispute before the Conciliation Officer for grant of

permanent status. Conciliation Officer entered into

conciliation proceedings and called the management to

put in appearance on 17.10.1995. Despite pendancy of

conciliation proceedings, management terminated their

services from 24.01.1996 to 09.02.1996, as detailed

above. Neither their wages nor notice pay and

retrenchment compensation was paid to them. They have

completed more than 240 days of service and have been

working with the management since long. Their juniors,

namely, Shri Dalbir Singh and Shri S. Prasad, recruited in

1992, granted temporary status in 1994, in total disregard

to principles of first come, last go. Thus, they were

discriminated by the management. Their wages were being

paid on monthly basis through muster roll.

4.Denial of permanent status to them amounts to

unfair labour practice. Claimants project that the

management is executing, performing works of

maintenance of buildings and operations, gardening,

projection of monuments, plantation etc. Management is

covered under definition of 'industry or other

establishment', as enacted by section 2(ii)(g) of Payment

of Wages Act, 1936 and as such, provisions of Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable

to it. Their services were dispensed with in violation of

provisions of Model Standing Orders under Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. They project

that they are unemployed and facing starvation. They

further project that as per policy of Government of India,

they are entitled to temporary status. They claim that an

award may be passed reinstating them in service with

continuity.

5. Claim was demurred by the management pleading

that the claimants were engaged as daily wager for seasonal

work. They were not appointed against any post in

accordance with the recruitment rules. There was no

question of their disengagement from service as claimed

by them. Daily wager employee is paid his wages as and

when his services are utilised for seasonal work. There

was no question of payment of compensation and notice

pay to them. It has been pleaded that Shri Suresh Ram and

Shri Dalbir Singh were engaged against vacant regular

posts through employment exchange in 1990. They were

regularised as per rules. Operational work of maintenance

of garden is not profit earning work, hence it is not

covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act). Engagement of daily wager for seasonal work is

not covered under the provisions of Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, hence there

was no question of applicability of Model Standing Orders

to the claimants. Claimants have not fulfilled criteria of

continuous service of 240 days in a year, hence they were

not granted temporary status.

6. The management had made evasive reply to the

proposition that the claimants raised industrial dispute

before the Counciliation Officer on 22.08.1995, seeking

permanent status in service. Silence was maintained on

this proposition in the written statement. No fact was

projected despite claim put forth by the claimants to the

effect that the Conciliation Officer entered into

conciliation proceedings and fixed a date for appearance

of the management on 17.10.1995. It was also not

specifically denied that services of the claimant were

dispensed with from 24.01.1996 to 09.02.1996. Facts

were not disputed to the effect that the claimants were

being paid wages on monthly basis on muster roll.

However, managements pleads that there is no substance

in the claim put forth by the claimants. It may be

dismissed, being devoid of merits.

7. Vide order dated 06.10.1998, present matter was

consolidated for the purpose of recording evidence with

industrial dispute No. 82 of 1997 referred for adjudication

by the appropriate Government, while raising a question

as to whether action of the management in not granting

permanent status/regularisation to the claimants is legal

and justified.

8. Claimants namely, Putti Lal (WW1), Babu Lal

(WW2), Satya Dev (WW3), Hare Ram (WW4), Ravinder

(WW5), Kedar Prasad (WW6) and Phool Kali (WW7)

entered the witness box to substantiate their claim.

Shri H.B. Singh, was examined by the management to

prove its stand.

9. Vide order No. H-11026/1/2003-IR (C-II)

New Delhi dated 05.12.2003 case was transferred to

the Central Government Industrial Tribunbal No. II,

New Delhi, for adjudication by the appropriate

Government.

3718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

10. On consideration of evidence and hearing the

parties, award was passed by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi on 20.04.2004 wherein

action of the management in terminating the services of

the claimants was held to be illegal.

11. The award was assailed by the management before

the High Court of Delhi through writ petition bearing WP

No. 16887 of 2004, which came to be disposed of on

10.01.2013. High Court passed following orders:

"15. For all the aforesaid reasons, in my view, this is

a fit case where the impugned award dated 20.04.2004

should be set aside and the matter should be remanded

back to the Labour Court for examination of the following

issuses:

(i)

Whether there was breach of Section 25-G of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the facts of this

case, and if so, to what effect?

(ii)

Whether there was breach of Section 33 on the part

of the management, and if so, to what effect?

16. It is direct accordingly.

17. In view of the aforesaid position, the writ

petitions preferrred by the workmen, being W.P. (C.) Nos.

4739-45/2005 are withdrawn as the issue with regard to

the back wages shall also to be considered afresh in the

light of the findings that may be returned on the specific

aspects in terms of this order.

18. So far as the challenge to the award dated

13.05.2008 in W.P. (C.) No. 7707/2009 is concerned, I

may note that by the said impugned award, the Industrial

Adjudicator has held that the action of the management in

not granting permanent status/regularisation to the

respondents is not legal or justified. This award also cannot

be sustained at this stage as this issue would depend upon

determination afresh of the remanded issues in respect

of the earlier award dated 27.09.1997. Accordingly, the

award dated 13.05.2008 is also set aside leaving it open

to the parties to urge their submissions in respect of the

reference dated 24.06.1997 bearing letter No. L-42011/

9/96-IR(DU) made by the Appropriate Government. The

parties are left to bear their own Costs."

12. Vide notification No. A-11016/3/2009-CS-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 the

case reached this Tribunal for adjudication.

13. Arguments are heard at the bar. Shri B.K. Prasad,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimants. Shri Gyaneshwar, authorised

representative, raised his submission on behalf of the

management. I have given my careful considerations to

the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the records. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:

14. As projected above, claimants plead that they

were engaged by the management since 1982 to 1990. They

worked with the management continuously and raised a

dispute for grant of permanent status on 22.08.1995 before

the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer entered

into conciliation proceedings and called upon the

management to participate in it on 17.10.1995. These facts

were not at all dispelled by the management. Since these

facts were not disputed, hence same are deemed to have

been admitted by the management. Resultantly it come

over the record that the claimants raised the dispute before

the Conciliation Officer on 22.8.1995 seeking permanent

status in the service of the management.

15. Claimants assert that the services of Shri Putti Lal

were dispensed with on 09.02.1996, services of

Shri Babu Lal were done away on 24.01.1996, services of

Shri Satya Dev were terminated on 24.01.1996,

Shri Hare Ram was bade farewell on 09.02.1994, Ravinder

Singh was given marching orders on 09.02.1996,

Shri Phool Kali was thrown out on 24.01.1996 and Shri

Kedar Prasad was made to go on 09.02.1996. These facts

were also not dispelled by the management in its written

statement. When called upon to advance arguments, as to

whether management disputes termination of services of

the aforesaid claimants, on the dates referred above,

Shri Gyaneshwar had to cut a sorry figure. It is crystal clear

that in its written statement, management adopted a posture

of silence on the above facts. Consequently, it apparent

that there is deemed admission of the facts by the

management on above propositions.

