This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 39] नई दिल्ली, सितम्बर 22—सितम्बर 28, 2013, शनिवार/भाद्र 31—आश्विन 6, 1935

No. 39] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 22—SEPTEMBER 28, 2013, SATURDAY/BHADRA 31—ASVINA 6, 1935

भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 1993.—केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का अधिनियम सं॰ 25) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग, राँची की अधिसूचना सं॰ 6/सीबीआई-604/2013/2609/दिनांक 25.06.13 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से झारखंड राज्य के लोक सेवकों एवं अन्य व्यक्तियों के द्वारा मेसर्स तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों से संबंधित या उनसे सम्बद्ध अपराधों में किए गए प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणाओं और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए या उन्ही तथ्यों से उत्पन्न किसी अन्य अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार समस्त झारखंड राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है।

[सं॰ 228/33/2013-एवीडी-II]

राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

विनि आयरन एवं स्टील उद्योग लिमिटेड के पदाधिकारियों/निदेशकों, श्री AND PENSIONS

नवीन कुमार तुल्स्यान, चार्टर्ड अकाउंटेंट, भारत सरकार के लोक सेवकों (Department of Personnel and Training) एवं अन्य अज्ञात व्यक्तियों के साथ मिलीभगत कर राजहरा नॉर्थ कोयला ब्लॉक (केन्द्रीय और पूर्वी) आबंटन में कथित अनियमितता एवं भ्रष्टाचार से संबंधित भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 120 बी सपठित धारा 420 एवं भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 13(1)(डी) सपठित ध् ाारा 13(2) के अधीन पंजीकृत सीबीआई मामला सं॰ आरसी 219 2012 (ई) 0012, दिनांक 03.09.2012 में और उक्त मूल अपराधों में

3995 GI/2013

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013

S.O. 1993.—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 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

(5227)5228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Government of Jharkhand, Home Department, Ranchi vide

Notification No. 6/CBI-604/2013-2609/25.06.2013, hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi

Special Police Establishment in the whole of State of

Jharkhand for investigation in the CBI case No. RC 219

2012 (E) 0012 dt. 03.09.2012, U/s 120 B r/w sec 420 of IPC

and Sec 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive

offences thereof, regarding alleged irregularities and

corruption by Public Servants of State of Jharkhand and

Others in regard to allocation of Rajhara North Coal Block

(Central & Eastern) in connivance with Office bearers/

Directors of M/s. Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Ltd., Shri Navin

Kumar Tulsyan, Chartered Accountant, Public servants of

Government of India and others unknown and attempt,

abetment and conspiracy 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. 228/33/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 1994.—केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का अधिनियम सं॰ 25) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए अरूणाचल प्रदेश राज्य सरकार, सतर्कता विभाग, इटानगर की दिनांक 27 जुलाई, 2013 की अधिसूचना सं॰ वीआईजी-04/2010/171 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (1946 का अधिनियम सं॰ 45) की धारा 120-बी और 420 तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 (1988 का अधिनियम सं॰ 49) की धारा 13 (1)(डी) के साथ पठित धारा 13(2) एवं धारा 15 के अंतर्गत दंडनीय अपराध जो अरूणाचल प्रदेश के पश्चिम कामेग जिला के दिरंग क्षेत्र में ट्रान्स अरूणाचल हाईवे (टीएएच) हेतु भूमि तथा भवनों के अधिग्रहण में हुई विसंगतियों/अवैधता से संबंधित अधिग्रहित भूमि/भवन/पेड़ों के मालिकों को क्षतिपूर्ति के निर्धारण एवं भुगतान से तथा उपरोक्त अपराधों के संबंध में या उनसे सम्बद्ध अपराधों में किए गए प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणाओं तथा षडयंत्रों या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न कोई अन्य अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार समस्त अरूणाचल प्रदेश राज्य के सम्बन्ध् में करती है।

[सं॰ 228/67/2013-एवीडी-II] राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013

S.O. 1994.—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 Arunachal Pradesh, Vigilance Department, Itanagar vide Notification No. VIG-04/2010/171 dated 27th July, 2013, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for investigation of offences punishable under sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1946) and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) relating to anomalies/illegalities in acquisition of land and building and in determination and payment of compensation to land owners for land/building/trees acquired for Trans Arunachal Highway (TAH) in the Dirang Region of West Kameng District of Arunachal Pradesh and attempts, abetments and conspiracies 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 of arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/67/2013-AVD-II] RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी, 2013

का॰आ॰ 1995.—केन्द्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (यथासंशोधित 1987) के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, वित्त मंत्रालय, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग के नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित बकों की शाखाओं को, जिनके 80 से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी में कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।

