3694 GI/2013

(5017)

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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1853.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vfèfu;e la[;k 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mièkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iapdqyk fLFkr fo'ks"k U;k;kèh'k]

lhchvkbZ] gfj;k.kk esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk }kjk laLFkkfir

Msjk lPpk lkSnk ekeys vFkkZr vkjlh 5¼,l½@2002@,lvkbZ;w&XV@

lh,pth] vkjlh 8¼,l½@2003@ ,llhch@lh,pth vkSj vkjlh

10¼,l½@2003@,llhch@lh,pth rFkk vihyksa] iqujh{k.kksa vFkok fofè

}kjk LFkkfir vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa ;k iqujh{k.k esa mDr ekeys ls mRiUu

vU; ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu dks lapkfyr djus ds fy, Jh ohñ dsñ

'kekZ] odhy dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[la- 225@1@2013&, oh Mh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, GRIEVANCES AND

PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1853.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Sub-Section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central, Government

hereby appoints Shri V. K. Sharma, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of Dera Sacha

Sauda cases viz RC 5(S)/2002/SIU-XV/CHG, RC 8(S)/2003/

SCB/CHG and RC 10(S)/2003/SCB/CHG in the court of

Special Judge, CBI Haryana at Punchkula instituted by Delhi

Special Police Establishment and appeals, revisions or

others matters arising out of the said cases in revisional or

appellate courts established by law.

[No. 225/1/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 36]

ubZ fnYyh, flrEcj 1—flrEcj 7] 2013] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 10—Hkkæ 16] 1935

No. 36]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 1—SEPTEMBER 7, 2013, SATURDAY/BHADRA 10—BHADRA 16, 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)

5018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1854.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e la[;k 25½ dh

èkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 5 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, xksok jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx ¼lkekU;½ lfpoky;]

xksok dh fnukad 5 twu] 2013 dh vfèlwpuk lañ 27@20@2013&,pMh

¼th½@1829 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860

dk vfèfu;e lañ 45½ dh èkjk 201] 376 vkSj 447] xksok ckyd

vfèfu;e] 2003 ¼2003 dk xksok vfèfu;e la[;k 18½ dh èkjk

8¼2½ rFkk èkjk 3¼,½ ySafxd vijkèksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k

vfèfu;e] 2012 ¼2012 dk vfèfu;e lañ 32½ dh èkjk 4 ds rgr

naMuh; iqfyl Fkkuk&ekseZwxk¡o] okLdks] xksok esa iathd`r nhifogkj

izkFkfed fo|ky;] gsMySaM lnk okLdks esa i<+us okyh 7 o"khZ; ckfydk

ij gq, ;kSu geys ls lEcafèr vijkè lañ 02@2013 esa rFkk mi;qZDr

mfYyf[kr vijkèksa ls lacafèr ;k muls lEc) vijkèksa esa fd, x,

iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k

mUgh rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijkè ;k vijkèksa dk vUos"k.k

djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa

vkSj {ks=kfèdkj dk foLrkj leLr xksok jkT; ds lEcUè esa djrh gSA

[la- 228@45@2013&, oh Mh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo]

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1854.—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 Goa, Department of Home (General)

Secretariat, Goa vide Notification No. 27/20/2013-HD(G)/

1829 dated 5th June 2013, hereby extends powers and

Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Goa for

investigation of Crime No. 02/2013 under sections, 201, 376

and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of

1860), section 8(2) of the Goa Children Act, 2003 (Goa Act

No. 18 of 2003) and section 3(a) punishable under section

4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) registered at Police Station

Mormugao, Vasco, Goa relating to the incident of sexual

assault of seven years old girl studying in Deepvihar

Primary School, Headland Sada Vasco and attempts,

abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection

with the above mentioned offences and any other offence

of offences committed in the course of the same transaction

of arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/45/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1855.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e la[;k 25½ dh

èkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk }kjk vUos"k.k djus gsrq] fuEuksDr vijkèksa dks fofuZfn"V

djrh gS] uker%—

¼d½ ySafxd vijkèksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k

vfèfu;e] 2012 ¼2012 dk vfèfu;e lañ 32½ ds varxZr

naMuh; vijkèksa( rFkk

¼[k½ mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijkèksa ls lacafèr ;k muls

lEc) vijkèksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"iszj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa

rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k mUgh rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh

vU; vijkè ;k vijkèksaA

[lañ 228/45/2013-,ohMh-II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1855.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) the Central Government hereby

specifies the following offences to be investigated by the

Delhi special Police Establishment namely:—

(a) Offences punishable under the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No.

32 of 2012); and

(b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in

relation to or in connection with the above mentioned

offence and any other offence or offences committed

in course of the same transaction or arising out of

the same facts.

[No. 228/45/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1856.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e la[;k 25½ dh

èkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 5 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, mÙkj izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] y[kuÅ dh

fnukad 23 tqykbZ] 2013 dh vfèlwpuk lañ 1673@6&

ih;w&12&13&2¼34½@Mh@13 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk]

1860 ¼1860 dk vfèfu;e lañ 45½ ds rgr èkjk 302 ds vèhu

iqfyl LVs'ku] U;w vkxjk] ftyk&vkxjk ¼mÙkj izns'k½ esa iathd`r

vijkè ekeyk lañ 267@2013 esa lqJh usgk 'kekZ dk

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5019

uSuks ckW;ks&VsDukWykWth yscksjVªh n;kyckx ,tqds'ku bafLVªV;wV] n;kyckx]

vkxjk dh gR;k ls lacafèr mfYyf[kr ;k mlls lEc) vijkèksa esa fd,

x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k

mUgh rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijkè ;k vijkèksa dk vUos"k.k djus

ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kfèdkj

dk foLrkj leLr mÙkj izns'k jkT; ds lEcUè esa djrh gSA

[lañ 228/52/2013-,ohMh-II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2013

S.O. 1856.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

(Act No. 25 of 1946) the Central Government with the

consent of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Home

Department, Lucknow vide Notification No. 1673 /6-Pu-12-

13-2(34)D/13 dated 23rd July 2013, hereby extends powers

and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh

for investigation of case Crime No. 267/2013 under sections,

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

registered at Police Station New Agra District Agra (Uttar

Pradesh) relating to murder of Miss Neha Sharma at Nano

Bio-Technology Laboratory of the Dayalbagh Education

Institute, Dayalbagh, Agra and attempt, abetment 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. 228/52/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1857.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e lañ 25½ dh èkjk 6 ds

lkFk ifBr èkjk 5 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, f=iqjk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] vxjryk dh fnukad 12 ebZ] 2013 dh

vfèlwpuk lañ ,Q&21¼52½&ihMh@lhchvkbZ@2013 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls fuEufyf[kr vijkèksa] vFkkZr%—

Øe ekeyk lañ

dkuwu dh èkjk

cuke

iqfyl Fkkus dk

lañ

uke

1 52@11

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860

vkjvkslh] f'kyk¡x }kjk

iqfyl Fkkuk

dk vfèfu;e lañ 45½ dh èkjk 34] iathd`r MSQksfMYl vlksfl,V

èjeuxj

406 ,oa 420 ds vèhu

fyfeVsM] thñ,lñ jksM+] myqckjh]

xqokgkVh&07

2 90@12

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860

vkjvkslh] f'kyk¡x }kjk

iqfyl Fkkuk

dk vfèfu;e lañ 45½ dh èkjk 34] iathd`r izxfr 'khy baQz k

dkfy;k'kgj

406 ,oa 420 ds lkFk tqM+h f=iqjk

izkstsDV~l ,aM lfoZlst

tekdrkZ fgr laj{k.k ¼foÙkh;

fyfeVsM] dkfy;k'kgj

izfr"Bkuksa esa½ foès;d] 2000 dh

èkjk 3 rFkk la'kksèu foès;d] 2011

dh èkjk 3&, ds vèhu

3 574@2012

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860

Mkñ chñvkjñ vEcsMdj jksM+]

iqfyl Fkkuk

dk vfèfu;e lañ 45½ dh èkjk

Fkkuk eksM+ 'kkafriqj] ufn;k]

jkèkfd'kksjiqj

406] 417] 418 ,oa 420 ds vèhu

if'pe caxky fLFkr vkjvkslh

}kjk iathd`r ,e,ih ,xzks ,fueYl

izkstsDV~l fyfeVsM] mn;iqj 'kk[kk]

ftyk xkserh

4 118@2013

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860

dksfLed usxksf'k,Vj fyfeVsM]

iqfyl Fkkuk

dk vfèfu;e lañ 45½ dh èkjk 406 jkeuxj jksM+] lañ 03]

if'pe

,oa 420 ds vèhu

cV~Vkyk

vxjryk

5 14@2013

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860

lsYQ VªLV baMLVªht+

iqfyl Fkkuk

dk vfèfu;e lañ 45½ dh èkjk 406 fyfeVsM] èu pkSeqgkuh]

jkuhj cktkj

,oa 420 ds vèhu

jkuhj cktkj

5020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

rFkk mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijkèksa ls lacafèr ;k muls lEc) vijkèksa

esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa

fd, x, ;k mUgh rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijkè ;k vijkèksa dk

vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh

'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kfèdkj dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ f=iqjk jkT; esa djrh gSA

[lañ 228/37/2013-,ohMh-II]

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2013

S.O. 1857.—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 Tripura, Home Department, Agartala vide Notificaiton No. F-21(52)-PD/CBI/2013 dated 12th May, 2013, hereby extends

the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the Tripura for

investigation of offences viz:—

Sl. Case No.

Section Laws

Against

Name of Police

No.

Station

1. 52/11

Under Sections 34, 406 and 420

Deffodils Associates Limited,

Police Station

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

G.S. Road, Ulubari, Guwahati -

Dharamnagar.

(Act No. 45 of 1860).

07, registered with ROC, Shillong.

2. 90/2

Under Sections 34, 406 and 420

Pragati Sheel Infra Projects and

Police Station

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Services Limited, Kailashhar,

Kaliashahar.

(Act No. 45 of 1860) and added

registered with ROC, Shillong.

section 3 of Tripura Protection

of Interests of Depositors

(in Financial Establishments)

Act, 2000 and section 3 -A

Amendment Act, 2011.

3. 574/2012

Under sections 406, 417, 418 and

MAP Agro Animals Projects

Police Station

420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Limited, Udaipur Branch, Gomati

Radhakishorepur

(Act No. 45 of 1860)

District, registered with ROC at

Dr. Ambedkar Road, Thana More

Santipur Nadia, West Bengal.

4. 118/2013

Under sections 406 and 420 of

Cosmic Negotiator Limited

Police Station

the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Ramnagar Road no. 03,

West Agartala.

(Act No. 45 of 1860)

Battala.

5. 14/2013

Under sections 406 and 420 of

Self Trust Industries limited,

Police Station

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act

Dhan Choumuhani Ranirbazar.

Ranirbazar.

No. 45 of 1860)

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. 228/37/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1858.—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk dks fuEufyf[kr vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus gsrq fofuZfn"V djrh gS%—

¼d½

f=iqjk tekdrkZ fgr laj{k.k ¼foÙkh; izfr"Bku esa½ fo/ks;d] 2000 ¼2000 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 6½ ;Fkk la'kksfèr f=iqjk

vfèfu;e] 2011 ¼2011 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 4½ ds varxZr naMuh; vijk/k rFkk

¼[k½

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 mUgh rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa esaA

[lañ 228@37@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5021

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2013

S.O. 1858.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

Act. 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government

hereby specifies the following offences to be investigated

by the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:—

(a) Offences punishable under the Tripura Protection

of Interests of Depositors (In financial Establishments) Act,

2000 (Act No. 6 of 2000) as amended by the Tripura Act,

2011 (Act No. 4 of 2011) and

(b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation

to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and

any other offence or offences committed in course of the

same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/37/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1859.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~ }kjk vkijkfèd izfØ;k

lafgrk 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/

kkjk 8 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh jkftUnj flag phek]

vf/koDrk] nsfoUnj iky flag] vf/koDrk lqJh rjUuqe] vfèoDrk dks

lhchvkbZ dsl vkjñlhñ 24¼,l½@2005&,llh;w 1@ubZ fnYyh ¼ls'ku

dsl uañ 26@2010] lhchvkbZ cuke lTtu dqekj o vU;½ esa rFkk

blls lacaf/kr o vkuq"kafxd ekeyksa esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; esa

vkijkfèd vihy gsrq fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 225@42@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2013

S.O. 1859.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act

No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints S/

Shri Rajinder Singh Cheema, Davinder Pal Singh and

Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Advocates as Special Public

Prosecutor for appearing in appeals arising out of RC. 24(S)/

2005-SCU.I/New Delhi (Session Case No.26/2010, CBI Vs.

Sajjan Kumar and others) in the Delhi High Court at New Delhi

and any other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.

[No. 225/42/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

dk;kZy; vk;qDr] dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd

p.Mhx<+] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1860.—tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj dh ;g jk; gS fd

Jh fot; eksgu] fujh{kd] Jh ijethr flag la/kq v/kh{kd ¼rnFkZ½

rFkk Jh Vhñ,lñ jru] v/kh{kd ¼lsokfuo`Rr½ dh foHkkxh; tkap ds

laca/k esa ;g vko';d gS fd Jh veunhi flag lqiq= Jh xqjesy flag

ekfyd eSltZ ,ñ,lñ bUVjus'kuy gkml] lsDVj 32&,] p.Mhx<+

jksM] yqf/k;kuk dks xokg ds :i esa@fdlh Hkh lacaf/kr nLrkost dks

izLrqr djus ds fy, leu fd;k tk,A

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj ¼lkf{k;ksa dh mifLFkfr ,oa nLrkostksa

dk izLrqrhdj.k izoZru½ vf/kfu;e] 1972 ¼1972 dh /kkjk 18½ dh

/kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

,rn~}kjk Jh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ] lgk;d vk;qDr] dsUnzh; mRikn

'kqYd vk;qDrky;] p.Mhx<+&II dks tkap vf/kdkjh ds :i esa mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 esa fofufnZ"V 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s dfFkr

xokg dks leu djus o mldh mifLFkfr lqfuf'pr djus ,oe~ mldks

'kiFk nsdj tkap djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[la- II&39 ¼24½@lrñ lh,pMh@2010]

nsosUnz flag] vk;qDr

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL

EXCISE

Chandigarh, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1860.—Whereas the Central Government is of

opinion that for the purposes of the departmental inquiry

relating to Sh. Vijay Mohan, inspector; Sh. Paramjit Singh

Sandhu, Superintendent (Ad-hoc) and Sh. T.S. Rattan,

Superintendent (Retd.) it is necessary to summon as

withness/call for any documents from Sh. Amandeep Singh

S/O Sh. Gurmail Singh, Prop. of M/s A.S. International

House, Sector 32A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Departmental Inquiries

(Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and production

of Documents) Act, 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central

Government hereby authorizes Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma,

Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate,

Chandigarh-II as the inquiring authority to exercise the

power specified in Section 5 of the said Act in relation to

the summoning and enforcing the attendance of the said

witness and examining him on oath.

[No. II-39(24)/Vig.CHD/2010]

DEVENDRA SINGH, Commissioner

5022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1861.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ¼leuq"kaxh cSad½ vf/kfu;e]

1959 dh /kkjk 26 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2d½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 25 dh mi&

/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼x d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] LVsV cSad vkQ eSlwj ds flaxy foaMks vkijsVj&lh

Jh vkjñ jk?kosUnz ¼tUe frfFk% 16-01-1957½ dks fnukad 31-08-2013

dks ;k blds i'pkr muds }kjk in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k

ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok LVsV cSad vkQ eSlwj ds deZdkj

deZpkjh ds :i esa muds in ij cus jgus rd vFkok vkxkeh vkns'kksa

rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] LVsV cSad vkQ eSlwj ds funs'kd e.My

esa deZdkj deZpkjh funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 6@6@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2013

S.O. 1861.—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 R.

Raghavendra (Date of birth 16.01.1957), Single Window

Operator-C, State Bank of Mysore as Workmen Employee

Director, on the Board of Directors of State Bank of Mysore,

for a period of three years from the date of his taking over

the charge of the post on or after 31.08.2013 or till he ceases

to be a Workmen Employee of State Bank of Mysore, or

until further orders, whichever is the earliest

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

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1862.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh

daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh

/kkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk 3¼t½ vkSj ¼3&d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh latho tSu ¼tUe frfFk

23-01-1968½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu

o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkn'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

cSad vkQ egkjk"Vª ds funs'kd e.My esa va'k&dkfyd xSj&ljdkjh

funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA

[lañ 6@33@2011&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 1862.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section 3(h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

hereby nominates Shri Sanjeev Jain (DoB: 23.01.1968) as

part-time non-official director on the Board of Directors of

Bank of Maharashtra for a period of three years, from the

date of notification of his appointment or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 6/33/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1863.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk

ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e]

1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼³½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh fot;k

cSad ds fyfid&lg&Vadd Jh okbZñ eqjyh d`".kk ¼tUe frfFk

15-03-1959½ dks fnukad 02-11-2013 dks ;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 fot;k cSad esa muds deZdkj deZpkjh ds in ij cus jgus

rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] fot;k cSad

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

[lañ 6@10@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2013

S.O. 1863.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (e) of Sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 9 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Y. Murali Krishna (Date of Birth:

15.03.1959), Clerk-cum-Typist, Vijaya Bank as Workmen

Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Vijaya Bank

for a period of three years with effect from the date of his

taking over the charge of the post on or after 02.11.2013 or

until he ceases to be an Workmen Employee of Vijaya Bank,

or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. 6/10/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5023

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1864.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk

ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e]

1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼³½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh flafMdsV

cSad ds fyfid Jh 'kadju HkkLdj v¸;j ¼tUe frfFk 25-06-1963½

dks fnukad 31-08-2013 dks ;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

flafMdsV cSad esa muds deZdkj deZpkjh ds in ij cus jgus rd

vFkok vxys vkn'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] flafMdsV cSad ds

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

[lañ 6@9@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo]

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 1864.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (e) of Sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 9 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Sankaran Bhaskar Iyer (Date of Birth:

25.06.1963), Clerk, Syndicate Bank as Workmen Employee

Director on the Board of Directors of Syndicate Bank for a

period of three years with effect from the date of his taking

over the charge of the post on or after 31.08.2013 or until he

ceases to be an Workmen Employee of Syndicate Bank, or

until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. 6/9/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1865.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955 dk

23½ dh èkjk 19 ds [kaM ¼?k½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds ijke'kZ ls ,rn~}kjk] Jh f=Hkqou

ukFk prqosZnh ¼tUe frfFk 15-01-1959½ mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk

dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkn'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds dsUnzh; funs'kd e.My esa va'kdkfyd

xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer djrh gSA

[lañ 6@30@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 1865.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of Section 19 of The State Bank of India Act,

1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, in consultation

with Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri

Tribhuwan Nath Chaturvedi (DoB: 15.01.1959), as part-time

Non-official Director on the Central Board of Directors of

State Bank of India, for a period of three years with effect

from the date of notification of his appointment or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. 6/30/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1866.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh

daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh

èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk 3¼t½ vkSj ¼3&d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vt; 'kqDyk ¼tUe

frfFk 01-01-1959½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o"kks± dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkn'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys

gks] bykgkckn cSad ds funs'kd e.My esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh

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

[lañ 6@14@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 1866.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section 3(h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

hereby nominates Shri Ajay Shukla (DoB: 01.01.1959), as

part-time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors of

Allahabad Bank for a period of three years, from the date of

notification of his appointment or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[No. 6/14/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1867.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk

ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼³½

5024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

bykgkckn cSad ds fo'ks"k lgk;d Jh ;ksxs'oj izlkn flag ¼tUe frfFk

20-11-1956½ dks muds }kjk in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k

ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok bykgkckn cSad esa muds deZdkj

deZpkjh ds in ij cus jgus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls

tks Hkh igys gks] bykgkckn cSad ds funs'kd e.My esa deZdkj deZpkjh

funs'kd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 6@7@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo]

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 1867.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (e) of Sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with Sub-clause (1) & (2) of Clause 9 of the

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Yogeshwar Prasad Singh (Date of

Birth: 20.11.1956), Special Assistant, Allahabad Bank as

Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of

Allahabad Bank for a period of three years, with effect from

the date of his taking over the charge of the post or until he

ceases to be a Workmen Employee of Allahabad Bank or

until further orders, whichever is earliest.

[No. 6/7/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

lapkj ,oa lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;

¼Mkd foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1868.—jktHkk"kk fu;e ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa

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

dsUnz ljdkj] Mkd foHkkx ds v/khuLFk dk;kZy; eq[; iksLVekLVj

tujy] dsjy lfdZy] fr#ouUriqje&695033 ds fuEufyf[kr 04

dk;kZy;ksa ftuds 80 izfr'kr deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gS%—

1- v/kh{kd Mkd?kj dk;kZy;] d..kwj eaMy & 670001

2- v/kh{kd Mkd?kj dk;kZy;] ekosfyDdkjk eaMy & 690101

3- v/kh{kd Mkd?kj dk;kZy;] bfjTtkydqaMk eaMy & 680121

4- v/kh{kd dk;kZy;] jsy Mkd lsok ^lhVh* eaMy & 673032

[lañ 11017&1@2011&jkñHkkñ]

ehjk gk.Mk] mi egkfuns'kd ¼fQySVyh@jkñHkkñ½

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Posts)

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2013

S.O. 1868.—In pursuance of Rule 10(4) of the Official

Language (use for official Purposes of the Union) Rule

1976, the Central Government hereby notifies following 04

offices of the Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala

Circle, Thiruvanathapuram-695033 of the Department of

Posts were 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi:—

1. O/o the Superintendent, of Post Offices, Kannur

Division-670001

2. O/o the Superintendent, of Post Offices,

Mavelikara Division-690101

3. O/o the Superintendent, of Post Offices,

Iririjalakuda Division-680121

4. O/o the Superintendent, RMS 'CT' Division-

673032

[No. 11017-1/2011-OL]

MEERA HANDA, Dy. Director General (Philately/OL)

lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1869.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k eas {ks=h; izpkj funs'kky;] iwohZ CykWd&IV] yscy&III]

vkjñdsñ iqje] ubZ fnYyh ¼lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;½ ds fuEufyf[kr

v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh

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

¼d½ izknsf'kd dk;kZy;] dksydkrk

¼[k½ {ks=h; izpkj dk;kZy;] o/kZeku

¼x½ {ks=h; izpkj dk;kZy;] ckdqjk

¼?k½ {ks=h; izpkj dk;kZy;] jkuk?kkV

¼³½ {ks=h; izpkj dk;kZy;] pqapqjk

¼p½ {ks=h; izpkj dk;kZy;] iksVZ Cys;j

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5025

¼N½ {ks=h; izpkj dk;kZy;] esfnuhiqj

[lañ bZ&11017@6@2012&fgUnh]

fiz;Eonk] funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND

BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 1869.—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 under Directorate of Field

Publicity, East Block-IV, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (Ministry

of Information and Broadcasting) more than 80% of the

staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi:—

(a) Regional Office, Kolkata

(b) Field Publicity Office, Vardhman

(d) Field Publicity Office, Ranaghat

(e) Field Publicity Office, Chunchura

(f) Field Publicity Office, Portblair

(g) Field Publicity Office, Medinipur

[No. E-11017/6/2012-Hindi]

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O.L.)

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

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2013

dkñvkñ 1870.—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]

1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ

djus ds ckn] ,rnn~okjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gSa] vFkkZr~%—

Hkksft;k MsaVy dkWyst ,aM vLirky] lksyu ds fy, fgekpy

izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk

ds laca/k esa nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh

vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 52 ds lkeus dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh

ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir

dh tk,axh%—

^^ekLVj vkWQ MsaVy ltZjh

izksLFkksMksafVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,eMh,l ¼izksLFkks-½]

¼;fn 6-6-2012 dks ;k mlds ckn

fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;]

iznku dh xbZ½

f'keyk

[lañ oh&12017@126@2005&Mhñ bZñ]

lwcs flag] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2013

S.O. 1870.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with

Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following

amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act,

namely:—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against

Serial No. 52, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees

awarded by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, against

Bhojia Dental College & Hospital, Solan, the following

entries shall be inserted thereunder:—

“Master of Dental Surgery

—Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS, (Prostho.),

(if granted on or after 6.6.1012)

Himachal Pradesh

University, Shimla

[No. V-12017/126/2005-DE]

SUBE SINGH, Dy. Secy.

5026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1871.—dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 12 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk

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

la'kks/ku djrh gSa] uker% %µ

mDr vuqlwph esa ^^usiky** 'kh"kZd ds rgr — ^^f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky** ds le{k] 'kh"kZ ^mikf/k* ds rgr [blds ckn tSlk fd dkWye

¼2½ esa lanfHkZr gS]] ^fMIyksek esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vgZrk dh izd`fr* [blds ckn tSlk fd dkWye ¼3½ esa lanfHkZr gS] rFkk ^^laf{kfIr** [blds ckn tSlk

fd dkWye ¼4½ esa lanfHkZr gS]] vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds i'pkr~] fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh] uker% %µ

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

^^,eMh ¼vkarfjd

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky

vk;qfoZKku½**

¼vkarfjd vk;qfoZKku½**

[vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] egkjktxat] dkBekaMq] usiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk

jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky }kjk o"kZ 1997 esa

;k blds ckn iznku dh xbZ ;g vgZrk ekU;rk izkIr gksxhA]

lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh%

1- izos'k dh la[;k izfro"kZ pkj fo|kfFkZ;ksa rd lhfer dj nh xbZ gSA

2- LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks iznku dh xbZ ,slh ekU;rk dh vf/kdre vof/k 5 o"kZ ds fy, gksxh ftlds mijkar bldk uohdj.k djuk

gksxkA

3- mi[kaM&4 dh vko';drk ds vuqlkj ekU;rk dk le; ij uohdj.k u djkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa izos'k

vfuok;Z :i ls can gks tk,axsA

[lañ oh&11015@1@2011&,ebZ&ih&I]

/kzqo pØorhZ] voj lfpo

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1871.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 12 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 Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule under the heading "Nepal" — against "Tribhuvan University, Nepal", under the headings 'Title'

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], 'Nature of qualifications as stated in diploma' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)]

and "Abbreviation" [hereinafter referred to as column (4)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto the following shall

be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

(4)

"MD (Internal Medicine)"

"Doctor of Medicine

Tribhuvan University, Nepal

(Internal Medicine)"

[This shall be a recognized qualification when

granted by Tribhuvan University, Nepal in respect

of students being trained at Institute of Medicine,

Maharaj Gunj, Kathmandu, Nepal on or after 1997]

Note to all: 1. The number of admissions are restricted to Four students per year.

2. 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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5027

3. 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. V-11015/1/2011-ME-P-I]

DHRUV CHAKRAVARTY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1872.—dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 12 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] mDr vf/kfu;e dh f}rh; vuqlwph esa ,rn}kjk fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/ku djrh gSa uker% %µ

mDr vuqlwph esa ^^usiky** 'kh"kZd ds rgr — ^^f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky** ds le{k] 'kh"kZ ^mikf/k* ds rgr [blds ckn tSlk fd dkWye ¼2½

esa lanfHkZr gS]] ^fMIyksek esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vgZrk dh izd`fr* [blds ckn tSlk fd dkWye ¼3½ esa lanfHkZr gS] rFkk ^^laf{kfIr** [blds ckn tSlk

fd dkWye ¼4½ esa lnfHkZr gS]] vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds i'pkr~] fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh] uker% %µ

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

^^,eMh

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu

f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky

¼Mhoh,y½**

¼Ropk foKku ,oa ;kSu

[vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] egkjktxat] dkBekaMq] usiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk

jksx rFkk dq"B jksx

jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky }kjk o"kZ 2007 esa

foKku½**

;k blds ckn iznku dh xbZ ;g vgZrk ekU;rk izkIr gksxh]

lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh%

1- izos'k dh la[;k izfro"kZ pkj fo|kfFkZ;ksa rd lhfer dj nh xbZ gSA

2- LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks iznku dh xbZ ,slh ekU;rk dh vf/kdre vof/k 5 o"kZ ds fy, gksxh ftlds mijkar bldk

uohdj.k djkuk gksxkA

3- mi[kaM&4 dh vko';drk ds vuqlkj ekU;rk dk le; ij uohdj.k u djkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj

ikB~;Øe esa izos'k vfuok;Z :i ls can gks tk,axsA

[lañ oh&11015@1@2011&,ebZ&ih&I]

/kzqo pØorhZ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1872.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 12 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 Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule under the heading "Nepal" — against "Tribhuvan University, Nepal", under the headings 'Title'

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], 'Nature of qualifications as stated in diploma' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)]

and "Abbreviation" [hereinafter referred to as column (4)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto the following shall

be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

(4)

'MD (DVL)"

"Doctor of Medicine

Tribhuvan University, Nepal

(Dermatology & Venereology

[This shall be recognized qualification when

and Leprosy)"

granted by Tribhuvan University, Nepal in respect

of students being trained at Institute of Medicine,

Maharaj Gung, Kathmandu, Nepal on or after 2007]

5028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Note to all:

1. The number of admissions are restricted to Four students per year.

2. 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.

3. 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. V-11015/1/2011-ME-P-I]

DHRUV CHAKRAVARTY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1873.—dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 12 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk

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

la'kks/ku djrh gSa] uker% %µ

mDr vuqlwph esa ^^usiky** 'kh"kZd ds rgr — ^^f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky** ds le{k] 'kh"kZ ^mikf/k* ds rgr [blds ckn tSlk fd

dkWye ¼2½ esa lanfHkZr gS]] ^fMIyksek esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vgZrk dh izd`fr* [blds ckn tSlk fd dkWye ¼3½ esa lanfHkZr gS] rFkk ^^laf{kfIr** [blds

ckn tSlk fd dkWye ¼4½ esa lanfHkZr gS]] vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds i'pkr~] fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh]

uker% %µ

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

^^,e,l

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky

¼vfLFk foKku½**

[vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] egkjktxat] dkBekaMq] usiky esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk

jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa f=Hkqou fo'ofo|ky;] usiky }kjk o"kZ 2001 esa

;k blds ckn iznku dh xbZ ;g vgZrk ekU;rk izkIr gksxh]

lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh%

1- izos'k dh la[;k izfro"kZ pkj fo|kfFkZ;ksa rd lhfer dj nh xbZ gSA

2- LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks iznku dh xbZ ,slh ekU;rk dh vf/kdre vof/k 5 o"kZ ds fy, gksxh ftlds mijkar bldk

uohdj.k djuk gksxkA

3- mi[kaM-4 dh vko';drk ds vuqlkj ekU;rk dk le; ij uohdj.k u djkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj

ikB~;Øe esa izos'k vfuok;Z :i ls can gks tk,axsA

[lañ oh&11015@1@2011-,ebZ&ih&I]

/kzqo pØorhZ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1873.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 12 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 Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule under the heading "Nepal" — against "Tribhuvan University, Nepal", under the headings 'Title'

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], 'Nature of qualifications as stated in diploma' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)]

and "Abbriviation" [hereinafter referred to as column (4)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto the following shall

be inserted, namely:—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5029

(2)

(3)

(4)

"MD (Orthopaedics)"

"Master of Surgery

Tribhuvan University, Nepal

(Orthopaedics)"

[This shall be a recognized qualification when

granted by Tribhuvan University, Nepal in respect

of students being trained at Institute of Medicine,

Maharaj Gunj, Kathmandu, Nepal on or after 2001]

Note to all:

The number of admissions are restricted to Three students per year.

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

which it shall have to renewed.

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. V. 11015/1/2011-ME-P-I]

DHRUV CHAKRAVARTY, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1874.—dsaæ ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 12 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk

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

la'kks/ku djrh gS uker% %—

mDr vuqlwph esa ^^usiky** 'kh"kZd ds rgrµ^^chñihñ dksbjkyk LokLF; foKku laLFkku] /kju] usiky** ds le{k] 'kh"kZ ^mikf/k* ds rgr

[blds ckn tSlk fd dkWye ¼2½ esa lanfHkZr gS]] ^fMIyksek esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr vgZrk dh izd`fr* [blds ckn tSlk fd dkWye ¼3½ esa lanfHkZr gS]

rFkk ^^laf{kfIr** [blds ckn tSlk fd dkWye ¼4½ esa lanfHkZr gS]] vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lEcaf/kr izfof"V ds i'pkr~] fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka

var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh] uker% %—

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

^^,e,l ¼vkschth½**

^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh

chñihñ dksbjkyk LokLF; foKku laLFkku] /kju] usiky

¼izlwfr ,oa L=h jksx foKku½**

[chñihñ dksbjkyk LokLF; foKku laLFkku] /kju] usiky esa izf'kf{kr fd,

tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa chñihñ dksbjkyk LokLF; foKku laLFkku]

èju] usiky ¼le fo'ofo|ky;½ }kjk o"kZ 2003 esa ;k blds ckn iznku

dh xbZ ;g vgZrk ekU;rk izkIr gksxh]

lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh%

1- izos'k dh la[;k izfro"kZ nks fo|kfFkZ;ksa rd lhfer dj nh xbZ gSA

2- LukrdksRrj ikB~;Øe dks iznku dh xbZ ,slh ekU;rk dh vf/kdre vof/k 5 o"kZ ds fy, gksxh ftlds mijkar bldk

uohdj.k djkuk gksxkA

3- mi&[kaM ¼4½ dh vko';drk ds vuqlkj ekU;rk dk le; ij uohdj.k u djkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i lacaf/kr LukrdksRrj

ikB~;Øe esa izos'k vfuok;Z :i ls can gks tk,axsA

[lañ oh&11015@1@2011&,ebZ&ih&I]

/kzqo pØorhZ] voj lfpo

5030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013

S.O. 1874.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 12 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 Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule under the heading "Nepal"—against "B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal",

under the headings 'Title' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], 'Nature of qualifications as stated in diploma' {hereinafter

referred to as column (3)} and "Abbreviation" [hereinafter referred to as column (4)], after the last entry and entry relating

thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

(4)

"MS (OBG)"

"Master of Surgery

B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan,

(Obstetrics & Gynecology)"

Nepal

[This shall be a recognized qualification when

granted by B.P. Koirala Institute of Health

Sciences, Dharan, Nepal (Deemed University) in

respect of students being trained at B.P. Koirala

Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal on or

after 2003]

Note to all:

1. The number of admissions are restricted to Two students per year.

2. 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.