16. As projected in the pleadings, an industrial

dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer on

22.08.1995, who called the management to participate in

conciliation proceedings in 17.10.1995. Reference order take

note of file No. ALC II/81/(1)/96 dated 12.05.1997, which

proposition makes it apparent that failure report was

submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate

Government through file referred above. Hence it emerges

that the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report on

12.05.1997 to the appropriate Government.

17. Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(in short the Act) makes provision in respect of

commencement and conclusion of proceedings before the

Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (1) of the said section

contemplates as to when conciliation proceedings

commences before a Conciliation Officer in a public

utility service. The first limb of sub-section (1) speaks

that a conciliation proceeding shall commence on the date

on which a notice of strike or lock out, under section 22

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3719

is received by the Conciliation Officer. The second limb

of the said sub-section provides the proceedings before a

Board shall commence when a reference under sub-

section (1) of section 10 is made by the appropriate

Government, whether the dispute relates to public utility

service or a non-public utility service. Sub-section (2) of

the said section details points of time on which

conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer

or a Board shall be deemed to have been concluded, which

are enumerated thus:

In case a settlement is arrived at, whether before

a Conciliation Officer or the Board the date on

which memorandum of settlement is signed by

the parties to the dispute.

In case no settlement is arrived at:

(a) the date on which the report of the Conciliation

Officer is received by the appropriate Government,

(b) the date on which report of the Board is

published under section 17.

In case, during the pendancy of the conciliation

proceedings the dispute is referred for

adjudicating the date of reference would be date

of the conclusion of the conciliation

proceedings.

18. An industrial dispute was raised on 12.08.1995

by the claimants and conciliation proceedings were

pending till 12.05.1997, date when failure report was

submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate

Government. During pendancy of the conciliation

proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, the

management terminated services of the claimants from

24.01.1996 to 09.02.1996.

19. Section 33 of the Act bars alteration in

conditions of service "prejudicial" to the workman

concerned in the dispute and punishment of discharge or

dismissal when either is connected with pendent-lite

industrial dispute "save with the permission of the

authorities before which the proceedings is pending" or

where the discharge or dismissal is for any misconduct

not connected with the pendent lite industrial dispute

without the "approval of such authority". Prohibition

contained in section 33 of the Act is two fold. On one

hand, they are designed to protect the workman concerned

during the course of industrial conciliation, arbitration

and adjudication, against employers' harassment and

victimization, on account of their having raised the

industrial dispute or their continuing the pending

proceedings and on the other, they seek to maintain status

quo by prescribing management conduct which may give

rise to "fresh dispute" which further exacerbate the already

strained relations between employer and the workman.

Where industrial disputes are pendent lite before an

authority mentioned in the section, it was thought

necessary that such disputes should be conciliated or

adjudicated upon by the authority in a peaceful

atmosphere, undisturbed by any subsequent causes for

bitterness or unpleasantness. To achieve this object, a

ban has been imposed upon the employer exercising his

common law, statutory or contractual right to terminate

services of his employees according to contract or the

provisions of law governing such service. The ordinary

right of the employer to alter the terms of his employees'

services to their prejudice or to terminate their services

under the general law governing contract of employment,

has been banned subject to certain conditions. This ban,

therefore, is designed to restrict the interference of the

general rights and liabilities of the parties under the

ordinary law within the limits truly necessary for

accomplishing the object of those provisions. Anxiety

to know about ban on the right of the employer persuades

me to reproduce the provisions of section 33 of the Act

thus:

"33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain

unchanged under certain circumstances during

pendancy of proceedings.—(1) During the

pendancy of any conciliation proceedings before

a conciliation officer or a Board or of any

proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court

or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an

industrial dispute, no employer shall,—

(a)

in regard to any matter connected with the

dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the

workmen concerned in such dispute, the

conditions of service applicable to them

immediately before the commencement of

such proceedings; or

(b)

for any misconduct connected with the

dispute, discharge or punish, whether by

dismissal or otherwise, any workman

concerned in such dispute.

Save with the express permission in writing

of the authority before which the proceeding

is pending.

(2)

During the pendancy of any such proceeding in

respect of an industrial dispute, the employer

may, in accordance with standing orders

applicable to a workman concerned in such

dispute or, where there are no such standing

orders, in accordance with the terms of the

contract, whether express or implied, between

him and the workman—

(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected

with the dispute, the conditions of service

applicable to that workman immediately

3720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

before the commencement of such

proceeding; or

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the

dispute, discharge or punish, whether by

dismissal or otherwise, that workman:

Provided that no such workman shall be discharged

or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month

and an application has been made by the employer to the

authority before which the proceeding is pending for

approval of the action taken by the employer.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (2), no employer shall, during the pendancy of

any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute,

take any action against any protected workman concerned

in such dispute—

(a)

by altering, to the prejudice of such protected

workman, the conditions of service applicable to

him immediately before the commencement of

such proceeding; or

(b)

by discharging or punishing, whether any dismissal

or otherwise, such protected workman,

save with the express permission in writing of the authority

before which the proceeding is pending.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a

"protected workman", in relation to an establishment,

means a workman who, being a member of the executive

or other office bearer of a registered trade union

connected with the establishment, is recognized as such

in accordance with rules made in this behalf.

(4) In every establishment, the number of workman

to be recognized as protected workmen for the purposes

of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent of the total number

of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum

number of five protected workmen and a maximum

number of one hundred protected workmen and for the

aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make

rules providing for the distribution of such protected

workmen among various trade unions, if any, connected

with the establishment and the manner in which the

workmen may be chosen and recognized as protected

workmen.

(5) Where an employer makes an application to a

conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub-

section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the

authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such

application and pass, within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of such application, such order in

relation thereto as it deems fit.

Provided that where any such authority considers it

necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to be

recorded in writing, extend such period by such further

period as it may think fit.

Provided further that no proceedings before any

such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that any

period specified in this sub-section had expired without

such proceedings being completed.

20. As noted above sub-sections (1) and (2) are

designed for different purposes since sub-section (1)

applies to the proposition when the employer wants to alter

service conditions of the workman to his prejudice in regard

to any matter connected with the dispute or for any

misconduct connected with the dispute, in that situation he

is obliged to seek prior permission in writing of the authority

before whom the dispute is pending and in a case where the

employer wants to alter service conditions of a workman

in regard to a matter not connected with the dispute or for

any misconduct not connected with the dispute, in that

situation he is obliged to seek approval of the order under

sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section. When an employer

violates the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section

(2) of section 33 of the Act, an instant remedy is provided

to the workman by the provisions of section 33A of the

Act. In other words, where an employer has contravened

the provisions of section 33, the aggrieved workman has

been given the option to make a complaint in writing, to

the authority before which an industrial dispute is pending,

with which the aggrieved workman is concerned. The

complaint of such contravention can be made not to the

adjudicating authorities, but to the conciliatory authority

also. If a complaint is made to a conciliatory authority, viz.

a Conciliation Officer or a Board of Conciliation, clause

(a) of section 33A of the act authorizes a Conciliation

Officer or the Board to take such complaint into account

in bringing about a settlement of the complained dispute.