क्र॰ बकों के नाम शाखाओं की संख्या सं॰

1. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया 218

2. इंडियन ओवरसीज बक 120

3. सेंट्रल बक ऑफ इंडिया 103

4. सडिकेट बक 30

5. स्टेट बक ऑफ मैसूर 28

6. स्टेट बक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर 26

7. इंडियन बक 12

8. आंध्रा बक 10

कुल 547

[सं॰ 11016/3/2013-हिन्दी] मिहिर कुमार, निदेशक (रा॰भा॰)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5229 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, करनाल 11. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया राजभाषा कार्यान्वयन प्रभाग, केंद्रीय कार्यालय, मुंबई राजभाषा नियम 10(4) में अधिसूचनार्थ संस्तुत शाखाएं/कार्यालय

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

यूनियन लोन पोइंट फरीदाबाद शाखा एससीओ-60, हुडा मार्केट सेक्टर 7, फरीदाबाद, जिला फरीदाबाद 121001, हरियाणा क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, दिल्ली 1. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, दक्षिण पटौदी शाखा,

12. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

हाउस नं॰ 1, वार्ड नं॰ 6 बाबा आटावला चौक के पास पटौदी हेली मंडी रोड, गुड़गांव 122504

सैक्टर 3 करनाल शाखा एससीओ 16, सैक्टर 3, करनाल जिला करनाल 132001 (हरियाणा)

2. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, आजमगढ़ 13. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

भोंडसी शाखा गांव भोंडसी, जिला गुड़गांव, पिन 122102

समेदा (वित्तीय समावेशन) शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट समेदा, जिला आजमगढ़ पिन कोड 276128 3. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

14. यूनिय बक ऑफ इंडिया उजीना शाखा डाक उजीना, जिला मेवात, हरियाणा

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, दिल्ली 4. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया उत्तर

देवारा जदीद (वित्तीय समावेशन) शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट देवारा जदीद, वाया महाराजगंज , जिला आजमगढ़, पिन कोड 276137

15. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया भोरगढ़ शाखा हाउस नं॰ 7/2, रेलवे क्रासग नरेला, दिल्ली, पिन 110040

5. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

माहुल शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट माहुल, जिला आजमगढ़ पिन कोड 223225

16. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया गोकलपुर शाखा ए-51, गोकलपुर, डाकघर गोकलपुर नई दिल्ली पिन 110094

ृ 6. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

टाण्डा शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट टाण्डा जिला अम्बेडकर नगर,़ पिन कोड 224190

17. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया यूएलपी पश्चिम विहार शाखा बी 2/15, पश्चिम विहार दिल्ली-110063

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, जयपुर 7. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

देवगांव शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट देवगांव, जिला आजमगढ़ पिन कोड 276202

18. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया दूनी शाखा पंचायत भवन, ग्राम व पोस्ट दूनी तहसील देवली, जिला टोंक राजस्थान, पिनकोड 304 802

मित्तूपुर शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट मित्तूपुर, ब्लाक जहानागंज जिला आजमगढ़, पिन कोड 276131 8. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

19. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया नीमराना शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट नीमराना, तहसील बहरोड़, जिला अलवर, राजस्थान, पिन 301705

कोहरा शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट कोहडा, ब्लाक पवई जिला आजमगढ़, पिन कोड 276288 9. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

20. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया लीड़ी शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट लीड़ी, तहसील पीसांगन जिला अजमेर, राजस्थान, पिन 305203

जोकहरा शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट जोकहरा, ब्लाक हरैया जिला आजमगढ़, पिन कोड 276136 10. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

21. यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया बाघसूरी शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट बाघसूरी तहसील नसीराबाद, जिला अजमेर राजस्थान, पिन 305401

भखरा शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट भखरा, ब्लाक फूलपुर जिला आजमगढ़, पिन कोड 2232265230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

22 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

32 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

ठठेरी शाखा मोहल्ला नं॰ 10, मेन रोड, सरायमीर निजामाबाद, जिला आजमगढ़, 276305

वि॰ समावेशन शाखा बिशुनपुर हरनारायण ग्राम बसौली हिम्मत सह, पोस्ट माहपुर जिला मुजफ्फरपुर, बिहार, पिनकोड-843103

33 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गोरखपुर 23 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

वि॰ समावेशन शाखा लाभगांव ग्रा॰+पो॰ लाभगांव, जिला-खगड़िया, बिहार पिन कोड-851204 बरहज शाखा स्टेशन रोड, मु॰पो॰ बरहज, जिला देवरिया़ पिन 274 601, उत्तर प्रदेश

34 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया 24 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