3. 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. V-11015/1/2011-ME-P-I]

DHRUV CHAKRAVARTY, Under Secy.

okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=ky;

¼okf.kT; foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1875.—dsUæh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds lkFk ifBr] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh

fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963 ¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ ,lth,l

bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] }kj lañ 45&56&351] 1 ysu] ujflEgk uxj] ,u,p&5 fo'kk[kkiRrue&530 024] vkU/kz izns'k] Hkkjr esa bl vf/klwpuk

ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;kad dkñvkñ 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj]

1965 vkSj dkñvkñ 3978 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 ls mikc) vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V lewg&I [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld]

QSjkse®xuht vkSj lewg&II QSYMLikj dk fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu jgrs gq,] mDr] [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa dk fo'kk[kkiRrue esa] fu;kZr ls iwoZ

fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku djrh gS] vFkkZr~%—

(i) eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] }kj lañ 45&56&351] 1 ysu] ujflEgk uxj] ,u,p&5 fo'kk[kkiRrue&530 024] vkU/kz

izns'k] [kfut vkSj v;Ld] lewg&I dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 vkSj [kfut vkSj v;Ld] lewg&II dk fu;kZr

¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds v/khu fujh{k.k djus ds fy, muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh tkap djus ds fy,

bl fufeRr fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a nsxh( vkSj

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5031

(ii) eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM] }kj lañ 45&56&351] 1 ysu] ujflEgk uxj] ,u,p&5 fo'kk[kkiRrue&530 024] vkU/kz

izns'k] bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ }kjk le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn,

x, funs'kksa ls vkc) gksaxsA

[lañ 4@7@2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]

,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2013

S.O. 1875.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964

the Central Government hereby recognizes M/s SGS India Private Limited, Door No. 45-56-3/5/1, I Lane, Narsimha Nagar, NH-5,

Visakhapatnam-530 024, A.P., India as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification,

for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group I namely Iron ores, Ferro Manganese and Group II Feldspar, specified in the

schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the

20th December, 1965, and S.O. 3978, dated the 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and

Ores at Vishakhapatnam and Gangavaram subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i)

That M/s SGS India Private Limited, Door No. 45-56-3/5/1, I Lane, Narsimha Nagar, NH-5, Visakhapatnam-530 024,

A.P., shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to

examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the inspection under the rule 4 of the Export of

Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group-II (Inspection)

Rules, 1965 and;

(ii)

that M/s. SGS India Private Limited, Door No. 45-56-3/5/1, I Lane, Narsimha Nagar, NH-5, Visakhapatnam-530 024,

A.P., in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directions as the Director

(Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[No. 4/7/2013-Export Inspection]

A. K. TRIPATHY, J. Secy.

d`f"k ea=ky;

¼d`f"k vuqla/kku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1876.—yksd&ifjlj 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ¼vuf/kd`r vf/kHkksDrk dks fudkyuk½ dks ykxw

djus esa dsUæ ljdkj fuEu rkfydk ds dkye ¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa tks ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkfj;ksa ds j®d ds lerqY; vf/kdkjh

g®] dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds rgr dk;Z laiknu ds fy, laink vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrh gS tks mDr vf/kfu;e ds rgr laink vf/kdkfj;ksa dks iznRr

'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx dj ldsaxs rFkk lkSis x;s dk;ks± dks djsaxs tks muds lacaf/kr {ks=kf/kdkj dh LFkkuh; lhek esa uhps nh x;h rkfydk ds dkye ¼3½

dh laxr izfof"V esa fn;s x;s yksd&ifjlj ds laca/k esa gSA

rkfydk

Øe lañ

vf/kdkjh dk uke o inuke

n'kkZ;s x;s jkT;ksa ds vuqlkj LFkkuh; lhek,a

Jh chñdsñ flUgk] ofj"B iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh] dsUæh; pkoy

mM+hlk] fcgkj] >kj[k.M] if'pe caxky] flfDde] es?kky;]

vuqla/kku laLFkku] dVd

vle] v:.kkpy izns'k] ukxky®M] e.khiqj] fetksje]

f=iqjk] vaMeku fudksckj }hi lewgA

Jh ,eñchñ [kqCMhdj] ofj"B iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh] dsUæh;

egkjk"Vª] xksok] xqtjkr] e/; izns'k] jktLFkku] NRrhlx<+]

ekfRL;dh f'k{kk laLFkku] eqEcbZ

neu o nhoA

5032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Jh ,lñdsñ xteksrh] ofj"B iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh] Hkkjrh; d`f"k

mRrj izns'k] fnYyh] gfj;k.kk] iatkc] tEew ,aM d'ehj]

vuqla/kku laLFkku] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh

fgekpy izns'k] p.Mhx<+] ,oa mRrjk[k.MA

Jh pkYlZ bDdk] ofj"B iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh] Hkkjrh; ckxokuh

rfeyukMq] dsjy] vkU/kz izns'k] ikf.Mpsjh] nknjk ,oa ukxj

vuqla/kku laLFkku] caxyq:

gosyh] dukZVd] y{k}hiA

[feñlañ 15¼15½ 2010&bZ ,.M ,e]

js[kk vkuan] voj lfpo]

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013

S.O. 1876.—In exercise if powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)

Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) the Central Government hereby appoints the following officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table,

being the officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate Officers for the purpose under

the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on the Estate Officers by or under

the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction, in respect of the public premises specified in the

corresponding entry in column (3) of the Table below:

TABLE

S.No.

Name and Designation of the Officer

Local limits as per States indicated

Shri B.K. Sinha,

Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Sikkim, Meghalaya,

Sr. Admn. Officer,

Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram,

Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack.

Tripura, A&N Islands

Sh. M.B. Khubdikar,

Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan,

Sr. Admn. Officer,

Chhattisgarh, Daman and Diu.

Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai.

Sh. S.K. Gajmoti,

Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir,

Sr. Admn. Officer,

Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh and Uttrakhand.

Indian Agricultural Research Institute,

Pusa, New Delhi.

Sh. Charles Ekka,

Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Pondicherry, Dadra

Sr. Admn. Officer,

and Nagar Haveli, Karnataka, Lakshadweep.

Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru.

[No. 15(15) 2010-E&M]

Rekha Anand, Under Secy.

jlk;u vkSj moZjd ea=ky;

¼moZjd foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2013

vf/klwpuk

dkñvkñ 1877.—yksd ifjlj ¼vuf/kd`r fuokfl;ksa dk fu"dklu½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 dh /kkjk 3 esa nh xbZ 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

dsaæ ljdkj ,rn~}kjk ¯gnqLrku QfVZykbtlZ dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM dh nqxkZiqj bdkbZ ds izHkkjh dks mDr vf/kfu;e gsrq laink vf/kdkjh ds :i esa

Øe lañ

vf/kdkjh dk uke o inuke

n'kkZ;s x;s jkT;ksa ds vuqlkj LFkkuh; lhek,a

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5033

fu;qDr djrh gS] tks nh xbZ 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj mDr vf/

kfu;e }kjk vFkok blds varxZr laink vf/kdkjh dks lk®is tkus okys

dk;ZHkkj dk fuokZg djsaxsA

[lañ 76@01@2005 ekñlañ&I]

dqyoar jk.kk] voj lfpo ¼ekñlañ&I½

MINISTRY OF CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS

(Department of Fertilizers)

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2013

S.O. 1877.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971, the Central Government hereby

appoints the In-charge, Durgapur Unit of Hindustan

Fertilizers Corporation Limited as Estate Officer of the Unit

for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the

powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on Estate

Officer by or under the said Act.

[No. 76/01/2005-HR-I]

KULWANT RANA, Under Secy. (HR-I)

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1878.—dsUæh; ljdkj dk fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk mls

izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj ij djus ds i'pkr ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa of.kZr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½ ckV rFkk eki

ekud vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk 60½ vkSj ckV rFkk eki ekud

¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 1987 ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj

bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/k esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku

djrk jgsxk(

vr% vc dsUæh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh

mi/kkjk ¼7½ vkSj mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ , lh ,e bZ vkVkses'ku izkñ fyñ] IykV uñ 18 ds] ykbV baMfLVª;y

,fj;k] fHkykbZ&490026 NÙkhlx<+ }kjk fofufeZr e/;e ;FkkFkZrk

¼;FkkFkZrk oxZ&III½ okys ^, MCY;w ch* Üka`[kyk ds vLopkfyr

vadd lwpu lfgr rksyu midj.k ¼osfczt Vkbi½ ds ekWMy dk]

ftlds czk.M dk uke ^, lh ,e bZ* gS ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

ekWMy dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpUg vkbZ ,u Mh@09@06@396

leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i= tkjh djrh gSA

mDr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½ ,d fod`r xst izdkj

dk Hkkj lSy vk/kkfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k gSA bldh vfèdre

{kerk 40]000 fdyks xzke vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 fdyks xzke gS

20]000 fdñxzkñ ls de {kerk ds fy, lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼bZ½

5 fdñ xzkñ gS tcfd 20]000 ls 40]000 fdñxzkñ {kerk ds fy, lR;kiu

ekieku varjky ¼bZ½ 10 fdñxzkñ gSA blesa ,d vk/ks;rqyu ;qfDr gS

ftldk 'kr izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kkfjr vk/ks;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k

mRltZd Mk;ksM ¼,y bZ Mh½ rksyu ifj.kke minf'kZr djrk gSA midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kkjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA

vkd`fr&ekWMy

ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus ds izko/kku dk ;kstukc) Mk;xzke

bafMdsVj ds uhps vkSj Åij Nsn djds] bafMdsVj ds ihNs dh

ck;ha rjQ ls lh¯yx dh tkrh gS bu Nsnksa esa yhM rkj cka/kh tkrh gSA

midj.k dks lhy ds lkFk NsM+NkM+ fd;s fcuk [kksyk ugha tk ldrkA

ekWMy ds lh¯yx izko/kku dk Ldheokj Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gSA

vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk

¼12½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd

mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i= ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk

5034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

}kjk mlh fl)kUr] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls] ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofufeZr mlh Üka`[kyk

ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

5 fdyks xzke ;k mlls vf/kd ds ^bZ* eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd

dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ lfgr 5 Vu ls vf/kd

vkSj 100 Vu rd dh vf/kdre {kerk okys g® vkSj ^bZ* eku 1X10^ds]

2X10^ds ;k 5X10^ds] ds g®] tks /kukRed ;k _.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU;

ds lerqY; g®A

[lañ MCY;w ,e&21¼96½@2006]

chñ ,uñ nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/kd eki foKku

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND

PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1878.—Whereas the Central Government, after

considering the report submitted to it by prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said

report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with

the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures

Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said

model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied

conditions;

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act,

the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the

certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic

weighing instrument (Weighbridge Type) with digital

indication of "AWB" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy

class-III) and with brand name "ACME" (herein referred to

as the said model), manufactured by M/s ACME

Automation Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 18 K, Light Industrial Area,

Bhilai-490026, Chhattisgarh and which is assigned the

approval mark IND/09/06/396;

The said model (see the figure below) is a load cell

based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of

40000 kg and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The vertification

scale interval (e) is 5 kg for capacities less than 20,000 kg;

and for capacities between 20,000 kg and 40,000 kg, the

verification scale interval is 10 kg. It has a tare device with

a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light

Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results.

The instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative

current power supply.

Figure 1: Model Indicator

Figure 2 : Platform

Figure 3: Schemetic diagram of sealing provision

The sealing is provided on the rear left side of the

indicator by making a hole each on top and bottom of the

indicator. A leaded wire is fastened to these holes. The

instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal.

A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the

model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-

section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval

of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments

of similar make, accurancy and performance of same series

with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 100 tonne

with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to

10000 for 'e' value 5 kg or more and with 'e' value of the form

1 x 10k, 2 x 10k or 5 x 10k, where k is a positive or negative

whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same

manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design

and with the same materials with which, the said approved

model has been manufactured.

[No. WM-21(96)/2006]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5035

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1879.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk

mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj ij djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS

fd mDr fjiksVZ esa of.kZr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½ ckV rFkk

eki ekud vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk 60½ vkSj ckV rFkk eki

ekud ¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 1987 ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i gS

vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/k esa Hkh mDr

ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok

iznku djrk jgsxk(

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh

mi/kkjk ¼7½ vkSj mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ , lh ,e bZ vkVkses'ku izkñ fyñ IykV uañ 18 ds] ykbV baMfLVª;y

,fj;k] fHkykbZ&490026 NÙkhlx<+ }kjk fofufeZr e/;e ;FkkFkZrk

¼;FkkFkZrk oxZ&III½ okys ^, ,p MCY; w Üka`[kyk ds vLopkfyr vadd

lwpuk lfgr rksyu midj.k ¼gqij@fcu osbax Vkbi½ ds ekWMy dk]

ftlds czk.M dk uke ^, lh ,e bZ* gS ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

ekWMy dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpø vkbZ ,u Mh@09@06@470

leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i= tkjh djrh gSA

mDr ekWMy ,d fod`r xst izdkj dk Hkkj lSy vk/kkfjr

vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼gqij@fcu osbax Vkbi½ gSA bldh

vfèdre {kerk 200 fdyks xzke gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 4 fdyks xzke

gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼bZ½ 200 xzkñ gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM

¼,y bZ Mh½ rksyu ifj.kke minf'kZr djrk gSA midj.k 230 oksYV

vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kkjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA

vkd`fr&ekWMy

ekWMy dks lhfyax djus ds izko/kku dk ;kstukc) Mk;xzke

bafMdsVj ds uhps vkSj Åij Nsn djds] bafMdsVj ds ihNs dh

ck;ha rjQ ls lhfyax dh tkrh gS bu Nsnksa esa yhM rkj cka/kh tkrh gSA

midj.k dks lhy ds lkFk NsM+NkM+ fd;s fcuk [kksyk ugha tk ldrkA

ekWMy ds lhfyax izko/kku dk Ldheokj Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gSA

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk

¼12½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd

mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki= ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk

}kjk mlh fl)kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls] ftlls mDr

vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofufeZr mlh Üka`[kyk ds oSls

gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 5 xzke

;k mlls vf/kd ds ^bZ* eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa

lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ lfgr 50 fdyks xzke ls vf/kd vkSj

5000 fdyks xzke rd dh vf/kdre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^bZ* eku 1 x

10^ds] 2 x 10^ds ;k 5 x 10^ds ds gSa] tks /kukRed ;k _.kkRed iw.kk±d

;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSaA

[lañ MCY;w ,e&21 ¼96½@2006]

chñ ,uñ nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/kd eki foKku

New Delhi, 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1879.—Whereas the Central Government, after

considering the report submitted to it by prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said

report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act,

1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said

model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied

conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the

certificate of approval of the model of Non-automatic

weighing instrument (Hopper/Bin Weighing type) with

digital indication of "AHW" series of medium accuracy

(Accuracy class-III) and with brand name "ACME" (herein

referred to as the said Model), manufactured by M/s ACME

Automation Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 18 K, Light Industrial Area,

Bhilai-490026, Chhattisgarh and which is assigned the

approval mark IND/09/06/470;

The said model is a load cell based Non-Automatic

weighing instrument (Hopper/Bin Weighing type) with a

maximum capacity of 200 kg and minimum capacity of 4kg.

The verification scale interval (e) is 200 g. The light emitting

diode (LED) indicates the weighing results. The instrument

operates on 230 Volts. 50 Hertz alternative current power

supply.

5036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Figure 1 - Model (Hopper)

Figure 3 - Schemetic diagram of sealing provision

The sealing is provided on the rear left side of the

indicator by making a hole on top and botton of the

indicator. A leaded wire is fastened to these holes. The

instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal.

A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the

model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-

section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval

of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments

of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series

with maximum capacities between 50 kg and up to 5000 kg

and with number of vertification scale interval (n) in the

range of 500 to 10000 for 'e' value of 5 g or more and with 'e'

value of 1 x 10k, 2 x 10k or 5 x 10k, where k is a positive or

negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by

the same manufacturer in accordance with the same

principle, design and with the same materials with which,

the said approved model has been manufactured.

[No. WM-21 (96)/2006]

B.N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ 1880.—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 ekud¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa%

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud dh

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

la'kks/ku ykxw

la[;k

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

gksus dh frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 4031 ¼Hkkx 3½% 1988

la'kks/ku la[;k 2] twu 2013

30 twu 2013

vkbZ ,l 4031 ¼Hkkx 4½% 1988

la'kks/ku la[;k 2] twu 2013

30 twu 2013

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5037

vkbZ ,l 4031 ¼Hkkx 5½% 1988

la'kks/ku la[;k 2] twu 2013

30 twu 2013

vkbZ ,l 4031 ¼Hkkx 10½% 1988

la'kks/ku la[;k 1] twu 2013

30 twu 2013

vkbZ ,l 4031 ¼Hkkx 12½% 1988

la'kks/ku la[;k 2] twu 2013

30 twu 2013

vkbZ ,l 4031 ¼Hkkx 13½% 1988

la'kks/ku la[;k 1] twu 2013

30 twu 2013

vkbZ ,l 4031 ¼Hkkx 14½% 1989

la'kks/ku la[;k 1] twu 2013

30 twu 2013

vkbZ ,l 1727 % 1967

la'kks/ku la[;k 2] twu 2013

30 twu 2013

bu la'kks/kuksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQ+j ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh]

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

dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]

lat; iar] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2013

S.O. 1880.—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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule below, have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and year of the

No. and year of

Date from which

Indian Standards

the amendments

the amendment

shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 4031 (Part 3): 1988

Amendment No. 2, June 2013

30 June 2013

IS 4031 (Part 4): 1988

Amendment No. 2, June 2013

30 June 2013

IS 4031 (Part 5): 1988

Amendment No. 2, June 2013

30 June 2013

IS 4031 (Part 10): 1988

Amendment No. 1, June 2013

30 June 2013

IS 4031 (Part 12): 1988

Amendment No. 2, June 2013

30 June 2013

IS 4031 (Part 13): 1988

Amendment No. 1, June 2013

30 June 2013

IS 4031 (Part 14): 1989

Amendment No. 1, June 2013

30 June 2013

IS 1727 : 1967

Amendment No. 2, June 2013

30 June 2013

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

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices at New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Patna, Pune & Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

SANJAY PANT, Scientist, 'E' & Head (Civil Engg.)

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

5038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1881.—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;s x;s gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

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 13024 % 2013 la'kys[k peZ'kks/kd

—

31 tqykbZ 2013

flUVSu vkid ouLifr peZ nzo fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 16061 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2013@

—

31 tqykbZ 2013

vkbZ,lvks 14687&1 % 1999 gkbMªkstu b±/ku mRikn

fof'kf"V Hkkx 1 lM+d ij okguksa ds fy, izksVksu ,Dlpsat

esEcjsu ¼ihbZ,e½ b±/ku dksf'kdkvksa dks NksM+dj lHkh

mi;ksx ds fy,

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka 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] iVuk] iq.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 17@vkbZ,l 13024 vkSj lh,pMh 6@16061 ¼Hkkx 1½]

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

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1881.—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. & Year of the

No. & Year of Indian

Date of

Indian Standard Established

Standards, if any,

Established

Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13024 : 2013 Syntans for prevention of sludge

—

31 July 2013

formation in vegetable tan liquor-Specification

(First Revision)

IS 16061 (Part 1) : 2013/ISO 14687-1 : 1999

—

31 July 2013

Hydrogen fuel—Product certification Part 1

All applications except proton exchange

membrane (PEM) fuel cells for road vehicles.

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5039

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

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

[Ref. CHD 17/IS13024 & CHD 6/16061 (Pt. 1)]

Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1882.—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;s x;s gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

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

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 13506 % 2013 Lopy okgu-la;kstu ds fy, ijh{k.k

—

tqykbZ 2013

i)fr ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 14618 % 2013 Lopy okgu-okrkuqdwy ra= rkih;

—

tqykbZ 2013

dk;Zdkfjrk-ekiu fof/k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 15971 % 2013 iksrfuekZ.k-varnsZ'kh; ukSpkyuk ds

—

tqykbZ 2013

fy, osfYMr bLikr ds Me: ukScan-fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l 15998 % 2013 leqnzh iz;ksx gsrq dkLV vk;ju] flQjkW;y

—

vxLr 2013

uksM;wyj dkLV vk;ju vkSj dkLV LVhy] LØw&Mkmu LVkWi okYo

vkSj LVkWi vkSj pSd okYo-fof'kf"V

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka 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] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ Vh bZ Mh@th&16]

ihñ lhñ tks'kh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼Vh bZ Mh½

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 1882.—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. Year & title of the

No. & Year of Indian

Date of

Indian Standard Established

Standards, if any,

Established

Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

13506 : 2013 Automotive vehicles-

—

July 2013

Method of test for articulation (First Revision)

5040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14618 : 2013 Automotive vehicles-Air

—

July 2013

conditioning systems thermal performance-

Method of measurement (First Revision)

15971 : 2103 Shipbuilding-Welded steel

—

July 2013

double bollards for inland navigation-Specification

15998 : 2013 Cast iron, spheroidal/nodular

—

August 2013

cast iron and cast steel screw-down stop valves

and stop and check valves for marine applications-

Specification

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

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. TED/G-16]

P. C. JOSHI, Scientist 'F' & Head (Transport Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1883.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks izek.ku fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 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 Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—¼ekg 1 vDVwcj 2012 ls

30 twu 2013 rd½

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd vkbZ,l la[;k] Hkkx]

la[;k

iznku dh

vuqHkkx] o"kZ

frfFk

9956213

03-10-2012

esñ ek ljLorh ToSylZ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

laxe 'kkfiax lsUVj] 'kki uañ 14] fo|qr fogkj

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbusl ,.M ekfd±x

ihvks—'kfDr uxj] ftyk&lksuHknz

vkbZ ,l 1417 % 1999

mÙkj izns'k&231222

9956415

03-10-2012

esñ fuEcl csojstst izkñ fyñ

iSdsTM fMªafdax okVj

IykV uañ bZ&16] b.MfLVª;y ,fj;k] jkeuxj

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ftyk&pUnkSyh] mñizñ&221008

vkbZ ,l 14543 % 2004

9960406

05-10-2012

esñ fo/kk IykbZ ,.M cksMZ izkñ fyñ

ekSYMsM jsTM gkbZ MsfUlVh Qkbcj

xka/khxat] ftyk&'kkgtgkaiqj

¼,pMh,Q½ iSuy MkslZ]

mÙkj izns'k&242001

vkbZ ,l 15380 % 2003

9961812

16-10-2012

t; guqeku IykbZoqM b.MLVªht]

IykbZoqM Qkj tujy ijitst

IykV uañ 6] 16] 17] xn~nksiqj b.MfLVª;y bLVsV]

vkbZ ,l 303 % 1989

ftyk&QStkckn] mÙkj izns'k&242001

9961408

19-10-2012

esñ ,e ,.M xqIrk bUVjizkbtst

iSdsTM ¯Mªfdax okVj

fu;j xty LVwfM;ks] ukthiqjk]

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ftyk&cgjkbp] mñizñ&271801

vkbZ ,l 14543% 2004

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5041

9963917

08-11-2012

esñ dsfedy ,.M ,yk;M izksMDV~l

eksuksdksVksQkl ,lvkbZ

xouZesUV b.MfLVª;y bLVsV

vkbZ ,l 8074% 1990

ftyk&nsofj;k] mñizñ&274001

9964010

08-11-2012

esñ dsfedy ,.M ,yk;M izksMDV~l

izsfVykDyksj befYlfQ,cy dUlsUVªsV

xouZesUV b.MfLVª;y bLVsV

vkbZ ,l 15160% 2002

ftyk&nsofj;k] mñizñ&274001

9964818

08-11-2012

esñ vkfn'k IykfLVDl

jksVs'kuy ekYMsM ikyhfFkfyu okVj

,Qñ 61] b.MfLVª;y ,fj;k] jkeuxj]

LVksjst V®Dl

ftyk&pUnkSyh mÙkj izns'k&221110

vkbZ ,l 12701% 2004

9964616

09-11-2012

esñ vkuUn csojstst

iSdsTM fMª¯dx okVj

1275] 'ksdiqj] ftyk&mUuko]

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

mÙkj izns'k& 209801

vkbZ,l 14543% 2004

10-

9966822

15-11-2012

esñ nhid ySfeus'ku

IykbZoqM Qkj tujy ijitst

xzke o iksLVj&fenfu;k] xjgh jksM]

vkbZ ,l 303% 1989

ftyk& y[kheiqj [khjh] mÙkj izns'k&262701

11-

9966923

15-11-2012

esñ nhid ySfeus'ku

Cykd cksMZ

xzke o iksLV&fenfu;k] xjgh jksM]

vkbZ ,l 1659% 2004

ftyk&y[kheiqj [khjh] mÙkj izns'k&262701

12-

9967016

15-11-2012

esñ nhid ySfeus'ku

oqMsu Qy'k Mksj'kVlZ lkfyM dksj Vkbi

Xkzke o iksLV&fenfu;k] xjgh jksM]

Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM Qsl iSuYl]

ftyk&y[kheiqj [khjh] mÙkj izns'k&262701

vkbZ ,l 2202% Hkkx 1% 1999

13-

9966519

16-11-2012

esñ vfEcdk oqM izksMDV~l

IykbZoqM Qkj tujy ijitst

xzke&dksVk vyh uxj] iksLV&:nzk fcykl

vkbZ ,l 303%1989

lqxj fey] fcykliqj

ftyk&jkeiqj] mÙkj izns'k&244921

14-

9966216

27-11-2012

esñ v:u ToSylZ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

'kki uañ 7&8] izFke ry] jkIrh dkEIysDl]

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbusl ,.M ekfd±x

esfMdy jksM] vklqjku pkSd]

vkbZ ,l 1417% 1999

ftyk&xksj[kiqj] mÙkj izns'k&273006

15-

9968624

04-12-2012

esñ ykyth vkukZesUV gkml

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

332@186@1] xksy njoktk] pkSd]

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbusl ,.M ekfd±x

ftyk&y[kuÅ] mñizñ&226003

vkbZ ,l 1417% 1999

16-

9968725

04-12-2012

esñ fjyk;Ul tsEl ,.M ToSYl fyñ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

25] gtjrxat( ftyk&y[kuÅ] mñizñ&226001

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbusl ,.M ekfd±x

vkbZ ,l 1417% 1999

17-

9968927

04-12-2012

esñ fjyk;Ul tsEl ,.M ToSYl fyñ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

bEihfj;y fcfYMx uañ Mh&58@52&lh]

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbusl ,.M ekfd±x

IykV uañ 605] eksñ jFk;k=k ekStk f'koiqjk

vkbZ ,l 1417% 1999

ijxuk] ftyk&okjk.klh] mñizñ 221010

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd vkbZ,l la[;k] Hkkx]

la[;k

iznku dh

vuqHkkx] o"kZ

frfFk

5042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18-

9968826

05-12-2012

esñ fjyk;Ul tsEl ,.M ToSYl fyñ

flYoj ,.M flYoj ,yk;t]

25] gtjrxat( ftyk&y[kuÅ] mñizñ&226001

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbusl ,.M ekfd±x

vkbZ ,l 2112% 2003

19-

9969020

05-12-2012

esñ fjyk;Ul tsEl ,.M ToSYl fyñ

flYoj ,.M flyoj ,yk;t]

bEihfj;y fcfYMax uañ Mh&58@52&lh]

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbusl ,.M ekfd±x

IykV uañ 605] eksñ jFk;k=k ekStk f'koiqjk

vkbZ ,l 2112% 2003

ijxuk] ftyk&okjk.klh] mñizñ 221010

20-

9969626

07-12-2012

esñ cnzh ukjk;.k ljkZQ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

551ts,p,@92] jke uxj] vkyeckx]

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbusl ,.M ekfd±x

ftyk&y[kuÅ] mñizñ&226005

vkbZ ,l 1417% 1999

21-

9970207

11-12-2012

esñ euksdkeuk lhesUV fctusl izñ fyñ

iksVZyS.M ikstksykuk lhesUV

clUr uxj] jke uxj]

¼¶ykbZ,'k csLM½

ftyk&pUnkSyh] mÙkj izns'k 221110

vkbZ ,l 1489% Hkkx&1%1991

22-

9972110

20-12-2012

esñ jghe nkn [kku

Mhiosy gS.MiEIl] dEiksusUV~l ,oa

lh&14] lh&15] b.MfLVª;y ,fj;k lykjiqj]

Lis'ky] VwYl&jcj dEiksusUV~l

ftyk&cnk;wa] mÙkj izns'k

vkbZ ,l 15500% Hkkx 7% 2004

23-

9972514

26-12-2012

esñ fMlsUV okVj b.MLVªht

iSdsTM ¯Mªfdax okVj

?kqokl [kqnZ] jkcV~lZxt]

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ftyk&lksuHknz] mñizñ&231216

vkbZ ,l 14543% 2004

24-

9974316

02-01-2013

esñ tsih pqukj lhesUV izksMDV~l

dkjksxsVsM ,.M lseh&dkjksxsVsM ,LcsLVl

¼, ;wfuV vkQ t;ih lhesUV dkjiksjs'ku fyñ½

lhesUV 'khV

iksñ vksñ&pqukj] pqukj ftyk&fejtkiqj

vkbZ ,l 459 % 1992

mÙkj izns'k&231311

25-

9975318

07-01-2013

esñ t; guqeku IykbZoqM b.MLVªht

eSfju IykbZoqM

IykV uañ 5] 6] 16] 17 xM~Mksiqj b.MfLVª;y ,LVsV

vkbZ ,l 710%2010

ftyk&QStkckn] mÙkj izns'k&224001

26-

9975419

07-01-2013

esñ t; guqeku IykbZoqM b.MLVªht

IykbZoqM Qkj dadzhV 'kV¯jx odZ

IykV uañ 5] 6] 16] 17] xM~Mksiqj b.MfLVª;y ,LVsV

vkbZñ,lñ 4990%1993

ftyk&QStkckn] mÙkj izns'k&224001

27-

9976522

15-01-2013

esñ 'kkjnk bUVjizkbtst

iSdsTM ¯Mª¯dx okVj

ds&21] ,xzks ikdZ] Qst&2] ;wih,lvkbZMhlh dqlhZ jksM]

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ckjkcadh] ftyk&ckjkcadh mÙkj izns'k&225302

vkbZñ,lñ 14543%2004

28-

9977322

16-01-2013

esñ ,Dok bUVjus'kuy ukftjiqjk]

iSdsTM ¯Mª¯dx okVj

ukuikjk ckbZ ikl] cgjkbp]

¼vnj nsu uspqjy iSdsTM feujy okVj½

ftyk&cgjkbp mÙkj izns'k&271801

vkbZñ,lñ 14543%2004

29-

9978829

30-01-2013

esñ ,e ,l iSuy ,.M ,Q Mksj

Cykd cksMZ

fcykliqj xsV] xzke&ceuiqjh

vkbZñ,lñ 1659%2004

rglhy&lnj] uSuhrky jksM ftyk&jkeiqj

mÙkj izns'k&244901

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd vkbZ,l la[;k] Hkkx]

la[;k

iznku dh

vuqHkkx] o"kZ

frfFk

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5043

30-

9978930

30-01-2013

eSñ ,e ,l iSuy ,.M ,Q Mksj

oqMsu Q~y'k Mksj 'kVlZ

fcykliqj xsV] xzke&ceuiqjh] rglhy&lnj]

¼lkfyM dksj Vkbi½

uSuhrky jksM] ftyk&jkeiqj] mÙkj izns'k&244901

Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM Qsl iSuYl]

vkbZñ,lñ 2202%Hkkx 1%1999

31-

9979023

30-01-2013

eSñ ,e,l iSuy ,.M ,Q Mksj

IykbZoqM Qkj tujy ijitst

fcykliqj xsV] xzke&ceuiqjh

vkbZ ,l 303%1989

rglhy&lnj] uSuhrky jksM

ftyk&jkeiqj] mÙkj izns'k&244901

32-

9979528

01-02-2013

eSñ ohuk csojstst

iSdsTM fMªa¯dx okVj

Mh&328] ,xzks ikdZ Qst&1] dqlhZ jksM] ;wih,lvkbZMhlh

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ftyk&ckjkcadh] mÙkj izns'k&225001

vkbZñ,lñ 14543%2004

33-

9982719

18-02-2013

eSñ nsos'k QwM~l ,.M ,xzks izksMDV~l izkñ fyñ

izkslsLM lsjsy csLM daiyhesUVjh QwM~l

xzke&cjhuxyk] cq[kjk Qjhniqj jksM

Qkj bUQsaV~l

ftyk&cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k&243001

vkbZñ,lñ 11536%2007

34-

9983014

18-02-2013

eSñ xq:d`ik eSuqQSDp¯jx izkñfyñ

vuIykLVhlkbTM ihohlh ikbIl Qkj

307] djoV] ubZ Mk.Mh

iksVsZfcy okVj lIykbZ

ftyk&pUnksyh] mÙkj izns'k&232101

vkbZ ,l 4985%2000

35-

9984218

25-02-2013

eSñ ,l ,l IykbZoqM ,.M fouhj b.MLVªht

Cykd cksMZ

ttst jksM] flfoy ykbUl] iuofj;k

vkbZ ,l 1659%2004

ftyk&jkeiqj] mÙkj izns'k&244901

36-

9984319

25-02-2013

eSñ ,l ,l IykbZoqM ,.M fouhj b.MLVªht

oqMsu Q~y'k Mksj'kVlZ lkfyM dksj Vkbi

ttst jksM] flfoy ykbUl] iuofj;k

Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM Qsl iSuYl]

ftyk&jkeiqj] mÙkj izns'k&244901

vkbZ ,l 2202%Hkkx 1%1999

37-

9984420

25-02-2013

eSñ ,l ,l IykbZoqM ,.M fouhj b.MLVªht

IykbZoqM Qkj tujy ijitst

ttst jksM] flfoy ykbUl] iuofj;k

vkbZ,l 303%1989

ftyk&jkeiqj] mÙkj izns'k&244901

38-

9984521

26-02-2013

eSñ Vhdk jke ,.M lUl ToSylZ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

ljkZQk cktkj] fu;j vksYM ih,uch czkUp

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbuusl ,.M

ftyk&cnk;qW] mÙkj izns'k&243601

ekfd±x vkbZ ,l 1417%1999

39-

9985220

28-02-2013

eSñ iou dqekj vxzoky ljkZQ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

eksñ&dksBh] iksLV&:nksyh

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbuusl ,.M ekfd±x

ftyk&QStkckn] mÙkj izns'k&225411

vkbZ ,l 1417%1999

40-

9986020

06-03-2013

eSñ xkSjh 'kadj d`".k xksiky ljkZQ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

iqjkuk ljkZQk cktkj

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbuusl ,.M ekfd±x

ftyk&cnk;qW] mÙkj izns'k&243601

vkbZ ,l 1417%1999

41-

9990213

19-03-2013

eSñ Ms;jh bf.M;k izkñ fyñ

fLdEM feYd ikmMj ,DlVªk xzsM

pkSckjk ¯yd jksM] xtjkSyk

vkbZ ,l 13334 ¼Hkkx 2½% 1992

ftyk&T;ksfrckQqysuxj] mÙkj izns'k&244235

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd vkbZ,l la[;k] Hkkx]

la[;k

iznku dh

vuqHkkx] o"kZ

frfFk

5044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

42-

9990617

21-03-2013

eSñ vueksy czsojht izkñ fyñ

iSdsTM ¯Mª¯dx okVj

Mh&47] ;wih,lvkbZMhlh ,xzks ikdZ] djf[k;ksa ¼¯iUnjk½]

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

,u,p&56] okjk.klh]

vkbZ ,l 14543% 2004

ftyk&okjk.klh] mÙkj izns'k&221206

43-

9992520

26-03-2013

eSñ ljLorh LVhy

LVSuySl LVhy ¯ld Qkj MksesfLVd

Mh&4] b.MfLVª;y ,fj;k] vekWok jksM

ijitst

ftyk&jk;cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k&229001

vkbZ ,l 13983% 1994

44-

9997227

01-04-2013

eSñ gjlgk;ey ';keyky ToSylZ izkñfyñ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

148] flfoy ykbUl

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbuusl ,.M ekfd±x

ftyk&cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k&243001

vkbZ ,l 1417% 1999

45-

4800557

08-05-2013

eSñ fjyk;Ul tsEl ,.M ToSYl fyñ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

105 ch flfoy ykbUl

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbuusl ,.M

ftyk&cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k&243001

ekfd±x vkbZ ,l 1417%1999

46-

4800658

08-05-2013

eSñ fjyk;Ul tsEl ,.M ToSYl fyñ

flYoj ,.M flYoj ,yks,t]

105 ch flfoy ykbUl

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbuusl ,.M

ftyk&cjsyh] mÙkj izns'k&243001

ekfd±x vkbZ ,l 2112%2003

47-

4802359

17-05-2013

eSñ jfo isLVhlkbM~l fyñ

ftd lYQsV gSIVkgkbMªsV] ,fxzdYpjy

5 fdehñ LVksu uxhuk jksM

xzsM] vkbZ ,l 8249%1994

ftyk&fctukSj] mÙkj izns'k&246701

48-

4803058

23-05-2013

eSñ ikjl ck;ksVsd ¼izkñ½ fyñ

¯td lYQsV gSIVkgkbMªsV] ,fxzdYpjy xzsM

21 xks;y b.MfLVª;y ,fj;k] ;wih,lvkbZMhlh]

vkbZ ,l 8249% 1994

nsok jksM] fpugV] ftyk&y[kuÅ

mÙkj izns'k&227105

49-

4804161

28-05-2013

eSñ cksgjk csojstst izkñ fyñ

iSdsTM ¯Mª¯dx okVj

,p&37 ,oa 38] ,xzks ikdZ&2] ;wih,lvkbZMhlh] dqlhZ jksM

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ftyk&ckjkcadh] mÙkj izns'k

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

50-

4804262

28-05-2013

eSñ , ch ,l csojstst izkñ fyñ ¼;wfuV uañ 2½

iSdsTM ¯Mª¯dx okVj

IykV uañ 24@25] [kljk uañ 394] nsok jksM]

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

¼n;ky QkeZ gkml ds ikl½] fpugV

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

ftyk&y[kuÅ] mÙkj izns'k&226010

51-

4806670

07-06-2013

eSñ ,e ,l bUVjizkbtst

iSdsTM fMªafdax okVj

eksgYyk&lykjxat] ftyk&cgjkbp

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

mÙkj izns'k&271801

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

52-

4806569

10-06-2013

eSñ xaxs'k lhesUV izkñ fyñ

iksVZys.M ikstksykuk lhesUV Hkkx 1

,&52 b.MfLVª;y ,fj;k lFkfj;k] tkSuiqj

Q~ykbZ ,'k csLM

ftyk&tkSuiqj] mÙkj izns'k

vkbZ ,l 1489 ¼Hkkx 1½% 1991

53-

4808876

13-06-2013

eSñ fjyk;Ul ,xzks b.MLVªht

dkcksZQ~;wjku xzsuqvYl] budsIlqysVsM

319] rsanok clariqj] y[kuÅ jksM

vkbZ ,l 9360%1980

ftyk&cgjkbp] mÙkj izns'k&271801

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd vkbZ,l la[;k] Hkkx]

la[;k

iznku dh

vuqHkkx] o"kZ

frfFk

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5045

54-

4809373

20-06-2013

eSñ xkSjo ToSylZ

xksYM ,.M xksYM ,yk;t]

eSu jksM] xksy cktkj] [kyhykckn

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbuusl ,.M ekfd±x

ftyk&lUr dchj uxj] mÙkj izns'k&272175

vkbZ ,l 1417%1999

55-

4809474

20-06-2013

eSñ xkSjo ToSylZ

flYoj ,.M flYoj ,yks;t]

eSu jksM] xksy cktkj] [kyhykckn

ToSyjh@vkfVZQSDV~l&Qkbuusl ,.M ekfd±x

ftyk&lUr dchj uxj] mÙkj izns'k&272175

vkbZ ,l 2112%2003

56-

4812564

26-06-2013

eSñ LokehukFk feujy izkñ fyñ

iSdsTM fMªafdax okVj

Jh x.ks'k uxj] dFkk ?kkV jksM] xksaMk

¼vnj nsu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ftyk&xksaMk] mÙkj izns'k&227001

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

57-

4811360

27-06-2013

eSñ lqij Vsujh fyñ

lsQ~Vh izksVsfDVo ,.M vkD;wis'kuy

IykV uañ 1361] 1363 ,.M 1415] 'ks[kiqj] ujh] caFkj

QqVos;j Qkj izksQs'kuy ;wt&Hkkx 2%

ftyk&mUuko] mÙkj izns'k&209801

lsQ~Vh QqVos;j

vkbZ ,l 15298%¼Hkkx 2½%2002

[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]

MkWñ vkjñ dsñ ctkt] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2013

S.O. 1883.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification

Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the

following schedule. Period from (01.10.2012 to 30.6.2013)

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address of the Party

Title of the Standards IS No., Part,

No.