The Conciliation Officer or the Board is not empowered

to adjudicate upon the dispute, which is the area of

adjudicatory authorities. When a complaint is made to

adjudicatory authority viz. Arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal

or National Tribunal, it will adjudicate upon the dispute as

if it is a dispute referred to or pending before it.

21. It has to be seen as to whether there was any

contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act.

As detailed above, the claimants raised a dispute before

the Conciliation Officer on 22.8.1995. Services of the

claimants were dispensed with effect from 24.1.1996 to

9.2.1996. Conciliation proceedings came to an end on

12.5.97, the date when failure report was received by the

appropriate Government. Thus it is crystal clear that acts

of termination of services of the claimants were violative

of provisions of section 33 of the Act. Contravention of

the provisions of section 33 of the Act was made during

the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before the

Conciliation Officer.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3721

22. There is no quarrel on the proposition that the

claimants were aggrieved by the contravention of the

provisions of section 33 of the Act. Since contravention of

the provisions of section 33 of the Act, during pendency

of the conciliation proceedings has come over the record,

now occasion arises for this Tribunal to embark upon an

adjudication of the dispute contained in the complaint

under reference. The dispute which was raised by the

claimants before the Conciliation Officer was not

connected with the dispute in respect of which there

dismissal order was passed. Therefore, the management

was required to move an application for approval of such

an action before Conciliation Officer, as provided by the

provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Admittedly no

such an application for approval was moved by the

management. Since the dispute, which was pending before

the Conciliation Officer at the time of contravention of

section 33 of the Act has been referred to this Tribunal

for adjudication, hence the claimants had rightly filed this

complaint before this Tribunal, as the original proceedings

are pending adjudication before it. The management was

under an obligation to make payment of one month notice

wages and file an application for approval of its action of

dismissal, as the part of the same transaction. No

application for approval was moved.

23. What is the effect of non-moving an application

for approval? Such proposition was taken note of by the

Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sehkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank

(AIR 2002 S.C. 643) wherein it was held that it would be

clear case of contravention of the proviso to section

33(2)(b) of the Act. It would be expedient to reproduce

the law laid in the above precedent, which are extracted

thus:

"The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) as can be seen

from its very unambiguous and clear language,

is mandatory. This apart from the object of

Section 33 and in the context of the proviso to

Section 33(2)(b), it is obvious that the conditions

contained in the said proviso are to be essentially

complied with. Further any employer who

contravenes the provisions of Section 33 invites

a punishment under S.31(1) with imprisonment

for a term which may extend to six months or

with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or with

both. This penal provision is again a pointer of

the mandatory nature of the proviso to comply

with the conditions stated therein. To put it in

other way, the said conditions being mandatory,

are to be satisfied if an order of discharge or

dismissal passed under Section 33(2)(b) is to

be operative, if an employer desires to take

benefit of the said provision for passing an order

of discharge or dismissal of an employee, he has

also to take the burden of discharging the

statutory obligation placed on him in the said

proviso. Taking a contrary view that an order of

discharge or dismissal passed by an employer in

contravention of the mandatory conditions

contained in the proviso does not render such an

order inoperative or void, defeats the very

purpose of the proviso and it becomes

meaningless. It is well settled rule of

interpretation that no part of statute shall be

construed as unnecessary or superfluous. The

proviso cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an

employer. He can not disobey the mandatory

provision and then say that the order of discharge

or dismissal made in contravention of Section

33(2)(b) is not void or inoperative. He cannot

be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.

The interpretation of statute must be such that it

should advance the legislative intent and serve

the purpose for which it is made rather than to

frustrate it. The proviso to Section 33(2)(b)

affords protection to a workman to safeguard his

interest and it is a shield against victimization

and unfair labour practice by the employer during

the pendency of industrial dispute when the

relationship between them are already strained.

An employer cannot be permitted to use the

provision of Section 33(2)(b) to ease out a

workman without complying with the conditions

contained in the said proviso for any alleged

misconduct said to be unconnected with the

already pending industrial dispute. The

protection afforded to a workman under the said

provision cannot be taken away. If it is to be held

that an order of discharge or dismissal passed

by the employer without complying with the

requirements of the said proviso is not void or

inoperative, the employer may with impunity

discharge or dismiss a workman."

24. The Apex Court dealt with the situation of the

withdrawal of such approval application or not making an

application in the following manner:

"The view that when no application is made or

the one made is withdrawn, there is no order of

refusal of such application on merit and as such

the order of dismissal or discharge does not

become void or inoperative unless such an order

is set aside under Section 33A, cannot be

accepted. In our view, not making an application

under Section 33(2)(b) seeking approval or

withdrawing an application once made before any

order is made thereon, is a clear case of

contravention of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b).

An employer who does not make an application

under Section 33(2)(b) or withdraws that one

made, cannot be rewarded by relieving him of

the statutory obligation created on him to make

3722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

such an application. If it is so done, he will be

happier or more comfortable than an employer

who obeys the command of law and makes an

application inviting scrutiny of the authority in

the matter of granting approval of the action taken

by him. Adherence to and obedience of law

should be obvious and necessary in a system

governed by rule of law. An employer by design

can avoid to make an application after dismissing

or discharging an employee or file it and

withdraw before any order is passed on it, on its

merits, to take a position that such order is not

inoperative or till it is set aside under Section

33A notwithstanding the contravention of Section

33(2)(b) proviso, driving the employee to have

recourse to one or more proceeding by making

a complaint under Section 33A or to raise

another industrial dispute or to make a complaint

under Section 31(1). Such an approach destroys

the protection specifically and expressly given

to an employee under the said proviso as against

possible victimization, unfair labour practice or

harassment because of pendency of industrial

dispute so that an employee can be saved from

hardship of unemployment".

25. No application under section 33(2)(b) of the

Act was moved by the management, seeking approval of

their acts of termination of services of the claimant. It is

evident that the acts of terminating the services of the

claimants are void ab initio. The claimants are deemed to

be in the services of the management and orders of

terminating their services are held to be nonest.

26. Claimants allege violation of provisions of

section 25G of the Act. As emerge out of the said

provisions, the Act permits an employer to effect

retrenchment of workmen in its industrial establishment,

but imposes certain conditions precedent, which are to

be complied with in effecting such retrenchment.

Conditions which are to be satisfied by the employer

before he can claim protection under provisions of section

25G are as follows:

(i)

person claiming protection under Section 25G

should be a workman within the meaning of section

2(s) of the Act.

(ii)

He should be a citizen of India.

(iii) Industrial establishment employing such workmen

should be an industry within meaning of section 2(j)

of the Act.

(iv)

Workmen should belong to a particular category of

workmen in that industrial establishment, and

(v)

There should be no agreement between the employer

and the workmen contrary to the procedure of 'last

come, first go".