वि॰ समावेशन शाखा पितौझिया ग्राम व पोस्ट पितौझिया, जिला-खगड़िया, बिहार पिनकोड-843117 हरैया शाखा सम्राट नगर, मुख्य बाजार मु पोस्ट हरैया, जिला बस्ती 272 155 उ॰ प्र॰

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, भोपाल 35 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, पटना 25 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

बरेली शाखा 1, भूतड़ा कॉलौनी, जे॰जे॰ रोड, बरेली रायसेन (म॰ प्र॰)

बक्सर शाखा ठठेरी बाजार, बक्सर जिला रोहतास,़ बिहार पिनकोड, 821115

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, इंदौर 36 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया 26 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

नानाखेडा शाख 13/4-सी ब्लॉक, महाकाल वाणिज्य केन्द्र वीआईपी रोड, नानाखेडा उज्जैन (म॰ प्र॰) 456010 सासाराम शाखा निकट साहू टाकीज, जी॰टी॰ रोड, सासाराम जिला सासाराम, बिहार पिन-802101

37 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया 27 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

विशेषीकृत वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा बडा बांगडदा पोस्टः पालाखेडी जिला इन्दौर (म॰प्र॰) 453112 सबौरा रोड शाखा भागलपुर तिलका मांझी हाटिया रोड, जिला-भागलपुर, बिहार पिन-812001

38 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया 28 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

पिपल्याकुमार शाखा एस॰एस॰ आंगन 90-91 दीप पेलेस कॉलोनी, ग्रामः पिपल्याकुमार जिलाः इंदौर (म॰प्र॰) 452010 मध्ुबनी शाखा निकट प्रधन डाकघर, मुख्य मार्ग, जिला मध्ुबनी,़ बिहार पिन कोड-847227

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय रायपुर 39 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया 29 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

बीजापुर शाखा मेन रोड (एचपी पेट्रोल पंप के सामने) बीजापुर जिला बीजापुर छत्तीसगढ़ 494444 वि॰ समावेशन शाखा ध्ुतौली मो॰+पो॰ ध्ुतौली, निकट मालपा चौक, वाया चौथम, जिला-खगड़िया, बिहार पिनकोड-851201

40 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

30 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

दंतेवाड़ा शाखा, मां दंतेश्वरी मंदिर के पास मेन रोड, दंतेवाड़ा जिला दंतेवाड़ा (छ॰ ग॰) 494449 वि॰ समावेशन शाखा अजनौल ग्राम भटगामा, मंसूर चक रोड, पोस्ट दलसह सराय, जिला समस्तीपुर, बिहार पिनकोड-848114

41 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

31 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

जशपुर नगर शाखा पुराना महल, बी॰ एस॰ मार्केट मेन रोड, जशपुर (छ॰ ग॰) 496331 वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा शंभुपट्‌टी ग्राम व पोस्ट शंभुपट्‌टी, जिला-समस्तीपुर,़ बिहार पिनकोड-848129[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5231 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

42 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

52 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

बकठपुर शाखा बैसागर पारे, बक ऑफ इंडिया के पीछे बकठपुर, जिला कोरिया (छ॰ ग॰) 497625

बगैया शाखा, पंचायत बिल्डिंग, रेस्ट हाउस, ग्राम बगैया, तहसील चितरंगी, जिला सगरौली पिन 486001

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, इलाहाबाद 53 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया 43 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा डुमरतराई, मेन रोड डुमरतराई, जिला रायपुर (छ॰ ग॰)

कुरमैचा शाखा, जी॰टी॰ रोड, कुरमैचा जिला-संत रविदास नगर उत्तर प्रदेश पिन 211003

44 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

54 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया नारायणपुर शाखा मेन रोड, जयस्तंभ के पास, नारायणपुर (छ॰ग॰) 494661

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, रीवा 45 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

बरौत शाखा पोस्ट-बरौत, ब्लाक-इंडिया जिला इलाहाबाद उ॰ प्र॰ पिन 221502

55 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया अमरपाटन शाखा, 128/2 नगर पंचायत रोड, सुभाष चौक अमरपाटन, जिला सतना, म॰प्र॰ पिन 485775

46 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

छत्रपति शाहूजी महाराज नगर, गौरीगंत शाखा जिला-छत्रपति शाहूजी महाराज नगर (अमेठी) उ॰प्र॰ पिन 227409

56 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया पन्ना शाखा, 13 शासकीय गृह निर्माण संस्थान के पास, बीटीआई रोड, जिला पन्ना, म॰ प्र॰ पिन 488001

बीना शाखा, नार्दल कोल फील्ड्‌स लि॰ बीना प्रोजेक्ट, जिला-सोनभद्र, उ॰प्र॰ पिन 231220