Date

Sec., Year

9956213

03.10.2012

M/s Maa Saraswati Jewellers

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

Sangam Shopping Centre, Shop No. 14,

Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

Vidhyut Bihar, P.O. Shaktinagar,

IS : 1417 : 1999

Sonebhaera, Distt : Sonbhadra

Uttar Pradesh-231222

9956415

03.10.2012

M/s Nimbus Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Packaged drinking water (other than

Plot No. E-16, Industrial Area,

packaged natural mineral water)

Ramnagar, Distt : Chandauli

IS : 14543: 2004

Uttar Pradesh-221008

9960406

05.10.2012

M/s Vidya Ply & Board Pvt. Ltd.

Moulded Raised High Density Fibre

Gandhiganj, Distt : Shahjahanpur

(HDF) Panel Doors

Uttar Pradesh-242001

IS : 15380: 2003

9961812

16.10.2012

M/s Jai Hanuman Plywood Industries

Plywood for general purposes

Plot No. 5, 6, 16, 17, Gaddopur Industrial Estate

IS : 303 : 1989

Distt. : Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh-224001

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd vkbZ,l la[;k] Hkkx]

la[;k

iznku dh

vuqHkkx] o"kZ

frfFk

5046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9961408

19.10.2012

M/s M & Gupta Enterprises

Packaged drinking water (other than

Near Gazal Studio, Naajirpura,

packaged natural mineral water)

Bahraich, Distt : Baharaich

IS : 14543: 2004

Uttar Pradesh-271801

9963917

08.11.2012

M/s Chemicals & Allied Products

Monocrotophos SI-

Govt. Industrial Estate Deoria

IS : 8074: 1990

Distt. : Deoria, Uttar Pradesh-274001

9964010

08.11.2012

M/s Chemicals & Allied Products

Pretilachlor Emulsifiable Concentrate-

Govt. Industrial Estate Deoria

IS : 15160:2002

Distt. : Deoria, Uttar Pradesh-274001

9964818

08.11.2012

M/s Adish Plastics

Rotational moulded polyethylene

F-61, Industrial Area, Ramnagar

water storage tanks

Ramnagar, Distt. : Chandauli

IS : 12701:1996

Uttar Pradesh-221110

9964616

09.11.2012

M/s Anand Beverages

Packaged drinking water (Other than

1275, Shekpur, Distt. : Unnao,

packaged natural mineral water)

Uttar Pradesh-209801

IS : 14543 : 2004

10.

9966822

15.11.2012

M/s Deepak Lamination

Plywood for general purposes

Village & Post-Midania, Garhi Road

IS : 303:1989

Lakhimpur Kheri, Distt. : Kheri

Uttar Pradesh-262701

11.

9966923

15.11.2012

M/s Deepak Lamination

Block Boards

Village & Post-Midania, Garhi Road,

IS : 1659 : 2004

Lakhimpur Kheri, Distt. : Kheri

Uttar Pradesh-262701

12.

9967016

15.11.2012

M/s Deepak Lamination

Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Solid

Village & Post -Midania, Garhi Road,

Core Type) Part I Plywood face Panels

Lakhimpur Kheri, Distt. : Kheri

IS : 2202:Part 1: 1999

Uttar Pradesh-262701

13.

9966519

16.11.2012

M/s Ambika Wood Products

Plywood for general purposes

Village-Kota Ali Nagar, Post-Rudra Bilas,

IS : 303:1989

Sugar Mill, Bilaspur, Distt. : Rampur,

Uttar Pradesh-244921

14.

9966216

27.11.2012

M/s Arun Jewellers

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

Shop No. 7-8, First Floor, Rapti Complex,

Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

Medical Road, Asuran Chowk

IS : 1417 : 1999

Distt. : Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh-273006

9968624

04.12.2012

M/s Lalji Ornament House

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

332/186/1 Gol Darwaza Chowk

Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

Distt. : Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226003

IS : 1417 : 1999

16.

9968725

04.12.2012

M/s Reliance Gems & Jewels Ltd.

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

25 Hazratganj, Distt.: Lucknow

Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

Uttar Pradesh-226001

IS : 1417 : 1999

17.

9968927

04.12.2012

M/s Reliance Gems & Jewels Ltd.

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

Imperial Building, No. D 58/52 C, Plot No. 605,

Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

Moh. Rathyatra Mauza Shivpura Pargana

IS : 1417 : 1999

Distt. : Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221010

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address of the Party

Title of the Standards IS No., Part,

No.

Date

Sec., Year

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5047

18.

9968826

05.12.2012

M/s Reliance Gems & Jewels Ltd.

Silver and Silver Alloys, Jewellery/

25, Hazratganj, Distt. : Lucknow

Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

Uttar Pradesh-226001

IS : 2112: 2003

19.

9969020

05.12.2012

M/s Reliance Gems & Jewels Ltd.

Silver and Silver Alloys, Jewellery/

Imperial Building No. D 58/52-C, Plot No. 605,

Artefacts -Fineness and Marking

Moh. Rathyatra Mauza Shivpura Pargana

IS : 2112:2003

Distt. : Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221010

20.

9969626

07.12.2012

M/s Badri Narain Sarraf

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

551 JHA/92, Ram Nagar Alambagh

Artefacts - Fineness and Marking

Distt. : Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226005

IS : 1417 : 1999

21.

9970207

11.12.2012

M/s Manokamna Cement Business (P) Ltd.,

Portland Pozzolana Cement Part 1

Basant Nagar (Ram Nagar),

Flyash based

Distt. : Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh-221110

IS : 1489 :(Pt.1):1991

22.

9972110

20.12.2012

M/s Rahim Dad Khan

Deepwell handpumps, Components

C-14, C-15, Industrial Area Salarpur,

and Special Tools-Rubber components

Distt. : Budaun, Uttar Pradesh

IS : 15500 (Pt.7)-2004

23.

9972514

26.12.2012

M/s Decent Water Industries

Packaged drinking water (other than

Ghuwas Khurd, Robertsganj

packaged natural mineral water)

Ghuwas Khurd, Distt. : Sonbhadra,

IS : 14543:2004

Uttar Pradesh-231216

24.

9974316

02.01.2013

M/s Jaypee Chunar Cement Products

Corrugated and semi-corrugated

(A Unit of Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd.,)

asbestos cement sheets

P.O. Chunar, Chunar, Distt. : Mirzapur,

IS : 459 :1992

Uttar Pradesh-231311

25.

9975318

07.01.2013

M/s Jai Hanuman Plywood Industries

Marine Plywood

Plot No. 5, 6, 16, 17, Gaddopur Industrial Estate

IS : 710:2010

Distt. : Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh-224001

26.

9975419

07.01.2013

M/s Jai Hanuman Plywood Industries

Plywood for concrete shuttering work

Plot No. 5, 6, 16, 17, Gaddopur Industrial Estate

IS 4990: 1993

Distt. : Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh-224001

27.

9976522

15.01.2013

M/s Sharda Enterprises

Packaged drinking water (other than

K-21, Agro Park, Phase-II,

packaged natural mineral water)

Upsidc Kursi Road, Barabanki, Barabanki,

IS : 14543:2004

Distt. : Bara Banki, Uttar Pradesh-225302

28.

9977322

16.01.2013

M/s Aqua International

Packaged drinking water (other than

Naazirpura, Nanpara by pass

packaged natural mineral water)

Baharaich, Distt. : Baharaich

IS: 14543:2004

Uttar Pradesh-271801

29.

9978829

30.01.2013

M/s M. S. Pannel & F. Door

Block Boards

Bilaspur Gate, Village-Bamanpuri,

IS : 1659:2004

Tehsil-Sadar, Nainital Road,

Distt. : Rampur, Uttar Pradesh-244901

30.

9978930

30.01.2013

M/s M. S. Pannel & F. Door

Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Solid

Bilaspur Gate, Village-Bamanpuri,

Core Type) Part 1 Plywood face Panels

Tehsil-Sadar, Nainital Road,

IS : 2202:Part 1: 1999

Distt. : Rampur, Uttar Pradesh-244901

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address of the Party

Title of the Standards IS No. Part

No.

Date

Sec. Year

5048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

31.

9979023

30.01.2013

M/s M. S. Pannel & F. Door

Plywood for General Purposes

Bilaspur Gate, Village-Bamanpuri,

IS : 303:1989

Tehsil-Sadar, Nainital Road,

Distt : Rampur, Uttar Pradesh-244901

32.

9979528

01.02.2013

M/s Veena Beverages

Packaged drinking water (other than

D-328, Agro Park Phase-I, Kursi Road, UPSIDC

packaged natural mineral water)

Distt. : Bara Banki, Uttar Pradesh-225001

IS : 14543:2004

33.

9982719

18.02.2013

M/s Devesh Food and Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.

Processed cereal based complementary

Village-Barinagla, Bukhara,

foods for infants

Faridpur Road, Distt. : Bareilly-243001

IS : 11536: 2007

34.

9983014

18.02.2013

M/s Gurukripa Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable

307, Karvat, Nai Dandi, Distt. : Chandauli

Water Supplies IS : 4985 : 2000

Uttar Pradesh-232101

35.

9984218

25.02.2013

M/s S. S. Plywood & Veneer Industries

Block Boards

Judges Road, Civil Lines, Panvaria,

IS : 1659 : 2004

Distt. : Rampur, Uttar Pradesh-244901

36.

9984319

25.02.2013

M/s S. S. Plywood & Veneer Industries

Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Solid

Judges Road, Civil Lines, Panvaria,

Core Type) Part 1 Plywood face Panels

Distt. : Rampur, Uttar Pradesh-244901

IS : 2202:Part 1: 1999

37.

9984420

25.02.2013

M/s S. S. Plywood & Veneer Industries

Plywood for General Purposes

Judges Road, Civil Lines, Panvaria,

IS : 303:1989

Distt. : Rampur, Uttar Pradesh-244901

38.

9984521

26.02.2013

M/s Tika Ram & Sons Jewellers

'Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

Sarrafa Bazar, Near Old PNB Branch

Artefacts Fineness and Marking

Distt. : Budaun, Uttar Pradesh-243601

IS : 1417 : 1999

39.

9985220

28.02.2013

M/s Pawan Kumar Agrawal Sarraf

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

Moh. Kothi, Post - Rudauli

Artefacts Fineness and Marking

Distt. : Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh-225411

IS : 1417 : 1999

40.

9986020

06.03.2013

M/s Gauri Shanker Krishna Gopal Sarraf

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

Purana Sarrafa Bazar

Artefacts Fineness and Marking

Distt. : Budaun, Uttar Pradesh-243601

IS : 1417 : 1999

41.

9990213

19.03.2013

M/s Dairy India Pvt. Ltd.

Skim Milk Powder

Chaubara Link Road, Gajraula,

Extra Grade

Distt. : Jyotiba Phule Nagar,

IS : 13334 (Pt.2) : 1992

Uttar Pradesh-244235

42.

9990617

21.03.2013

M/s Anmol Breweries Private Limited

Packaged drinking water (other than

D-47, UPSIDC Agro Park, Karkhiyaon

packaged natural mineral water)

(Pindra), NH-56, Varanasi,

IS : 14543:2004

Distt. : Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221206

43.

9992520

26.03.2013

M/s Saraswati Steel

Stainless steel sinks for domestic

D-4, Industrial Area-II, Amawa Road,

purposes IS : 13983 : 1994

Distt. : Rae Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-229001

44.

9997227

01.04.2013

M/s Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

148, Civil Lines, Distt. : Bareilly,

Artefacts - Fineness and Marking

Uttar Pradesh-243001

IS : 1417 : 1999

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address of the Party

Title of the Standards IS No. Part

No.

Date

Sec. Year

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5049

45.

4800557

08.05.2013

M/s Reliance Gems & Jewels Ltd.,

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

105 B Civil Lines, Distt : Bareilly

Artefacts Fineness and Marking

Uttar Pradesh - 243001

IS : 1417 : 1999

46.

4800658

08.05.2013

M/s Reliance Gems & Jewels Ltd.

Silver and Silver Alloys, Jewellery/

105 B Civil Lines, Distt : Bareilly

Artefacts Fineness and Marking

Uttar Pradesh - 243001

IS : 2112:2003

47.

4802359

17.05.2013

M/s Ravi Pesticides Limited

Zinc sulphate heptahydrate,

5th Km Stone Nagina Road

agricultural grade IS : 8249:1994

Distt : Bijinor, Uttar Pradesh - 246701

48.

4803058

23.05.2013

M/s Paras Biotech (P) Ltd.

Zinc sulphate heptahydrate,

21, Goyala Industrial Area , UPSIDC,

agricultural grade

Dewa Road, Chinhat, Distt : Lucknow

IS : 8249:1994

Uttar Pradesh - 227105

49.

4804161

28.05.2013

M/s Bohra Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Packaged drinking water (other than

H-37 & 38, Agri Park II, UPSIDC,

packaged natural mineral water)

Kursi Road, Distt : Bara Banki

IS : 14543:2004

Uttar Pradesh

50.

4804262

28.05.2013

M/s.A B.S. Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (Unit

Packaged drinking water (other than

No.2) Plot No. 24/25, Khasra No. 394,

packaged natural mineral water)

Deva Road, (Near Dayal Farm House),

IS : 14543:2004

Chinhat, Distt : Lucknow,

Uttar Pradesh - 226010

51.

4806670

07.06.2013

M/s M. S. Enterprises

Packaged drinking water (other than

Mohalla - Salarganj, Distt : Baharaich

packaged natural mineral water)

Uttar Pradesh - 271801

IS : 14543:2004

52.

4806569

10.06.2013

M/s Ganesh Cement Pvt. Ltd.

Portland pozzolana cement Part 1 Fly

A-52 Industrial Area Satharia, Jaunpur,

ash based

Distt : Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh

IS : 1489 (Pt.1) : 1991

53.

4808876

13.06.2013

M/s Reliance Agro Industries

Carbofuran Granules, Encapsulated

319, Tendwa Basantpur Lucknow Road

IS : 9360:1980

Distt : Baharaich, Uttar Pradesh - 271801

54.

4809373

20.06.2013

M/s Gaurav Jewellers

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

Main Road, Gola Bazar, Khalilabad

Artefacts Fineness and Marking

Distt : Sant Kabir Nagar,

IS : 1417 : 1999

Uttar Pradesh - 272175

55.

4809474

20.06.2013

M/s Gaurav Jewellers

Silver and Silver Alloys, Jewellery/

Main Road, Gola Bazar, Khalilabad

Artefacts Fineness and Marking

Distt : Sant Kabir Nagar,

IS : 2112:2003

Uttar Pradesh - 272175

56.

4812564

26.06.2013

M/s Swaminath Mineral Pvt. Ltd.

Packaged drinking water (other than

Shree Ganesh Nagar, Katha Ghat Road,

packaged natural mineral water)

Gonda, Distt : Gonda,

IS : 14543:2004

Uttar Pradesh - 227001

57.

4811360

27.06.2013

M/s Super Tannery Limited

Safety, Protective and Occupational

Plot No. 1361,1363 & 1415, Shekhpur, Nari,

Footwear for Professional use - Part 2 :

Banthar, Distt : Unnao, Uttar Pradesh - 209801

Specification for Safety Footwear

IS : 15298 : (Pt.2):2002

[No. CMD/13 : 11]

Dr. R.K. BAJAJ, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address of the Party

Title of the Standards is No. Part

No.

Date

Sec. Year

5050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1884.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks izek.ku fofu;e 1988 ds fu;e 4 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, g®] os jí dj fn, x, g®% —¼ekg 1 vDVwcj 2012 ls 30 twu

2013 rd½

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd vkbZ,l la[;k] Hkkx]

ykblsal jí

la[;k

vuqHkkx] o"kZ

djus dh frfFk

9801281

eSñ [kjcUnk daØhV oDlZ

izhdkLV daØhV ikbIl

07-06-2013

viksftV lhvkjihQ dSEil]

vkbZ ,l 458% 2003

fctukSj jksM] ftyk & y[kuÅ

9897526

dks;k ,.M dEiuh dkULVªD'ku izkbosV fyfeVsM

izhLVªsl daØhV ikbIl

10-05-2013

uañ 1097] 1099 teds enbZ mejkg]

vkbZ ,l 784% 2001

ukjaxiqj fpjbZxkao] ftyk & okjk.klh]

mÙkj izns'k & 221104

[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]

MkWñ vkjñ dsñ ctkt] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2013

S.O. 1884.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification

Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Cancellation of licence particulars of which are

given in the following schedule. Period from (01.10.2012 to 30.06.2013)

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No. Name & Address of the Party

Title of the Standards is No.

Cancellation Date

No.

Part Sec Year

9801281

M/s. Kharbanda Concrete Works

Precast Concrete Pipes

07.06.2013

Opposite C.R.P.F. Campus, Bijnore Road,

IS 458:2003

Distt : Lucknow

9897526

Koya & Company Construction

Prestressed Concrete Pipes

10.05.2013

Private Limited No. 1097, 1099,

(Including Fittings)—

Zamke Madai Umarah, Narangpur

Specification IS 784 : 2001

Chiraigaw Distt : Varanasi

Uttar Pradesh - 221104

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. R. K. BAJAJ, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1885.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5ds mifofu;e ¼6½ 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, gS] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, g®%—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5051

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkkek la

Hkkx

[ka.M

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

'kh"kZd

o"kZ@ekg

3938884

10-04-2013

dey bEiksVZ ,DliksVZl budkWiksZjs'ku

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds

4985

1985

yksVl gkÅl] IykWV uañ 21] losZ uañ 906]

fy, vIySfLVfdr

lkbZ iWysl gkWVsy ds utnhd] psruk uxj] ihohlh ikWfyfFkyhu

ftyk % ukfld & 422009

ikbi&fof'kf"V

3941570

18-04-2013

xzhufQYM eVsfj;y gW.Mfyax izkñ fyñ

d`f"k iz;kstuksa ds fy,

11170

1985

IykWV uañ ,u&49@1] vWfM'kuy vacjukFk] lexfr laihMu

ftyk % Fkk.ks & 421506

izTtoyu ¼Mhty½

batu dh dk;Zdkfjrk

vis{kk,a

¼20 fdok rd½

3948988

13-05-2013

jk/ks xq:ekW ,UVjizkbtsl

fo|qr laLFkkiuksa ds

9537

1983

Jhth daEikmaM] xkyk uañ 2]

fy, ufydk,W % Hkkx

ok?ksnk ikMk] foyst & dkEck]

3 fo|qrjks/kh lkexzh

rkyqdk % dY;k.k]

ds n`<+ lknh ufydk,a

ftyk % Fkk.ks & 421301

3949081

17-05-2013

iVsy IykfLVd dkiksZjs'ku

'kkSpdqaM ds fy,

2548

1996

IykWV uañ 39] fgLlk&1] 1ch]

IykfLVd dh ihBhdk

foyst ckjokbZ] iksLV & iks,atk]

vkSj MDdu Hkkx 2%

rkyqdk & iuosy 410206

FkeksZIykfLVd lhV vkSj

doj

3960776

24-05-2013

d`ik daVsujlZ izkñ fyñ

Mªe] cMs] fu;r fljs

1783

1988

, & 19@ch] ,evk;Mhlh] ikrkyxaxk]

Hkkx 2 Js.kh ^ch* Mªe

rkyqdk % [kkykiwj] ftyk %

jk;x<+ & 410220

3954074

12-06-2013

dsñ lhñ Qsjks vW.M jhjksfyax feYl izkñ fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds

1786

2008

losZ xV uañ ¼7½ihVh] ¼53½ihVh] ¼77½ihVh] fy, mPp lkUnz.k

foyst % lkjklksgy] iksLV foydks'k] okMk]

fo#fir bLikr

ftyk % Fkk.ks & 421303

NM+s vkSj rkj

3954175

12-06-2013

lq;kZ Qsjkst vykWbt izkñ fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds

1786

2008

xV uañ 86] 87] 88] 89] 90] 91] 92@4]

fy, mPp lkUnz.k

92@ih] 95] okMk 'kgkiwj jksM]

fo#fir bLikr

foyst % vfor?kj] rkyqdk % okMk]

NM+s vkSj rkj

ftyk % Fkk.ks & 421303

3961273

28-06-2013

Jh oS".ko ok;j vWUM jkWM izkñ fyñ

daØhV izcyu ds

1786

2008

xV uañ 154&161 vW.M 163&165]

fy, mPp lkUnz.k

foyst% vfcr?kj] rkyqdk% okMk]

fo#fir bLikr

ftyk% Fkk.ks&421303

NM+s vkSj rkj

5052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3969277

03-07-2013

fizfllu ;qihohlh eksYMlZ izkñ fyñ

xeZ vkSj 'khr is;

15778

2007

losZ uañ 441@5] 442@1 vkSj 2] 444@1 vkSj

ty forj.k vkiwfrZ

2] foyst nkcsy] ukuh ne.k]

ds fy,

ne.k ,oa nho & 396210

Dyksfjfu;r

ihohlh ikbZi

10-

3964885

04-07-2013

;'k ikbIl vW.M fQfVaXl

laokru vkSj o"kkZty

13592

1992

oh & 74] ,evk;Mhlh]

i)fr lfgr Hkouksa ds

tyxkao & 425003

vanj feV~Vh vkSj

vif'k"V fudkl ds

;qihohlh ikbZisa

11-

3965786

16-07-2013

fizfllu ;qihohlh eksYMlZ izkñ fyñ

laokru vkSj o"kkZty

13592

1992

losZ uañ 441@5] 442@1 vkSj 2]

i)fr lfgr Hkouksa ds

444@1 vkSj 2] foyst nkcsy]

vanj feV~Vh vkSj

ukuh ne.k] ne.k ,oa nho & 396210

vif'k"V fudkl ds

;qihohlh ikbZisa

12-

3967891

17-07-2013

n;kekrk vIyk;alsl

<yokW ,Y;wfefu;e

1660

2009

'kqHk b.M bLVsV] xkyk uañ 13] lsDVj uañ 2] crZu

xksjkbZ ikMk] olbZ ¼i½]

ftyk% Fkk.ks&401208

13-

3968590

17-07-2013

xqMyd esVy b.MfLVªt

?kjsyw izslj dqdj

2347

2006

348] e/kkuh bLVsV] eqyqaM xksjsxkao

& fof'k"V

fyad jksM] HkkaMqi & lksukiqj] HkkaMqi ¼i½]

eqacbZ & 400078

14-

3969188

22-07-2013

,lñ ;qñ eksVlZ izkñ fyñ

fueTtuh iEilsV

8034

2008

ekWMy VkÅu] cky jkts'oj jksM]

eqyqaM ¼i½] eqacbZ & 400080

15-

3971781

25-07-2013

Jh oS".ko dkfLVax izkñ fyñ

lkekU; lajpuk

2830

2012

ch&3] iky[ksM] ,evk;Mhlh] fnaMksjh]

iz;kstuksa ds fy,

ftyk % ukfld & 422202

bLikr esa iqu%

jksfyax gsrq dkcZu

bLikr ds <fyr

fcysV baxksVl]

fcysVl, Cyel

vkSj LySCl

16-

3970678

26-07-2013

panzdkar vW.M dañ

lqokg; vfXu'kked &

15683

2006

MCyq&406, jkcys b.M ,fj;k]

fu"iknu vkSj lajpuk

xksMkmu xSjst ds utnhd] jckys]

ftyk% uoh eqacbZ & 400080

[lañ ds iz fo@13%11]

Vhñ dySok.ku] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼izfo &II½

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`fr djus

ykblsal dk uke ,oa irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk

Hkkek la

Hkkx

[ka.M

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk

'kh"kZd

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5053

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2013

S.O. 1885.—In pursuance to sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (certification)

regulations, 1988, the bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that tht licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule have grant effect from the date indicate against each:

SCHEDULE

Sr.

CML

GOL Date

Licensee Name & Address

IS Product

IS No

SEC Year

No.

3938884

10/4/2013

Kamal Import Exports

Unplasticized

4985

2000

Incorporation

PVC Pipes for

Lotus House, Plot No. 21,

Potable Water Supplies-

Survey No. 906, behind

Specification

Hotel Sai Palace Chetna Nagar,

Distt: Nashik-422009

3941570

18/04/2013

Greenfield Material

Performance

11170

1985

Handling Pvt. Ltd.

Requirements for

Plot No. N-49/1,

Constant Speed

Additional Ambernath,

Compression

Distt: Thane-421506

Ignition (Diesel)

Engine for Agricultural

purposes (Up to 20 Kw)

3948988

13/05/2013

Radhye Gurumaa Enterprises

Conduits for

9537

1983

Shreejee Compound, Gala No.2,

Electrical

Waghedapada,

Installations:

Village-Kamba,

Part 3 Rigid Plain

Tal: Kalayan,

Conduits of

Distt: Thane-421 301

Insulating Materials

3949081

17/5/2013

Patel Plastic Corporation

Plastic Seats

2548

1996

Plot No-39, Hissa-1, 1B,

and covers for

Village Barwai,

Water-closets:

Post-Poynja, Taluka-

Part 2 Thermo Plastic

Panvel-410206

Seats and Covers

3960776

24/05/2013

Krupa Containers Pvt. Ltd.

Drums, Large,

1783

1988

A-19/B, MIDC, Patalaganga, Tal:

Fixed ends, Part 2

Khallpur, Distt: Raigad-410220

Grade B Drums

3954074

12/06/2013

K.C. Ferro & Rerolling Mills

High Strength

1786

2008

Pvt. Ltd.

Deformed Steel

Survey Gut No. (7) Pt, (53) Pt,

Bars and Wires

(77) Pt, Village Sarasohal,

for Concrete

Post: Vilkosh, Wada,

Reinforcement

Distt: Thane-421303

3954175

12/06/2013

Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

High Strength

1786

2008

Gut No. 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92/4,

Deformed Steel

92/P, 95, Wada Sahapur Road,

Bars and Wires

Village Abitghar,

for Concrete

Tal: Wada, Distt: Thane-421303

Reinforcement

3961273

28/06/2013

Shree Vaishnav Wire & Rod Pvt. Ltd.

High Strength

1786

2008

Gate No. 154-161 & 163-165,

Deformed Steel

Village: Abitghar, Tal: Wada,

Bars and Wires

Distt: Thane-421303

for Concrete

Reinforcement

5054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3963277

03/07/2013

Precision UPVC Moulders Pvt. Ltd.

Chlorinated PVC

15778

2007

Survey No. 441/5, 442/1&2, 444/1&2 Pipes for Potable

Village Dhabel, Nani Daman,

Hot and Cold Water

Daman & Diu-396210

Distribution Supplies.

10.

3964885

04/07/2013

Yash Pipes and fittings

UPVC Pipes for

13592

1992

V-74 MIDC, Jalgaon-425003

Soil and Waste

discharge systems

inside buildings

including ventilation

and rainwater system

11.

3965786

16/07/2013

Precision UPVC Moulders Pvt. Ltd.

UPVC Pipes for

13592

1992

survey No. 441/5,442/1&2,444/1&2

Soil and waste

Village Dabhel, Nani Daman,

discharge

Daman & Diu-396210

systems inside

buildings including

ventilation and

rainwater system

12.

3967891

17/07/2013

Dayamata Applicance

Wrought

1660

2009

Shubh Indl. Estate, Gala No.

Aluminium

13, Sector No. 2, Gorai Pada,

Utensils

Vasai (W), Distt: Thane-401208

13.

3968590

17/07/2013

Goodluck Metal Industries

Domestic

2347

2006

348, Madhani Estate Mulund

Pressure

Goregaon Link Road,

Cookers-

Bhandup-Sonapur,

Specification

Bhandup (W), Mumbai-400078

14.

3969188

22/07/2013

S.U. Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Submersible

8034

2002

Model Town, Bal Rajeshwar

Pumpsets

Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080

15.

3971781

25/07/2013

Shree Vaishnav Casting Pvt. Ltd.

Carbon Steel

2830

2012

B-3, Palkhed, MIDC, Dindori,

Cast Billet

Distt: Nashik-422202

Ingots, Billets,

Blooms and Slabs

for Re-rolling into

Steel for general

structural purposes

16.

3970678

26/07/2013

Chandrakant & Co

Portable Fire

15683

2006

W-406, Rabale Indl. Area, near

Extinguishers

Golden Garage, Rabale,

performance and

Distt: Navi Mumbai-400080

Construction

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head (MDM-II)

Sr.

CML

GOL Date

Licensee Name & Address

IS Product

IS No.

SEC Year

No.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5055

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1886.—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 frn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

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 915% 2012@vkbZ,lvks 1042%1998

15 flrEcj 2013

iz;ksx'kkyk XykWlos;j ,d&fpUg okyh vk;ruh

QykLd ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ 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.kZ rFkk fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http:/www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

fnukad% 26-08-2013

[lanHkZ lh,pMh 10@vkbZ,l 915]

MkWñ jktho dsñ >k] oSKkfud ¶,iQ¸ ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2013

S.O. 1886.—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. & Year of the

No. & year of Indian

Date of Established

Indian Standard Established

Standards, if any,

Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

US 915 : 2012/ISO 1042 : 1998 Laboratory

15 September 2013

glassware-One-mark volumetric flasks

(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, Cehnnai, 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.

Dated: 26.08.2013

[Ref. CHD 10/IS 915}

Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)

5056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1887.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962] ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds

vuqlj.k esa mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu xksok jkT; ds Hkhrj xsy

¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM dh lHkh ikbiykbZuks ds fy;s l{ke vf/kdkjh ds

dk;ks± dk fuoZgu djus ds fy;s Jh ,aFkksuh tsñ fMlwtk] ofj"B osru

eku vf/kdkjh] xksok iz'kklu lsok] xksok ljdkj] dks vkxkeh vkns'k

rd izkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ ,y&14014@24@2013&thñihñ]

,lñ ihñ vxzoky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 6th September, 2013

S.O. 1887.—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

Government of India hereby authorized Shri Anthony J.

D'souza, Senior scale officer of Goa Civil Service,

Government of Goa to perform the functions of Competent

Authority for all pipelines of GAIL (India) Limited, under

the said Act, within the territory of Goa, till further orders.

[F. No. L-14014/24/2013-G.P.]

S.P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1888.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

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

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa]

Hkkjr ds jkti= esa fnukad 3 fnlEcj 2005 dks izdkf'kr isVªksfy;e

vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh fnukad 30 uoEcj 2005 dh

vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñ vkñ 4526 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS%µ

mDÙk vf/klwpuk esa] ^^Jh ihñ dsñ nkl] ofj"B izpkyu izca/kd]

bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] gfYn;k ekSjhxzke jktca/k cjkSuh

ikbiykbUl] ekSjhxzke] ihvks&nqbY;k] vanqy&ekSjh] ekSjhxzke] gkoM+k]

if'pe caxky&711302** 'kCnksa ds LFkku ij ^^Jh jfoUnzukFk pV~Vksik/;k;]

eq[; izpkyu izca/kd] bafM;u vkW;y dkWihZjs'ku fyfeVsM] iwoh {ks=

ikbiykbUl] gfYn;k ekSjhxzke jktca/k cjkSuh ikbiykbUl**]

ihvks&dYyk lsUVªy vLirky] vklulksy] ftyk onZoku&713340]

if'pe caxky] 'kCn j[ks tk,axsA

;g vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus ij ykxw gksxkA

[lañ vkj&25011@15@2005&vksñvkjñI]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013

S.O. 1888.—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, Ministry of

Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 4526 dated 30th

November, 2005, published in the Gazette of India on 3rd

December, 2005:—

In the said notification, for the words "Shri P.K. Das,

Senior Operations Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Haldia Mourigram Rajbandh Barauni Pipeline, Mourigram,

P.O. Dullya, Andul Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711 302

(West Bengal)" the words "Shri Rabindra Nath

Chattopadhyay, Chief Operations Manager, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, Eastern Region Pipelines, Haldia

Mourigram Rajbandh Barauni Pipeline, Asansol, P.O. Kalla

Central Hospital, Asansol, Dist. Burdwan-713 340 (West

Bengal)" shall be substituted.

This notification will be effective from the date of its

issue.