27. If there is agreement between the employer and

the workman making exception to the rule, provisions of

section 25G of the Act would not apply. Standing Orders

will constitute agreement for the purpose of section 25G

of the Act. Use of the word 'ordinarily' indicates that the

procedure of 'first come, last go" or 'last come, first go"

enacted in section 25G of the Act, should normally be

adhered to. In exigencies where industry so demands,

procedure can be departed from. Only requirement that

the section prescribes in case of which departure from

this procedure is that the employer should record reasons

for this departure. Word 'category' as mentioned in section

25G means class or trade, such as turner, motor mechanic

and electrician etc. Therefore, an employee who first came

in a particular category of employees should go last. For

departure from the rule, there should be reliable evidence,

preferable in the recorded history of the workman

concerned showing their inefficiency, unreliability or

habitual irregularity. Whenever an employer departs from

rule, it is incumbent upon him to establish that departure

was justified by sound and valid reasons and he has

recorded reasons in the order of retrenchment.

28. In affidavit, Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/7, claimants

unfold that their juniors like Shri Dalbir Singh and S.

Prasad who were recruited in 1992 were accorded

temporary status and regularized in service. Only bald

claims are made by them to the effect that Shri Dalbir

Singh and S. Prasad were engaged as casual labours, who

were given temporary status and subsequently regularised

in service. Management projects that aforesaid two

employees were recruited against vacant posts through

employment exchange in 1990, which proposition was

not dispelled. Therefore, it is evident that Shri S. Prasad

and Shri Dalbir Singh were not recruited in the same

category to which claimants belong. Apparently, Shri S.

Prasad and Shri Dalbir Singh were not on the same pedestal

on which the claimants were. Therefore, claimants had

not been able to establish that the persons junior to them,

in the very category in which they were engaged were

retained when they were made to go. Consequently, it is

clear that provisions of section 25G of the Act have not

come into operation.

29. Since the management violated provisions of

section 33 of the Act, claimants are ordered to be

reinstated in the services of the management. Effect of

reinstatement is to restore the employee to its former

capacity, status and employment, as if his services had

never been terminated and the employee gets benefit of

continuity in service. In the absence of cogent reasons to

the contrary, he should be awarded full back wages, which

he would have received had he continued in service.

30. There are exceptions to this rule where the

Tribunal in its discretion may deny or reduce back wages.

In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. 1980 (1) LLJ 137, Apex Court

has ruled as follows:

Certainly, the normal rule, on reinstatement, is

full back wages since the order of termination

is nonest. ...Even so, the industrial court may

well slice off a part if the workmen are not

wholly blameless or the strike is illegal and

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3723

unjustified. To what extent wages for the long

interregnum should be paid is, therefore, a

variable dependent on a complex of

circumstances, but discretion is to be exercised

only in extraordinary cases".

31. Relief of full back wages may be denied when

that would place impossible burden on the employer. The

workman directed under the award to be reinstated with

back wages would not be entitled to back wages for the

period during which he was gainfully employed elsewhere,

because he cannot be allowed to take double advantage

and take excessive amounts relying on wrongful act of

his employer. In Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. [1978 (2) LLJ

474], the Apex Court reiterated that ordinarily workmen

whose services have been illegally terminated would be

entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was

gainfully employed. If the workman was always ready to

work but he was kept away by invalid illegal act on the

part of the employer, there is no justification for not

awarding full back wages, which were legitimately due to

him. Apex Court ruled as follows.

"In the very nature of industry, there cannot to a

straight jacket formula for awarding relief of back

wages. All relevant considerations will enter the

verdict. More or less, it would be a motion

addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full

back wages would be the normal rule and the party

objecting to it must establish the circumstances

necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal

will exercise its discretion keeping in view all

the relevant circumstances. But the discretion

must be exercised in a judicial and judicious

manner".

32. When affidavit of the claimants were scanned,

it came to light that none of them speak that they were

not gainfully employed. There is an eerie silence in the

evidence adduced by the claimants. The management had

also not come forward with any evidence to project that

the claimants were gainfully employed, during the period

of interregnum. Thus, it is evident there is complete lack

of evidence on the issue as to whether back wages should

be granted to the claimants or not. Earlier Tribunal had

awarded 25% of back wages to the claimants. Considering

the long interregnum, I am of the considered view that

reinstatement with 20% of back wages would meet ends

of justice. Resultantly, an award is passed, commanding

the management to reinstate the claimants in service with

continuity and 20% of back wages at the rate at which

they were drawing wages at the time of their termination.

An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Date: 31.05.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1488-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekuMsUV]

bf.M;u feySVªh ,sdMeh] nsgjknwu 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 ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 91@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&14011@08@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1488.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.91/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the Commandant, Indian

Military Academy, Dehradun and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24.06.2013.

[No. L-14011/08/2011-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

I.D. No. 91/2011

Shri Shrichand,

S/o Shri Ram Charan,

R/o Near Gauri Shankar Mandir,

PO-Prem Nagar,

Dehradun

.....Workman

Versus

The Commandant,

Indian Military Academy,

PO-Rangar Walla, Prem Nagar,

Dehradun

....Management

AWARD

A casual labour was engaged by Indian Military

Academy, Dehradun (in short the Academy) for a period of

9 days in July 1986. Thereafter, he was again engaged

for a period of 6 days in September 1991. Except these

two spells of engagement, the casual labour was not

hired by the Academy at any point of time. However,

the casual labour asserted before the Conciliation

Officer that he worked with the Academy as a mali for

a long period of 35 years. According to the casual

3724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

labour, his services were dispensed with in an illegal

manner, in the year 2008. He raised a demand for

reinstatement of his service in January 2011, but his

demand was not conceded to. He approached the

Conciliation Officer seeking redressal of his grievance.

The Conciliation Officer called upon the authorities of

the Academy, who contested the claim. As such, the

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No.2, New Delhi, for adjudication vide order No.L-14011/

8/2011-IR(DU), New Delhi dated 03.10.2011 with following

terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian

Military Academy, Dehradun, in terminating the

services of Shri Shrichand, Mali, with effect from

01.02.2009 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

2. In the reference order, referred above, the

appropriate Government commanded the claimant to file

his claim statement, with complete relevant documents,

list of reliance and witnesses, to the Tribunal within 15

days of receipt of the order of reference. Despite the

command so given, the casual labour, namely, Shri

Shrichand opted not to file his claim statement before

the Tribunal.

3. Notice was issued by the Tribunal to the claimant

on 16.11.2011 by registered post, calling upon him to

file his claim statement on or before 15.12.2011.

Neither the postal article was received back nor postal

services remain affected during November 2011 to

December 2011. Therefore, every presumption lies in

favour or the fact that notice sent to the claimant at his

residential address at ‘near Gauri Shankar Mandir, PO

Prem Nagar, Dehradun’ was duly served upon him.

Despite service of notice, claimant opted not to file his

claim statement.