47 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

57 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

अनूपपुर शाखा, वार्ड, नं॰ 07, अमरकंटक तिराहा, अनूपपुर म॰प्र॰ पिन 484224

शांतिपुरम शाखा, जी-2, गोहरी रोड, शांतिपुरम, फाफामऊ जिला इलाहाबाद, उ॰प्र॰ पिन 211013

58 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया 48 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया ट्रांसपोर्टनगर सतना शाखा 2/1, ट्रांसपोर्ट नगर सतना, रीवा रोड जिला सतना म॰ प्र॰ पिन 485001

अगियौना शाखा, रिजवी इंस्टीट्‌यूट ऑफ इंजिनियरग एण्ड टेक्नालाजी, अगियौना, मंझनपुर, जिला-कौशाम्बी उ॰प्र॰ 2212207 49 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

अतरेला शाखा, ग्राम पोस्ट अतरैला, त्यौथर, जिला रीवा म॰प्र॰-485001

59 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया जमुनीपुर अठगवां शाखा, पोस्ट-मोड़ जिला संत रविदास नगर पिन 221406

50 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

60 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

रहट शाखा, 241 ग्राम रहट, पोस्ट रहट रीवा पिन 484446

51 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

कौलापुर शाखा, राजपूत ढाबा के पास पोस्ट-गोपीगंज जिला संत रविदास नगर उ॰ प्र॰ पिन 221303 61 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

वीरमपुर शाखा, ब्लाक-अभौली जिला संत रविदास नगर उ॰ प्र॰ पिन 221308 तेंदुआ शाखा, रीवा रोड ग्राम तेंदुआ, पोस्ट पदखुरी जिला सीध्ी पिन 4866695232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

73. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, 62 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

आशियाना शाखा, एम 1 ए, सेक्टर आई, आशियाना, लखनऊ-226012

74. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, भुर्की शाखा विकास भवन, जिला हेडक्वार्टर, पोस्ट-ज्ञानपुर, जिला संत रविदास नगर-उ॰प्र॰ पिन 221304

63 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

सेक्टर ओ शाखा, सिटी मांटेसरी स्कूल, सेक्टर ओ, अलीगंज, लखनऊ-226024 नटवाँ औरंगाबाद शाखा पोस्ट-खमरिया जिला संत रविदास नगर, उ॰ प्र॰ पिन-221306

75. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया विभूती खंड शाखा, विभूती खंड, मंत्री आवास के पास, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ-226010

76. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, 64 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया महजूदा बाजार शाखा पोस्ट भोरी जिला-संत रविदास नगर उ॰प्र॰ पिन-221404

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, कानपुर 65 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

कुसमाहा शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट कुसमाहा, फैजाबाद, अकबरपुर रोड, फैजाबाद-224135

77. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, गुलामऊ (वित्तीय समावेशन) शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट गुलामऊ, ब्लॉक बावन, जिला हरदोई, पिनकोड 241001

32 बटालियन, पी ए सी, लखनऊ शाखा, पी ए सी आलमबाग, लखनऊ-226005 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, लखनऊ 66 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

78. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, भगा शाखा मोहल्ला टंडवा, पोस्ट भगा, पिन 271831

हरदोईया शाखा, सी पी एल इंटर कालेज, हरदोईया, आदमपुर, लखनऊ 67 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

79. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, सेक्टर क्यू शाखा सरस्वती विद्या मंदिर, सेक्टर क्यू अलीगंज, लखनऊ-226024

मौरा शाखा, सैंथा क्रासिंग, दुबग्गा माल रोड, चरक इंस्टिट्‌यूट, लखनऊ-227107

80. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, 68 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया यू पी स्टेट एग्रो शाखा यू पी एग्रो इंडिस्ट्रयल कार्पोरेशन विधन सभा मार्ग, लखनऊ-226001

69 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

कुचेरा शाखा, कुचेरा बाजार, फैजाबाद, जगदीशपुर रोड, जिला फैजाबाद-224158 यू पी स्टेट शुगर कार्पोरेशन शाखा यू पी स्टेट शुगर कार्पोरेशन, विपिन खंड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ-226010

70 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, देहरादून 81 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, यूनियन लोन पॉइंट शाखा, इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया, इंद्रेश अस्पताल के पास, पटेल नगर, उत्तराखंड-248001 2 बटालियन पी ए सी सीतापुर शाखा पी ए सी लखनऊ रोड, सीतापुर-261001

71 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

82. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, बड़ासी ग्रांट शाखा, पोस्ट बड़ासी ग्रांट, ब्लाक रायपुर, तहसील देहरादून सदर, जिला देहरादून, पिन-248008

लहरपुर शाखा रियाज़ मार्केट, मेन माजाशाह क्रासग, लहरपुर, सीतापुर-260135

83. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, 72 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया

घनसाली शाखा, शाह भवन, चिमयाला रोड, जिला टिहरी गढ़वाल, उत्तराखंड सिधैली शाखा सुमंडपम मैरेज हाल, सिधैली, सीतापुर[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5233 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

94. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, जबलपुर 84. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

टीएफआरआई शाखा, ग्राम नीमखेडा, डाक आरएएफआरसी मंडला मार्ग, जबलपुर-482021

युवराजपुर शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट युवराजपुर, ब्लाक रेवतीपुर, तहसील सदर, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः 232332

85. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

95. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, वारासिवनी शाखा, कटंगी रोड, वारा सिवनी-481331

86. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

कामुपुर शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट कामुपुर, ब्लाक बरछावर, तहसील मोहम्मदाबाद, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः 232229

96. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, तेवर शाखा, ग्राम व डाक तेवर, भेंडाघाट मार्ग, जबलपुर-482001

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, रांची 87. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

मतसा शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट जीवपुर, ब्लाक जमनिया, तहसील मोहम्मदाबाद, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः 232340 कांडरा शाखा, गुरुगोविंद सिंह एजुकेशन सोसायटीज, टेक्नीकल कैंपस, कांडरा, डाक चास, बोकारो, जिला बोकारो, पिनः 827004

88. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

97. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, कुचौरा उपरवार शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट कुचौरा उपरवार, ब्लाक करंडा, तहसील सदर, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः 232224

जामताडा शाखा, 204, न्यू टाऊन, जामताडा, जिला जामताडा, झारखंड, पिन 815351

98. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, नारी पचदेवारा शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट नारी पचदेवारा, ब्लाक देवकली, तहसील सदर, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः 233002

89. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, चास शाखा 564150 राजलक्ष्मी टावर बायपास रोड, चास डाक-चास, बोकारो, जिला-बोकारो-पिनः 827013

99. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, 90. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

चंदवा शाखा 564834 मेन रोड चंदवा जिला-लातेहार, झारखण्ड पिनः 829 203

अरखपुर शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट अरखपुर, ब्लॉक बिरनों, तहसील सदर, जिला गाजीपुर, पिन 233005 91. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

100. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, चतरा शाखा-564567, सुशीला कॉम्प्लेक्स, गुदड़ी बाजार, चतरा गया रोड, जिला-चतरा, पिनः 825401

सौरी शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट सौरी, ब्लाक मनिहारी, तहसील सैदपुर, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः कोड 275205 92. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

101. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, यूएलपी जमशेदपुरा शाखा 563163 पहली मंजिल, कमानी सेंटर बिष्टुपुर, जमशेदपुर, जिला-पूर्वी सिंघभूम, झारखण्ड-831001

पप्रपुर रामराई शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट पप्रपुर रामराई, ब्लाक जखनिया, तहसील जखनिया, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः 275203

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गाजीपुर 93. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

102. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

करहिया शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट पखनपुरा, मछटी, जिला गाजीपुर पिन कोडः 233227

सरहुला शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट सरहुला, ब्लाक रेवतीपुर, तहसील जखनिया, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः 2323265234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

103. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

113. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

बीरपुर शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट बीरपुर, ब्लाक भंवरकोल, जिला गाजीपुर, पिनः 233231

कुजाड शाखा, दातार चैंबर के सामने, कठलाल हाई वे, कुजाड, तालुकाः दसक्रोई, जिलाः अहमदाबाद, राज्यः गुजरात, पिनः 382 430 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, आगरा 104. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, राजकोट 114. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

राजदा शापिंग सेंटर, जोधपुर गेट, जमखंभालिया, जिला जामनगर, पिनः 361305 बी सी एस शाखा, 4 पश्चिम, गोविंदनगर, भारतीय चर्म उद्योग संघ, साकेत, न्यू शाहगंज, जिला आगरा, उ॰ प्र॰-282010

105. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

शहीदनगर आगरा शाखा, राजपुर चुंगी के समीप, शमशाबाद रोड, आगरा उ॰ प्र॰-282007

115. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, गाेंडल शाखा, शॉप नं॰ 37, कैलाश काम्प्लेक्स ए विंग, गुंदाला गेट के पास, गुंदाला पेट्रोल पंप के सामने, गोंडल, जिला राजकोट, गुजरात, पिन-360311

106. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, विकासभवन, डबरई शाखा, नवीन कलेक्ट्रेट परिसर, विकास भवन, शिकोहाबाद मार्ग, डबरई जिला फिरोजाबाद, उ॰ प्र॰

116. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, जसदण शाखा गीता नगर, खादी भवन के पास, खानपुर रोड, जसदण जिला राजकोट, गुजरात-360050

117. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, 107. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, कोसीकलां शाखा, नन्दगांव रोड, रेलवे स्टेशन के सामने, मथुरा, उ॰ प्र॰-281403

108. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पिपलवा शाखा (वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा) बस स्टैंड के पास, पोस्ट पिपलवा, तलाला, जिला-जूनागढ़, गुजरात

118. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, चंदौसी शाखा, चंदौसी बाल विद्या मंदिर, मुंसिफमार्ग, भीमनगर, उ॰ प्र॰-202412

कडुका (वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा) नवरात्रि चौक, गांव एवं पोस्ट-कडुका, विया-लीलपुर जिला राजकोट, पिन-360050 109. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, एफ आई पैठा शाखा, पैठा ब्लाक, गोवर्धन, जिला मथुरा, उ॰ प्र॰ 281502

119. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, रामपरवेकरा शाखा, श्री वेकरा स्वामीनारायण मंदिर, गांव-रामपरवेकरा, जिला-कच्छ 370445

110. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, सेवा शाखा आगरा, प्रथमतल, प्रेफन्डसवासन प्लाजा, संजय प्लेस, आगरा, उ॰ प्र॰ 282002

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, नासिक 120 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

ब्रह्मणवाडा (वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा) तहसील सिन्नर (वाया नासिक रोड), जिला नासिक, महाराष्ट्र -422 109

121 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, 111. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, शिकोहाबाद शाखा, रुकनपुरा, आदर्श सिनेमा के सामने, मैनपुरी रोड, जिला फिरोजाबाद, उ॰प्र॰ 205135

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, 112. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, अहमदाबाद नागवासण शाखा,

वाणी (बुदरुक) शाखा, दुकान संख्या 23 से 25, 40 एवं 41, सुमन, हाईट्‌स, फेज-II कोणार्क विहार, फरांडे नगर, वाणी (बुदरुक) तहसील एवं जिला : नांदेड, महाराष्ट्र, पिनः 431 605 पोस्ट नागवसण, तालुका सिद्धपुर, जिला पाटन 384 151, राज्य गुजरात[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5235 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

132 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया 122 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

केलवणे (वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा) एच नं॰ 722, पोस्ट-केलवणे, तालुका-पनवेल, जिला रायगढ़, पिन 410 206 रावेर शाखा, शाप नं॰ 101, 102, 103, 104 एवं 115 छोरिया मार्केट, रावेर, तहसील रावेर जिला जलगांव

133 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय कोल्हापुर 123 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

महाद्वार रोड, कोल्हापुर शाखा बिनखांबी गणेश मंदिर, महाद्वार रोड, कोल्हापुर 416 412

124 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सानपाडा शाखा शॉप नं॰ 14-15, अखुरथ को॰ऑप॰हौ॰सो॰ प्लॉट नं॰ 11, सेक्टर-14, पा, बीच रोड के पास वाशी सानपाडा, नवी मुंबई 400 705

134 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया मोहोल शाखा पोस्ट-मोहोल, तालुका- मोहोल, जिला सोलापुर, पिन 413 307

125 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

लुईसवाडी शाखा रत्ना उमेद सेसिडेन्सी, उमेद नगर, पाईप लाईन रोड, लुईसवाडी, ठाणे (वेस्ट) पिन-400 604

135 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया मार्केट यार्ड, सांगली शाखा वसंतदादा मार्केट के सामने, मार्केट यार्ड, सांगली, जिला सांगली (महाराष्ट्र) पिन-416 416

126 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

स्टेशन रोड चेम्बूर (पश्चिम) शाखा स्वास्तिक प्राईड, तल मंजिल, डी॰के॰ सांडु मार्ग, चेंबूर (पश्चिम) मुंबई 400 071

केडगांव शाखा मकान नं॰ 410, गेट न॰ 78, ता करमाला, जिला सोलापुर, पिन 413 202

136 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय सूरत 127 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

रेलवे स्टेशन ठाणे (पश्चिम) शाखा गाला क्रं॰ 15, 16, तल मंजिल, पेराडाइज हाइट्‌स शिवाजी पथ, ठाणे पश्चिम 400 602 विशेषीकृत वित्तीय समावेशनप शाखा पोस्ट मांडव खडक, तालुका चिखली, जिला नवसारी, पिन 396 060

137 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय मुंबई 128 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पश्चिम नालासोपारा पूर्व शाखा,

शॉप नं॰ 4, 5, 6 जय विजय नगर के सामने, 100 फीट वसई नालासोपारा लिंक रोड, नालासोपारा (पूर्व), जिला-ठाणे 401 209