[No. R. 25011/15/2005-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1889.—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 flrEcj] 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5057

/kkjk&77 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS½

ds mica/k gfj;k.kk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øekad jktLo Hkkx

gncLr

rglhy

ftyk

la[;k

1- ukjukSy

159

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

2- QStkckn

118

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

3- ygjkSnk

119

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

4- eMyk.kk

134

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

5- vkte uxj

120

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

6- uhjiqj

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

7- /kkuh HkBksB

208

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

8- lsdk

192

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

9- ea<kuk

194

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

10- eaMh

211

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

11- djksVk

209

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

12- vejiqj tksjklh

280

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

13- eqdqUniqj

215

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

14- dqyrktiqj

155

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

15- uokt uxj

132

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

16- j?kqukFk iqjk

138

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

17- jkeckl

153

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

18- ulhciqj

162

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

19- fdjkjksM vQxkukuk 163

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

20- lqjkuk

183

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

21- xqokuh

177

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

22- cMdksnk

166

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

23- ';ksukFkiqjk

184

ukjukSy

egsUnzx<

24- egsUnz x<

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

25- cqpksyh

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

26- [kkfj;k

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

27- >ka>fj;kokl

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

28- fjoklk

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

29- lhxjk

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

30- lhxjh

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

31- [kVksM

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

32- pke/ksMk

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

33- ikyh

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

34- ikyMh ¼ifugkjh½

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

35- >wd

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

36- ektjka dyka

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

37- ikFksMk

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

38- cqpkokl

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

39- Mqykuk

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

40- tksukokl

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

41- maQph HkkaMksjk

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

42- chj fprykax@fprykax 78

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

43- cokfu;k

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

44- lqjtuokl

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

45- lyhekckn

egsUnzx< egsUnzx<

[lañ ,lµ38013@52@2013&,lñ,lñ I]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 1889.—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 September, 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 Harayana namely:—

Sr. Name of

Had bast

Name of

No. Revenue

Number

Tehsil

District

Village

1. Narnaul

159

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

2. Faizabad

118

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

3. Lahroda

119

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

4. Madlana

134

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

5. Azam Nagar

120

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

6. Neerpur

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

7. Dhani

208

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

Bhathoth

8. Seka

192

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

Øekad jktLo Hkkx

gncLr

rglhy

ftyk

la[;k

5058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. Mandhana

194

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

10. Mandi

211

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

11. Karota

209

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

12. Amarpur

280

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

Jorasi

13. Mukundpura

215

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

14. Kultajpur

155

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

15. Nawaz

132

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

Nagar

16. Raghunath

138

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

Pura

17. Rambas

153

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

18. Nasibpur

162

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

19. Kiarod

163

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

Afganana

20. Surana

183

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

21. Guwani

177

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

22. Barkoda

166

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

23. Seonathpura

184

Narnaul

Mahendergarh

24. Mahendergarh 87

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

25. Bucholi

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

26. Kharia

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

27. Janijriyawas

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

28. Rewasa

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

29. Sigra

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

30. Sigri

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

31. Khatod

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

32. Cham Dhera

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

33. Pali

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

34. Palri (Panihari) 38

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

35. Jhook

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

36. Majra Kalan

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

37. Pathera

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

38. Buchawas

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

39. Dulana

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

40. Jonawas

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

41. Oonchi

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

Bhandore

42. Bir Chitlang/

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

Chitlang

43. Bawania

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

44. Surjanwas

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

45. Salimabad

Mahendergarh Mahendergarh

[No. S-38013/52/2013-S.S.I]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1890.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k] esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ellZ ch lh lh

,y ds izca/kraU= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52 dk

2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@08@2013 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@89@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&I½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1890.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of The M/s BCCL and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

08/08/2013.

[No. L-20012/89/2007- IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Office

Sr. Name of

Had bast

Name of

No. Revenue

Number

Tehsil

District

Village

Sr. Name of

Had bast

Name of

No. Revenue

Number

Tehsil

District

Village

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5059

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD.

Present : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 52 of 2007

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management

of General Manager, Sijua Area of M/s.

BCCL, Dhanbad and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman

None

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.

Management

Advocate management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : Dhanbad, the 24th June, 2013

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10 (1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-

20012/89/07 (CM-I) dt. 09.08.07.

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the management of Sendra

Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying regularization

an PR Trammer to Shri Shakalu Khote, M/Loader is justified

and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman

entitled and from which date?"

Neither any Representative for the Janta Mazdoor

Union, Bihar Building, Jharia nor the workman Shakalu

Khote appeared nor any witness for the evidence of the

workman has been produced despite last chance since

pending for it from 18.06.2012. Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld.

Advocate for the Opp./Management is present.

Perused the case record. It is evident from it that

despite registered notices to the Vice President of the Union

on its address noted in the Reference itself, neither the

Union Representative nor the workman responded to any

of the notice of the Tribunal. It stands clear the attitude of

the Union Representative and of the workman that they

are no longer interested to proceed with the case which is

related to a matter of regularization of the workman as P.R.

Trammer. Under these circumstances, the case is closed

and, accordingly it is passed as no longer industrial dispute.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1891.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch lh lh

,y 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51 dk

1998½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@08@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

,e-ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[la- ,y&20012@671@1997&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&I]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1891.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/1998)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management, of the General Manager,

M/s BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08/08/2013.

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

[No. L-20012/671/1997 - IR (CM-I)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/S 10 (1) (D) (2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947,

Ref. No. 51 of 1998

Present

: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

: None

For the workman

: Sri S.N. Goswami Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

5060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated 29/7/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/671/97-IR (CM-I), dt. 13/08/98,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the management of Barora

Area I of M/s. BCCL in dismissing from service Sri Jaynath

Karmakar is legal & justified? If not to what relief is the

workman is entitled?''

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 01.09.1998. After receipt of the reference, both parties

are noticed. The sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 12.11.1999, thereafter the management files

their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 03.03.2000. After

certain dates it is seen that, though the workman has been

attending this court. None on behalf of the management

attended the Court.

3. This is a case of dismissal of workman on the

ground of continuous absent on workplace. The workman

has been dismissed from 1993, twenty years has been

elapsed by now after 2007, the management, has been

noticed by this Tribunal twice by Regd. Post.

4. Since the management an institution is also

suffering from absenteeism, and the management fails to

produced any evidence to prove the domestic enquiry is

fair and proper. It is felt proper to order for reinstatement of

the workman without any back wages.

5. Considering the facts and circumstance of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of Barora

Area No. 1 of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the service of Sri

Jaynath Karmakar is not legal and justified? Hence the

workman be reinstated immediately after notification of this

award and he be not awarded any back wages.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1892.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh

vkbZ 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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenuxj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2010½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y 22012@362@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1892.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2010)

of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Ahmednagar as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Food Corporation of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

08.08.2013.

[No. L-22012/362/2007-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE FIRST LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR

(Shri V.V. Vidwans (M.A., L.LM.) Presiding Officer &

Judge First Labour Court, Ahmednagar.)

Reference IDA No. 30/2010

1. Divisional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Mistri Bhavan, Dinsha wachha Road,

Mumbai.

First party

I. Balasaheb Ambadas Gund,

R/o Satpute Galli, Kedgaon,

Ahmednagar.

Second Party

Coram—

Shri V.V. Vidwans, Presiding officer, &

Judge, First Labour Court, Ahmednagar.

Appearance—Shri S.B. Bhor Standing Counsel,

Government of India, Ahmednagar.

Shri K.Y. Modgekar Advocate for second

party.

AWARD

(Delivered on 6.10.2012)

1. This is a reference by Central Government, Ministry

of Labour and Employment New Delhi U/S 10(1) (d) of

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The dispute referred for

adjudication to this court is whether the action of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5061

Menagement of Food Corporation of India, Ahmednagar

in terminating the services of Second Party Shri Balasaheb

Ambadas Gund w.e.f. 1.9.1997 is legal and justified and

whether, the second party is entitled to the relief prayed

for. The facts of the claim of Second Party is per Exh U-3,

are as under—

2. The first party is a corporation having it's

establishment at Ahmednagar and works under the control

of Central Government having it's regional his office at

Mistri Bhavan, Dinsha Wachha road Mumbai. The First

Party deals with purchase and storage of food grain from

local market and its distribution. It has engaged several

workers to carry out it's activities.

3. The second party was a 'workman' of First Party.

He was working from the year 1990 with the First Party at

Kedgaon, Ahmednagar. He was made member of provident

fund scheme as per rules. The Second party was getting

wages @ Rs. 14 per day. His services were clean and

without any blemishes. However, his services were orally

terminated by the first party w.e.f. 1.9.1997. The first party

had continued the services of Shri Somnath Nalawade,

Gorakh Shinde, Bhimrao Gade, Balu Jagtap, Kushaba Sul,

Raju Thombare, who were junior to the second party. It is

submitted that the second party had completed 240 days

continuous service durign last 12 months before this

termination on 1.9.1997, and therefore, he was entitled for

prior notice, notice pay in lieu of the same and

compensation, as per provisions of law. Under these

circumstances, it is alleged that the oral termination of the

second party is illegal and liable to be set aside. The second

party is entitled to be reinstated in service, with continuity

and back wages.

4. The first party has appeared before the court on

receipt of notice and has opposed the claim of the second

party by submitting written statement at Exh C-4. The first

party has denied all adverse allegations and submitted that

the Reference in respect of the dispute raised by the second

party is not maintainable in law, because, there was no

master and servant relationship between the first and

second party. It is submitted that, the second party was

employed by mathadi kamgar Mazdoor Santha Ltd.

Kedgaon, Ahmednagar on contract basis, as per work load,

on day today basis. It is further submitted that this

important aspect has been deliberately suppressed by the

second party.

5. It is a case of first party that as per F.C.I. New Delhi

letter dated 14.6.96 certain conditions were stipulated for

eligibility of workers under, "direct payment system". There

was a committee to find out eligible workers. It is lastly

submitted that the second party had lodged a complaint

for his absorption/reinstatement, with mathadi Kamagar

Mazdoor Santha Ltd. Kedgaon and society appears to have

assured second party regarding his absorption in near

future as per contract system. However, the first is not

under any obligations to consider the claim raised by the

second party in the present reference. Hence, the reference

is liable to be answered in the negative.

6. During the pendancy of the present proceeding

the second party had filed an application at Exh U-4 seeking

production of document by the first party. The said

application was allowed as per order 15.7.2011. But, it

appears that order is not complied with by the first party.

7. For proving his claim the second party has filed

documents along with Exh U-8/1 to 4 and led oral evidence

as per evidence affidavit at Exh U-9. The first party it's and

his counsel remained absent for cross examination of the

second party. Therefore, the evidence affidavit of second

party is accepted on record without cross examination.

8. I have head oral submissions of the Shri Modgekar

Advocate at length at the time of final hearing. None present

of first party when called. As per order on Exh O-1, the right

of first party to lead evidence was forefeited as per order

dated 30.7.2012.

9. The issues in the proceeding have beren framed at

Exh 0-5. The same are reproduced, along with my findings

and reasons as under—

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Whether the IInd party prove that

his services are terminated

illegally w.e.f. 1.9.1997?

Yes.

If yes, Whether IInd party is

entitled for reinstatement

with continuity of service?

Yes.

Whether the IInd party is entitled

for back wages?

No.

What order?

As per final

order.

10. As to issues No. 1 and 2 : In this regards, Shri

Modgekar Advocate on behalf of second party submitted

that the first party is a corporation under the control of

Central Government and bound by rules and regulations

under labour and Industrial laws. It was incumbent upon

the first party to provide work to the workers by maintaining

seniority list and regularize their services as per seniority.

11. He argued that the second party was working

with a first party at its Kedgaon (Ahmednagar) Vakhar, as a

laborer. His services were orally terminated from 1.9.1997

without notice, notice pay or compensation. No. enquiry

was conducted by the first party before terminating his

5062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

services. He submitted that the second party had worked

for more than 240 days continuously during last 12 months

before 1.9.1997. His last pay was @ Rs. 14 per day. The first

party has continued the services of worker who are Juniors

to the second party. Their names have been mentioned in

Paragraph No. 3 of U-3 and also in evidence affidavit at Exh

U-9. Therefore, the action of the first party to over the

terminate the services of the second party is in breach of

provisions of section 25 F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Shri Modgekar Advocate submitted that initially

the work was provided to the workers through Mathadi

Mazdoor Sangh. But from 1.5.1996, the contract system

has been abolished. The first party has confirmed the

services of 28 workers who have completed continuous

service for 9 months before April 1996. He submitted that

the claim for regularization of service and grievance

regarding termination of services, are different; All the

documentary evidence is with the first party. But, it has not

complied with the order of this court passed on Exh U-4 on

15.7.2011.

Hence, the oral evidence of the second party at Exh

U-9 deserves to be accepted, as it has gone unchallenged,

for want of cross examination. Shri Modgekar advocate

lastly submitted that as per section 21 of the Contract

Labour Act, 1970 the principle employer is liable to pay the

wages of the laborer, even as per Contract Labour Act.

Hence, the first party was under the obligations to pay

compensation to the second party. In support of his

submissions, Shri Modgekar Advocate has relied upon

the following authorities—

1. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation

of India, Calcutta Vs. Tulsi Das Bauri and

ors. (FLR 1997-(76) page (493)

2. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation

Ltd. Vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court, Bikaner (2001-(2) Bom LC 285

(Raj)

3. Anoop Sharma Vs. Exective Engineer, Public

Health division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana)

(2010 Supreme Court cases 497)

12. I gone through, the pleading of both sides and

taken in to consideration the oral submissions of the

learned counsel for the second party with reference to the

documentary and oral evidence on record.

13. In view of order on Exh U-4 dated 15.7.2011 the

first was required to produce the relevant documents

relating to the claim of second party. But, it has failed to

comply with the same. Hence, it is a fit case to draw an

adverse inference against the first party.

14. It has come in evidence of the second party that

he was working with the first party and his services were

orally terminated from 1.9.97 without notice, Notice pay in

view of notice and compensation As per Exh U-8/1 to 4, the

second party has produced documents on record to show

that he had made representations for his reinstatement

alongwith other four workers. Considering the oral evidence

of second party at Exh U-9 and in absence of any other

documentary evidence on record, this court is constrained

to accpet the avernment of the second party regarding his

continuous service of 240 days during last 12 months before

his termination. As per the case law citied by learned

counsel for second party, it is clear that even as per the

Contract Labour Act, the principle employer is liable to pay

wages which included arrears of wages. As per the authority

of Hon'ble Rajsthan, High Court and Supreme Court citied

at Sr. No. 2 and 3, non compliance of provisions of section

25 F and 25 G of Industrial Dispute Act, is bound to result

in reinstatement of the workers with continuity of service,

as a oral termination of the second party is found illegal.

Hence issue No. 1 and No. 2 are answered in the affirmative.

15. As to issue No. 3 : So far as this issue is concerned

in view of findings against issue No. 1 and 2 and also after

considering the pleading of second party and his oral

evidence at Exh U-9, it is clear that through the second

party had stated that after termination of his services he

had tried to get alternative work, no work was available.

However, now he is earing his livelihood by doing labour

work along with his family members. But the second party

has failed to give details of various affects he had made for

getting alternate job. Therefore, second party has failed to

discharge his burden in this regard. Under these

circumstances, I am inclined to hold that, the second party

is having alternate source of earning since the year 1997.

till today. Hence, the second party is not entitled for back

wages in the present case. Issue No. 3 answer in the

negative accordingly.

16. In view of above discussion and findings against

the issues No. 1 to 3 above, I have come to the conclusion

that the reference is liable to be answered partly in the

affirmative as per following order:—

ORDER

1. The Reference is partly answered in the affirmative.

2. It is held that, the oral termination of the second

party w.e.f. 1.9.1997 by the first party is illegal, being in

contraven section 25 F and 25 G of Industrial Disputes

Act, It is, therefore, set aside.

3. The first party is directed to reinstate the second

party 'workman' Balasaheb Ambad Gund R/o Satpute Galli,

Kedgaon Distt. Ahmednagar with continuity of service,

with consequential benefits, if any.

4. The prayer of the second party for the claim of

back wages is hereby refused.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5063

In the circumstances of the case parties to bear their

own costs.

Date : 6.10.2012

V. V. VIDWANS, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1893.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e lh

,y 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@Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 85@2012½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-08-2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@61@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II)]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1893.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2012)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Jagannath Area of

MCL, MCL, Jagruti Vihar, At/Po : Burla, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 08.08.2013.

[No. L-22012/61/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 85/2012

Date of Passing Order - 28th June, 2013

Between :

1. The General Manager,

Jagannath Area of MCL,

At./Po. Dera, Angul,

2. The Director (Personnel),

MCL, Jagruti Vihar, At./Po. Burla,

Sambalpur.

....1st Party-Managements

(And)

Their workman represented through the

General Secretary, Talcher, Coal Mines

Employees Union, At. Qr. No. 1B-103,

P.O. South Balanda, Angul.

...2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

For the 1st Party

None.

Management No. 1 & 2.

For the 2nd Party-

None.

Union.

ORDER

This reference was received in this Tribunal on

23.11.2012. As per directions of the Government, the 2nd

Party-Union has to file the statemnet of claim within fifteen

days of the receipt of the order of reference. But the 2nd

Party-Union did not file any statement of claim despite

lapse of a period of two months. Therefore a notice was

issued to the 2nd Party-Union on 29.1.2013 directing it to

file the statement of claim by 12.3.2013, but the 2nd Party-

Union did not respond on the date fixed. Hence another

notice was issued to it on 22.3.2013 fixing 29.4.2013 for

filing of statement of claim. But on that date also, neither

the 2nd Party-Union appeared nor filed any statement of

claim. Hence order was passed to issue notice to the 2nd

Party-Union through regd. post and accordingly the

registered notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on

6.5.2013. But even then, the 2nd Party-Union did not turn

up nor file any statement of claim. Therefore it seems that

the 2nd Party-Union is not interested in prosecuting its

case. It might be that the Union had settled its dispute with

the 1st Party-Management amicably out of the court.

2. Under these circumstances it will of no use to keep

the case pending any more. Hence a no-dispute award is

required to be passed in the case. According a no-dispute

award is passed.

3. The reference is answered in the above terms.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1894.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj c®d vkWQ

cM+kSnk 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

5064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 117@2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@8@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@182@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/No. 117/2004) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government of 01.08.2013.

[No. L-12012/182/2004-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI, SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/117/2004

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Naresh Kumar Jauwari,

S/o Shri Pooranlal Jauwari,

R/o Udaibhan Yadav ka Makan,

Chuai Khadan,

Near Jogni Nagar, Rampur,

Jabalpur

Workman

Versus

Branch Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Napier Town,

Jabalpur

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of July 2013

1. As per letter dated 9-11-2004 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

182/2004-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda, Napier Town, Jabalpur in terminating the services

of Shri Naresh Kumar Jauwari S/o Shri Poran Lal Jauwari is

legal and justified? If not, what relief is the concerned

workman entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties, Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/2. The case of Ist party workman is that he

was employed as part-time safaiwala in the IInd party Bank

from 15-9-92. He was regularly working from 15-9-92 to

16-9-2001. His services were illegally terminated. The

workman submits that he was earning wages as per

recommendation of the Commission. According to law, he

was entitled to be regularized as full time worker instead

his services were arbitrarily terminated. After he initiated

conciliation proceeding, appropriate Government has made

reference. The workman prays for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to

8/6. IInd party denied claim of the workman. It is also

contented that reference is not tenable, no dispute lies

against Branch Manager. The workman claimed

regularization in Bank Service. Manager is not competent

authority to appoint anybody. The reference is highly

belated as it is raised after lapse of several years. IInd party

has referred to large number of ratio held in different cases

on the point of tenability of reference. That the

appointments in IInd party are preceded by certain

formalities for selection process. It is contented that Ist

party is not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of I.D.

Act. that regularization of service arises only when person

is employed after appointment. That appropriate

Government cannot decide disputed questions of fact.

4. The daily wager has no right to hold the post. The

expression "Daily Wager" indicates subject to availability

of work. It is further submitted that Ist party workman did

not worked continuously for 9 years as claimed by him. He

was engaged by Branch on daily wages for sweeping,

cleaning of the branch in absence of regular sub-staff Ist

party workman was not appointed by Bank. He has not

worked for 240 days. On above facts, the IInd party prays

that the workman is not entitled to any relief prayed by

him.

5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/2

reiterating his earlier contentions that he was continuously

working in IInd party from 15-9-92 to 16-9-2001. That his

services were arbitrarily terminated. The reference is not

filed belatedly.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5065

“(i)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Bank of

Baroda, Napier Town,

Jabalpur in terminating

the services of Shri Naresh

Kumar Jauwari S/o Shri Poran

Lal Jauwari is legal?

(ii)

If so, to what relief the

As per final

workman is entitled to?”

order

REASONS

7. Ist party workman is challenging legality of his

termination. He claims that he was working as regular

sweeper from 15-9-92 to 16-9-2001. He had completed 240

days continuous service. His services were terminated

illegally. In support of his claim, affidavit of evidence is

filed. He has stated most of the facts pleaded in his

statement of claim. That he was regularly working as

sweeper from 15-9-92 to 16-9-2001. He was paid wages at

Collector Rate. He continuously worked for 9 years with

the IInd party. He has received arrears of pay Rs. 13,265 in

1998. His services were terminated without notice or

without assigning any reasons. Provisions of I.D. Act were

not followed. He has produced documents. In his cross-

examination, workman says that orally he was directed to

sit in the premises. He was called through peon by the

Branch Manager. He was paid wages under voucher.

Voucher is to be prepared in his name. No written test was

held. His name was not sponsored through Employment

Exchange. He was doing cleaning work after opening of

the Bank. He was staying whole day in the Bank. The

cleaning work was done for 2 hours. The evidence of

workman that he was paid wages as per collector rate, he

was paid arrears Rs. 13,265 remained unchallenged. The

evidence that his services were terminated without notice

or without assigning any reason remained unchallenged.

His evidence that he worked for 9 years and obtained

temporary status also remained unchallenged. He worked

for more than 240 days remained unchallenged.

8. The witness of the management S. Antony Swamy

in his affidavit of evidence have stated that while he was

working as Manager in Napier Town branch from June 96

to Dec. 99, Ist party workman was engaged as sweeper as

and when required basis. He was paid daily wages, he did

the sweeping work of premises of the Bank for 1-2 hours.

That he was never engaged continuously, he was not

working for 240 days in any calendar year. That Branch

Manager are not competent to appoint sub-staff. The

claimant was not sponsored through Employment

Exchange. His selection is made out of candidates by

selection Committee constituted by the Bank. That factual

position is that he was engaged merely on daily wages.

Witness denied wrongful termination of Ist party.

9. In his cross-examination, witness of the

management says from June 96 to Dec. 99, he was working

as Manager, Ist party workman was working during the

said period. He claims ignorance whether workman was

working prior to it. Management's witness did not remember

how much wages were paid to the workman, possibly he

was paid Rs. 170 per month. Amount of arrears was paid

during his tenure. Branch Manager has no power to appoint

sub staff. That workman was not part-time employee. Again

witness says that Exhibit P-1 is issued from his office.

10. From the evidence of management's witness it is

clear that the workman was working from June 96 to

Dec. 99 almost 3½ years. His services are terminated without

notice, the evidence on above point remained

unchallenged. I do not find reason to disbelieve evidence

of workman as it gets corroboration from evidence of

management's witness. Workman has not produced

documents that he was working in the Bank continuously

from 1992 to 2001. Exhibit W-2 is the order of reference.

Any co-employee is not examined, payment vouchers are

not produced or proved by the workman.

11. Considering evidence discussed above, it is clear

that workman had continuously worked for 3½ years. His

services were terminated without notice, without paying

retrenchment compensation, without paying salary in lieu

of notice. Thus termination of service of workman is in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

12. Point No. 2—In view of my finding on Point

No. 1, termination of service of workman are illegal. The

evidence clearly shows that workman was working for

3½ years for short period. His name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. He was not selected by

any Committee, he was appointed by Branch Manager,

therefore, he would not be entitled to reinstatement.

13. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi relies

on ratio held in:—

"Case of Lal Mohammad and others versus Indian

Railway Construction Co. Ltd. reported in 2007(2)

SCC 513. Their Lordship of the Apex Court held the

employees working under the scheme, project has

not right so as to claim regularization and their

services with regular pay scales."

5066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The facts of case at my hand are not comparable.

There is no evidence. Workman was not appointed under

any scheme for specific period rather the evidence shows

that he was continuously working for 3½ years. Therefore,

the ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied to

present case.

Their Lordship further held the employees of projects,

schemes run by Government Corporations, benefits

available to effect of service conditions being wholly

governed by I.D. Act, there is no question of violation of

Article 14, 16 & 21 on termination of their services as the

employees concerned were employees of the project they

have taken their benefits as are admissible under I.D. Act.

The ratio held on above point has no bearing to the

controversy between parties in the present case. From

evidence on record, it is clearly established that the services

of Ist party workman are terminated in violation of Section

25-F.

14. Copy of award in R/8/97 Shri Vijay Kumar Rajak

versus Bank of Baroda is submitted for my perusal by

learned counsel for management. From reading of para-7 it

is clear that in the case in which award was passed,

photocopies of vouchers were filed by workman. Exhibit

W-1(a) to W-1(u) for the period from 16-10-94 to 14-9-95

and it is secondly held the wages were of more than 240

days. Such evidence is not adduced on record of the present

case. The management's witness in his cross-examination

has stated that workman was continuously working with

him from June 96 to December 99. Therefore, the ratio held

in the case needs no detailed discussion.

15. Reliance is also placed in:—

"Case of Gangadhar Pillai versus M/s Siemens Ltd.

reported in 2007-LAB-I.C.590. Their lordship

observed further it is not the law that on completion

of 240 days of continuous service in a year, the

concerned employee becomes entitled to for

regularization of his services and/or permanent status.

The concept of 240 days in a year was introduced in

the industrial law for a definite purpose. Under the

Industrial Disputes Act, the concept of 240 days was

introduced so as to fasten a statutory liabilities upon

the employer to pay compensation to the computed

in the manner specified in Section 25-F of I.D. Act

before he is retrenched from service."

In present case, the evidence discussed above clearly

shows that provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act were

violated while terminating the services of Ist party workman.

He was not served with notice, retrenchment compensation

was not paid, reasons for retrenchment were not informed.

However he had worked for short span of about 3½ years.

Calculating retrenchment compensation 15 days for one

year service, workman will be entitled to compensation

equal to 53 days wages, 30 days salary as pay in lieu of

notice, considering short span of service, no recruitment

procedure was followed, compensation Rs. 1 Lakh would

be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No. 2.

16. In the result, award is passed as under:—

1. The action of the management of Bank of Baroda,

Napier Town, Jabalpur in terminating the services

of Shri Naresh Kumar Jauwari S/o Shri Poran Lal

Jauwari is illegal.

2. Management is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 1 Lakh, 53 days wages towards retrenchment

compensation and 30 days wages in lieu of notice.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%

interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1895.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Qlh

vkbZ 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@ Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 65@2007½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@274@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 08/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/274/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5067

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

Present :

DR. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 65/2007

Ref. No. L-22012/274/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 20.11.2007

BETWEEN

The State Secretary

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh

DC/ 3V, Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Subhash Chandra)

And

1. The Area Manager

Food Corporation of India

Distt. Office, Moradabad

Uttar Pradesh

2. The General Manager (UP)

Food Corporation of India

DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No L-22012/274/2007-IR(CM-II) dated

20.11.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

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

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

this industrial dispute between The State Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, DC/3V, Vibhuti

Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and the Area Manager, Food

Corporation of India, Distt. Office, Moradabad,

Uttar Pradesh & the General Manager (UP), Food

Corporation of India, DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Food

Corporation of India in Imposing recovery of

Rs. 37,236.57 upon Shri Subhash Chandra, AG-II

(Depot) vide Penalty Order dated 31.12.2003 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the

workman entitled?"

The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that a

recovery of Rs. 30,761.60 and Rs. 6474.97, total Rs. 37236.57

in the year 2001-2002 was made from the workman, Subhash

Chandra, AG-II (Depot) while working at Moradabad

without issuing any charge sheet or show cause etc. It has

further been alleged that the management imposed another

recovery vide order dated 31.12.2003 without issuing any

charge sheet etc. It is also stated that the workman took

voluntary retirement in the year 2004. The workman's union

has submitted that the management action in imposing

various penalties without issuing any charge sheet was in

disregard to the principle of natural justice and also

regulation 60(1)(d) of the Staff Regulation Act, 1971; and

accordingly, has prayed that the impugned orders imposing

illegal recoveries upon the workman be set-aside and the

management be directed to refund the entire amount so

recovered to the workman.

4. The management of the FCI has field its written

statement denying the claim of the workman's union;

wherein it was submitted that the workman was issued a

charge sheet before imposition of the penalties and also

the workman had an opportunity to prefer departmental

appeal against the penalties; but the workman did not do

so, hence the present dispute is not maintainable as the

workman did not avail alternative remedy available to him.

It is also submitted that sum of Rs. 30761.60 had been

recovered from workman by District Office, Haldwani and

Rs. 6474.97 were recovered thereafter. Moreover, it was

also informed to the workman on 01.10.2004 that a sum of

Rs. 10,174 shall be recovered from his VRS payment,

therefore, his contention that no notice was given to him is

baseless. Accordingly, the management has prayed that

the claim of the workman's union be rejected out rightly

without any relief to the workman concerned.

5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder to the

written statement whereby it has introduced nothing new

apart from repeating the averment already made in the

statement of claim.

6. The parties filed documentary evidence in support

of their claim. The workman's union examined the workman

whereas the management examined Shri Amrit Lal Sethi,

Area Manager in support of their respective stands. Parties

availed the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of

each other and forwarded oral arguments also.

7. The authorized representative of the workman's

union has argued that the management worked in the utter

violation of the Staff Regulations by not issuing any charge

sheet to the workman and by not calling for his reply or by

not giving him any notice before imposing the penalties of

different recoveries. He has submitted that this act of the

management is against the principles of natural justice and

5068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

accordingly, the recoveries are liable to be set aside and

the money so recovered are liable to be refunded to the

workman.

8. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has argued that the workman had been given

in writing about his recovery and the recovery of

Rs. 30761.60 had been made as per advice of Debit No. 62/26

dated 08.05.2002 amounting to Rs. 37236.52. The amount

was to be recovered from the workman as per penalties

passed by the Disciplinary Authority after adopting the

laid down procedure of departmental proceedings while

the workman was posted under District Office, Haldwani.

He has further submitted that the workman agitated six

such penalties before this CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow vide I.D. No. 52/2004; and this Tribunal had set

aside as many as four penalties, which resulted into refund

of an amount of Rs. 68952.80 vide cheque No. 118276 dated

15.07.2010. Accordingly, he has argued that the present

industrial dispute becomes infrastuous as the amount

recovered has already been refunded to the workman.

9. I have given any thoughtful consideration to the

river contentions of the parties and scanned the evidence

available on file in light thereof.

10. The case of the workman's union is that the

management has neither issued any charge sheet nor any

notice before passing the impugned orders of recovery.

Likewise, he was not given any opportunity to defend

himself.

11. Per contra, the management of the FCI has come

forward with the case that the prescribed procedure of

departmental proceedings were adopted before imposing

penalties and the amount of Rs. 37236.52 was recovered

from the workman as per advise of Debit, on his transfer

from District Office, Haldwani to the District, Morabadad.

But the amount so recovered had been refunded to the

workman consequent to award in I.D. No. 52/2004, which

included the amount of Rs. 37236.52; hence, there left

nothing to refund to the workman at this juncture.

12. The management in its oral evidence has stated

that the amount of Rs. 37236.52 was recovered from the

workman, as per advice of Debit No. 62/26 dated 08.05.2002,

consequent to penalties. The said penalties were agitated

by the workman vide I.D. No. 52/2004 before this Tribunal.

This Tribunal set aside as many four penalties vide its

award dated 14.01.2009, resulting into refund of Rs. 68952.80

to the workman vide Cheque No. 118276 dated 15.07.2010

and this included amount disputed in the present industrial

dispute. There is no cross-examination by the workman's

union on this issue that said amount of Rs. 68952.80 had

not been refunded to the workman; rather, an

acknowledgement dated 15.07.2010, duly signed by the

workman, paper No. 20/27 is on the record. This goes to

show that the workman is in receipt of amount that had

been recovered from his earlier.

13. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of the

considered opinion that the amount claimed by the

workman has already been refunded to the workman vide

Cheque No. 118276 dated 15.07.2010 and accordingly, the

workman's union case fails and consequently, the workman

concerned is not entitled for any relief as the amount of

Rs. 37,236.57, claimed by him, has already been refunded

to him vide paper No. 20/27 by management of FCI.

14. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

Lucknow

23rd July, 2013.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1896.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

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

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd

vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 8@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@21@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1896.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 8/2007) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/08/2013.

[No. L-12011/21/2005-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5069

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/8/2007

Presiding officer : Shri R.B. Patle

General Secretary,

SBI Staff Congress (Bhopal Circle),

MIG1/6, Shivani Complex, 6 No. Shop,

Shivaji Nagar,

Bhopal (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of July, 2013

As per letter dated 4-1-2007 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/

21/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the transfer orders issued in respect of

Members/office bearers of the SBI Staff Congress

were in accordance with the provisions of Shastri

Award and as per the redeployment and Transfer

Policy's Agreement dated 22-7-2003? If not, what relief

the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

2. 1st party workmen are challenging their transfer

orders in the dispute under reference. Even after issuing

notices, the Union did not participate in the proceeding,

no statement of claim is filed. 1st party is proceeded exparte

on 25-11-11.

3. IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

4. In the result, award is passed as under:-

"Reference is disposed of as No Dispute Award."

R. B. P ATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1897.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

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

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@99½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2013 izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@179@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 66/99) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

01/08/2013.

[No. L-12012/179/98-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/66/99

Presiding Officer : Shri R.B. Patle

Shri Ram Shankar Sharma,

C/o Anandkumar Jain, 34A, Teela,

Jamalpura, Near Gopal Mandir,

Bhopal

...Workman

Versus

Zonal Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of July, 2013

As per letter dated 22-1-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I. D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

12012/179/98/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of management of Zonal

Manager State Bnak of India in terminating the

services of Shri Ram Shankar Sharma w.e.f. December

1984 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled for?"

5070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party workmen filed statement of claim at

Page 3/1 to 3/4. The case of 1st party workman is that he

had worked for 90 days in the Bank as Messenger in 1984.

He was performing duty satisfactorily. No charge-sheet

was issued to him. No enquiry was conducted against him.

His performance was enough to consider for regular

employment. That he had put 90 days service. His services

were illegally terminated. That his claim for regularization

was not considered. He was not provided employment.

The termination of his services is illegal. Workman has

referred to ratio held in various cases held by Supreme

Court and prays for his reinstatement with consequential

benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/5.

IInd party submits that 1st party workman was employed

purely as temporary casual employee at Harda Branch.

His services were intermittently utilized for 102 days.

The breakup of the period of service is given 90 days during

April to July 94, 12 days during August to December 84.

Workman was not employed as Messenger. The

termination of services is not covered under Section 2(oo)

of I.D. Act. That it is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of

the Act. The workman had not completed 240 days

continuous service. He is not entitled to protection under

Section 25-F of I.D. Act. All other material contentions of

Ist party are denied. IInd party prayed for rejection of the

claim of workman.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Zonal

Manager State Bank of India

in terminating the services

of Shri Ram Shankar Sharma

w.e.f. December 1984 is

legal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed

by workman is entitled to?

workman is

rejected.

REASONS

5. Though workman is challenging termination of

his services, the workman has failed to adduce his

evidence. He is proceeded exparte on 16-1-07. The case

was adjourned for exparte evidence of the management.

Management has not adduced any evidence. It is clear that

the parties in the reference proceeding are not participating

in the reference therefore No dispute award deserves to

be passed.

6. According I hold and pass the award as under:—

"Parties do not participate in reference proceeding,

therefore No Dispute Award is passed."

R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1898.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

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

esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vfèdj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1074@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@234@96&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1074/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 01/08/2013.

[No. L-12012/234/96-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. No. 1074/2005

Registered on 21.9.2005

The General Secretary, SBI Staff Congress, 1304/23B,

Chandigarh.