4. 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 the

case reached this Tribunal for adjudication.

5. Another notice was sent to the claimant by

registered post on 08.05.2013, calling upon him to file

his claim statement on or before 13.06.2013. The notice

was received back with the report that the claimant had

expired.

6. None on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased

claimant approached this Tribunal for their substitution

and to file claim statement. Thus, it is evident that the

legal heirs of the deceased claimant are not interested in

projecting grievances before this Tribunal. On the other

hand, the Academy had filed its response before the

Tribunal detailing therein that the claimant was engaged

as a casual labour for a period of 9 days in July 1986 and

for a period of 6 days in September 1991. Except the

periods referred above, he was never engaged as a mali,

as claimed by him before the Conciliation Officer. It has

also been projected that since the claimant was not

engaged after September 1991, there was no occasion

for the Academy to dispense with his services with effect

from 01.02.2009.

7. In view of the facts detailed above, it is evident

that the claimant had failed to establish that he served the

Academy continuously for a period of one year, as

contemplated by Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Since continuous service

for a period of one year was not rendered by the claimant,

provisions of Section 25F of the Act did not come in to

protect him. When the claimant was not engaged any

further after September 1991, under these circumstances,

action of the Academy in not engaging him after

September 1991 cannot be held to illegal or unjustified.

8. The Academy has been able to project that action

of non-engagement of the claimant would not come under

clouds. Resultantly, it is concluded that the claimant or

his legal heirs are not entitled to any relief. An award is,

accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Date: June 13, 2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1489-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jsy dksp QSDVªh

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;] p.Mhx<+ ua- 2] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 587@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03&07&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&41012@230@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013

S.O. 1489.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.587/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2,Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Rail

Coach Factory, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 03-07-2013.

[No. L-41012/230/2003-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3725

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present :

SRI A. K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. 587/2005

Registered on 23-8-2005

Shri Jaspal Singh,

S/o Sh. Prakash Singh,

H.No. 1645, Dashmesh Nagar,

Joree Phatak, 40 Khoo,

Near Gurdwara Wali Gali

....Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

Rail Coach Factory,

Husswainpuri, Punjab,

Kapurthala

....Respondent

Appearances:

For the Workman

: Sh. P.K. Longia Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 12-6-2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-

41012/230/2003-IR(B-I) Dated 26-2-2004, 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 this

Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Rail

Coach Factory, Kapurthala in terminating the

services of Sh. Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Prakash

Singh, Ex-Khalasi w.e.f. 29-4-1999 without any

notice and without any payment of retrenchment

compensation is legal and just? If not to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to any

from which date?"

As per claim statement the workman was skilled

helper Khalasi in the establishment of the management.

He was charge-sheeted and inquiry was held on the charge

of absence from duty. He was not given any fair and proper

opportunity and hearing and the proceedings of the inquiry

were arbitrarily recorded and concluded by the inquiring

authority at its own. The workman was asked to sign the

proceedings telling him only that if the charge of absence

from duty is admitted it will only result into stoppage of

the two increments or reduction of his pay. He was not

given any opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses

and the management on the basis of farced record of inquiry

terminated the service of the workman w.e.f.

29-4-1999 without following principles of natural justice

and the provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the Act.

The appeal of the workman also failed. He has prayed for

his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

The claim was contested by the respondent. It was

contended that the workman had been charge-sheeted for

remaining unauthorized absent from duty and during the

course of inquiry proceedings he has admitted his charge

before the Inquiry Officer. In a properly held inquiry he

was found guilty of all the charges and after due procedure

and rules penalty of removal from service was imposed

on him by the competent authority on 29-4-1999. The

workman had preferred an appeal which had been

considered and rejected by the appellate authority. The

action of the disciplinary authority and the appellate

authority is legal, just, proper and in accordance with law.

The workman was a habitual absconder. He had been given

a number of opportunities to improve himself by treating

his earlier cases in a lenient manner. He had been rightly

punished for the misconduct committed by him.

A replication was filed by the workman to reiterate

his case.

In evidence the workman examined himself and on

behalf of the management N.R. Jatav, Works Manager was

examined.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

also gone through the written arguments filed by the

parties. The entire thrust of the arguments of the workman

is that the enquiry proceedings were not fair and proper

and reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been given

to the workman hence, the reference be decided in his

favour. But it is important to note that the reference is

about the termination of the service of the workman

without any notice and without any payment of

retrenchment compensation and not about removal from

service after inquiry. The learned counsel for the

management has therefore rightly argued that as the action

of the management does not amount to retrenchment and

the workman has been removed from service after inquiry,

hence the reference does not require any consideration.

I am of the view that the claim does not fall within

the purview of the reference. The inquiry, its fairness,

proprietary and adequacy of punishment awarded to the

workman is not within the ambit of reference. No question

of termination of workman without any notice and

payment of retrenchment compensation is involved in the

case; hence, the reference is answered against the workman.

Let hard and soft copies be sent to Central Government for

further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

3726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1490-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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;] p.Mhx<+ ua- 2] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1149@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03&07&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12012@3@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013

S.O. 1490.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.1149/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of State

Bank of India, and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 03-07-2013.

[No. L-12012/3/2003-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 1149/2005

Registered on 23-9-2005

Sh. R.N. Saini,

C/o Sh. J. G. Verma,

General Secretary,

State Bank of India Staff

Congress, 3030/1,

Sector 44-D, Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Assistant General

Manager, (Region-II),

State Bank of India,

Z.O. Haryana, Sector 8C,

Chandigarh

....Respondent

Appearances:

For the Workman

: Sh. Naveen Daryal Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 13-5-2013

Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/3/

2003 IR(B-I) Dated 13-5-2003, 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 management of State

Bank of India in removing Sh. R. N. Saini, Ex-

Clerk from service without following the proper

procedure during the enquiry, is justified? If not,

what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to and from which date?"

Charge-sheet Annexure 'A' of the written statement

of the respondent, reveals that the workman posted as

Assistant Cash in Thurana Branch of the Bank, had

allegedly committed misconduct during the period from

March 1997 to May 1998 in respect of 27 Saving Bank

Accounts of the branch.

As per claim statement the respondent bank had

discovered certain mistakes and cuttings in the vouchers

which had been received at the cash counter manned by

the workman and on the basis of such cuttings and changes

the bank called for the written complaints from the

concerned customers about the delayed deposit by the

workman of the amount shown against different names;

and charge-sheeted the workman. The bank also lodged

an FIR with the police. The bank charge-sheeted the

workman and on the denial of the allegations by the

workman conducted an inquiry. During the inquiry certain

documents were produced without providing their copies

to the workman. No witness was examined and no other

evidence was produced and the principles of natural justice

were violated with impunity. None of the account holders

was examined. Yet the Inquiry Officer held the charges

proved. The workman had produced the certified copies

of the statements of all the depositors which they had

made in the criminal case but the Inquiry Officer did not

consider those statements. The findings of the Inquiry

Officer were not based on any legal evidence. According

to the workman the inquiry is liable to be quashed.