न्यू पनवेल शाखा गाला नं॰ 16 से 19, श्री दर्शन को॰ऑप॰हौ॰सो॰ सेक्टर 9, प्लॉट नं॰ 34 खांडा कॉलोनी, न्यू पनवेल (पश्चिम), नवी मुंबई 410 206

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय नागपुर 138 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय मुंबई 129 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया दक्षिण बांद्रा (पूर्व) शाखा

रेणुका को॰आ॰ हाउसिंग सोसायटी लिमिटेड़ गुरूनानक अस्पताल के पास, बांद्रा (पूर्व), मुंबई-400 051

कान्द्री कन्हान शाखा पोस्ट कान्द्री कन्हान, तालुका पारशिवनी नागपुर, जबलपुर महामार्ग, जिला नागपुर 441 401

क्षेत्रीय कार्यलय मुंबई उत्तर 130 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

139 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

टेंभुरखेड़ा शाखा (वित्तीय समावेशन) पोस्ट टेंभुरखेड़ा, तालुका वरुड जिला अमरावती 444 911 वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा कवाड खुर्द, पोस्ट-आनगांव, भिवंडी वाडा रोद, तालुका भिवंडी, पिन 421 302

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय बडौदा 140 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

131 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

एमआइसीआर सीपीसी आणंद शाखा समाशोधन गृह एवं माइकर सीपीसी केन्द्र शांतिनाथ कॉम्लेक्स, मेफेयर रोड, यूनियन बैंक के सामने, आणंद जिला आणंद, गुजरात 385 001 यूनियन लोन प्वांइट खारघर शॉप नं॰ 1-4, प्लॉट नं॰ 17-18, डेफोडिल्स, सेक्टर-19, खारघर, नवी मुंबई-410 2105236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

141 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मंजूसर शाखा 115/116, जीआईडीसी सावली गांव मंजूसर, गुजरात 385 001

150 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया गायत्रीनगर शाखा प्लाट नं॰ 3, गायत्रीनगर रोड गायत्रीनगर, कर्मनघाट हैदराबाद (आं॰प्र॰) - 500 097

151 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया 142 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया कारेलीबाग शाखा सृष्टि एवेन्यू, शॉप नं॰ 1-4 आम्रपाली काम्पलेक्स के सामने पानी की टांकी रोड, पो ऑ कारेलीबाग जिला वडोदरा

रुद्रारम शाखा गीतम विश्वविद्यालय कैम्पस, रुद्रारम गांव, मंडल-पटानचेरू, जिला-मेदक (आंध्र प्रदेश) पिन-502 329

152 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया 143 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया छोटा उदयपुर शाखा हाउस नं॰ 5/704, विकास पथ, कुसुम सागर के पास, छोटा उदेयपुर, जिला बडौदा 391 165

144 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

अंबाला शाखा, मकान नं॰ 6-4/3, श्रीरामुलापल्ली, ग्राम-अंबाला, मंडल-कमलापुर, जिला-करीमनगर, आंध्र प्रदेश-505 102

153 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नरसंडा शाखा पोस्ट नरसंडा तालुका नडियाद, खेडा जिला गुजरात 387 345

145 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

अन्नारम शाखा मकान नं॰ 4-67, मैं रोड, ग्राम पंचायत के सामने, ग्राम-अननरम, मंडल-मांकोंडुर, जिला-करीमनगर, आंध्र प्रदेश-505 469 मांजलपुर शाखा भुतल, हंसा पार्टी प्लांट व्रजधाम मंदिर रोड, मांजलपुर, जिला बडौदा 390 011

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय विजयवाडा154 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया 146 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

लतीपुरा शाखा, पोस्ट लतीपुरा तालुका पादरा, जिला बडौदा, बडौदा 391 440

147 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मंगलगिरी शाखा क्र॰ 1-643, पहला तल गौतम बुद्ध रोड (मेईन रोड), मंगलगिरी, गुंटूर जिला, आं॰ प्र॰ पिन 522 503

155 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सांसरोद शाखा, कमल सैयद आवास, ब्राह्मण फलिये के पास पो॰ ओ॰ सांसरोद तालुका करजन जिला बडौदा 392 220 गुजरात

मेडेपल्ली शाखा डोर क्र॰ 2-39, हनुमान मंदिर के निकट मेडेपल्ली 507158 मुंदिगोंडा मंडल, खम्मम जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

156 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बसवपुरम शाखा नं॰ 01-22, कुडुमूरु बाजार बसवपुरम, 507318, चिंतकानी मंडल खम्मम जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय बेलगाम 148 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया एम॰आई॰सी॰आर॰ शाखा, बैंकर्स क्लियरिंग हाउस 1049/बी 2, खानापुर रोड, (रिलायंस पेट्रोलियम के सामने), तिलकवाड़ी जिला बेलगाम (कर्नाटक) पिन 590 006