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, State Bank of India, R-III, Z.O

PB, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

...Respondent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5071

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. Raj Kaushik, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 10.07.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

234/96-IR(B-I) Dated 9.7.1997, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 of 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 S.B.I. rep.

through AGM-III, SBI, Z.O. Pb, Sector 17, Chandigarh

in initiating disciplinary proceedings by way of

charge-sheet dated 1.11.1995 against Sh. O.P. Bhagat,

Clerk-cum-Cashier for misappropriation of bank's

money besides trial vide FIR dated 6.10.1995 after

bifurcation of various incidents of one charge (i.e.

misappropriation of bank money) is just and legal?

And in accordance with para 521(1) of Shastri Award?

If not to what relief to the workman is entitled and

from which date?"

As per claim statement workman was working as

Clerk-cum-Cashier at Basti Shekh Jalandhar Branch. He

was charge-sheeted for misappropriating bank's money/

money belonging to depositors of the bank. He was placed

under suspension and in FIR was also lodged

subsequently. According to the workman while lodging

the FIR the bank kept certain entries for charge-sheeting

the workman and charge-sheeted him. The act of

management for starting disciplinary proceedings has been

alleged to be against the Shastri Award and it has been

prayed that the management be directed to stop proceeding

with any action proposed to the basis of inquiry conducted.

Claim was contested by the management and it was

alleged that the criminal case and the departmental inquiry

conducted by the management are independent and for

the different incidents and charges. The departmental

inquiry did not prejudice the interest and defence of the

workman in any manner. The action of the management is

quite legal and justified.

Parties led their evidence in the case and the

management besides the other document placed on record

the dismissal order dated 24.9.2004 and the order of the

appellate authority. An award dated 23.9.2004 in ID No.

191 of 1999 of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh in State Bank of

India Vs. O.P. Bhagat is also on record. In ID No. 191 of

1999 the Tribunal had allowed the application of the bank

under Section 33 of I.D. Act and granted permission to

management to proceed with the proceedings of the

inquiry and take the same to its legical end. Consequently,

the inquiry was conducted and order of dismissal from

service was passed. Under the circumstances the learned

counsel for workman also gave his statement on 1.4.2013

that the reference has become infructuous in view of the

passing of dismissal order. Learned counsel for

management also agreed that the present reference has

no legs to stand.

Since the punishment order has been passed in the

inquiry against the workman hence, as admitted by the

parties also the reference has become infructuous and

the referred industrial dispute does not exist. The

reference is accordingly decided. Hard copy and soft copy

of the award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1899.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1072@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@10@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1072/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 01/08/2013.

[No. L-12012/10/2000-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

5072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1072/2005

Registered on 20.9.2005

Sh. Deena Nath S/o Keshva Nand, R/o Village Vazzer,

P.O. Maswhobra, Tehsil and District Shimla.

...Petitioner

Versus

1. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Region II, Shimla.

2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch

Kupri Melthi, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh. R.P. Rana, Adv.

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 4.07.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

10/2000-IR (B-I) Dated 24.5.2000, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 of 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 order dated 28.3.1998 of management

of State Bank of India, Shimla treating Sh. Deena

Nath S/o Sh. Keshav Nand, Messenger, posted at

Kupri Melthi (Rohru District, Shimla, HP) Branch of

State Bank of India as voluntarily retired from services

w.e.f. 11.8.1994 is just and legal? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?"

As per the claim statement the workman posted at

State Bank of India, Kupri Melthi Branch, Shimla as

Messenger had fallen ill in August 1994 and had applied

for medical leave w.e.f. 11.8.1994 to 6.2.1995. He had

submitted medical certificate and fitness certificate issued

by the Medical Officer along with his leave application.

But when he went to join his duties on 7.2.1995 he was not

allowed to mark his presence though he continued working

with the management w.e.f. 7.2.1995. He was not paid salary

also after 7.2.1995. So he served a notice dated 1.5.1995 on

the management for release his salary and also moved the

Assistant Labour Commissioner. In the proceedings before

the Assistant Labour Commissioner the management filed

reply in which it was stated that vide order dated 28.3.1998

the workman has been treated to have voluntarily retired

from service of the bank w.e.f. 11.8.1994. According to the

workman the order dated 28.3.1998 is illegal, arbitrary and

discriminatory as it has been passed without following

any procedure and without conducting any inquiry. The

workman has alleged the violation of Section 25F, G and H

of the Act also. But that is not the subject matter of the

reference. Workman has prayed for his reinstatement with

back wages and interest.

Claim was contested by the management and it was

stated that the workman was in the habit of proceeding on

leave without any leave to his credit for which he had been

advised so many times in writing. His work and conduct

was never satisfactory after his confirmation. It was denied

that the workman had applied for medical leave on 6.2.1995

and had submitted medical certificate and fitness certificate.

Relevant for the purpose of the impugned order, is the fact

mentioned in the reply that the workman absented from

11.8.1994 and he did not come to bank despite notice sent

by bank, by registered post to him on 22.3.1996, 15.5.1996,

10.6.1997 and 15.7.1997. No leave of any kind was due to

him. He sent medical certificate by registered post in

December 1994 from 11.8.1994 to 30.9.1994 and 2.10.1994 to

6.12.1994 but he neither came to bank and nor submitted

his fitness certificate. He never reported for duty after

11.8.1994. Hence, action was taken in accordance with the

settlement dated 17.9.1984 on service conditions of the

bank employees and as per instructions contained in

Chandigarh LHO Circular No. PER/89 of 95-96 dated

19.3.1996. The workman moved the Assistant Labour

Commissioner after the receipt of the bank's notice dated

19.6.1997 and 15.7.1997 therefore the bank's action is

justified. The impugned order was passed in terms of the

circular referred above. The claim of the workman has no

merit.

The workman filed a replication to say that on

previous occasions also when he went to bank for attending

his duties, he was marked absent and sometime, when he

applied for leave his leave was rejected without any reason,

to harm his career. The fact of sending the leave application

along with medical certificate and fitness certificate along

with joining report was reiterated.

In support of his case the workman examined himself

while on behalf of management G.C. Kashyap was examined.

Parties relied on certain papers also. The workman absented

himself on 30.8.2011 when the case was fixed for arguments.

He remained absent on 17.10.2011, 18.1.2012 and 28.2.2012

and the case was ordered to proceed ex parte against him

on 28.2.2012.

I have heard the learned counsel for management

and perused the evidence on record.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5073

It is important to note that the workman in his

statement during cross-examination has admitted that he

had not joined the duties after 11.8.1994. As per his

statement he was on leave due to ill health and he had

submitted his leave application to the bank along with

medical certificate. As per claim statement he had send the

leave application and medical certificate by registered post.

But no postal receipt is on record. However, he was

submitted a reply to his notice purported to have been

sent by bank. It has been marked as 'F' in his statement. In

its reply bank has admitted to have received a medical

leave application for the period from 11.8.1994 to 6.12.1994,

But, there is no evidence to support the workman

contention that he had sent any medical certificate or any

joining report on 7.2.1995. A photocopy of the joining

report given by him and marked 'A' in his statement cannot

be accepted as a proof of his joining the service on 7.2.1995

as there is no evidence that the joining report had been

submitted by the workman and received by the

management. It is also important to note that as per this

paper marked 'A', the medical certificate was annexed with

this report. It therefore falsifies the case of the workman

that the medical certificate had been sent along with leave

application. This letter also loses its importance in view of

the specific statement of the workman during cross-

examination that he has not joined his duty after 11.8.1994.

The complaints marked 'B' and 'C' in the statement of the

workman also have no relevance in the absence of the

proof that they have been dispatched to and received by

the authority to whom they are addressed.

After the statement of the workman it becomes an

admitted fact that he remained absent from 11.8.1994.

There is no evidence to support his case that he had sent

any medical certificate in support of his leave application.

The learned counsel for management has referred the

Circular No. PER/89 of 95-96 dated 19.3.1996 about the

unauthorized absence from duty. Regarding the Award

Staff it is provided in Para B(iii).

“Where an employee does not submit any

application for leave and absents himself from work

for a period of 30 days or more consecutive days

without or beyond any leave to his credit ......................

a notice (as per Annexure IV) should be sent to the

employee at last known address calling upon him to

report for duty within 30 days of receipt of notice.”

Sub-para (iv) of Para 'B' provides that unless the

employee reports for duty within 30 days or unless he

gives an explanation for his absence to the satisfaction

of the bank, the employee would be deemed to have

voluntarily resigned from the bank's service on the expiry

of the said notice.

Learned counsel for the management submitted that

the management-witness in his affidavit has stated that

notices as per the aforesaid circular was issued to the

workman and they had been duly received by him. The

management has filed the copies of the notice marked K, L

and N attached to the written statement in this regard. The

fact of receiving these notices has not been challenged on

behalf of workman during the cross-examination of the

management-witness. There is no reply of workman to any

of these notices on the record, hence, the bank was right in

passing the impugned order dated 28.3.1998.

Learned counsel for management in this regard has

cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syndicate

Bank Vs. General Secretary 2000(2) RSJ 569 where the order

of voluntary retirement had been passed by the bank under

Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement, as the workman had

absented from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive

days and notice sent to him calling upon him to report for

duty within 30 days on correct address had been received

back with the postal endorsement “refused”, and the

workman did not respond to notice. It was held by Hon'ble

Court that it is not necessary for the bank to hold inquiry

as the workman defaulted and offered no explanation of

his absence from duty and did not report for duty within 30

days of the notice as required in Clause 16 of the Bipartite

Settlement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the action

of the management.

From the above going discussion it is clear that the

order dated 28.3.1998 of State Bank of India Shimla treating

the workman voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 11.8.1994

has been passed as per Chandigarh L.H.O. Circular PER/

89 of 95-96 dated 19.3.1996 and is just and legal. The

workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference is answered

against the workman. Hard and soft copies of the award be

sent to the Central Government as per directions of the

Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1900.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad

vkQ bafM;k 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@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@5@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@102@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

5074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2013

S.O. 1900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Union Bank of India and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

14.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/102/2004-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 46 of 04

Between—

Shri M.P. Verma,

C/o Baijnath Prasad,

Plot No. 19, Road No. 22,

Sri Krishna Nagar,

Patna, Bihar.

And

Regional Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Taksal Theatre Building

Nadesar, Varanasi.

AWARD

1. Central Govt., Mol, New Delhi vide notification

No. L-12012/102/2004-IR (B-II), dated 18.08.04, has referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal—

2. Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India, in imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement from the service of the bank without notice with

effect from 28.02.03 upon Sri Mukesh Prasad Verma is legal

and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?

3. It is common ground that the workman was served

with a charge sheet 22.06.02 on the following charges—

4. Sri Verma while working as head cashier at

Pandeypur Branch made a cash remittance of 12 lacs on

20.03.02 to currency chest Rathyatra Varanasi. The same

was deposited the same day in the evening, the notes or

cash sent by the Pandeypur branch were recounted and a

shortage of Rs. 50000 was detected in 50 packets of notes.

The cash was recounted and also re-verified by the regional

office on 22.3.02 and found the same shortage.

5. It was also informed by Sri Atul Agrawal, Chief

Manager Pandeypur branch that on 21.3.2002, Sri Verma

has informed that there was an excess in the cash after

remittance of cash to Rathyatra Crossing branch. On 21.3.02,

Sri Verma went to currency chest to find out whether there

was any shortage in the packets of cash remitted on the

aforesaid date. It is further reported that in the evening at

7.30 p.m. Sri Verma returned from the currency chest and

handed Rs. 50000 to the accountant of Pandeypur branch

for depositing the same at the branch. But as the strong

room was closed and the officiating head cashier had left

the branch said cash could not be kept in the cash safe. On

22.3.02 Rs. 50000 was deposited in sundry deposit account.

Subsequently on receipt of letter from the currency chest

transfer of entry for 50000 was remitted.

6. Sri Verma also submitted a letter dated 22.3.02 to

the Chief Manager Pandeypur Branch stating that, he found

the excess in cash on 20.3.02 and on 21.3.02 Sri Verma went

to currency chest for depositing the shortage but the

currency chest people advised him to deposit the amount

at Pandeypur branch. Accordingly he is depositing the

cash in Pandeypur Branch. Further it is also revealed that

Sri Verma informed the incident to the visiting regional

office Varanasi officials by stating that he has remitted

cash to Pandeypur Branch. It is also revealed that after the

departure of cash van he realized the mistake that whaterver

the cash packets he has send there is shortage and Sri

Verma admitted shortage of cash on 20.3.02 but the cash

was deposited by him on 22.3.2002, he was on leave on

21.3.02 and realizing his mistake he has deposited the cash.

He is solely responsible for this incidence and no one else

is involved. He has confessed his guilt in the presence of

Sri Mohan Lal Manager (P) and Sri S. Mukharjee, Manager

(Audit) and requested that he may be excused and

accordingly he had submitted a confession letter dated

22.3.02.

7. The branch cash balance book receiving and

paying cashier register dated 20.03.02 and so on as

mentioned in the charge sheet on page no. 2, revealed that

Sri Verma intentionally prepared signed and stamped the

packets, less notes/peaces in packets with a purpose to

pocket Rs. 50000 which he subsequently deposited in the

branch under the garb of excess cash and to hush up the

matter.

8. The aforesaid acts and omission on the part of

Sri Verma constitutes gross/minor misconduct.

9. In the present case the disciplinary authority

himself has conducted inquiry against the charged

employee as enquiry officer. In the inquiry the prosecution

side has adduced three witness viz., S/Sri Mohan Lal

Manager (P) RO Varanasi, Sri K.N. Panet the then In-charge

currency, Rathyatra Crossing Branch and Sri Atul Agrawal,

the then Branch Manager, Pandypur Branch.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5075

10. Apart from above oral evidence the prosecution

side has also adduced oral evidence of the above witness.

The enquiry officer after hearing both the sides has

concluded the enquiry. Ther enquiry officer/disciplinary

authority vide letter dated 03.02.2003 informed the workman

that the charges leveled against him have been found a

proved as per finding a copy of which was encloused with

this letter. In this letter punishment of compulsory retirement

from the service of the bank without notice was also

proposed and the workman was given opportunity to be

heard in person by the enquiry officer/disciplinary

authority. After hearing the workman on the point of

quantum of punishment the disciplinary authority vide order

dated 28.02.2003, has confirmed the proposed punishment

of compulsory retirement from the service of the bank

without notice. The workman against the punishment order

has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who

vide his order dated 10.07.2003 has rejected the appeal of

the workman by a detailed order.

11. The workman being aggrieved from the above

action of the bank has raised the present industrial dispute,

inter alia, alleging that he was illegally suspended with

effect from 11.04.2002, he was denied opportunity by the

enquiry officer to arrange defense representative and

allowed the witnesses of the bank to depose in the absence

of his representative, the enquiry officer also did not call

the staff and officer who were jointly responsible for the

alleged misconduct, the concerned cash packets were not

produced in the inquiry to verify as to whether the packets

were of Pandeypur Branch and signed by the workman

concerned, the bank has appointed enquiry officer to act

as disciplinary authority which is against the rules of natural

justice as well as well establishment law, without application

of proper mind the disciplinary authority has confirmed

the proposed punishment on perverse and unfair findings,

the appellate authority too has rejected the appeal of the

workman without proper application of mind, and lastly is

alleged by the workman that there was no shortage in cash

remitted to the chest and the case was prepared on false

and concocted complaint with ulterior motive, the

concerned packets were also not shown to the workman in

the inquiry, receiving clerk and cash peon were also not

produced in the inquiry, and lastly that the enquiry officer

refused to produce the copy of the complaints.

12. On the basis of above it has been prayed by the

workman that whole inquiry held against the workman is

illegal and the impugned punishment order of the

disciplinary authority and the appellate authority is liable

to be set aside and should be set aside and he be reinstated

in the service of the bank with full back wages, continuity

of service and all consequential benefits.

13. The bank has filed reply raising preliminary

objections viz, the order of reference is bad in law, there is

no cause of action in favour of the workman, hence the

non existing, there is no valid espousal of the cause of the

workman, the present matter is not an industrial dispute,

and the claim application is bad in law for mis-joinder of

parties.

14. On merits the bank has reiterated the contents of

the charge sheet and submitted that the workman was

served with a charge sheet dated 22.06.02 and a

departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman

in accordance with the provisions and rules applicable to

him. The workman participated in the enquiry and he availed

the opportunity to defend himself. The workman also

submitted a confession letter to the effect that he had

committed the misconduct. It is further stated that rules of

natural justice were complied with and in view of confession

letter tendered by the workman it cannot be said that any

prejudice has been caused to him. Based on the evidence

adduced in the enquiry as well as the confession letter, the

charges were held as proved. The disciplinary authority

proposed the punishment of compulsory retirement of the

workman and the workman was also afforded opportunity

of personal hearing by the disciplinary authority who

ultimately vide order dated 28.3.2003 confirmed the

proposed punishment; appeal preferred by him was also

rejected by the appellate authority. It is also alleged that

the misconduct committed by the workman amounts to

fraud and the order of punishment is fully justified and is

not required to be interfered at the hands of this Tribunal.

15. Lastly it is pleaded by the bank that there is no

merit in the case of the workman hence the claim is liable to

be rejected.

16.Rejoinder has not been filed in the case on behalf

of the workman.

17.The workman vide paper no. 18/1 has filed

13 documents all of them are in the shape of photocopy.

18.Management has also filed 14 documents vide

paper no. 12/1 which are also the photocopies of the

documents.

19.Workman has examined himself as W.W.1 no

witness has been examined by the bank in support of their

case before the tribunal.

20.In this case on 23.04.2012 an issued regarding

fairness of the inquiry was framed and arguments of the

parties were heard on the said issue.

21.I have heard the arguments and perused the whole

record on the point of preliminary issue as well as on the

point of quantum of punishment.

22.I have examined the enquiry proceedings as well

as the finding of the enquiry officer. In all three witness has

been produced from the side of the management as M.W.1,

M.W.2 and M.W.3. All the three witnesses have been

thoroughly cross examined by the Defense representative

5076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the workman. Similarly the enquiry officer gave sufficient

opportunity to the workman to produce the witnesses in

his defense. Accordingly the CSE produced three witnesses

including himself as one of the witness. These witnesses

are Sri Hari Parkas Mishra, as D.W.1, Sri M. P. Verma CSE

himself as D.W.2 and Sri V. K. Srivastava as D.W.3 and all

the witnesses of defense were examined and cross examined

by both the parties.

23.After considering the whole evidence oral as well

as documentary mainly the confession letter given by the

workman as Mex 4 and 5, the enquiry officer have come to

the conclusion that the charge/allegations leveled against

Sri M. P. Verma vide the aforesaid charge sheet are

sufficiently proved. Accordingly he holds him guilty of the

charge of misappropriation of the bank money.

24.This has been found proved by the evidence of

the witnesses that on 20.3.02 cash amounting to

Rs. 12,00,000 was remitted to currency chest by Pandeypur

branch and the CSE himself was acting as head cashier and

counted the bundle and signed by himself. When the cash

was checked at the currency chest a shortage of Rs. 50000

was found. The E.O. found on 21.03.2002 at about 9.40 a.m.

Sri M.P. Verma informed that the cash remitted on 20.03.2002

appeared to him to be short. Mr. Verma went to the currency

chest and requested the officer of the chest to accept the

cash from him to make good the shortage. In letter Ext. M.4

and M.5, Mr. Verma has stated that in the evening of

20.03.02, while tallying the cash he had come to know about

the shortage in cash remitted to chest. Because while

tallying cash amount to Rs. 50000 was found excess by

him. It was observed that the defense on one side tried to

prove that the CSE came to know about the shortage in

cash remitted to chest through an employee of Rathyatra

crossing branch in the evening of 20.03.02. When he

reached the house he borrowed the money to make good

the shortage. The defense during the cross examination

of management witnesses did not object against the

contents of Ext. M.4 and 5. The contents of Ext. M.4 and

5 which are the statement of CSE is in disagreement with

what has been brought by defense through his witnesses,

therefore, theory put up by the defense was not relied

upon.

25. I have also considered all the contentions raised

in the claim petition or in the arguments.

26.I have to say that here the CSE has been taking

different pleas while putting his defense which is not

expected from a senior bank employee like head cashier. It

is wrong to say that these letters Mex 4 and 5 which are in

the shape of his confession have been procured by the

management. No such suggestion has been given to the

management at that time and no such evidence has been

given by W.W. 1 in his statement before the tribunal. It is

expected that the official who is facing the inquiry will also

come with a clean hand and mind before the enquiry officer.

It is not permitted that an employee can take different

defense at the same time which may be permissible in criminal

trial but not in inquiry. So this fact has been proved that

this was in the very knowledge of the CSE that there had

been a shortage of Rs. 50000 and he had come to know that

this amount while tallying the cash was lying in his drawer.

In the confession letter he has specifically written that he

has sent the cash, he has pasted the slip and put his initials

over the same. After remittance of the cash, he immediately

came to know that there was shortage in the cash on the

same evening i.e. 20.03.02. He also admitted the fact that

he was on leave on 21.03.02 and had deposited the amount

on 22.03.02. He confessed his guilt in his confession letter

saying that he himself is responsible for the shortage of

cash.

27.In his confession letter Ext. M.5 he has clearly

stated that due to heavy pressure of work and heavy work

load, in the evening while tallying the cash it came to his

notice there was an excess amount of Rs. 50000 which was

lying in his drawer. On 21.03.02 he came to his branch and

found that the said amount of Rs. 50000 was lying there.

28.In this way the CSE has taken different pleas in

his defense. Not only this but the CSE is trying to blow hot

and cold in the same breath, similarly he is sailing in different

boats. Whereas on one side he says that the currency

chest should have prepared the POB when the cash was

found short and these packet should have been shown to

him during the inquiry as well as before the tribunal. As

already found by the enquiry officer and I also analyze that

this is a false contention and cooked theory by the CSE.

Similarly he raised another contention that agreeing that

there had been a shortage in cash but immediately he

arranged the money after borrowing from the witnesses

who had been produced before the inquiry.

29.This was a serious matter had been taken by the

enquiry officer and disciplinary authority himself. When

he had come to know that there had been an excess amount

while tallying the cash he should have come with clean

hand and must have said that this amount is lying in his

drawer and should have been deposited on the next day

i.e. 21.3.02 early in the morning. But he is saying that he

was on leave on 21.2.03. When he has come to know that

there has been a shortage of Rs. 50000 which is not a small

amount on the same day why had he been on leave on

21.2.03 and why he is rushing to the currency chest. All

this shows his bad intention which appears to be a

calculated move and the EO had found that he had done it

with malafide intention.

30.Therefore in such circumstances, there was no

need of producing the currency packets before the inquiry.

31.It is also contended that one document which is

numbered 1(G) as demanded was not produced. I have

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5077

given due thought to this contention. There is no force as

this document has no where been relied upon by the enquiry

officer.

32. It is also contended that the inquiry officer and

disciplinary authority are one and same person. There is

no illegality in appointing the same person as enquiry

officer as well as disciplinary authority. The opposite party

has also placed circular No. 2809 dated 28.5.61 wherein the

disciplinary authority may himself hold an inquiry or direct

any officer of the bank to hold an inquiry and another

officer to represent the management's case.

33. The opposite party has also placed reliance upon

a decision of Hon'ble High Court CMWP 4995 of 98 in

between Union Bank of India versus PO CGIT Kanpur,

wherein it was observed that so far as the issue of

disciplinary aurhority appointing another officer is

concerned, the judgment of the learned single Judge in the

case of Brahm Pal Singh has already been revered by

Division Bench by clearly holding that such a course was

permissible.

34. Therefore in the present case everything has been

made to the workman in the charge sheet, so this point also

does not stand anywhere on the point that inquiry held

against him is not fair.

35. Likewise it is held that the appellate authority

has also given him opportunity of personal hearing and

has rejected the appeal.

36. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of

the auth. Representative of the claimant that principles of

natural justice has not been followed. The opposite party

has given the full opportunity to the claimant to put his

defense. As such it is held that the inquiry conducted by

the management was just and fair.

37. I have also heard and considered on the point of

quantum of punishment. It is pertinent to mention here

that it is not the case of dismissal, discharge or removal

from service therefore, the tribunal cannot exercise its

powers under Section 11-A of the Act.

38. Considering the gravity of misconduct as

enumerated in the charge sheet it is found that the

punishment of compulsory retirement from service of the

bank imposed upon the workman cannot be held either to

be excessive or disproportionate in the light of the proved

charges. Banking institutions runs on trust and confidence

and if any employee found indulged in misappropriation of

banks fund, he cannot be retained in the service for a

moment. Therefore in my view the punishment awarded to

the workman is fully commensurate with the proved

misconduct and therefore, it need not be interfered at the

hands of the tribunal. As such the workman is not entitled

for any relief as claimed by him.

39. Reference is therefore, answered against the

workman and in favour of the bank.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1901.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 85@2006½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@108@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 85/2006 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Sangramgarh Colliery

of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/108/2006-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEOFRE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present:

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 85 OF 2006

Parties:

The management of Sangramgarh

Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol

(WB)

Representatives:

For the management:

Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

Shri S.K. Pandey, Ld.

(Workman)

Representative

Industry: COAL

State: West Bengal

Dated 03.07.13

5078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

108/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 01.11.2006 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Sangramgarh Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Sunil

Bouri from service w.e.f. 22.03.2003 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

108/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 01.11.2006 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

85 of 2006 was registered on 11.12.2006 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

The workman Sunil Bouri, Man No. 109661 was in

employment of the Company (ECL) as Loader at

Sangramgarh Colliery of Salanpur Area of M/s. ECL. The

workman was found absent from duty with effect from

28.12.2002 till 13.02.2003 on which date he was charge

sheeted vide charge sheet No. SAN/C-6/302 dated

13.02.2003 and after enquiry he has been dismissed by the

management from service with effect from 22.02.2003.

In this case notices were issued to both sides the

workman Sunil Bouri appeared with his representative

Sri S.K. Pandey, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor

Congress and has filed Written Statement on 02.8.2007. In

this case several notices were issued to the management

for appearance but the management appeared on

1st February, 2012 and then Sri P. Goswami, Advocate has

appeared on 31.7.2012 but the management did not bother

to give instruction to Sri P. Goswami, Advocate for filing

Written Statement Ld. Lawyer Sri Goswami, Advocate has

fairly submitted before the court that he has informed the

management of Sangramgarh Colliery of M/s. ECL to send

all the necessary documents as well as statement of the

facts so that the written statement can be filed before this

court. But the management of Sangramgarh Colliery did

not listen anything nor send any documents, so he was

unable to submit written statement.

On perusal of the documents which are available in

the record I find that the management has taken very harsh

step against the workman by dismissing him from service

w.e.f. 22.3.2003 because the workman was absent from duty

with effect from 28.12.2002 and on 13.02.2003 the workman

was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No. SAN/C-6/302

dated 13.02.2003 and after enquiry which is said to be

exparte dismissed the workman from the service w.e.f.

22.3.2003. No doubt the management has taken very harsh

step against the workman by dismissing him from service

without giving any opportunity to the workman after

reforming himself. Moreover, no adverse remark or

document has been filed by the management against the

workman before this court.

Thus in my opinion the action of the management of

Sangramgarh Colliery of M/s. ECL dismissing Sunil Bouri

from service w.e.f. 22.3.2003 is quite illegal and also

unjustified.

Accordingly the order of dismissal of the workman

Sunil Bouri stated above, is hereby set aside and the

management is directed to allow the workman Sri Sunil

Bouri to join in the service in the same post within 2 (two)

months from the date of receipt of notification with 50%

back wages till he join.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1902.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@15@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1902.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2001)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5079

the management of Amrit Nagor Colliery and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/15/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present:

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 24 OF 2001

Parties:

The management of Amrit

Nagor Colliery of M/s. ECL,

Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol

Burdwan (WB)

Representatives:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman): Sri H.L. Soni, Ld.

Representative

Industry: COAL

State: West Bengal

Dated 14.06.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

15/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 31.07.2001 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Amritnagor Colliery under Eastern Coalfields in denying

payment of idle wages w.e.f. 15.02.95 to 22.06.95 to Sh.

Ramdhani Mistry, Ex-blacksmith is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/15/

2001-IR(CM-II) dated 31.07.2001 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 24 of 2001

was registered on 20.08.2001 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

It is true that the workman Ramdhani Mistry was a

permanent employee of Amritnagor Colliery under

Kunustoria Area of M/s. ECL.

It is the case of the Management in the Form 'B'

Ramdhani Mistry was recorded as 15.02.1935 and

accordingly, he was superannuated on 15.02.95 but

subsequently in compliance with the direction of the

Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata Ramdhani Mistry examined

by the Medical Board and the Medical Board at its sitting

on 22.03.95 assessed the age of the workman in between 55

to 60 years, and the Management for convenience of both

the parties took mid point of the age range and hold 57 and

1/2 years on 22.03.95 and after receiving necessary approval

of the competent authority of the company the workman

Ramdhani Mistry was allowed to reinstate on 22.06.95 on

condition that the workman shall not claim any back wages

and an agreement was also entered in between the

Management and Ramdhani Mistry (workman) in presence

of two witness.

It is the case of the workman Ramdhani Mistry that

age dispute with him was pending with the Management

since long but instead of solving the age of dispute he was

stopped from duty from 15.02.95 and has been prematurely

superannuated from 15.02.95. It is further case of the

workman that he preferred an appeal before Hon'ble Court

and as per direction of the Hon'ble Court the workman was

examined by the Apex Medical Board on 22.03.95 and his

age was assessed 57¹/2 years and on 22.06.95, the

management allowed him to resume his duty.

The claim of the workman that he sat idle with any of

his fault from 15.02.95 to 22.06.95 without any wage, so he

is entitled to get wages for this period i.e. from 15.02.95 to

12.06.95 which the Management has denied.

The main defence of the Management is that the

workman is not entitled to get any wages for the period

from 15.02.95 to 22.06.95 on the ground "No work No Pay."

On perusal of the record I find that the Management

did not produce the 'B' From Register, and the application

of the workman by which he had challenged the entry of

date of birth in 'B' Form Register. Further I find that the

Management did not produce the said agreement before

this Court to substantiate the fact that the workman

Ramdhani Mistry entered into an agreement duly signed

by two witnesses that Ramdhani Mistry shall not claim

any back wages. So it is obviously clear that the workman

was had challenged the age matter from earlier, the

Management did not take any step before 15.02.95, and

5080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

had the workman would be examined by the Apex Medical

Board, the age would be assessed before 15.02.95 and the

workman would not face any financial loss. So, in my

opinion the fault is totally on the part of Management and

the Management has to face the consequence thereof.

Accordingly, in my opinion the action of the

Management of Amrit Nagor Colliery, under ECL in denying

the payment of idle wages w.e.f 15.02.95 to 22.06.95 is not

legal and is totally unjustified as well as against the principle

of "Natural Justice". The Management should make the

payment of wages of this period (15.02.95 to 22.06.95) to

the workman Ramdhani Mistry within two months from the

date of receipt of Notification of the Award.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above. Send the copies of the "Award" to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for

information and needful.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1903.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 85@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@235@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the indusrial dispute

between the management of Belbad Colliery of M/s. ECL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/235/2004-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present:

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 85 OF 2005

PARTIES:

The management of Belbad

Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan.

Vs.

Shri Ramavatar Bhuiya, C/o.

Kartick Chandra Ghosh, AT. 10

No. Colliery, via-Sripur Bazar,

PO: Pariharpur, Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management:

Sri. P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the Union (Workman): None

Industry: COAL

State: West Bengal

Dated: 13.06.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

235/2004-1R(CM-II) dated 29.06.2005 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Belbad

Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Shri Ram Avatar Bhuiya, U.G. Trammer

from service w.e.f. 13/17.05.1999 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which

date?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

235/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 29.06.2005 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

85 of 2005 was registered on 17.08.05 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5081

On perusal of the case record, it has found that the

workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since

long. Serveral opportunities were given but of no effect. It

seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed

with the case any further. Since the workman is not

interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and

accordingly an order of "No Dispute" award is hereby

passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No

Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1904.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 94@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@244@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1904.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the indusrial

dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, P.O:

Methani, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/244/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 94 OF 2007

PARTIES:

The Management of B.M.P. Group

of Collieries of M/s. ECL., Burdwan.

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol,

Burdwan (WB)

REPRESENTATIVES

For the Management:

Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Adovcate

For the Union :

Sri S.K. Pandey, Ld.

(Workman)

Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated 08.05.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

244/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 30.10.2007 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL

in dismissing Shri Nimai Bouri w.e.f. 25.11.2005 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

244/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 30.10.2007 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 94 of 2007 was registered on 20.11.2007 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has found that

Shri S.K. Pandey, General Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor

Congress, appeared on behalf of the workman Sri Nimai

Bouri, and submitted that the dispute has already been

settled in between workman and the management, so the

workman does not want to proceed with the case. It has

further been submitted that the next date fixed is 13.06.13

may be recalled and necessary action may be passed. On

behalf of the management, Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

is present and submitted that he has no objection on prayer.

Since the matter has already been settled and there is no

dispute, the case is closed and accordingly an order of

"No Dispute" award is hereby passed.

5082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No

Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1905.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@183@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1905.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/183/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 66 OF 2007

PARTIES:

The management of Dhemomain

Group of Collieries of M/s. ECL.

Burdwan.

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol,

Burdwan (WB)

REPRESENTATIVES

For the management:

Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

Sri S.K. Pandy, Ld.

(Workman)

Representatives

INDUSTRY : COAL

State: West Bengal

Dated—09-05-2013

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

183/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 07-08-2007 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL

in dismissing Shri Panchu Bouri, U.G. Loader w.e.f.

06.10.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

183/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 07-08-2007 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 66 of 2007 was registered on 04.09.2007 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has found that

Shri S.K. Pandey, General Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor

Congress, appeared on behalf of the workman, and

submitted that the dispute has already been settled in

between workman and the management is ready to reinstate

the workman in the job, Photocopy of the Letter No. Pd/C-

6/13/41/107 dated 19.04.13 of Chief Manager (Personnel),

Sodepur Area, has been filed along with an affidavit shown

by the workman Sri Panchu Bouri. It has further been

submitted by Shri S.K. Pandey that the next date fixed is

25.06.13 which is too long, may be recalled and necessary

order may be passed. On perusal of the record, it has been

found that the matter has already been settled between

both the parties. Hence, for the end of justice, the date

fixed on 25.06.13 is hereby recalled and it is fixed on 09.05.13.

Since the matter has already been settled, the case is closed

and accordingly an order of "No Dispute" award is hereby

passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No

Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5083

ubZ] fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1906.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

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

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

U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 56@2004½dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@410@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1906.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Madhabpur Colliery, M/s

Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 13/08/2013

[No. L-22012/410/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 56 OF 2004

PARTIES:

The management of Madhabpur

Colliery of M/s. ECL. Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol

(WB)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the Union :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ltd.

(Workman)

Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

State: West Bengal

Dated—05-07-2013

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

410/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 04-10-2004 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Madhabpur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

in dismissing Sh. Prasanna Das, U.G. Loader U.M.

No. 548820 from services w.e.f. 29.05.1997 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

410/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 04-10-2004 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 56 of 2004 was registered on 14.10.2004 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

The workman Prasanna Das, Man No. 548820 was

working as UG Loader at Madhabpur Colliery of M/s. ECL.

He was found unauthorized absent from 11.11.95 to 10.4.97

and he did not inform the management about his absence.

Thereafter the workman was charge sheeted and notices

were issued to him but the workman did not turn up, so the

enquiry proceedings started ex-parte and the management

on the basis of exparte enquiry dismissed the workman

Prasanna Das, U.G. Loader from service with effect from

29.5.97.

On perusal of the Written Statement filed on behalf

of the workman I find that the workman has admitted the

fact that he remained unauthorized absence from 11.11.95

to 10.4.97 due to some unavoidable problems. It further

appears from the Para-IV of the Written Statement that the

workman was under fear of his life by the Anti-social Money

Lender and the workman had informed the management

about it and prayed to tranfer him at any other place. From

this very contention of the Written Statement I find that

the workman had taken loan from Money Lenders and as

because he was not repaying the same to the Money

Lenders, he was threatened by the Money Lenders, so in

my opinion this matter was the personal affair in between

workman and Money Lenders and the management cannot

he held responsible for such act of the workman. It further

appears from the Written Statement that the workman did

not turn up in Enquiry proceedings.