He has prayed for setting aside the punishment of

removal and for his reinstatement with full back wages

and consequential relief.

The claim was contested by the management and it

was alleged that during the relevant period the workman

had accepted cash amounting to Rs. 2,12,850 from various

depositors of the branch and had made entries in the

passbooks but did not deposit the cash in the bank's book

on material dates. Instead he deposited the amount in bank's

books at later dates in some of the cases even after

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3727

2-3 month. He has thus misappropriated the funds and

tarnished the bank's image. The workman had been charge-

sheeted and his explanation had been called. The workman

denied the charges. His explanation was not found

satisfactory. Hence a departmental inquiry was ordered.

The inquiry was conducted in a very fair manner giving

the workman an ample opportunity of being heard. All the

documents produced and relied on by the management

during the course of inquiry were made available to the

workman and principles of natural justice were followed.

The documents submitted by the management were

sufficient to prove the charge and it was not necessary to

examine the account-holders. The Inquiry Officer found

the workman guilty on all the charges. The disciplinary

authority after considering the inquiry report awarded the

punishment of removal from service after serving a show

cause notice on the workman. The workman had preferred

an appeal against the order of disciplinary authority but

that also failed. In the last the management prayed that in

case the department inquiry is not found in order for any

reason then the management be afforded an opportunity

to lead evidence to prove the charges or to hold the

inquiry/disciplinary action from the stage at which any

infirmity is observed.

As the fairness of the inquiry had been challenged

by the workman hence, the Tribunal proceeded first to

examine whether the inquiry was conducted in a fair and

proper manner and after hearing the parties the Tribunal

came to the conclusion that inquiry held was not fair and

therefore quashed it vide order dated 21.9.2006 and

management was given the opportunity to prove the

charges.

Management examined Prem Singh who was cashier

at the relevant time. Management also produced the copy

of scroll book of 18.5.1998 and of pay-in-slips of the

same date relating to seven different accounts. The

witness Prem Singh had brought the original of these

copies and proved the copies. The witness also produced

original passbooks and ledger sheets of the aforesaid seven

accounts and filed the original complaints of account

holders Baljit Singh and Telu Ram.

In defence the workman filed a certified copy of

judgment in Criminal Case No. 15-1 of 1990 State Vs.

Ram Niwas under Section 406, 409 and 420 of IPC marked

'A' and copy of the statement of Prem Singh in the criminal

case marked 'B'.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

have gone through the evidence on record. As it was held

by the Supreme Court in Geeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding

Officer Labour Court (1999) 1 SCC 517 "as and when

the inquiry held by the employer is found to be unfair and

improper the employer has a right to establish the

justification and fairness of the action taken to punish its

employee by leading fresh evidence. Once such

permission is granted, the evidence on the inquiry file

cannot be read to justify that amount again."

Hence only the evidence adduced by the parties

before the Tribunal is to be considered and on the basis

of that evidence it is to be seen whether charges against

the workman had been proved or not.

The learned counsel for management submitted that

from the documents produced by the management it is

proved that the workman had received the amounts from

the customers in the seven accounts but did not deposit

the same in the bank the same day and the amount of all

these accounts were deposited by him in the bank on

18.5.1998. The original passbooks and ledger sheets of

the seven accounts have been filed. As per entries in the

passbooks the amounts detailed below had been deposited

by the customer in the respective accounts on the dates

mentioned against their names.

Sl.

Customer

Account

Amount

Date of

No.

Name

Number

deposited

Deposit

Telu Ram

SB A/c 1115

Rs. 7500

4.5.1998

Baljit Singh

SB A/c 2652 Rs. 10,000

5.5.1998

Ram Chand

SB A/c 507

Rs. 15,000

March 1998

Vijay Kumar

SB A/c 1557 Rs. 8,500

31.3.1998

Shakuntla

SB A/c 1/157 Rs. 28,000

May 1998

Devi

Kalawati

R.D. A/c 36/ Rs. 2,500

October 1997

13/675

Jagdish

R.D. A/c 36/ Rs. 2,500

October 1997

13/674

As per statement of management-witness Prem

Singh and as per scroll roll the aforesaid amount of the

related accounts was deposited by workman with the

management-witness on 18.5.1998 with pay-in-slips-the

copies whereof are MW1/2 to MW1/8. The witness has

produced the complaint of Baljit Singh and Telu Ram

which were marked as Exhibit MW1/23 and Exhibit

MW1/24. The argument of the learned counsel for

management is that from the entries in the bank record it

is clear that the workman did not deposit the amount of

customers on the date when it was deposited by customers

with him but subsequently on 18.5.1998 and from the bank

records the charge of misconduct is proved against the

workman and there is no necessity to examine any account

holders or lead any oral evidence.

The learned counsel for the workman argued that

the best evidence of the deposits by the customer was the

evidence of the customers themselves. Only they could

have proved that on what date they had deposited the

3728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

amount and with whom. The passbook remains with the

account-holders. Only they could have told about the

maker of the disputed entries. From the entries themselves

it cannot be said that the deposits had been made on the

dates shown in the passbooks. It may be noted that pay-

in-slips produced by the management does not support

the entries regarding dates in the passbook. All the pay-

in-slips are dated 18.5.1998 the date on which the amount

was deposited with the management-witness. The learned

counsel for workman had disputed the authenticity of the

entry in the scroll sheet which is in the handwriting of the

management-witness Prem Singh and also of the note

against the entries made by the management-witness that

the amount was deposited by the workman. The learned

counsel pointed out that the note is not signed by the

workman and there is no other evidence that the workman

had deposited the amount.

I find sufficient force in the argument of the learned

counsel for the workman. The learned counsel also argued

that from the judgment Mark 'A' of the Court in Criminal

Case No. 15-1 of 1999 State Vs. Ram Niwas it is clear

that some of the depositors examined in the case had not

supported the prosecution version. The learned counsel

argued that it is for this reason that the depositors were

not produced in evidence in this Tribunal.

The question is what standard of proof is required

in a Tribunal to prove a charge of misconduct? In Nand

Kishore Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1978 (3) SCC 366 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the disciplinary

proceedings before a domestic Tribunal are of quasi-

judicial character and, therefore, it is necessary that the

Tribunal should arrive at the conclusions on the basis of

some evidence, that is to say, such evidence which, and,

that too, with some degree of definiteness, points to the

guilt of the delinquent and does not leave the matter in a

suspicious state as mere suspicion cannot take the place

of proof even in domestic enquiries.

I am of the view that the same standard of proof is

required in the proceedings before adjudicatory bodies

under the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case only

the depositors could have proved the date of their deposits

as shown in the passbooks. Entries in passbooks cannot

be accepted as a proof of the date of deposits. I do not

agree with the learned counsel for the management that

under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act the presumption

of correctness may be made in respect of the entries in

the passbook.