From perusal of the Written Statement filed on behalf

of the management I find that the workman Prasanna Das

remain continuous absence from his duty on and from

11.11.95 without any prior intimation or permission from

the management and as such he was charge sheeted by

the management vide charge sheet No. 10 dated 12.4.97

and as because the workman did not turn up even after

receiving notices, the enquiry was conducted exparte by

the Enquiry Officer and the management considering the

5084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

enquiry report has dismissed the workman from service

with effect from 29-5-1997. The Ld. Lawyer of the

management Shri P.K. Das. Advocate has submitted that

the workman remain absent for about 2 years without any

reasonable cause so point No. 7 of MOS will not go in

favour of the workman in any way and he has rightly been

dismissed by the management.

On perusal of the record I further find that the workman

dismissed from the service w.e.f. 29.5.2007 and the workman

did not take any step since thereafter but make some delay.

On perusal of the record I further find that no documents

regarding previous adverse conduct of the workman has

been filed by the management.

So, considering the facts and circumstances

discussed above, I find and come into the conclusion that

the management has taken a very harsh step against the

workman by dismissing from his service without giving

any warning or lenient punishment to him so that he can

reform himself. Further I find that no 2nd Show cause was

served on the workman on the point of dismissal.

Accordingly the action of the management of

Madhabpur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL in

dismissing Prasanna Das, U.G. Loader, Man No. 548820

from service w.e.f. 29.5.1997 is not legal and unjustified.

Accordingly the said action of the management is hereby

set aside and the management is directed to allow the

workman to join in the service without any back wages and

stop 2(two) increments as punishment of such unauthorized

absence. The management will also take an affidavit from

the workman duly countersigned by the union leader as

undertaking that he will not be absent unauthorisedly in

future and if such conduct will be repeated he can not avail

any help from the management.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1907.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

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

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

U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 129@2005½dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@40@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1907.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 129/2005

of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, PO:

Methani, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/40/2005-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 129 OF 2005

PARTIES:

The Management of B.M.P. Group

of Mines of M/s. ECL, Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol

(WB)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

For the Union :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ltd.

(Workman)

Representative

Industry : Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated—02.07.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide is Order No. L-22012/

40/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 01.12.2005 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"whether the action of the management of B.M.P.

Group of Mines of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Dilip

Bouri, Rail Mazdoor from services w.e.f. 27.12.97 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/40/

2005-IR(CM-II) dated 01.12.2005 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 129 of

2005 was registered on 23.12.2005 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notice through the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5085

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

The workman Dilip Bouri, Workman No. 138242 was

a permanent employees under ECL and was posted as Rail

Mazdoor at B.M.P. Group of Mines under ECL and he was

found unauthorized absent from 19-01-96 to 20-03-96 and

accordingly Charge sheet No. 15 dated 20.3.96 was

submitted and after enquiry the workman was found guilty

for unauthorized absence and he has been dismissed from

service with effect from 27.12.97.

Ld. Representative of the union Sri Rakesh Kumar

has submitted that the period of absence of the workman

Dilip Bouri is only for 2 months i.e. from 19.01-96 to 20.03.96

and during this period he was sick and was suffering from

Jaundice. It has further been submitted that the workman

appeared before the management on 09.3.96 and made prayer

to permit him to join but the management did not allow him

and subsequently charge has been settled. It has further

been submitted that on 12.5.97 the statement of the workman

Dilip Bouri was recorded by the Enquiring Officer in which

the workman has specifically stated that he was sick during

that period and was not able to do regular work properly. It

has further been submitted that as because the workman

was not allowed to join on 20.3.96 so he sat idle and in the

meantime charge sheet was settled wrongly showing that

he was absent till 26.12.96 and on 27.12.96 he has been

dismissed.

On perusal of the record as well other documents I

find that the workman was absent only for 2 (two) months

and for this short period the management has taken very

harsh decision against the workman Dilip Bouri by

dismissing him from service without giving him any proper

opportunity to reform himself which is no doubt against

the principle of Natural Justice.

In my opinion the action of the management of BMP

Group of Mines of M/S ECL in dismissing Dilip Bouri, Rail

Mazdoor from service with effect from 27.12.97 is not legal

as well as no justified. Accordingly the order of dismissal

passed by the management is hereby set aside and the

management is directed to allow Sri Dilip Bouri to join in

the above post (Rail Mazdoor) within 2 (two) months from

the date of notification received. The workman Dilip Bouri

is entitled to get 50% back wages from the date of alleged

absent.

Accordingly the Order of dismissal is hereby set a

side. The Management is directed to allow the workman

Lala Bouri to join in the service with 75 percentage of

back wages within three months from date of Notification.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be an the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1908.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh

,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

39@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@324@2003&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August 2013

S.O. 1908.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 39/2004

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Sonepur Bazari Project,

M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 13/08/2013

[No. L-22012/324/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Shri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 39 OF 2004

PARTIES:

The management of Sonepur

Bazari Project of M/s. ECL,

Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol

(WB)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ld.

(Workman)

Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

State: West Bengal

Dated—08.07.13

5086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

324/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 30.06.2004 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Sonepur

Bazari Area of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Manoj

Kumar, Clerk from services w.e.f. 29.11.2002 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

324/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 30.06.2004 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

39 of 2004 was registered on 12.07.2004 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

It is admitted fact that the workman Manoj Kumar

was working as Clerk at Sonepur Bazari Area of M/s. ECL

and the charge leveled against him is that 3 (Three) Cheques

No. 206558, 206116 and 206117 dated 12.9.2001, 16.8.2002

and 16.8.2001 had been personally handed over to Sri Debraj

Pradhan after taken receipt of the cheques instead of

sending the same through Registered Post and the

allegation is that the workman has violated official standing

instruction that the cheque should be sent by post and not

to hand over personally.

On perusal of the documents with the record I find

that the Personnel Manager, Sonepur Bazari Project has

sent a letter to Sri Srinivas, Sub Divisional Inspector,

Raniganj Sub Division by Ref. No. ECL/SBP/AGM(OP)/

Pers/02/811 dated 02.12.2002 regarding submitting report

of payment of money in cash against the cheque and bearing

no. 206116 dated 16.8.2001 for Rs. 9458/- and no. 206558

dated 12.9.2001 for Rs. 32,737.10 issued by Syndicate Bank,

ECL S.B. Project in favour of Debraj Pradhan and by letter

no. ECL/SBP/AGM(OP)/Pers/02/224 dated 28.5.2002

regarding payment of dues of of Sri Debraj Pradhan, Dumper

Operator, Sonepur Bazari Project, ECL to the Supdt. of Post

Office, Asansol Head Post Office, Asansol, Dist. Burdwan

and Sr. Supdt. of Post Office on the basis of the letter

submitted by Debraj Pradhan stating therein that all the

3 cheques were made payment to Debraj Pradhan by Post

Master of Raniganj Post Office. This letter relates to Ref.

No. CR-9/19/05/-2-03, Asansol dated 12.6.2002.

Thus from the above contention I find that the

management has also made it clear that the genuine person

i.e. Debraj Pradhan has produced all the 3 cheques before

he Post Office and 2 cheques were encashed by Debraj

Pradhan and one cheque was filed for re-validation by the

workman as the date expired and subsequently the cheque

was also encashed after re-validation by the workman

Debraj Pradhan. Further I find that the concerned workman

Debraj Pradhan has not made any complain against Monoj

Kumar (Workman) that he had not received the amount

from those very 3 cheques. On perusal of the report of the

Enquiry Officer. I find that Enquiry Officer did not examine

the Debraj Pradhan during enquiry. Thus I find that the

only fault against the workman Manoj Kumar is that instead

of sending the cheque by post he handed over the same

(3 cheques) to Debraj Pradhan after obtaining a receipt

from him (Debraj Pradhan). In my opinion for only this fault

the management should not punish Sri Manoj Kumar by

awarding severe punishment of dismissal rather

management should give him an opportunity and could

transfer him from that post with any lenient punishment.

The action of the management seems to be quite against

the principle of natural justice because for this act of

management the workman along with his, 4 children and

old parents (as per letter of the workman addressed to

Director (Personnel), ECL, HQ, Dishergarh, Sanctoria dated

27.6.2011) are forced to stand on the road for the purpose

of begging because no other earning members in his family.

Accordingly the action of the management of

Sonepur Bazari Area of M/s ECL in dismissing Monoj Kumar,

Clerk from service with effect from 29.11.2002 is quite illegal

and unjustified and accordingly the action of the

management is hereby set aside. The management is

directed to permit the workman Monoj Kumar to join in the

service within 2 (two) months from the date of notification

with 75% back wages.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr 2013

dkñvkñ 1909.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@371@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5087

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1909.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/371/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Shri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 10 OF 2009

PARTIES:

The management of Gourandi

Colliery, M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., CMU (INTUC),

Asansol (WB)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

Shri N. Ganguly, Ld.

(Workman)

Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

State: West Bengal

Dated—08.07.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

371/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 20.02.2009 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand Colliery Mazdoor Union for

regularizing Shri Subodh Kumar Chatterjee as

Compounder w.e.f. 01.12.1988 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

371/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 20.02.2009 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

10 of 2009 was registered on 09.03.2009 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statement along with the relevant documents and a

list of witnesses in suport of their claims. In pursuance of

the said order notices by the registered post were sent to

the parties concerned.

No doubt Subodh Kumar Chatterjee is appointed as

Dresser (Trainee) vide appointment letter dated 24.3.1987

issued to him and initially posted in Dendua Salanpur

Hospital During training period he was entitled to get

consolidated stipend of Rs. 400/- per month for one year. It

appears from the documents I find that Subodh Kumar

Chatterjee is a qualified Pharmasist as per certificate issued

by West Bengal Pharmasist Council, Kolkata, S.L. No. 09263

dated 28th January, 2009. From the perusal of the documents

filed on behalf of the claimant Subodh Kumar Chatterjee. I

find that the Agent, Gourandih (R) Colliery Ref. No. GC/

Dy.CME/98/69 dated 28/29 January, 1993 I find that the

claimant Subodh Kumar Chatterjee Dresser was also

working as Compounder, the only staff of Gourandih Colliery

Dispensary has been authorized to look after all the official

job like Maintenance Stores (Medical), records thereof,

maintenance of Sick leave and medicines etc. as well as he

was authorized to look after all the aspects of issue of

medicines to he patients as and when required in absence

of Dy. Medical Superintendent of that dispensary. Thus

from this very letter it is apparently clear that Sri Subodh

Kumar Chatterjee, Dresser is working as Compounder also

from 28/29.01.1999. It further appears from the letter of the

Agent, Gourandih colliery vide Ref. No. Agent/GC/C-6/94/

141 dated 12/18.3.94 addressed to Personnel Manager,

Salanpur Area I find that the Agent has recommended

regarding sanction of difference of wage of Subodh Kumar

Chatterjee (Claimant) who is managing the job of

Compounder in the shift due to retirement of Sri S.P.

Chatterjee, Sr. Compounder. Further from the letter issued

by the Agent, Gourandih Colliery vide No. GC/C-6/2000/

284 dated 3/4.7.2000 I find that Subodh Kumar Chatterjee is

still working as Compounder in the same dispensary and

also attending O.T. as well as emergency call. Further I find

that Sr. Personnel Manager (In-charge) of Salanpur Area

has also recommended the application of the claim of

Subodh Kumar Chatterjee regarding his promotion from

Dresser to Compounder.

The Ld. Lawyer has referred a decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in A.I.R., 1999 Supreme Court page-

838 and on perusal of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, I find that the court have been pleased that where

there is no dispute that the appellant look after the duties

of higher cadre he is entitled to salary attached to the higher

post but such payment of higher salary, however shall not

amount to promotion. Ld Lawyer of the claimant has further

referred one decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court report

in 2004 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 651 and has submitted

that where there exists of avenues for promotion the

workman have been regards to its constitutional right us

5088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

entitled for such promotion. On perusal of this decision of

the Apex court I find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also

relied in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial

Research-Vs-K.G.S. Vhatt (S.C.C. page-638-39).

Considering the whole facts and circumstances of

the case discussed above 1 find and come into the

conclusion that since the claimant Subodh Kumar Chatterjee

is looking after all the official jobs of Compounder of

Gourandih Colliery dispensary from 28/29.01.1999 up till

now he is entitlted to get pecuniary benefit by giving him

the difference of wages of Dresser and Compounder till he

is not regularized as Compounder and the management is

directed to constitute a Board for the interview of Subodh

Kumar Chatterjee to see that whether Subodh Kumar

Chatterjee is competent for the post of Compounder as

per his experience and certificate of Registered

Pharamasist granted by West Bengal Pharamasist Council

within 2 (two) months from the notification of this Award.

Accordingly in my opinion that the demand of

Colliery Mazdoor Union for regularizing Sri Subodh Kumar

Chatterjee as Compounder with effect from 01.12.1988 is

not correct rather his case should be considered with

effect from 29.01.1999 the date of authorized.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information

and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1910.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14 dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZldks ds

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

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

U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@47@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1910.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2002)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/47/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT ASANSOL.

PRESENT :

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 37 OF 2002

PARTIES:

The Executive Director 1/C M/s.

Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.,

Burnpur, Burdwan (WB).

Vs.

The Secy. K. HSCO. S.S.S.

(INTUC) & KKSC. Ramnagar,

Burdwan (WB)

REPRESENTATIVE:

For the management:

None

For the union :

None

(Workman)

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated 29.05.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act. 1947(14 of 1947). Govt. of India through the Ministry

of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/47/2002-IR(CM-II)

dated 03.09.2002 has been pleased to refer the following

dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Ramnagar

Colliery of M/s. HSCO in not paying the wages to

the employees of the Ramnagar Colliery of M/s.

HSCO as per NCWA-VI which is applicable with

effect from 01.07.1996 and to making payment of

ex-gratia for the year 2000-2001 to the workers of the

Colliery is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workmen of Ramnagar Colliery of M/s. HSCO

are entitled to?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/47/

2002-IR(CM-II) dated 03.09.2002 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of disput, a reference case No. 37 of

2002 was registered on 27.09.2002 and accordingly an order

to that effect was passed to issue notices the registered

post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in

the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list

of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of

the said order notices by the registered post were sent to

the parties concerned.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5089

On perusal of the case record, it has found that the

workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since

long. Several opportunities were given but of no effect. It

seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed

with the case any further. Since the workman is not

interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and

accordingly an order of "No Dispute" award is hereby

passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as

"No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

needful information. The reference is accordingly

disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1911.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= 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; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 133@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@23@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 133/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Satgram Area of M/s. ECL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/23/2005-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT ASANSOL.

PRESENT :

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 133 OF 2005

PARTIES:

The management of Satgram Area

of M/s. ECL, Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol(WB)

REPRESENTATIVE:

For the management:

Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

Shri S.K. Pandey, Ld.

(Workman)

Representative

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated 03.07.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. 1947(14 of 1947). Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No.

L-22012/23/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 29.11.2005 has been

pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Satgram

Area Office of M/s. ECL in dismissing the services

of Sh. Satyadeo Singh, General Mazdoor from

service 29.10.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/23/

2005-IR(CM-II) dated 29.11.2005 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the disput, a reference case No.

133 of 2005 was registered on 23.12.2005 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

The workman Satyadeo Singh, Man No. 300588 was

working as General Mazdoor at Satgram Area Office of

M/s. ECL and he absented from his duty from 09.09.97 and

accordingly he was charge sheeted and after enquiry he

was dismissed from the service with effect from 29.10.1998.

It is the case of the workman, as it appear from his

Written Statement dated 27.02.2006 I find that due to

sickness which was beyond the control of the workman

he remain absent from his duty with effect from 9.9.97 and

he had informed the management about his sickness on

14.10.97 with Medical Certificate and being declared fit he

reported for his duty but he was not allowed on the plea

that he has been charge sheeted and he was not given

any opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry

proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted report

exparte and ultimately the workman was dismissed illegally

and since then workman is sitting idle without any job.

In this case the management has filed Written

Statement on 13.3.2006 by Sri P.K. Goswami. Advocate and

5090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

on persual of the Written Statement I find that the workman

was found unauthorized absent from February, 1996 to

August, 1996 and the workman send a sick information on

19-4-97 and he was advised to appear before the Area

Medical Officer for check up and further treatment.But he

neither attended before the Area Medical Officer nor sent

any replty to the charge sheet and accordingly enquiry

was held exparte. The management has taken a plea that

delay in raising the dispute is 7 years and the union did

not show any reason for condonation of such long delay

in raising the dispute. Hence the right to raise dispute by

the workman automatically seized.

Thus from persual of the Written Statement filed by

the management I find the management has admitted that

the workman had sent a sick information on 14-10-97 to

the management I find that the management did not

produce that written information before this Tribunal nor

has produced any document to show that the management

has referred the matter to Area Medical Officer and the

workman was advised to get check up and further treatment

by the Area Medical Officer. Further I find that no witness

has been examined on behalf of the management to

corroborate the case of the management. Further I find that

the management did not submit any adverse remark/

report against the workman.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case discussed above, I find that the workman was actually

sick during his absence period and he could not get himself

checked up by the Colliery doctor due to ignorance and

the fact of sickness has also been admitted by the

management. There is no adverse report regarding the

previous conduct of the workman. So, in my opinion the

action of the management is quite harsh and by this action

the management has forced the workman and his family

members to come on the road the purpose of begging

which is against the principle of natural justice.

Accordingly the action of management of Satgram

Area Office of M/s. ECL in dismissing the service of

Satyadeo Singh, General Mazdoor w.e.f from 29.10.1998 is

not legal and unjustfied and the same isset aside. The

management is directed to allow Satyadeo Singh to join in

the same post within 2 (two) months from the date of

notification with 25% back wages.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the

Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information

and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1912.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] ¼1947 dk

14½ èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y ds

izcaèra= ds laca) 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; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50@1998½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&08&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ 22012@10@1998&vkbZñvkjñ ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13 the August, 2013

S.O. 1912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/1998)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of J.K. Ropeways of

M/s ECL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13-08-2013.

[No. L-22012/10/1998-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 50 OF 1998

PARTIES:

The Management of J.K.

Ropeways, M/s ECL. Burdwan

(WB)

Vs.

The Gen. Secy. WBKMS (UTUC),

Sitarampur, (W.B.)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

Sri N. Ganguly, Ld. Representative

(Workman)

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated 08-07-13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

10/98-IR(CM-II) dated 09.10.1998 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of J.K.

Roopeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. By not

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5091

regularising Sh. Mahato as a clerk is legal and

justified? If not, to what reflief the workman of entitled

to?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/10/

98-IR(CM-II) dated 09.10.1998 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of dispute, a reference case No. 50 of 1998

was registered on 20.10.1998 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices the registered post

to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the

court on the date fixed and to file their written statements

along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses

in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order

notices by the registered post were sent to the parties

concerned.

The workman Siddeswar Mahato was appointed as

General Mazdoor but on oral direction he was posted at

Vechicle Department to work as Clerical job on and from

16.3.92. The workman claimed that he is entitled to be

regularized as Clerk. Grade-II with effect from 16.3.92 with

difference of wages for the period from 16.3.92 to 24.4.1997.

From perusal of the Written Statement filed on behalf

of the management dated 27.1.1989 I find that the

management has denied the fact that the workman

Siddeswar Mahato was ever posted and authorized by the

management to work as Clerk since March, 1992 and he

was never deputed to bring coal and distribute it amongst

the staff of J.K. Ropeways and to keep record and to do

any short of Clerical job in Vehicle Department because

there was no need of any Clerk at Vehicle Department rather

workman Siddeswar Mahato was working a Helper. It has

further been submitted by the management that during

June, 1996 and July, 1996 he was asked to go with the

Dumper used for coal distribution as Helper along with

one Dharamdeo Singh, Clerk engaged for Coal distribution

and the workman concerned was never authorized by any

letter of appointment as per rule of the management to do

any act of Clerk. It has further been submitted that since

the workman was never worked as Clerk so he is not entitled

to get any other relief or relives as claimed.

On perusal of the documents filed on behalf of the

workman I find that a series of letter addressed to CME

(Agent/Manager). Lachipur Colliery, Kajora Area which

are dated 26.6.96, 01.7.96 and 25.6.96 I find that this

Siddeswar Mahato had issued these letters by putting his

signature. Further on perusal of the letter issued by Sri A.

Chakraborty, Dy. CME/Agent, J.K. Ropeways dated 27.6.96

Ref. No. ECL/JKR/A/SE/FC539 dated 27.6.96. I find that in

Para-III of this letter the Dy. CME/Agent had authorized

Sri Dharmdeo Singh, Clerk and Sri Siddeswar Mahato

(Workman) for taking and dealing of coal from Jambad OCP.

Thus I find that Sri Dharamdeo Singh working as Clerk and

the workman Siddeswar Mahato was working as a Helper.

So in my opinion the management of J.K. Ropeways of

M/s. ECL cannot be directed to regularize Sri Siddeswar

Mahato as Clerk but the management will constitute a

Board for interview of Sri Siddesar Mahato that whether he

is a fit for the post of Clerk and if he is found so fit, he can

be promoted to the post of Clerk if there is no specific

provision in the company for constitution of such Board,

in that case the workman Siddeswar Mahato can be

regularized as Clerk in accordance with the rule of the

management.

At present I do not find any irregularity or illegality

in the action of the management of J.K. Ropeways of ECL

in its order for not regularizing Siddeswar Mahato as Clerk

as he claimed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1913.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y ds

izcaèra= ds laca) 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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@1998½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@236@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/1998)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Haripur Colliery of M/s ECL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/236/1997-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding

Officer

REFERENCE NO. 32 OF 1998

PARTIES:

The Management of Haripur

Colliery of ECL. Burdwan

Vs.

The Jt. Gen. Secy. C.M.U. Asansol

(WB)

5092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

Sri M. M. Mukherjee. Ld.

(Workman)

Representative

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated 05.07.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-Section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-

22012/236/97-IR(CM-II) dated 22.07.1998 has been pleased

to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the union about the alleged

wrongful entry of date of birth of Sh. Sunil Banerjee

as 10.4.1943 instead of 30.9.1945 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

236/97-IR(CM-II) dated 22.07.98 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

32 of 1998 was registered on 10.08.1998 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

The Colliery Mazdoor Union has made a demand to

correct the date of birth of Sunil Kumar Benerjee from

10.04.1943 to 30.09.1945. The matter has been referred from

the Ministry decide whether the demand of the union is

justified or not.

On perusal of the record I find that only one Photostate

Copy of Admission Register of the year 1956 duly attested

by the Headmaster of Mejia High School P.O. Mejia. Dist.

Bankura to show that the date of birth of Sunil Kumar Banerjee

is 30.09.1945 and nothing more. The workman Sunil Kumar

Benerjee in his affidavit has stated he was employed in the

Coalfield in the year 1956 and after completion of training he

was permanently taken on roll of the then company in 1969

at Haripur Colliery. He also stated that he read up to Class-X

at Mejia High School. He has further stated that in B from

was recorded. But subsequently in B form Register of the

present management has wrongly entered the same as

10.4.1943 instead of 30.9.45. On perusal of the record I find

that the original Admission Register of Mejia School has not

been produced by the workman to make it clear that his

actual date of birth is 30.9.45 and not 10.4.43.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

discussed above I find and come into the Conclusion that

the workman Sunil Kumar Banerjee has failed to prove

before this Tribunal that his actual date of birth is 30.9.45

and not as 10.4.43 which has been wrongly entered in the B

form Register. Accordingly the demand of the union about

the alleged entry of date birth of Sunil Kumar Banerjee in B

form register as 10.4.43 remains intact and accordingly the

demand of the union is not justified.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1914.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izcaèra= ds laca) 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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@1997½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@194@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/1997)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between management of Kuardih Colliery M/s ECL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/08/

2013.

[No. L-22012/194/1996-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding

Officer

REFERENCE NO. 39 OF 1997

PARTIES:

The management of Kuardih

Colliery of M/s ECL, Burdwan

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5093

Vs.

Shri R.K. Sharma, Org. Secy., CMU

(INTUC), Asansol (WB)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

None

For the union :

None

(Workman)

Industry: Coal

State :

West Bengal

Dated 28.05.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section I and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the

Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/194/96-IR(C-

II) dated 11.09.1997 has been pleased to refer the following

dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Colliery Mazdoor Union

about on the management of Kuardih Colliery of ECL

for regularisation of Sh. Kartik Bouri and Sh. Raj

Kumar Singh, Drivers on the post of Sand Munshis

is legal and justified? If not, to what reliefs are the

workman entitled and from which date?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

194/96-IR(C-II) dated 11.09.1997 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of dispute, a reference case No. 39 of 1997

was registered on 28.07.1997 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices the registered post

to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the

court on the date fixed and to file their written statements

along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses

in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order

notices by the registered post were sent to the parties

concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has found that the

workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since

08.11.12. Several opportunities were given but of no effect.

It seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed

with the case any further. Since the workman is not

interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and

accordingly an order of "No Dispute" award is hereby

pased.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No

Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order is the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN,Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1915.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y ds

izcaèra= ds laca) 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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 72@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@39@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 72/2000

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between management of Ghanshyam Colliery of M/s ECL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/39/2000-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding

Officer

REFERENCE NO. 72 OF 2000

PARTIES:

The management of Ghanshyam

Colliery of M/s ECL. Burdwan

(WB)

The Gen. Secy. UCMU(INTUC),

Ukhra, Burdwan (WB)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

None

(Workman)

Industry: Coal

State:

West Bengal

Dated 13.06.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry

5094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/39/2000-IR(CM-II)

dated 04.08.2000 has been pleased to refer the following

dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Ghanshyam Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

in dismissing Sh. Ganesh Rouidas, Underground

Trammer from services is legal and justified? If not,

to what refliefs are the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/39/

2000-IR(CM-II) dated 04.08.2000 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of dispute, a reference case No. 72 of 2000

was registered on 06.09.2000 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices the registered post

to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the

court on the date fixed and to file their written statements

along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses

in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order

notices by the registered post were sent to the parties

concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has found that the

workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since long.

Several opportunities were given but of no effect. It seems

that the workman is now not interested to proceed with the

case any further. Since the workman is not interested to

proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an

order of "No Dispute" award is hereby passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No

Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order is the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN,Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1916.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh ,e ih

Mh vkbZ ds izcaèra= ds laca) 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;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

17@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@114@1998&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/1999)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between management of C.M.P.D.I. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2013.

[No. L-22012/114/1998-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding

Officer

REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 1999

PARTIES:

The management of C.M.P.D.I. Ltd.,

R.I.-1, Asansol, Burdwan

Vs.

The Asst. Gen. Secy., KMC,

Asansol (WB)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

Sri S.K. Pandey, Ld.

(Workman)

Representative

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal

Dated 05.07.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) Govt. of India through the Ministry

of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/114/98-IR(CM-II)

dated 27.01.1999 has been pleased to refer the following

dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of CMPDIL

R.I. 1 in not regularizing/promoting Sh. Shobhanath

Mishra, as Helper (Stores) in Cat. II is justified? If

not, to what reflief is the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

114/98-IR(CM-II) dated 27.01.99 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

17 of 1999 was registered on 09.02.99 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5095

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

Admittedly the workman Sovanath Mishra was

posted at Parbatpur Camp under RI-1, CMPDI, Dhanbad

as General Mazdoor, Category No. 1 in 1986. It is further

case that due to exigency of the work the workman was

deployed to work there as Stores Helper since 1988. It is

further case that consequent upon the closure of Parbatpur

Drilling Camp under RI-II, CMPDI, Dhanbad the workman

Sovanath Mishra transferred to Sonepur Bazari Hydro Camp

of RI-I, CMPDI, Asansol as General Mazdoor, Category-I.

The claim of the workman Sovanath Mishra that he should

be given Helper (Store) in Category-II which the

management of CMPDI has refused to regularize/promoting

him in Category-II.

On perusal of the documents as well as Written

Statement filed on behalf of the workman and by the

management. I find that the management has not denied

the fact that Shri Sovanath Mishra is working as Store

Helper since 1988. Further from the Written Statement of

the management I find that in 1997 a committee was

constituted to consider the stability of those category of

Mazdoors who are completed more than 10 years service

in their same grade for their placement in appropriate

category against actual requirement/vacancies subject to

fulfillment of their requisite qualification and after interview

the Committee found the workman Sovanath Mishra

suitable for placement as Drill Helper, Category-II and

subsequently office order was issued by HQ Ranchi

designating the workman Sovanath Mishra as Drill Helper,

Category-II, but the workman did not join the post of Drill

Helper, Category-II and he continues as General Mazdoor,

Category-I. It further appears that there is no provision for

the post of Stores Helper in JBCCI. Thus I find that since

1988 the workman is working as Store Helper. It further

appears that the workman was promoted as Drill Helper,

Category-II by the management but the workman did not

join the post of Drill Helper, Category-II and continue as

General Mazdoor, Category-I. In my opinion the workman

cannot claim his posting as per his choice as in this case

the workman Shri Sovanath Mishra claiming as Helper

(Store, Category-II whereas he had already promoted as

Drill Helper, Category-II by the management which he

refused to join. On perusal of the cross examination of the

workman in Para-II I find that the workman has admitted

this fact.

Since the workman is working on the verbal instruction

of the management as Store Helper since 1988 and the

management found him fit as Drill Helper, Category-II in

1997, so in my opinion the workman Sovanath Mishra is

entitled to get 25% of his basic pay (without any allowance)

of his existing pay since 1997 and till his post is not regularized

in Category-II and the management is directed to reconsider

his case further for his promotion in Category-II.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñ vkñ 1917.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½] dh /kkjk ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos 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@Je U;k;ky;]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼83@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@2@2001&vkbZ-vkj-¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1917.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 83/2001) of

the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Northern Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/08/2013.

[No. L-41012/2/2001-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding

Officer

I.D. No. 83/2001

Ref. No. L-41012/2/2001/IR (B-I)

dated: 09.05.2001

BETWEEN

Shri Brij Kishore

S/o Shri Jamuna Prasad,

C/o D.K. Jha, T-46-B, G.T. Road,

Kanpur-4

AND

1. Mandal Rail Prabandhak

Uttar Railway,

Mandal Karyalaya,

Allahabad-211006

5096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

2. Sahayak Sanket Evam Door

Sanchar Abhiyanta

Uttar Railway

Kanpur Central

3. Mukhya Sanket Nirikshak

(Maintenance)

Power Cabin

Uttar Railway

Kanpur-208 001

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/2/2001/IR (B-I) dated:

09.05.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

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

this industrial dispute between Shri Brij Kishore S/o Shri

Jamuna Prasad, C/o D.K. Jha, T-46-B, G.T. Road, Kanpur

and Mandal Rail Prabandhak, Uttar Railway, Mandal

Karyalaya, Allahabad and Sahayak Sanket Evam Door

Sanchar Abhiyanta, Uttar Railway, Kanpur Central and

Mukhya Sanket Nirikshak (Maintenance), Power Cabin,

Uttar Railway, Kanpur for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of Assistant

Signal and Telecom Engineer, Northern Railway,

Kanpur Canal in terminating (removal) vide Order

dated 19.2.1998 is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled?"

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Brij Kishore Ashok Kumar was working as Helper Khalasi

when he was served with a charge sheet dated 15.02.96 for

unauthorized absence from 18.01.96 to 10.02.96. The Inquiry

Officer after conducting inquiry submitted its report before

the Disciplinary Authority, in which the charges levelled

against the workman was found to be proved. The

Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of findings of the

Enquiry Officer, issued a Show Cause Notice on 24.01.98 to

the workman and proposed the punishment of 'removal

from the service'. Accordingly, he was removed from service

vide punishment order dated 19.02.98. The aggrieved

workman preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the

Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.06.98.

4. It has been alleged by the workman that there was

flagrant denial of natural justice to the workman in the

course of the enquiry, in as much as he was not provided

certain documents, requested by him during the course of

enquiry which caused prejudice to him. Also, that the

management did not produce the doctor who medically

examined the workman and meson Sita Ram who are the

most material and important witness, consequently the

workman did not get an opportunity to cross examine them.

It has also submitted that the management did not give him

copy of inquiry report or show cause notice before inflicting

punishment upon him; therefore, the domestic enquiry is

liable to be vitiated and the action of Railways in removing

the workman from the service vide order dated 19.02.98 be

declared unjust, unfair and illegal and the workman be

reinstated with full back wages and other consequential

benefits.

5. The management of the railways in its written

statement has denied the allegations of the workman and

has defended its domestic proceedings with submission

that the workman had been afforded all opportunity given

under rules. The principles of natural justice were fully

complied with; hence, there is no anomaly with it;

accordingly has prayed that domestic enquiry proceedings

conducted by it may be upheld and the action of the

management vide order dated 19.02.98 be declared just, fair

and legal with out any benefit to the workman concerned.

6. After completion of the pleadings of the parties,

following preliminary issues were framed in the presence

of the parties vide order dated 01.03.2002:

(i) Kya shramik ke virudh vibhagiya anushashnik

jaanch uchit vaidh evm naisargik naya ke

sidhanton ke anuroop the?

(ii) Kya jaanch adhikaari dwara diye gai nishkarsh

durahgrahpurna (perverse) the?

The parties were called upon to adduce their

evidence on preliminary issues. The parties filed

documents in support of their respective case and adduced

oral evidence. The workman examined himself; whereas

the management did not examine any witness on the above

preliminary issues. The management availed opportunity

to cross-examine each workman's witness. Both the parties

forwarded oral arguments on preliminary issues.

7. After hearing the parties' authorized

representatives of the parties and going through entire

material available on record, following orders were passed

on preliminary issues vide order dated 16.01.2006:

"Preliminary issues 1 and 2 decided against the

management. The management is directed to file all

the documents, list of witnesses in support of the

charges levelled against the worker on 02.03.2006".

8. In compliance of order dated 16.01.2006 the

management filed list of documents, paper No. C-35 and

examined Shri Avinash Narayan Lal, DSTE in support of

charges; whereas the workman relied on the documents

and evidence forwarded by it earlier. The parties forwarded

their oral argument.

9. Heard, parties and perused entire material available

on record.

10. It has been contended by the authorized

representative of the management that the workman had

been habitual absentee; and was penalized many time with

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5097

minor penalties for unauthorized absence. It has been

further submitted that there is sufficient evidence that the

workman had been in habit of absenting himself without

any prior sanction, therefore, the charges levelled against

him vide charge sheet dated 15.02.96 is well provided; and

accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.02.98 is justified

and well proportionate and the same is liable to be upheld.

11. In rebuttal the workman's representative has

argued that the domestic inquiry, conducted by the

management, had been vitiated by this Tribunal vide order

dated 16.01.2006 and the management was afforded

opportunity to lead evidence before this Tribunal to prove

its charge sheet dated 15.02.96; and it is supposed to remain

within the circumference of the said charge sheet only.

Instead the management has deviated from the charge

sheet under dispute; which is regarding his unauthorized

absence from 18.01.96 to 11.02.96. There is no charge on

the workman in the charge sheet dated 15.02.96 that the

workman is habitual absentee. It has also argued that the

management did not produce any material witness to prove

the charges before this Tribunal; accordingly, the charge

sheet dated 15.02.96 be cancelled and the workman be

reinstated back into the services with all consequential

benefits.

12. Heard representatives of the parties at length

and perused entire evidence on record.

13. In the instant case, my predecessor vide its order

dated 16.01.2006 deciding both the preliminary issues in

favour of the workman found that the inquiry conducted

by the management was not in accordance with the

principles of natural justice. The workman was not afforded

full and proper opportunity to defend himself; and also

that the findings of the inquiry officer were found to be

perverse. This led to filing of fresh evidence by the parties

before this Tribunal in support of their respective stand.