It may be noted that Section 4 of the said Act

provides that a certified copy of any entry in a 'Bankers'

Book' shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima

facie evidence of the existence of such entry and shall be

admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and

accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the

same extent as, to original entry itself is now by law

admissible, but not further or otherwise.

And, as per definition clause Section 2(3) "Bankers'

Book" include ledgers, books, cash-books, account books

and all other books used in the ordinary business of a bank.

It is thus clear that passbook is not included in

"Bankers' Books". From the pay-in-slips Exhibit MW1/2

to Exhibit MW1/8 it appears that the deposits had been

made on 18.5.1998 itself and as per scroll sheets the

amount was deposited with the management-witness Prem

Singh the same day. It is not the management case that

pay-in-slips are forged. Therefore even if the cash had

been received by the workman from the depositors and it

was he who had deposited the amount with the cashier

management-witness Prem Singh as alleged by the

management, there is no case of embezzlement by the

workman.

On the basis of the above going discussion. I am

therefore of the view that the charges against the workman

are not proved. It may be noted that in the charge-sheet

there are allegations of misconduct regarding 27 accounts

but the evidence was given for seven accounts only and

the evidence is not sufficient to prove the misconduct

about the said seven accounts even. I therefore hold that

the action of the management of SBI in removing the

workman from service is not justified. The punishment

order of the disciplinary authority and of appellate

authority is set aside and the management is directed to

allow the workman join the duty within one month from

the publication of the award. The workman is entitled to

the continuity of service and back wages also. Reference

is accordingly answered against the management. Hard

copy and soft copy of the Award be sent to the Central

Government and one copy of the award be sent to the

District Judge Chandigarh for information and further

necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1491-

—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vxLr] 2013 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds

v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok, tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½

v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk 76 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok, tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè

vkUèz izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

^^vkUèz izns'k jkT; ds usYywj ftys ds doyh e.My esa

doyh dlck ¼uxjfuxe½ dh lhek esa vkus okys lHkh {ks=

rFkk eM~M`:ikMq] vusekMqxq] eUusxhfMUus] rYykikyse] eqlquwj]

cqMexq.Vk ds jktLo xkaoksa ds varxZr vkus okys {ks=**A

[la- ,l&38013@46@2013&,l ,l-I]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3729

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013

S.O. 1491.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st August, 2013, as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force

in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh

namely:—

"All the areas falling in the Kavali Town

(Municipality) of Kavali Mandal and all the areas

falling under Revenue Villages of Maddurupadu,

Anemadugu, Mannegidinne, Tallapalem, Musunur,

Budamgunta, of Kavali Mandal in Nellore district

of Andhra Pradesh."

[No. S-38013/46/2013-SS-I]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1492

.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk 1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vxLr] 2013 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds

v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½

v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk 76 dh mi&èkjk&¼1½ vkSj èkjk 77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gSa ] ds micaè

mM+hlk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

^^ftyk jk;xMk dh dksyukjk rglhy esa <sikxqMk ds jktLo

xkao**A

[la- ,l&38013@47@2013&,l ,l -I]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013

S.O. 1492.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st August, 2013, as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section) (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force

in the following areas in the State of Odisha

namely:—

"The areas Comprising of the Revenue Villages

Dhepaguda in the Tahsil of Kolnara in the district

of Rayagada."

[No. S-38013/47/2013-SS-I]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1493-

—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh èkjk 1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vxLr] 2013 dks ml rkjh[k

ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds

v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gSa½

v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk 77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè

>kj[k.M jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe jktLo xzke dk

Fkkuk ua-

vapy

ftyk

la-

uke

dk;kZy;

jruiqj] j?kqukFkiqj

dkUMªk

ljk;dsyk&[kjlok¡

[kqpqMhg

194

dkUMªk

ljk;dsyk&[kjlok¡

dkUMªk

ljk;dsyk&[kjlok¡

fVyksikMk

dkUMªk

ljk;dsyk&[kjlok¡

ckdhiqj

dkUMªk

ljk;dsyk&[kjlok¡

ineiqj

dkUMªk

ljk;dsyk&[kjlok¡

[la- ,l&38013@48@2013&,l ,l&I]

,p- ds- xkaèh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2013

S.O. 1493.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st August, 2013, as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-section) (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force

in the following areas in the State of Jharkhand namely:—

Sr. Name of Rev.

No. of Rev. Name of

District

No. Village

Thana

circle office

Ratanpur,

Kandra

Saraikella-

Raghunathpur

Kharsawan

Khuchidih

194

Katiya

Saraikella-

Kharsawan

Kandra

Saraikella-

Kharsawan

3730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Tilopada

Kandra

Saraikella-

Kharsawan

Bakipur

Kandra

Saraikella-

Kharsawan

Padampur

Kandra

Saraikella-

Kharsawan

[No. S-38013/48/2013-SS-I]

H. K. GANDHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1494

.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vxLr] 2013 dks ml rkjh[k

ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds

v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½

v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77]78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k

rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

dsUnz

fuEu {ks= ds varxZr vkus okys jktLo xkao

lsrqj

1- lsrqj

jktkiky;e rkyqd

fo:nquxj ftyk

[lañ ,l&38013@49@2013&,l,l&I]

,p- ds- xka/kh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2013

S.O. 1494.— In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st August, 2013 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (Except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force

in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu

namely:—

Centre

Area Comprising the Revenue

Villages of

Sethur

1. Sethur

Rajapalyam Taluk,

Virudhunagar District.

[No. S-38013/49/2013-SS-I]

H. K. GANDHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1495-

—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vxLr] 2013 dks ml rkjh[k

ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44

o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k if'pe caxky

jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs%µ

Ø-la-

jktLo {ks=ksa

tsñ ,yñ

uxj ikfydkvksa@xzke

ftyksa ds

ekSatk ds uke

la[;k

iapk;r ds uke

uke

jkaxkekVh

150

fenukiwj uxj

fenukiwj

ikfydk

¼iñ½

rkafrxsfj;k

151

&ogh&

dsjkuhVksyk

171

&ogh&

'ks[kiwjk

172

&ogh&

fe;kcktkj

173

&ogh&

cYyoiwj

183

&ogh&

gkslukckn

200

iap[kqjh&I

&ogh&

xzke izpk;r

iap[kqjh

241

&ogh&

[la- ,l&38013@50@2013&,l-,l- I]

,p- ds- xka/kh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2013

S.O. 1495.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st August, 2013 as the date of which

the provisions of Chapter IV (Except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have alredy been brought

into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the

following areas in the State of West bengal namely:—

Sl.

Name of

J.L. No. Name of

Name of

No.