The management has come forward with a case that

the workman was habitual absentee and was penalized by

various minor penalties' for unauthorized absence during

his service tenure. In its evidence, the management, has

tried to substantiate that the workman was habitual

absentee. In rebuttal the workman has put emphasis on the

fact that on the fateful day he was on his duty when all of

sudden felt ill and since there was no facility of doctor etc.

by the Railway he left the train and went his daugther's

home after informing and taking the permission of his next

senior officer viz. Shri Sita Ram, Meson. It is also pleaded

by the workman that after getting well submitted Medical

Certificate and Fitness Memo for the period 18.01.96 to

10.02.96 for 24 days; and on the basis of which he was

allowed to join duties.

14. A careful scrutiny of the charge sheet dated

15.02.96 shows that the annexure-1 to the standard form of

charge sheet bears charge for absence from 18.01.96 to

10.02.96. It also states that the workman had been in habit

of keeping himself absent without permission of the

Competent Authority; but no detail of such absence in the

past has been provided in the charge sheet nor is there any

evidence on record in support of the contention by the

management regarding habitual absence. This makes the

charge sheet ineffective and vague.

15. Hon'ble Apex Court in Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, Coal India Limited and another vs. Mukul Kumar

Choudhuri and others (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 499 directed for

reinstatement of the delinquent for the proved charges of

unauthorised absence for a period of more than six months,

being the punishment of removal unduly harsh and grossly

in excess to the allegations; but withheld the back wage by

the way of punishment for proved misconduct of

unauthorized absence. The Court observed as under:

"In a case like the present one where the misconduct

of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty

for six months but upon being charged of such

misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained

the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not

have any intention nor desired to disobey the order

of higher authority or violate any of the Company's

rules and regulations but the reason was purely

personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of

fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted,

the order of removal cannot be held to be justified,

since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would

have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like

circumstances. The punishment is not only unduly

harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations."

16. In the instant case the workman had been

deputed on the duty to Aligarh and while on his duty

when he was on his way back to the Kanpur on 18.01.96

he felt unwell. Therefore, after informing his senior

colleague Shri Sita Ram, Meson he departed in the

midway to his daughter's home as there was no medical

facility available there in Panki railway station. The

management has neither produced Sita Ram as witness

to rebut the contentions of the workman that he informed

and take his permission before leaving from the duty

nor has adduced any evidence that there were medical

facilities available on the Panki railway station. Also,

the workman on his way back to his duty filed his

Medical Certificate and Fitness Memo. Having accepted

the Medical Certificate and Fitness Memo the workman

was permitted to join the duties. Also, while serving the

charge sheet to the workman regarding alleged

unauthorized absence from 18.01.96 to 10.02.96, though

the management mentioned for his habit of remaining

absent unauthorisedly; but did not provide any details

thereof; and this deprived the workman to make effective

defence before Inquiry Officer as well this Tribunal.

However, the management has come forward with a list

of minor penalties imposed upon him; but the same is

after thought with respect to charge sheet as there is no

5098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

reference of either minor penalties imposed earlier nor

of the previous unauthorized absence.

17. Therefore under the facts and the circumstances

and considering the law, it comes out that the punishment,

imposed by the management upon the workman for

unauthorized absence from 18.01.96 to 10.02.96 for 24 days,

in my opinion, is not only unduly harsh but grossly in

excess to the allegations, therefore, the impugned order of

removal dated 19.02.1998 is set aside; and the workman,

Brij Kishore is directed to be reinstated with all consequential

benefits, except the back wages from the date of removal

until reinstatement by the way of punishment for his

unauthorized absence from 18.01.96 to 10.02.96.

18. Award as above.

LUCKNOW,

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

17th July, 2013

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñ vkñ 1918.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vu ,Q jsyos 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@Je

U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@49@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1918.—In purusance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2009) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of N.F. Railway,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 12/08/2013.

[No. L-41011/49/2008-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present:

Sri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial

Dispute between :

The Management N.F. Railway,

Maligaon, Guwahati.

-Vs-

Their Workmen represented by the

General Secretary, Rail Mazdoor

Union, N.F. Zone, East Maligaon,

Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 03 of 2009.

APPEARANCES

For the Management:

Mr. K.C. Sarmah, Advocate.

For the Workman:

Mrs. M. Bora, Advocate.

Date of Award: 05.03.2013

AWARD

1. This reference case has been initiated upon the

Order No. L-41011/49/2008-IR(B-I); Dated: 28/05/2009,

issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, on the Industrial Dispute raised by

Rail Mazdoor Union, N.F. Railway, East Maligaon,

Guwahati-11 in respect of Ministerial Staff in Personnel

Department of Rangiya Division on the allegation of not

giving them proper restructuring benefits by non-creation/

non-filling/less operation of higher grade posts in

Ministerial cadre owing to bifurcation of the then Alipurduar

Junction to Rangiya Division. The Schedule of the

Reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of N.F.

Railway in not giving proper restructuring benefits

to the personal staffs of Rangiya Division by non

filling/less operation of higher grade posts in

Ministerial cadre as a result of bifurcation of

Alipurduar Junction Division to Rangiya District is

proper/To what relief they are entitled?"

2. On receipt of this order from the Ministry this

Reference case has been registered and notices were served

upon both the parties who appeared and contested the

proceeding by filing their respective claim statements/

written statements along with relevant documents.

3. The case of the Union as it reveals from their claim

statements is as follows.

The Railway Board created Rangiya Division

bifurcating the Alipurduar Division of N.F. Railway which

came into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2003. Due to poor response

from the staff to submit options to transfer to Rangiya

Division a meeting was convened by the Chief Personnel

Officer for General Manager (Personnel), Maligaon on

24.02.2003 in presence of representatives of recognized

Trade Union by the Management of the Rail Mazdoor

Union, N.F. Railways Employees Union, Divisional Railway

Manager, Alipurduar Junction and representatives of O.S.D.

Rangiya Division to discuss the matter of providing staff

to new Rangiya Division. It has been decided in the said

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5099

meeting that out of 700 post of Alipurduar Junction Division

50% of the Post would be transferred to Rangiya Division

or surrendered; and option may also be called from other

Divisions for transfer to Rangiya Division. As per the

calculated share of the sanctioned posts of the personnel

department under DRM(P) Rangiya, N.F. Railway, from

Alipurduar Junction Division came to 121 all grades

included. But Alipurduar Junction Division did not

distribute the said post as on 1.4.2003 which is the date of

functioning and on that day it receives only 76 posts.

Thereafter, Rangiya Division restructured the higher grade

post on the basis of the posted strength of 147 received

later on from the Alipurduar Junction, higher grade post

would have been more.

It is mentioned in the claim statement that as per para-

5 of Annexure-A wherein all the instructions noted in

connection with bifurcation of actual staff, and the minutes

of meeting in regard to cadre of Rangiya Division. The

restructuring of Rangiya Division Ministerial Staff would be

done on the post available as on 1.11.2003 and in case the

number of incumbent will be more on 1.11.2003 the Post

transferred to Rangiya Division after 1.11.2003 will be

notionally taken into account for restructuring to the extent

of number of men available in the concerned unit. But the

Alipurdar Junction Division detained all 65 Posts in their

cadre strength of 76 posts. By this way staff of Alipurduar

Junction Division took the benefit of promotion due to cadre

restructuring because of creation of more number of higher

posts and as a matter of rule they should be transferred all

employees with post. In terms of Railway Board's letter No.

PC-III/2003/CRC/6 dated 09.10.2006 the total number of

ministerial staff of personnel Branch of Rangiya Division

including New Bongaigaon Workshop should have been

121 and the restructuring of higher grade post was effective

from 1.11.2003. But the management of Rangiya Division

took no interest to fill up higher grade post and created less

number of taking the strength of cadre as 76 vide Memo No.

E/240/Restruct/EQ/RNY dated 31.03.2005. Due to such

arbitrary policy of the Management the interest of ministerial

satff of Rangiya Division, the workmen suffer irreparable

loss and damage such as, loss of promotional prospect, loss

of wages and economic damage and loss of retirement benefit.

Therefore the management did not comply the agreement

regarding bifurcation of Alipurduar Junction Division and

violated fundamental right of the workmen guaranteed under

the Constitution of India by applying their own decision

and directives of the Railway Board. Instead of applying the

scheme of restructuring of the cadre the authorities of

Rangiya Division sought to consider the staff of Personnel

Branch for promotion by way of Selection and for giving

restructuring benefit at their original office treating their

option from Rangiya Division as transfer on administrative

ground. The scheme of restructuring of cadre has been

finalized as on 31.3.2005 in Rangiya Division's Personnel

Branch not on the prescribed cadre strength as on 1.11.2003

comprising the post allotted through the aforementioned

bifurcation. It is submitted that all the workmen as part of

their ministerial cadre of Personnel Branch deserve the

benefit of restructuring of cadre as and when arose at per

with the bifurcated cadre strength allotted to alipurduar

Division (50%) at the cut off date of birurcation by giving

benefits of restructuring of cadre to those at the Alipurduar

Division Personnal Branch reckoning the prescribed

percentage on cadre strength outside the rule. Thus the

workmen are deprived of getting their promotion to higher

grade, wages in cumulative count and retirement benefit.

Hence, the workmen pray for relief of due promotion to higher

grade post be allowed with effect from 1.11.2003 with back

wages, seniority as per date of promotion over juniors

promoted earlier, and any other consequential and incidental

benefits.

4. The Management on the other hand, made out the

case in their pleadings stating that as per the joint procedural

note dated 3.2.03. It was decided that the staff as on 31.01.2003

would be divided at the ratio 50 : 50 between the Alipurduar

Junction Division and Rangiya Division and accordingly 70

posts came under Rangiya Division but the said posts were

not transferred at a time to Rangiya Division. Regarding

cadre of Rangiya a meeting was held on 3.2.2005 wherein, it

was decided restructuring of Rangiya Division (Ministerial

Staff) to be done on the posts available as on 1.11.2003 and

in case the number of incumbents are more as on 01.11.2003

the post transferred to Rangiya after 01.11.2003 would be

notionally taken into account for restructuring to the extent

of number of men available in the concerned unit and the

restructuring of the clerical cadre of Personnel Branch at

Rangiya Railway Division was done on 31.3.2005 of total

strength of 76 posts prevailing as on 1.11.2003. It is also

averred that in terms of para-1 of Railway Board's letter No.

PC III/2003/CRC/6 dated 9.10.2003, restructuring of cadre

would be with reference to the sanctioned cadre strength as

on the date of following the date on which the cadre in the

headquarter offices of New Zonal Railways/New Division

re-closed; and the benefits of the restructuring would be

restricted to the persons who are working in a particular

cadre in the headquarter offices of New Zonal Railways/

New Divisions are-closed; and the benefit of restructuring

would be restricted to the persons who are working in a

particular cadre in the headquarter offices of New Zonal

Railways/New Divisions re-closed; and the benefit of

restructuring would be restricted to the persons who are

working in a particular cadre on the cut off date and in terms

of para 3.1 of Railway Board's letter dated 6.1.2004 as

mentioned above. The Management added that 61 clerical

post in different grades were transferred to Rangiya Division

in different phases on completion of restructuring process

at Alipurduar Junction based on total strength i.e. 172 posts.

The Management added that altogether 121 posts of

Ministerial cadre under DRM(P)/RNY has been given benefit

of restructuring as on 1.11.03. It is also mentioned that the

DRM(P), Rangiya has processed selection to fill up vacancy

in different grade in the ministerial cadre under the Personnel

5100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Branch. Further the posting order for filling up of vacancies

of Ch. OS(E) and OS/E I already been issued on 29.1.2008

and 14.3.2008. Under the above circumstances the

management prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

5. During the pendency of the proceeding at the

stage of hearing of Union side on 09.10.2012 General

Secretary, Rail Mazdoor Union, N.F. Zone, Guwahati

submitted petition through their learned Advocate with

prayer for withdrawal of the dispute on behalf of the Union.

The copies of the said petition has been furnished to the

Management of N.F. Railway. On personal appearance of

the General Secretary, Rail Mazdoor Union, N.F. Zone,

Guwahati, his statement was recorded.

6. Perused the pleadings of both the sides along

with the petition dated 9.10.2012 filed by the Union and the

statement of the General Secretary of the Rail Mazdoor

Union, N.F. Zone, Guwahati. The General Secretary of Rail

Mazdoor Union in his petition stated that the dispute arose

between the Management and the Rail Mazdoor Union

regarding restructuring to the personnel staff of Rangiya

Division and accordingly this Reference Case was

forwarded by the Ministry. He also mentioned that during

the pendency of this case a good number of employees

under Rail Mazdoor Union have been transferred to

different places and some of them have got promotion and

other benefits as such, the workmen are not interested to

continue this proceeding. I have heard the learned

Advocates for both the sides while the learned Advocate

for the Management of N.F. Railway most fairly submitted

that since the workmen are now satisfied and they are

already getting all the benefits of promotion etc. the

Management of N.F. Railway has go no objection to the

prayer for withdrawal of the Union from the Proceeding.

7. Considering the above circumstances and having

regard to the facts and circumstances of the Reference

and the latest position of the workmen as stated in their

petition as well as in the statement of the General

Secretary of the Union in regard to their dispute claiming

proper restructuring benefits to the personnel staff of

Rangiya Division, it is revealed that the workmen have

been satisfied in the mean time and they have been

transferred to other Division and some of them have got

promotion and other benefits as such, the workmen are

not willing to proceed with the Reference. The

Management of N.F. Railway have also expressed their

no objection to the withdrawal of the Reference by the

Union. Thus it is clear that both the parties are not

interested to proceed further.

8. In view of the above discussion and the

contentions of both the sides and having regard to the

ends of justice I find, no reason to stand as a hurdle on the

withdrawal of the proceeding by the Union. Accordingly

the Union is allowed to withdraw the proceeding and the

Reference is disposed without granting any relief.

9. Send the no relief Award to the Government as

per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

5th day of March 2013.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2013

dkñ vkñ 1919.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

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]

p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@23@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2013

S.O. 1919.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/08/2013

[No. L-12012/23/2005-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEBORE SHRI S.P. SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 31/2005

Smt. Shashi Sharma,

C/o Shri H.B.S. Batra,

Dy. General Secretary,

SBI Staff Association,

SBI, Zonal Office Haryana,

Panchkula

...Workman.

Vs.

The Assistant General

Manager, SBI,

Region-III, Z.O.,

Sector-5, Panchkula

(Haryana)

...Management

APPEARANCES

For the Workman:

Shri P.K. Longia Advocate.

For the Management:

Shri N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5101

AWARD

Passed on 7th of August 2013

Central Govt. vide letter No. L-12012/23/2005-IR(B-I)

dated 4.7.2005 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India (AGM-III) Panchkula of removal of service

of Smt. Shashi Sharma, Sr. Assistant w.e.f. 9.10.2003

is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. Workman filed the claim statement in which it is

pleaded that she joined the respondent management as

Clerk on 21.4.1981 at Rewari Branch and later on promoted

as Senior Assistant. It is pleaded that in February 2000 she

was transferred to Daruhera Branch and while posting at

Daruhera Branch she was placed under suspension on

3.5.2000 in connection with certain acts of misconduct at

Rewari Branch. A charge-sheet dated 29.6.2001 was served

upon her containing six charges. The charge sheet dated

29.6.2001 is reproduced below:

"It has been alleged against you that you while

working on STDR seat at Rewari branch committed

undernoted serious acts of ommission and

commission which facilitated the perpetration of the

fraud of Rs. 1,12,003.

(i) You allegedly tempered with Bank's records

relating to STDR of Thakur Goverdhan Singh to

benefit your Sister Smt. Kusum In this connection,

the following lapses are alleged to be attribute-

able to you.

(ii) You surreptitiously added the name of Smt.

Kusum, your Sister after the name of Thakur

Goverdhan Singh on STDR No. 403727 dated

6.10.1997 for Rs. 92,000 at the time of its renewal

on 4.8.98, deleted self and replaced it with E or S

on the STDR to create fictitious record to show

that the STDR was in joint name.

(iii) Neither you obtained a request letter from late

Thakur Goverdhan Singh for adding the name of

another beneficiary nor got the additions/

alterations authenticated from the concerned

official on the above STDR No. 403727 dated

6.10.97 for Rs. 92,000.

(iv) you altered the SS. No. 85/555 to 85/1555 on

the paid STDR No. 403727 dated 6.10.97 for

Rs. 92,000 (paid on 4.8.98) and in the STDR

indicated on STDR pay in slip dated 6.10.97 for

Rs. 92,000 filled in by you.

(v) You added the name of Smt. Kusum your Sister

on STDR pay in slip dated 4.8.98 for Rs. 100000

(STDR No. 406450) after the name of

Sh. Goverdhan Singh and also added the

mandate E or S.

(vi) You also made similar entries in the STDR

Smt. Kusum in the column Received STDR

whereas the STDR (406450) was issued in the

Single name of Thakur Goverdhan Singh

(deceased) The above acts of misconduct on your

part are of serious in nature. The bank, therefore,

charge you as under:—

Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank

which falls under the purview of gross

misconduct in terms of para 521(4) (j) of Sastry

Award."

3. It is submitted by the workman in the claim statement

that Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry

in a biased and partial manner against the principles of natural

justice and fair play to appease the respondent management.

The Inquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the

evidence and based his finding on the handwriting expert

who was not allowed to be cross-examined on behalf of the

workman by the enquiry officer during inquiry. The

management also did not Supply the documents demanded

by the workman which include preliminary investigation

report, death certificate of said Thakur Govardhan Singh

and statement of account opening form of Thakur Govardhan

Singh at State Bank of Indore, Rewari Branch. It is pleaded

by the workman that Thakur Goverdhan Singh (depositor)

expired on 19.9.1995 but even after his death STDR No. 554847

was paid and renewed for Rs. 82200, STDR No. 441656 paid

on 24.9.1996 for Rs. 92000 and banker cheque was issued in

favour of Thakur Goverdhan Singh and STDR No. 403727

paid on 4.8.1998 renewed for Rs. 1 lakh and banker cheque

was issued in favour of Govardhan Singh. These proceeds

were credited and withdrawn through SB A/c of Govardhan

Singh with State Bank of Indore, Rewari Branch whose SB

Account was opened after the death of Sh. Govardhan Singh

in his name and during the process of inquiry it was

revealed that this Saving Bank Account was introduced

by the staff member of that branch of State Bank of Indore.

No complaint was filed by anybody regarding the addition

of the name of Smt. Kusum in the STDR No. 406450 for

Rs. 1 lakh and this shows the biasness of the bank

management. Inquiry Officer was acting hand in glove

with the Presenting Officer and he was bent upon in

proving the charges against the workman. Charge sheet

was not specific and fabricated concocted and false

allegations were made against the workman. Charge sheet

contained six charges from which one was not proved

totally, one was proved partly and other four were proved

by the Inquiry Officer which are against the evidence

recorded during inquiry. The Inquiry Officer was acting

on the directions of the bank management to prove the

5102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

charges. As Inquiry Officer was under pressure from the

Presenting Officer and on one occasion, the Inquiry

Officer signed the amended finding on the asking of the

bank management as earlier he has not given his finding

on charge No. 1 and 2. it also shows the biasness of

Inquiry Officer. Findings of the Inquiry Officer are not

based upon documentary proof or any other material

witness or document. The appeal filed by the workman

was also rejected on flimsy ground as she was not given

any personal hearing and the appellate authority on

31.7.2003 on which date the bank claimed that the personal

hearing was given, was on official tour and some papers

have got signed from the workman on the pretext that these

were required for marking attendance and next date would

be given for personal hearing. But to the surprise of the

workman the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority

by showing that she was given personal hearing on

31.7.2003 on which date the appellate authority was on

tour to outstation. The workman was also not paid

subsistence allowance during suspension which also held

the inquiry as vitiated. Relevant documents were not

supplied by the management inasmuch as the death

certificate of said Govardhan Singh was supplied at the verge

of finishing of the inquiry. The punishment imposed upon the

workman is also disproportionate inasmuch as the workman

was terminated from service on the basis of the inquiry which

was against the principles of natural justice and against the

settled principles of law. The workman prayed that order of

punishment of removal inflicted upon her be set aside and the

management may be directed to reinstate her in service with

full back wages and all other consequential benefits and other

appropriate relief with costs.

4. Management filed written statement in which it is

pleaded by the management that fair and proper inquiry

was held and the workman was given full opportunity to

defend herself during inquiry. Order of punishment passed

by the management is legal and justified. The appeal was

also disposed of by the Deputy General Manager after

giving personal hearing to the workman. The inquiry Officer

conducted the inquiry in a very fair manner and his findings

are based on the evidence adduced by the management

during inquiry. It is further pleaded by the management

that there was no need for any complaint in the charges.

Other allegations regarding charges have been denied by

the management. Regarding personal hearing by the

appellate authority it is admitted by the management that

appellate authority was away on tour on 31.7.2003 but is

stated that she was given personal hearing on 1.8.2003. It

is further pleaded that punishment of removal from service

upon workman is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct

and action of the management in removing the workman

from service is legal and valid. In additional plea the

management also prayed that if this Hon'ble Tribunal

observe any infirmity in the inquiry at any stage then the

management may be allowed to lead any evidence orally or

documentary to prove the charges.

5. The workman filed rejoinder to the written

statement denying the stand of the management and

reiterating the claim made in the claim statement. It is also

pleaded in the rejoinder that the Inquiry Officer in the letter

dated 18.11.2002, some instructions were given by the

disciplinary authority. Inquiry Officer amended his finding

on charge No. 1 and 2. This conduct of the inquiry officer

shows that he was under pressure from the management to

prove the charges and this cannot be taken as inquiry

conducted in fair and proper manner. It is also pleaded by

the workman in the rejoinder that evidence on record clearly

proved that request letter was received from Thakur

Govardhan Singh in October 1998 at the name of

Smt. Kusum on STDR No. 406450 dated 4.8.1998 for Rs. 1

lakh and the same was got approved by the competent

officer at the instruction of Desk Officer but inadvertently,

these entries were made on STDR No. 403727 for Rs. 92,000.

The management witness admitted the possibility of

omission of his initial on such alteration due to rush of

work. PW2, PW3 also admitted that while making payment

of STDR No. 711533 for Rs. 1,10,900 on 5.8.1999 he tallied

the signature with said request letter which prove that

addition of name of Smt. Kusum on STDR No. 403727 for

92,000 was made inadvertently by mistake, rather these

additions were to be made on STDR No. 406450 for Rs. 1

lakh. It is also pleaded in the rejoinder that there was no

complaint from Thakur Govardhan Singh and his family

member nor any witness was produced by the management

during inquiry. The workman prayed that charge-sheet,

inquiry proceedings, and order based upon this, is illegal

and the same may be set aside.

6. Workman filed her affidavit on the same line as

that of the claim statement. Management in evidence filed

the affidavit of Jai Prakash Rathi, R.B. Sehgal and Rakesh

Saxena but produced only one witness Sh. Jai Prakash

Rathi, R.B. Sehgal and Rakesh Saxena but produced only

one witness Sh. Jai Prakash Rathi.

7. The workman on 21.3.2010 filed one application

for recalling the order by which the management was

allowed for summoning the handwriting expert Sh. S.N.

Aggarwal to which the reply was also filed and later on the

management also filed application for permission to get

documents examined through forensic expert and after reply

the application of the management was allowed. The

workman examined herself on 29.7.2010. After that the

management examined handwriting expert Dr. Jassy Anand.

On merits of the case the management produced only one

witness MW2 Jai Prakash Rathi who during cross-

examination admitted that he never remained posted at

Rewari Branch of the bank and the departmental

proceedings were never conducted in his presence. He

never attended and never associated with the inquiry

proceedings. Other witnesses whose affidavits were filed

by the management were not examined by the management

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5103

and were not subjected to cross-examination. Therefore

their affidavits are meaningless on record.

8. I have heard the parties and also gone through the

evidence on record. During arguments learned counsel for

the workman submitted that the inquiry was conducted in

a biased manner inasmuch as the workman was not supplied

documents. Preliminary inquiry report was not given to her

and there was no complaint by anybody against her. The

only charge which was bifurcated by the management in

six charges was that the workman added the name of Smt.

Kusum on STDR for Rs. 1 lakh which was made by her after

receipt of proper application and after approval from the

senior as revealed from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3

during enquiry. These management witnesses stated in

their cross-examination that application may have been

there and the concerned officer may have signed those but

the application is not traceable. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the workman that the custodian of the

such application is the Branch Manager and charge-sheet

was served after transfer of the workman from Rewari

Branch to Daru Hera Branch. No loss was caused to the

bank as Smt. Kusum deposited the entire amount with the

bank of the proceed of the above STDR. The request letter

moved by Thakur Govardhan Singh must have been in the

custody of the management. The documents demanded

by the workman were not supplied to her and the death

certificate to the above Sh. Govardhan Singh was supplied

at the fag end of the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer during

inquiry proved the charges under the pressure of the

management as the conduct of the inquiry officer in writing

letter dated 18.9.2002 in which he was shown to have

changed his finding on charges No. 1 and 2 under the

pressure of the disciplinary authority. It is further submitted

by the learned counsel for the workman that the Inquiry

Officer based his finding on the report of the handwriting

expert Sh. Somnath Aggarwal who was not allowed to be

cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer and the request of

the workman to produce another handwriting expert was

turned down by the Inquiry Officer during inquiry which

goes to prove that inquiry was conducted in highly biased

manner against the principles of natural justice and fair

play. The workman was not given full opportunity to defend

herself during inquiry and on the advice of the presenting

Officer and the Inquiry Officer was changing his version

time and again. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

for the workman that the conduct of the management in

providing personal hearing at the stage of the appeal also

shows that the management handled the inquiry in a very

poor manner as much as on the date of personal hearing

i.e. 31.7.2003 the appellate authority was away on tour and

she was made to sign some papers for marking the

attendance for personal hearing in appeal and later on the

appeal was decided without providing any opportunity of

personal hearing to the workman. The management never

paid any subsistence allowance to the workman from the

date of suspension to the date of termination. On this score

also the inquiry is liable to be set aside. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for workman that even

after this Tribunal has allowed the parties to lead evidence

in support of their respective version the management failed

to prove the charges in the Court itself and only one witness

of the fact was produced MW2 who never attended inquiry

and does not know anything about the case and thus the

management failed to prove the charges in the Court itself.

The management failed to justify its action of removal from

service of the workman and on the basis of the facts and

circumstances of the case also the punishment imposed

upon the workman is very excessive, disproportionate to

the alleged misconduct on the part of the workman. It is

prayed by the learned counsel for the workman that

workman may be reinstated in service with fully back wages

with all attendant benefits. The learned counsel also filed

case laws in support of this argument.

9. Learned counsel for the management during

arguments submitted that the workman was found guilty

of serious misconduct as she inserted the name of

Smt. Kusum as the beneficiary of the STDR which was

originally in the name of Thakur Goverdhan Singh. It is

also submitted that said Smt. Kusum is the sister of the

workman and she inserted the name of her sister with the

fraudulent intention. The learned counsel for the

management also stressed that the workman was given

fully opportunity to defend herself during the enquiry. She

was allowed to put her defence. She was not supplied the

documents as the documents demanded by her were not

relevant. Handwriting expert was enaged by the

management during enquiry and he gave his findings after

examining the documents relating to the signatures of the

workman. The workman was found guilty of the charges

and she was rightly removed from service. Enquiry was

conducted in fair and proper manner in accordance with

the principle of natural justice and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

10. The first and foremost question to be determined

is 'whether the departmental enquiry was conducted in a

fair and proper manner adhering to the principle of natural

justice'? The learned predecessor vide order dated 4.9.2009

held that findings on genuineness of enquiry can be given

by this Tribunal after affording the opportunity of

additional evidence to both the parties. It is pertinent to

mention here that in this order, it was also mentioned that

few documents as mentioned in para No. 3(B) (i)(ii)(iii) of

the claim petition have not been provided to the workman

at the time of enquiry. This fact has been accepted by the

management of the bank in its written statement that

documents mentioned in para No. 3(B)(i)(ii)(iii) of the claim

petition were not provided to the workman as these were

not relied upon by the management. From the perusal of

the claim statement, it is clear that the preliminary

investigation report was not given to the workman, death

5104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

certificate of Goverdhan Singh was given to the workman

after the evidence of the workman during enquiry. Workman

on 16.11.2001 moved an application to the enquiry officer

requesting therein for providing the documents of STDR

403727 and 402450. Workman also requested other STDR

of so called deceased Thakur Goverdhan Singh, copy of

SS Card No. 85/555 and copy of saving bank account of

Thakur Goverdhan Singh in other than State Bank Branch.

The workman also demanded copy of death certificate of

Goverdhan Singh and report of handwriting expert was

also demanded by this letter dated 16.11.2001 during the

enquiry. The documents demanded by the workman were

the relevant document for submitting her reply/explanation

and the workman was prejudiced by not supplying the

documents at the time of departmental enquiry.

11. In this regard, the management referred 1978 II

Labour Law Journal page 218, Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Bombay Mazdoor Sabha Bombay and another, 2004 L.L.J.

Page 340 Kashyap S.R. Vs. Canara Bank.

12. The workman referred case law 2013(1) S.C.T. 4167

Ms. Annamma Jose Vs. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

2009(3) S.C.T. 78 The Haryana Co-op., Sugar Mills Ltd.

Rohtak Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Rohtak and others, 2007(1) SLR 88 Deoki Das Vs.

Union of India and ors., 2004(1) SLR 570 State Bank of

India Vs. J.R. Surma and another, 2008(2) S.C.T. 750 Mavji

C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India and 1996(4) S.C.T. 638

Dr. K.K. Sharma Vs. State of Punjab. The learned counsel

for the workman also prayed for indulgence of this Tribunal

under 11A of the I.D. Act for impart any punishment except

removal from service to the workman if find guilty.

13. With due respect with the findings of the case

laws referred by the management, facts and circumstances

are quite different to the facts and circumstances of the

case of the workman.

14. Workman also submitted that the findings of

enquiry report were changed/amended without giving any

opportunity of being heard to the workman. For this

submission, Learned counsel for the workman referred to

the enquiry file letter dated 18-11-2002 written by Shri

Rakesh Sexena, Enquiry Officer to the Assistant General

Manager (Disciplinary Authority) in respect of the

workman). From the perusal of this letter, it is clear that

enquiry officer on telephonic advice, changed/amended

the findings of some charges without giving any

opportunity of being heard to the workman. Thus the

enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper manner and

workman's right to defence was prejudiced.

15. In view of the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by

learned predecessor both the parties were given

opportunity to lead additional evidence if any. The

management produced handwriting expert, other witness

was produced by the management Mr. Jai Prakash Rathi

who stated in cross-examination that he never remained

posted at Rewari Branch and enquiry proceedings were

not conducted in his presence and he never attended any

departmental proceedings and never associated with the

enquiry proceedings. Though the management placed on

record the affidavit of Mr. R.B. Sehgal who remained posted

as Manageer (Disciplinary Proceedings Section) and Shri

Rakesh Saxena who was the enquiry officer. But the

management for the reasons best known to them choose

not to produce these witness for the acid test of cross-

examination on behalf of the workman.

16. The management during enquiry produced Shri

Som Nath Aggarwal, hand writing expert, on whose opinion

the workman was held guilty of the charges. It is strange

that neither his report was given to the workman nor he

was allowed to be cross-examined by the workman. During

enquiry, workman also requested to the enquiry officer to

engage a handwriting expert, that request was also not

allwed by the enquiry officer. The action on the part of the

enquiry officer also shows that the enquiry officer was not

acting fairly and also greatly prejudice the cause of the

workman.

17. The learned counsel for the workman also

submitted that request letter was received from Thakur

Goverdhan Singh in October, 1998 to add the name of Smt.

Kusum on STDR No. 406450 dated 4.8.1998 for rupees one

lakh and the same was approved by the competent officer

at the instructions of the desk officer but inadvertently

these entries were made on STDR No. 403727 for

Rs. 96000. At the time the workman was working at the seat

in the bank and it is natural process for the workman to

made entry in case of any request is received and that

entry was made by the workman and the same was approved

by the competent oficer. Apparently the workman acted in

discharge of her official duties and no fraudulent intention

can be attributed to the workman.

18. Now returning to the claim statement and rejoinder

filed by the workman and the statement of the workman

recorded in this Tribunal, it is clear that Smt. Kusum is

sister of the workman. In her statement the workman stated

that the cheque was not issued by her an Smt. Kusum

refunded amount of Rs. 112003. Although the management

failed to established the fraudulent intention and the

charges regarding fraud against the workman during

enquiry and in this Tribunal also but still it appears that

Smt. Kusum (the alleged beneficiary) was the sister of the

workman and Smt. Kusum refunded the amount to the bank.

Though there was no complaint from any quarter for any

loss. But by her own admission, workman is held

responsible for acting negligently while performing her

duties.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5105

19. In view of the discussion made in the earlier paras,

it is held that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and

proper manner and conducted the inquiry against the

principles of natural justice. The workman was greatly

prejudiced in her defence. The management also failed to

prove the charges in this Tribunal also when the parties

allowed to lead additional evidence. Therefore, the enquiry

being conducted against the principle of natural justice is

vitiated. Now the question is whether the punishment of

removal from Service is proportionate/commensurate for

acting negligently while performing her duties.

20. Section 11 A empowers this Tribunal to ID Act

1947 provides powers of Labour Court/Tribunal to give

appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of the

workman which is given below:

"(11A. powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and

National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case

of discharge or dismissal of workman:— Where an

industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal

of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and in

the course of the adjudication proceedings, the

Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the

case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge

or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award,

set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and

direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms

and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such

other relief to the workman including the award of

any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or

dismissal as the circumstances of the case may

require".

21. As mentioned above, the enquiry has been

vitiated. Consequently considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and applying Section 11A of the

I.D. Act 1947 mentioned above, the order of removal from

service by the disciplinary authority and confirmed in appeal

by the appellate authority are set-aside and substituted

with the punishment of withholding of five increments with

cumulative effect. It is also made clear that the workman

will not get any seniority, leave encashment, LFC during

the intervening period.

22. In view of the above, the management is directed

to reinstate the workman an with full back wages after

deducting the subsistence allowance if any paid during

suspension period within one month from the publication

of the award. The reference is answered accordingly. Central

Govt. be informed. A soft copy be also sent to the Central

Govt.

Chandigarh

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Dated : 7-8-2013

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1920.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkgknjh xzkeh.k

cSad izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k

caxyksj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 129@1997 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12&08&2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@16@1994&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2013

S.O. 1920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/

1997) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

BANGALORE as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Sahyadri Grameena

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 12-08-2013.

[No. L-12011/16/1994-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

DATED

28th May, 2013

PRESENT

SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

C .R. No. 129/1997

I Party

Sh. P. Mallikarjunaiah,

General Secretary,

Sahyadri Grameena

Bank Workers Union,

Market Road, SAGAR-577 401.

II Party

The Chairman and

Managing Director,

Sahyadri Gramina Bank

(HO), P B No. 136, K V

Road, SHIMOGA.

APPEARANCES

I Party

Shri R. Nagendra Naik,

Advocate

II Party

Shri N. Srinivasa Rao,

Advocate

5106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12011/

16/1994 - IR (B-I) dated 29.03.1996 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Sahyadri Gramin Bank,

Shimoga is justified by regularising part-time

messengers-cum-sweepers as per list w.e.f. 1.9.93

instead of 22.2.91 as per NIT Award with working

group RRBs recommendations? If not, to what relief

they are entitled and from which date?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in

C R 129/1997 securing the presence of both sides after

completion of the pleadings, evidence and arguments when

the matter was pending for passing of the award, the learned

advocate appearing for the I Party filed a memo under the

signature of General Secretary of the I Party Union and

himself to dispose off the reference as not pressed. In the

said Memo it is stated several writ petitions were filed for

the similar reliefs by employees of various other Grameena

Banks like Kolar Grameena Bank, Thungabhadra Grameena

Bank, Krishna Grameena Bank, Chicko Grammena Bank,

Malaprabha Grameena Bank before the Hon'ble High Court

of Karnataka and when the same came to be allowed the

Order being implemented by the management and the I

Party Union has decided to settle this issue as well relating

to ertwhile employees of Sahyadri Grameena Bank at

Industry Level as such it is not pressing this reference.

The counsel for II party submitted that he has no objection

to dispose off the reference as Not Pressed as stated in the

Memo. Accordingly, on 28.05.2013 the proceedings have

been recorded and I Pass the following Order:—

ORDER

The reference is Rejected as Not Pressed by the I

Party Union as per its Memo dated 28.05.2013. The parties

shall bear their own cost.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected

and signed by me on 28th May, 2013)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2013

dk- vk- 1921.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ jsyos izca/k

ra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k /kuckn ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 225@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12@08@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@14@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2013

S.O. 1921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 205/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court,No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Eastern

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 12/08/2013.

[No. L-41012/14/1999- IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Koshori Ram

Presiding Officer,

In the master of an Industrial

Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act., 1947,

REFERENCE NO. 205 OF 1999

PARTIES :

Br. Secretary, Eastern Railway

Men's Union, DRM Building,

Dhanbad, Vs. DRM/Sr. D.C.M. E.

Centre, Railway,/Dhanbad

APPEARANCES:

On behlaf of the

Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld.

workman

Advocate

On behalf of the

None

Management

STATE : JHARKHAND

INDUSTRY : RAILWAY

Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd July, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-41012/

14/99-IR(B-I) dt. 17.05.1999.

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the D.R.M., Eastern Railway

Dhanbad in not regularizing Sri Santosh Kumar

Singh., Sr. RCC to the post of E.C.R.C., Dhanbad and

awarding punishment upon the workman by way or

disciplinary action during the pendency of

conciliation proceeding, are justified? If not, what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?''.

2. The case of the sponsoring union Eastern Railway

Men's Union, Dhanbad for workman Santosh Kumar Singh

is that after appreciating efficiency and qulification of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5107

workman as Railway Commercial Clerk in pay scale of

Rs. 975-1500 under the Chief Booking Supervisor, Eastern

Railway, Dhanbad, he workman has been working as

Reservation Clerk on the Reservation Counter since 1.1.1988

continuously as per direction of the management, by

putting more than240 days attendance in each calendar

year. On successfull completion of his Computer, training

for the work as he as sent for it, he was posted as

Reservation Cleck. But in stead of regularizing him as ECRC,

the management promoted him to the post of Sr. NCC in

scale of Rs. 1200-2040/. His several representations to the

management for his aforesaid regularization as ECRC with

requisite pay scale and other consequential benefits are

still without any effect.

3. Further alleged that the annoyance to the

management with his frequent insistence for it resulted in

his implication in false case. Despite his satisfactory

explanation to a false and frivolous charge sheet, the

management after conducting an empty formal Enquiry

punished the workman with reduction in his pay scale to

Rs. 3100-4500/- from the scale of Rs. 4000-6000, fixing his

initial pay at Rs. 3285 for a period of three years. On his

appeal against the illegal and arbitrary imposition of

punishment, it was reduced to the same with cumulative

effect for two years. The aforesaid punishment was inflicted

on the workman during the pendency of conioliation

proceeding without prior permission from the Conciliation

Officer, which was in violation of the provision u/s 33 and

9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, and the settled law of the

law, as there was no legal evidence for his pnishment in the

alleged Departmental Enquiry. The workman was victimized.

On failure of the conciliation proceeding, it was referred to

the Tribunal for an adjudication. Thus, the action of the

management was illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against

the principle of natural justice.

4. In the rejoinder filed by Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld.

Advocate for the workman denying all the allegations of

the Opp./Management, it has been stated that the

Limination Act is not applicable in a case under the

Industrial Dispute Act, moreover there was no delaying in

raising the dispute. Though the designation on the

Reservation Clerk was Relieving Cleck, but factually he

had been working against permanent vacancy in permanent

particular post. The Chief Reservation Supervisor was

given the money on 9.8.96, as there was previously no

system of maintaining any record of Daily Receipt of the

Cash. The alleged misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 40,377/-

on 9.8.96 and allegedly keeping it by the workman till 2.9.96

for his personal view, and its remittance by him on 3.9.96

are quite false.

5. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the Opp./

Management in a challenge to the maintainability in the

ground of Limitation is that it is untenable as per the Rly.

Board Circular No. E/SI/FG/I-22 dt. 14.12.1951 for settliement

of such dispute. The workman on compassionate ground

was appointed as the Commercial Clerk in the pay scale of

Rs. 975-1540/- RP, and on completion of Training, was

posted as the Reliving Commercial Clerk (RCC). The post

of the RCC utilized against causalities in exigency of service

is quite distinct from that of the Enquiry-cum-Reservation

Clerk under the control of the Head Quarter. In course of

the working as RCC, the workman had, as detected, serious

misconduct of misappropriation of Rs. 40,377/- on 9.8.1996,

of keeping it for his personal gain till 2.9.1996, and lastly, of

remitting it on 3.9.96. On finding him guilty of it in the

departmental proceeded, he has award with a major penality

in the reduction of his pay scale from 4000-6000 to the

scale of 3200-4900/ (RSRP). Though the punishment was

reduced by the Appellate Authority (ADRM) to the

reduction of his pay in three slabs in scale of Rs. 4000-6000

(RSRP) for two years.

6. The Opp./Management in its para-wise

comments categorically denying the allegations of the

workman has alleged that the workman was directed to

work and accordingly worked as a RCC on the

Reservation Counter, but not as a Reservation Clerk. On

his failure in acquiring the required competency for

promotion as ECRC or Reservation Clerk, despite his

computer training, he has been still working as RCC,

and in lack the proficiency required for promotion to

ECRC, he has been promoted as Senior RCC as per his

entitlement. Finding his Show Cause unsatisfactory to

the departmental chargesheet, which was justifiable

issued for his misconduct, the departmental enquiry was

conducted against him by examing and corss-examing

the witnesses after following the principles of natural

justice. There was an absence of nexus between the

departmental action for this misconduct and the

promotion to a post or requisite competency.

FINDING WITH REASONING

7. In this reference case, MWI Akhil Kr. Pandey,

the Commerical Supervisor (General), MW2 Pulakesh Roy,

the Chief Reservation Supervisor, Dhanbad for the

Management, and WWI Santosh Kr. Singh, the workman

himself on his affidavit Chief for the Union have been

examined respectively.

The present reference as its terms, evidently involves

two points for considerations:

Firstly, the non-regularization on the workmen, Sr.

RCC, as the E.C.R.C., and secondly, alleged infliction of

punishment by the disciplinary action during the pendency

of the conciliation proceeding.

At the very outset, it is pertinent to point out that

the both the parties have straightway adduced only oral

evidences on their behalf in the term of reference without

initially raising any challenge by the workman to the

department enquiry as an incidental issue to the main point

of reduction in his pay scale. Neither the workman nor the

5108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

O.P./Management has any documentay proof on their

behalf in this reference. As per the terms of reference, the

implied challenge of the workman to the departmental

enquiry is his acceptance of it as his evasive one.

For the sake of convenience in the adjudication,

firstly the second point: whether the alleged infliction of

punishment by disciplinary action was effectd during the

pendency of conciliation proceeding is taken up for

consideration.

As contrasted with the pleading of the alleged

infliction of the punishment vaguely, i.e. without specific

date of infliction of the punishment upon the workman, the

workman Santosh Kr. Singh asWWI in this affidavited Chief

has stated in the last Para of his page No. 2 as such:

''That during the pendency of the conciliation, the

management inflicted punishment by order dt. 13.7.99 by

reducing my pay scale to Rs. 3100-4500 from the scale of

Rs. 4000-6000, and fixed initial pay at Rs. 3285 on the basis

of invalid and illegal alleged enquiry and that too without

taking prior permission or approval form the Conciliation

Officer.''

The very statement of the worman in lack of specific

period of the conciliation cuts the root of his case at point

of punishment infliction. It is the inability of the workman

to prove what was the specific period of the conciliation

proceeding before the ALC during which unfortunate

punishment was inflicted. The present reference of his

industrial dispute relates to its date 17th May, 1999 as the

date of reference by the Ministry for an adjudication. But

his affidavited chief in the last para at page 3-4 discloses:

'imposition of punishment of reduction in this pay scale by

order dt. 13.7.98. It seems clear cut self contradictory. How

he could be inflicted with his punishments in course of

conciliation thereafter goes unanswered by the workman

himself. His case at the second point is quite vague and

uncertain. It seems putting of a cart before the horse by the

workman.

8. At the first point of the reference related to the non

regularization of the workman Santosh Kr. Singh, Sr. RCC,

by the DRM, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad to the post of

E.C.R.C., Dhanbad, it impliedly involves an issue of

confirmation as the E.C.R.C. concerning the workman. In

this regard, it is an indisputable fact that the workman

possesses not any document as a proof of passing the

computer training, of his confirmation as the commercial

clerk and of his posting at the Reservation Counter. Having

served as the commercial clerk in exigencies, he appears to

have known that the ECRC (Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk)

and the Commiercial Clerk are the different posts, and the

ECRC is under the control of the Headquarter (previously

at Calcutta) However the claim of the workman is for his

regularization as E.C.R.C. with retrospective effect on the

ground of his posting as a Reservation Clerk on the

Reservation Counter since 1.1.88 after completion of

successful computer training at the cost of the management

and efficiency test, as he was posted accordingly by the

management in exigency against permanent post.

9. The statement of MWI Akhil Kr. Pandey (A.K.

Pandey) as the Commercial Supervisor (General) at

Dhanbad disclosed that there was no designation of

Reservation clerk, rather there is post designated as Enquiry

cum Reservation Clerk, which is under the control of the

Head Quarter, Calcutta; the workman, the permanent staff

was posted as Relieving Commercial Clerk in his basic pay

of Rs. 975/- per month in exigency in the Booking office in

the year 1986 up to 31.12.1987 as the written order of the

Authority. It also reveals that the workman was directed to

work from 1.1.1988 at the Reservation Counter as the

Reliving Commercial Clerk under the control of the

Commercial Officer, Dhanbad apart from that of the H. Qr.

The post of commercial clerk and reservation clerk are same

but the relieving commercial clerk without any order is not

authorized to work as a Reservation Clerk, the workman

was promoted to the post of Sr. Relieving Commercial Clerk

in the scale of Rs. 1200/- per month. The management

witness (MWI) has affirmed that a candidate in order to

get the post of the Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk is

required to succeed in the Suitability/Proficiency Test

absolutely under the control of the Head Quarter on his

application through proper channel, but the workman had

not passed the suitability test or it. After due departmental

enquiry by Sri N.K. Parasuramka, the Asstt. Commercial

Manager as the Enquriy Officer into the charge sheet against

the workman for misappropriations of Rly money sale

proceeds Rs. 40,377/- and keeping it till 3.9.96, the workman

was held guilty of it, for which the Disciplinary Authority

punished him with the reversion to one scale below; and

on his appeal before the ADRM, Dhanbad, the Appellate

Authority, his punishment was reduced to three stages/

increments with cumulative effect for two years, against

which his review before the Chief Commercial Manager,

Calcutta, the Reveiw Authority, was rejected, though after

making entry into his Roster, the workman had deposited

the said money on 3.9.96.

Likewise the statement of MW2 Pulakesh Roy, as

the Chief Reservation Supervisor under E.C. Rly posted

since 1978 also affirms that Reservation Clerk works in the

reservation Section under the Head Quarter control; and

that the handing over the sale proceeds by the incumbent

of the Booking/Resevation Office immediately after his duty

to the appropriate authority is mandatory. It also discloses

that by posting the workman as Relieving Commercial Clerk

at the Reservation Counter in the year 1988, his service

was utilized as the Reservation Clerks.

10. As per the written argument of the workman, his

contention is that after putting in 240 days in attendance

as Reservation Clerk, no sooner the workman had

demanded for his regularization accordingly than the

management inflicted upon him the punishment during the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5109

pendency of the conciliation proceeding which is illegal

and arbitrary. But unfortunate fact is that the workman has

vague pleading and evidence at the point of 240 days

attendance, so his such plea in absence of period of his

attendance turns out unproved. Moreover, the case of the

workman about his punishment during pendency of the

conciliation proceeding in lack of its proof stands nowhere

as earlier discussed. The plea of the workman that Shri

Pulakesh Ray (MW2) in cross Para 4 admitted that the

workman is working as Reservation Clerk appears to be

distorted as unsustainable because his clear statement is

about the posting of the workman as Relieving Commercial

Clerk at the Reservation Counter in the year 1988. It is

further argued that in lack of prayer and evidence for

determining the fairness of the enquiry or in the case of the

silence of the both witnesses of management on the alleged

misconduct, there is no evidence of the management to

justify its action. But in the present reference the workman

did not initially take up the point of the unfairness of the

domestic enquiry as an incidental issue to the main dispute

just as the Opp./*Management did not urge for

determination of its fairness. When the person who

challenges the fairness of the enquiry has firstly to

discharge the onus of proof at the point as per the rule of

law, according to which even evasive or implied challenge

to it amounts to its acceptance as in the present case.

Lastly, it is submitted on the workman, citing the

ruling in the case of the workman Vs. Hindustan Lever

Ltd., AIR 1984(SC)1683(CB) as held therein, that 'to confirm

an employee in the acting position means regularization'.

The ruling in the reference to Secs.2(k), 7-A,10, Sec.3 Item

7 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 relates to the meaning

of "Industrial Disputes any dispute or difference between

employers and employees as under Sec.2(k) of the Act just

as question of their confirmation. It relates to demand of

the workman for classification of the workmen officiating

in the higher grades either as permanent or temporary, and

they should not be continued indefinitely as temporary by

making them permanent on rendering of continuous service

in the higher grade for a period of three months. The

demand involves both the classification of employees and

classification by grade. But the present reference under

adjudication has no such case of the workman as working

on the post of E.C.R.C, if so, for what period, as there is

neither pleading nor proof to that effect on behalf of the

workman.

11. On appreciations of the materials on the records

of the case, I find that the Union/workman could establish

neither his case of his regularization as the E.C.R.C.,

Dhanbad nor awarding him punishment by the disciplinary

action during the pendency of conciliation proceeding.

Hence, under these circumstances, it is hereby

awarded that the action of the D.R.M., Eastern Railway,

Dhanbad, in not regularizing Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, Sr.

R.C.C. to the post of E.C.R.C., Dhandbad, is quite legal and

justified. Since, there is no proof of infliction of punishment

during which specific period of conciliation proceeding, it

goes negative towards the workman. so, the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1922.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izcaèra= 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@Je U;k;ky; èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2008½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@8@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@14@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2013

S.O. 1922.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22 of 2008) the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1,

DHANBAD now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 14.08.2013.

[No. L-12011/14/2008-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD. IN

THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 22 of 2008

Employers in relation to the management of Central

Bank of India, Saharsa.

AND.

Their workmen.

PRESENT:

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers

Sri B.N. Keshri, Manager

For the workman.

Sri R.L. Gupta, Concerned

workman

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Banking

Dated 26/7/2013

5110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/14/2008-IR (B-II), dt.

12/05/2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Regional Office, Saharsa in inflicting

punishment on Sri Ratan Lal Gupta, Clerk Teghra

Branch, bringing down to lower stage in the scale of

pay by one stage for one year is justified and legal?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 02.06.2008. The Sponsoring Union/workman files their

written statement on 09.06.2008 alongwith few documents.

Thereafter the management files their written statement-

cum-rejoinder on 26.09.2008. Three witnesses on behalf on

the management have been examined and the workman

has been examined himself on his behalf.

3. On the ground of misconduct 3 charges were

leveled against the workman and only charge No. 1 that

the workman remained absent on 13.2.2001 and 14.2.2001

without any prior intimation to the bank authority. Was

pressed by the management.

4. The workman stated that false charges of dowry

death was against him for which he was consulting lawyer

and surrendered in Court on 15.02.2001, for which he could

not give prior intimation of leave for 13.02.2001 and

14.02.2001 and sent his leave application on 16.02.2001.

5. On the other hand it is submitted by the

management that unauthorized absence of bank staff in

Bank is a serious charge and as such appropriate action

has been taken. It is submitted by the workman that he

submitted the leave application on 16.02.2001 i.e. three days

after his absence in the Bank, and thereafter remanded to

fail and detained there for about 5 years and finally acquitted

cleanly.

6. Unauthorised absence, in any public sector of

company, offices against the official norms, the workman

situation was different. He lost his will then. Though the

workman has also admitted regarding his unauthorised

absence and subsequent leave application harsh action

against him is unwarranted.

7. Considering the facts and circumstance of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Regional Office, Saharsa in inflicting

punishment on Sri Ratan Lal Gupta, Clerk Teghra Branch,

bringing down to lower stage in the scale of pay by one

stage for one year is not legal and justified? Hence the

workman be given his dues and his unauthorised absence

of 13.02.2001 and 14.02.2001, be treated his casual leave. If

that is not there in his credit the absent dates be treated as

any other leave.

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1923.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izcaèra= 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@Je U;k;ky;] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3@5@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@115@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013

S.O. 1923.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1,

DHANBAD now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of CENTRAL BANK of India and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 03.05.2013.

[No. L-12011/115/2011-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D)

(2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 46 of 2012

Employers in relation to the management of Central

Bank of India, Patna

AND.

Their workmen.

PRESENT:

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers :

None

For the workman :

None

STATE : JHARKHAND.

INDUSTRY: BANK

Dated 16/04/2013

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5111

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/115/2011-IR (B-II), dated

26/09/2012, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in engaging Sri Diwakar Prasad

Choudhary as part Time Sweeper for 20 years is

legal and justified? If not, whether the demand of

the Union to regularise the serivice of Sri Diwakar

Prasad Choudhary is just and proper? What relief is

the workman concerned is entitled to?"

After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed

but on behalf of the Bank, a petition received by post to

the effect that the present workman filed a petition for

withdrawal of the dispute pending before the ALC, But in

spite of that, this Tribunal issued notice to the parties,

None appears from the boths sides. It is felt that there is no

dispute between the parties. Hence no dispute award is

passed, communicate to the Ministry.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1924.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; thou

chek fuxe izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèdj.k] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2003½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17012@21@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2013

S.O. 1924.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2003)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of LIC of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/08/2013

[No. L-17012/21/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRAIL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT

"Shram Sadan",

G.G. Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeshwantpur, Bangalore-560022.

DATED

24th May, 2013

PRESENT

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND

Presiding Office

C.R. No. 28/2003

I Party

II Party

Shri Allah Baksh,

The Senior Divisional Manager,

S/o late Shri Abdul Azeez,

LIC of India

No. 44, 5th Main, I B Crorss,

Divisional Office, Jeevan

Rahamathnagar,

Prakash, P B No. 6694,

R T Nagar Post,

JC Road,

BANGALORE- 560 032.

BANGALORE- 560 002.

APPEARANCES

I Party

Shri B S Venkatesh,

Advocate

II Party

Shri B V Krishna,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Cenral Government vide order No. L-1 7012/

21/2002-IR (B-1) dated 07.05.2003 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of LIC of India

is justified in removing Shri Allah Baksh, Sweeper,

w.e.f. 12.12.1998 from the services in terms of

Regulation 39 (1) (F) of Life Insurance Corporation

of India (Staff) Regulation 1960 ? If not, what relief

the said workman is entitled ?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in

CR 28/2003 when the notices were issue to both sides,

they entered their appearance through their respective

advocate and filed their claim statement and counter

statement. Since my learned predecessor by Order dated

13.07.2006 held the Domestic Enquiry conducted against

the I-Party by the II-party is Not Fair and Proper and

called upon the II party to substantiate the charge levelled

against the accused he examined Sh. Nanjundeswar as

MW 2 and closed his side without, getting any documents

exhibited and inter alia the learned advocate appearing

for the I-party filing the affidavit of the I-Party examined

him on oath as WW 1 and did not get any documents

5112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

exhibited, the arguments of both sides have been heard

as such the points that now arises for my consideration

are:

1. Whether the II party proved the charges

levelled against the I Party?

2. If so, what is the appropriate punishment

deserves by I Party?

3. What Order?

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and

award may be stated as under:

4. The I Party who joined the services of the II party

as a Sweeper on 23.02.1978 on Compassionate Grounds in

lieu of death of his father Abdul Aziz who was serving in

the II Party, pursuant to a complaint filed by Sh. C

Ramanathan, Senior Divisional Manager of the II Party

on 14.12.1992 suspecting theft of railway tickets and

cancelling the same and usurping the value of the cancelled

railway tickets by the I Party to SJP Police, he was charge

sheeted before VIth Additional CMM, Bangalore for

offences punishable under Section 381 and 419 of IPC and

the said court after trial acquitted him through judgement

dated 25.03.1998 and in the meanwhile the II Party on

31.09.1997 issued charge sheet against him alleging that

he committed theft of Railway Tickets and by encashing

them misappropriate a sum of Rs. 4468.00 in the name of K

Yusuf and as he denied the said charge the II Party/

management appointing Sh. Nanjundeshwar, Manager

(Legal & HPF), Divisioinal Office-I, Bangalore as Enquiry

Officer

and

Sh. Harishankar, AO, K G Road Branch, Bangalore as

Presenting Officer ordered for Domestic Enquiry and the

said Enquiry Officer after recording the evidence of

Sri Khaja Moinuddin, Sri Shankarappa and Sh. H M

Srinivasaiah and exhibiting Report of SJ Park Police Station

dated 23.12.1992; Southern Railway Letter dated 01.12.1992;

Letter dated 27.11.1992 written by LIC to Railway;

Preliminary Investigation Report on Shri M R Gopal dated

15.04.1995; Letter dated 13.08.1996 issued to Shri Khaja

Mohiyuddin, Asst., CS, DO; Letter dated 27.08.1996 issued

to Shri Khaja Mohiyuddin, Asst., CS, DO; Letter dated

03.12.1992 issued to Shri Khaja Mohiyuddin, Asst., CS,

DO; Letter dated 20.03.1997 issued to Shri Shankarappa,

the then Steno, OS; Letter dated 21.04.1997 reply of Shri

Shankarappa; Letter dated 11.03.1997 issued to Shri

Srinivasaiah, Peon, OS DO-I; Reply of Shri Srinivasaiah

dated 05.04.1997; Railway cancellation forms and

confessional statement made by Shri Allah Baksha as Ex

E-1 to E-13 for the management and receiving the written

statement filed by the CSE/I Party submitted his Enquiry

Findings on 02.03.1998 to the Disciplinary Authority

holding him guilty of the charge and therafter the

Disciplinary Authority after issue of show cause notice

and giving opportunity of hearing vide order dated

05.06.1998 imposed the impugned punishment of Removal

from Service. Aggrieved by the said punishment imposed

by the Disciplinary Authority the CSE/I Party approached

the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 1704/1999

and the said Writ Petition came to be disposed off on

22.01.1999 reserving the liberty to the I party to prefer an

appeal before the Appellate Authority further directing

the Appellate Authority to dispose of his appeal within 6

months from the date of filing the appeal and accordingly

when he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority,

the Appellate Authority after affording opportunity of

hearing dismissed the appeal and confirmed the punishment

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by an order dated

17.07.1999. Then the I Party who filed an application before

this tribunal challenging the order of his removal and the

same was Registered in Misc. No. 26/1999 later withdrawn

with a liberty to file necessary application before the

concerned authority and then he moved the ALC(C),

Bangalore and on his submitting failure report the Central

Government made this reference for adjudication.

5. The I Party in his claim statement claims that after

he was charge sheeted at the instance of the management

for offence punishable under Section 381 and 419 before

the competent criminal court after about five years of

being charge sheeted served with charge sheet and inspite

of his request not to proceed with the enquiry until the

conclusion of the criminal case the management proceeded

with the enquiry and though he came to be acquitted by

order dated 25.03.1998 by the criminal court the II Party

proceeded with the Domestic Enquiry and imposed the

impugned punishment of Removal from Service without

any legal and valid evidence as such the enquiry finding

being baseless deserves to be set aside and consequently

the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and

affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

6. Inter alia, in the counter statement filed by the

II-party it is contended that during September 1992 its Office

Services Department, Divisional Office-I, Bangalore — 2

observed that some of the Railway Tickets kept in the Steel

Cupboard of OS Department were being stolen a criminal

complaint with SJP Road, Police Station was filed

suspecting the I party and the siad police while registering

it in Crime No. 257/1992 of their Police Station and

investigating into it on the confession made by the CSE

before the Investigating Officer he was charge sheeted

before VIth Additional CMM, Bangalore and after carefully

examining the Investigation Report he was issued with a

show cause notice dated 05.06.1998 to which the CSE/I

Party replied on 09.07.1998 and as the same was not found

satisfactory the charge sheet was issued and as the reply

given by him was not satisfactory the Domestic Enquiry

was conducted by appointing Shri Nanjuneshwar, Manager

(Legal & HPF), Divisional Office — I, Bangalore as Enquriy

Officer and Sh. Harishankar, AO, K. G. Road Branch,

Bangalore as Presenting Officer and as Enquiry Officer

submitted the Enquiry Report the charge being proved

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5113

and after affording opportunity of hearing he has been

proportionately punished by Removal from Service by the

Disciplinary Authority and on his appeal to the Appellate

Authority as directed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka

in W P No. 1704/1999 the Appellate Authority after

considering his appeal with the evidence on record having

affirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority there is no necessity to interfere either in the

Enquiry Finding or the punishment imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority which is affirmed by the Appellate

Authority by giving congent reasons.

7. As already adverted to by me above, my learned

predecessor having regard to the pleadings of both the

sides by framing a PI touching the fairness or otherwise of

the Domestic Enquiry after receiving the evidence adduced

by both the sides by his detailed order dated 17.10.2007

having held the Domestic Enquriy was not fair and proper

and afforded an opportunity to the II Party to prove the

charge and accordingly the II party lead the oral evidence

through Sh. Nagendra Prasad who has reiterated the

contention of the counter statement and I Party examined

himself rebutting the same the only points now as

mentioned by me above as to whether the II Party proved

the charge of theft of Railway Tickets and concelation of

the same by the I Party in the name of K Yousuf and

encashinig a sum of Rs. 4468.00 misappropriated it as

alleged? and if so, what is the appropriate punishment I

Party deserves?

8. All the while through the Counter Statement and

the evidence of MW 2 the management harps on the

alleged confession made by the I Party/CSE before the

Investigating Officer in criminal case further contending

that since the criminal court acquitted him for failure of

the investigating officer to give evidence the charge

against him being proved. Since the management in case

of theft apart from initiating a criminal case is entitle to

initiate Domestic Enquiry, it has to lead necessary

evidence in the Domestic Enquiry to prove the charge of

theft against its employee. In my humble opinion since

the Investigating Officer who charge sheeted the I Party

only based on the confession allegedly made by the I

Party before him knowing that same is not admissible in

evidence must not have appeared before the criminal case

and ultimately the CSE/I Party must have been acquitted

by the criminal court. Further when this tribunal held the

Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II Party against the I

Party was not fair and proper any amount of evidence let

in by the Management before the Enquiry Officer cannot

be looked into and when they were given opportunity to

lead necessary evidence to substantiate the charge since

nothing is placed on record except the affidavit of

Sh. Nagendra Prasad reiterating the counter statement,

absolutely, I find no evidence to believe theft of alleged

Railway Tickets covered in the charge sheet by the I Party

and encashing them in the name of K Yousuf and usurping

that amount by himself. In the result, I have arrived at

conclusion the II Party having miserably failed to prove

the charge to theft of Railway Tickets covered in the

Charge Sheet by the I Party and encashing the same in

the name of K Yousuf and usurping the said cash of

Rs. 4468.00 for himself.

9. In view of my finding that management/II Party

failed to substantiate the charge levelled against the I Party

the question/point relating to imposing of punishment does

not survive for consideration and I Party deserves to be

reinstated into service. Since due to the fault committed by

the I Party himself initially approaching the Hon'ble High

Court of Kernataka immediately after he was imposed

punishment of removal from service by the DA and later as

directed by the Hon'ble High Court approaching the AA

and after his decision again committing a folly in directly

approaching this tribunal and later realising the same is

not maintainable withdrawing it approaching the ALC(C),

Bangalore for conciliation and thereafter on his submitting

the failure report the Central Government made this

reference in the year 2003, I feel it just and appropriate to

direct the management/II Party to pay him full backwages

from the date of reference i.e., 7.5.2003 till his reinstatement,

to provide continuity of service and all other consequential

benefits he would have received in the absence of the

impugned punishment of removal from service. In the result,

I pass the following Order:

ORDER

The Reference is Allowed holding that the action of

the management of LIC of India in removing Sh. Allah Baksh,

Sweeper w.e.f. 12.12.1998 from the services in terms of

Regulation 39(1) (F) of Life Insurance Corporation of India

(Staff) Regulation 1960 is not legal and justified and that he

is entitled for reinstatement with full backwages from the

date of reference i.e., 7.5.2003 till the date of his reinstatment,

continuity of service and all other consequential benefits

that he would have received in the absence of the impugned

punishment order.

(Dictated to U.D.C., transcribed by him, corrected

and signed by me on 24th May, 2013)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE — I

List of witnesses on merits:

MW 2—Sh. Nagendra Prasad

WW 1—Sh. Allah Baksh, I party workman

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management on

merits:

Nil

5114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Documents exhibited on behalf of the I party on merits:

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1925.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@2006½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14&08&2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012@94@2006-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2013

S.O. 1925.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2006)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Kunustoria Colliery of M/s.

ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14-08-2013

[No. L-22012/94/2006-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri JAYANTA KUMAR SEN,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 88 OF 2006

PARTIES:

The management of Kunustoria

Colliery, M/s. ECL. Burdwan

(W.B.)

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol,

(W.B.)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das. Ld. Advocate

For the Union :

Sri S.K. Pandey, Ld.

(Workman)

Representative

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : West Bengal

Dated 03.06.13

SETTLEMENT AWARD IN LOK ADALAT HELD ON

03-06-13 AT KUNUSTORIA GUEST HOUSE

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

94/2006-I.R. (CM-II) dated 01.11.06 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Kunustoria Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Shri

Budhi Majhi from service w.e.f. 17.07.2003 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/94/

2006-I.R. (CM-II) dated 01.11.06 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 88 of 2006

was registered on 14.08.2006 and accordingly an order to

that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned directing them to

appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

During Lok Adalat on behalf of the Management,

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate has stated on the paper of

Settlement that the case is not covered under

Memorandum of Settlement. Sri S.K. Pandey who

appeared on behalf of the workman has submitted that

according to the appointment letter the workman Budhi

Majhi has been assessed the age as 22½ years on

30.05.95. It has further been submitted by Sri Pandey

that earlier a charge sheet Ref. ECL/KNT/PER/CS-7/6974

dated 10.03.02 was issued for unauthorized absence

since 17.05.2001 and without giving any proper finding

in enquiry in this charge sheet, a subsequent charge

sheet No. Ref. ECL/KNT/PER/CS-7/522 dated 02.07.03

was submitted which was decided exparte and this

enquity incorporated the date of absent of first charge

sheet which is against the law. It has further been

submitted on behalf of the workman that the workman is

below 45 years of age as per appointment letter issued

on 30.05.95 vide Ref. No. A/KNT/P & IR/Appt./13/1416

dated 30.05.95.

Thus considering the above facts, I find and come

into conclusion that the period of absence does not exceed

nine months and the age of the workman is below 45 years.

So the management should absorb the workman in the job

under the provision of Memorandum of Settlement within

two months from the date of notification of the Award

without any back wages. Accordingly the matter is decided

in the Lok Adalat.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as per above

discussion. Send the copies of the award to the Govt. of

India. Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5115

information and needful. The reference is accordingly

disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1926.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14&08&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@196@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2013

S.O. 1926.—In pursuance of Seciton 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2005)

of the Cent.Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Kalla Central Hospital,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

14-08-2013.

[No. L-22012/196/2004-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri JAYANTA KUMAR SEN,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 41 OF 2005

PARTIES:

The management of Kalla Central

Hospital, Burdwan

Vs.

The Secy., WBCMU, Kalla Branch,

P.O. Kalla, Burdwan

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management:

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union :

None

(Workman)

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated: 29.05.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

196/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 13.05.2005 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kalla-

Central Hospital of M/s. ECL over non-placement of

Shri Haresh Mishra from Cook Category-III to

Category-IV in Kalla Hospital is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief an individual is entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

196/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 13.05.2005 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India. MInistry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

41 of 2005 was registered on 31.05.2005 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has found that the

workman is neither appearing not taking any step since

2006. Several opportunities were given but of no effect. It

seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed

with the case any further. Since the workman is not

interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and

accordingly an order of "No Dispute" award is hereby

passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as "No

Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 vxLr] 2013

dkñvkñ 1927.—dsUæh; ljdkj deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/

kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk

88 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, baLVªwesaVs'ku fyfeVsM]

iyddM] dsjy 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 rkjh[k 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 g®] ,d jftLVj

5116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

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 vèhu

,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanRr va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs g®(

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 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 fufeRr

izkfèd`r dksbZ vU; in/kkjh(

¼i½ /kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

¼ii½ ;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

¼iii½ ;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

¼iv½ ;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`Rr 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 ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os

vko';d le>rs g®( ;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

¼6½ fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la- ,l&38014@21@2013&,l,l&I]

tkstZ dqêh Vh- ,y-] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2013

S.O. 1927.—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 Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad, Kerala

from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be

effective from the date of issue of notification for a period

of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:—

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a

registered 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),

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % flrEcj 7] 2013@Hkkæ 16] 1935

5117

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

Corportation 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 provisions of the

Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation

to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose

of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause to

believe to have been an employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

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-38014/21/2013-SS-I]

GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 03 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1928.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mièkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj] 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 ¼èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS½ ds micaè fcgkj

jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe

¼ekStk dk uke½

Fkkuk la[;k

ftyk

lañ

jktLo xzke dk uke

flikjk

iVuk

idMh

iVuk

[lañ ,l&38013@53@2013&,l,l I]

tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013

S.O. 1928.—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 October, 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 Bihar namely:—

Sl.

Name of the Revenue

P.S.

District

Revenue Village

No.

Sipara

Patna

Pakri

Patna

[No. S-38013/53/2013-SS-I]

GEORGEKUTY T. L., Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1929.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mièkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

5118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2013/BHADRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj] 2013 dks ml

rkjh[k ds #i esa uh;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 ¼èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds micaè

dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe

jktLo xzke dk uke

gkscyh

rkyqd

ftyk

dwjkUMgYyh

dlck

ekywj

dksykj

[lañ ,l&38013@54@2013&,l,l I]

tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013

S.O. 1929.—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 October, 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 Karnataka namely:—

Sl.

Name of the Rev.

Hobli

Taluk

District

No.

Village or Municipal Limits

KOORANDAHALLY

Kasaba Malur

Kolar

[No. S-38013/54/2013-SS I]

GEORGEKUTY T. L., Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1930.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mièkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj] 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 ¼èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79

vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds micaè mM+hlk

jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

^^ftyk lqanjx< +dh ikuiks"k rgfly esa xksfcjk ds jktLo xkao**A

[lañ ,l&38013@55@2013&,l,l I]

tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013

S.O. 1930.—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 October, 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

VILLAGE OF GOBIRA, in the Tahasil of Panposh, in the

district of Sundergarh.

[No. S-38013/55/2013-SS.I]

GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 1931.—jk"Vªifr] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds fjDr in gsrq fyad

vfèdkjh ds :i esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k&lg&Je

U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds ihBklhu vfèdkjh Jh yky pUn Ms dks 28-08-

2013 ls N ekg dh vofè rd vFkok fu;fer inèkj.k dh fu;qfDr

gksus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks rc rd

ds fy, vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj lksairs gSaA

[lañ ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, 3rd September, 2013

S.O. 1931.—The President it pleased to entrust the

additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Asansol to Sh. Lal Chand Dey,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati for a

period of six months with effect from 28.08.2013 or till the

post is filled on regular basis or until further orders

whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]

RAJESH 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.