Revenue

Municipality/

District

Area/

Gram Panchayat

Mouza

Rangamati

150

Midnapore

Municipality

(West)

Tantigeria

151

-do-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3731

Keranitola

171

-do-

`-do-

Sekhpura

172

-do-

Miabazar

173

-do-

Ballavpur

183

-do-

Hosnabad

200

Panchkhuri I Gram -do-

Panchayat

Panchkhuri

241

-do-

[No. S-38013/50/2013-SS-I]

H. K. GANDHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1496-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

/kkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, lsaVªy dkWVst baMLVªht

dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g

NwV] 19&07&2013 ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu 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 vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½

NwV izkIr vof/k 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 vof/k ds ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/k 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 ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e]

1950 ds v/khu mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha(

¼5½

fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

45 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk

izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU; in/kkjh(

(i)

/kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k dh

ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir

djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

(ii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;

chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj

vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha( ;k

(iii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh] fu;kstd

}kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds QyLo:i bl

vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq

:i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

(iv)

;g vfHkfu'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k ds

nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds mica/k

izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk

;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%µ

¼d½

iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd og mls

,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr vf/kdkjh ;k vU; in/kkjh

bl vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok

¼[k½

,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxk/khu] 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 lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh

ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d

le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½

iz/kku ;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(

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

;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6- 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

[la- ,l&38014@17@2013&,l-,l- I]

g"kZ dqekj xka/kh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1496.— 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 Central Cottage Industries

3732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Corporation of India Limited from the operation of the

said Act. The exemption shall be effective with effect from

19.07.2013 for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:—

(1)

The aforesaid esablishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees';

(2)

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;

(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 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

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer,

his agent or servant, or any person found 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

maintained in such factory, establishment, office

or other premises;

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment corporatiza-tion, the

exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled

and then the new entity will have to approach the

appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/17/2013-SS-I]

H. K. GANDHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1497-

—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vxLr] 2013 dks ml rkjh[k

ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44

o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6

¼/kkjk&76 dh mi/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds

flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dukZVd jkT;

ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs%µ

Øñ lañ

jktLo xzke dk uke

gkscyh

rkyqd

ftyk

ukxugYYkh iUpk;r~

dlck

eSlwj

[lañ ,l&38013@51@2013&,l,l&I]

g"kZ dqekj xka/kh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1497.—In exercise of the power conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st August, 2013 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3733

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and

Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force

in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely:—

Sl.

Name of the Revenue

Hobli

Taluk

District

No.

village or Municipal

Limits

Naganahally

Kasaba

Mysore Mysore

Panchayat Limits

[No. S-38013/51/2013-SS-I]

H. K. GANDHI, Under Secy.

'kqf¼&i=

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1498

.—Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k 7] Hkkx&II] [kaM&3

mi&[k.M (ii)] fnukad 01 Qjojh] 2012 esa izdkf'kr bl dk;kZy;

dh lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukad 01 Qjojh] 2012 ¼dkñvkñ 702½

ds i`"B la[;k 1572 dh 10oha iafDr esa ^^fpdqj** 'kCn dks ^^fpYdqj**

i<+k tk,A

[la- ,l&38013@04@2012&,l,l&I]

g"kZ dqekj xka/kh] voj lfpo

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2013

S.O. 1498.—In this Ministry notification of even

number dated 1st February, 2012 (S.O. No. 702),

published in the Gazette of India No. 7, Part-II, Section-

3, Sub-Section (ii) dated 1st February, 2012 at page

number 1572, in 13th line, the words "Chikur" may be

read as "Chilkur".

[No. S-38013/04/2012-SS-I]

H. K. GANDHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2013

dk- vk- 1499

.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

/kkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, izkslsl&de&izksMsDV

MsoyiesaV lsaVj] esjB ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa

dks bl vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV bl vf/

klwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw

jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu 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 vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½

NwV izkIr vof/k 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 vof/k dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDRr vof/k 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 ¼lk/kkj.k½

fofu;e] 1950 ds v/khu mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkha(

¼5½

fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 45 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k

x;k dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk

bl fufeÙk izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU; in/kkjh(

(i) /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr

vof/k dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh

fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ(

vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd

deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e]

1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k

mDr vof/k ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha( ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd

deZpkjh] fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa

dks] ftlds QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds

v/khu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq

:i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha(

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml

vof/k ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa

vf/kfu;e ds mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha

mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha]

fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr

gksxk%&

¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

vf/kdkjh ;k vU; in/kkjh bl vf/kfu;e ds

iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok

3734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/k&

Hkksxk/khu] 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 lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;

nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k

izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa vkSj ,slh

tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½ iz/kku ;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 ;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrw lwfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr

ysuh gksxhA

[lañ ,l&38014@5@2012&,l,l&I]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013

S.O. 1499.— 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

Process-cum-Product

Development Centre, Meerut 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.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:-

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees';

(2)

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;

(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 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 employers 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 his 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

maintained in such factory, establishment, office

or other premises,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3735

(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-38014/5/2012-SS-I]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1500

.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

/kkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, lseh&dUMDVj yscksjsVªh]

,lñ,ñ,lñ uxj ¼iatkc½ ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV

bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy,

ykxw jgsxhA

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu 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 vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vof/k 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 vof/k dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/k 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 ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e]

1950 ds v/khu mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuk visf{kr

gksrh Fkha(

¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

45 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk

izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU; in/kkjh(

(i) /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k dh

ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir

djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k

ugha( ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds QyLo:i

bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa vkSj

oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds

mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k

x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr

gksxk%&

¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd og

mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr vf/kdkjh ;k vU;

in/kkjh bl vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS(

vFkok

¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxk/khu]

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 lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost]

,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj

mudh ijh{kk djus nsa vkSj ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d

le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½ iz/kku ;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 ;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6- 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

[la- ,l&38014@9@2012&,l,l&I]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013

S.O. 1500.—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/

3736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

establishments Semi-Conductor Laboratory, S.A.S. Nagar

(Punjab) 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.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:-

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees';

(2)

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;

(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 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 his 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 empoyee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

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-38014/9/2012-SS-I]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1501

.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

/kkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, lsaVªy Vwy #e]

yqf/k;kuk ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl

vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV bl vf/klwpuk ds

tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA

4- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu 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 vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa(

¼3½

NwV izkIr vof/k 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 vof/k dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1935

3737

¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/k 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 ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e]

1950 ds v/khu mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkha(

¼5½

fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

45 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk

izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU; in/kkjh(

(i) /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k dh

ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir

djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k

ugha( ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds QyLo:i

bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa vkSj

oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds

mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k

x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr

gksxk%&

¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd og

mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr vf/kdkjh ;k vU;

in/kkjh bl vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS(

vFkok

¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxk/khu]

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 lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost]

,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj

mudh ijh{kk djus nsa vkSj ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d

le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½ iz/kku ;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 ;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrw leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr

ysuh gksxhA

[lañ ,l&38014@6@2012&,l,l&I]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013

S.O. 1501.— 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 Central Tool, Room, Ludhiana

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.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:-

(1)

The aforesaid establishment wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees';

(2)

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;

(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 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

3738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2013/SHRAVANA 5, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(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 employers 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 his 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 empoyee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

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-38014/6/2012-SS-I]

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.