157 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय हैदराबाद 149 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कोडवीडू शाखा कोडवीडू गांव, एडलापाडू मंडल, गुंटूरु 522529 आंध्र प्रदेश सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया शाखा सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया काम्पलेक्स उप्पल रोड हैदराबाद (आं॰ प्र॰) - 500 039[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5237 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय 166 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, विशाखापट्‌टणम वित्तीय समावेशन शाखा, लक्कवरम 158 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया सतेनपल्ली शाखा डोर नं॰ 18-7-36, सूर्या टाकीज रोड, डाक व मंडल सतेनपल्ली 522 403, गुंटुरु जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

मैन रोड, ग्राम लक्कवरम चोडवरम-मंडलम जिला विशाखापट्‌टणम (आ॰प्र॰) पिन 531075

167 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, 159 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया देवरापल्ली शाखा डोर क्र॰ 4-131 मेइन रोड, कोव्वूरु रोड, देवरापल्ली 534 313 पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

पेंदूर्ती शाखा, 80 फीट रोड, रत्नगिरी नगर चिन्ना मुशिरिवाडा, पेंदुर्ती जिला विशाखापट्‌टणम आं॰प्र॰ पिन-530051 160 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मारुटेरु शाखा डोर नं॰ 5-91, डाक व गांव मारुटेरु ला प गूडेम पालकोल रोड, पेनुमंत्रा मंडल, मारुटेरु 534 122, प॰ गोदावरी जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

168 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, चेपला उप्पाडा शाखा ग्राम एवं पोस्ट-चेपला उप्पाडा भीमुनिपटनम मंडल जिला विशाखापट्‌टणम आं॰प्र॰ पिन-531163

169 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, 161 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया जंगारेड्‌डीगूडेेम शाखा कोव्वूरू रोड, के॰ के॰ काम्पलेक्स, दरवाजा क्र॰ 5-2-29/2 गंगानम्मा मंदिर के निकट, जंगारेड्‌डीगूडेम 534447 आंध्र प्रदेश

ईताकोटा शाखा ग्राम एवं पोस्ट ईताकोटा राउलपालेम मंडल जिला-पूर्व गोदावरी आं॰प्र॰ 533238

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय सिलीगड़ी 170 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, 162 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पिडुगुराल्ला शाखा डोर क्र॰ 7-4-07, विग्नेशवरा काम्पलेक्स, मेईन रोड, डाक व मंडल पिडुगुराल्ला 522 413 गुंटूरु जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

भालुका रोड शाखा मसालदह बाजार, पोस्ट-करियाली जिला मालदा (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिन 732125

163 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

171 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, तिरुवूरु शाखा डोर नं॰ 5-147, कालेज रोड, बोस बोममा के पास, डेवलपमेंट ब्लॉक, तिरुवूरु 521 235 कृष्णा जिला विजयवाडा

कलिंगपोंग शाखा थाना दरा, पोस्ट कलिंगपोंंग, जिलाः दार्जलिंग 734401 (पश्चिम बंगाल)

164 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

172 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

बिश्नुपुरशाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट बिश्नुपुर वायाः रामपुरहाट जिलाः बीरभूम पिन 731244 (प॰बं॰) बुधवार मार्केट प॰ गोदावरी जिला शाखा डोर नं॰ 16-2-207, पी पी रोड, बुधवार मार्केट, भीमवरम 534 201, प॰ गोदारी जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

173 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

165 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नरसाराव पेट शाखा डोर क्र॰ 9-9-44, क स्ट्रीट अरंडल पेट, नरसाराव पेट 522 601 गुंटूरु जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

बोलपुर शाखा मिशन कम्पाउण्ड, पोस्ट बोलपुर, जिला बीरभूम (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिन 7312045238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

182 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, 174 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

जोरथंग शाखा, जोरथंग बाजार, पोस्ट नया बाजार, जोरथंग (दक्षिण सिक्किम) पिन 737 121

डाबग्राम शाखा 558, सूर्या नगर, 1 नं॰ डाबग्राम सिलीगुड़ी जिला दार्जीलिंग (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिन 734006

183 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

175 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

कुंदल शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट कुंदल जिला मुर्शिदाबाद (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिन 731246

184 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, दार्जीलिंग शाखा 5, डॉ एस एम दास रोड, आनंद पैलेस होटल, (पहली मंजिल) पोस्ट व जिला दार्जीलिंग (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिन 734101

176 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

कुनुरी शाखा ग्राम व पोस्टः कुनुरी जिलाः बीरभूम (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिन 731252

185 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, देशबंधु पाडा शाखा, सिलीगुड़ी देशबंधु रोड, पोस्टः सिलीगुड़ी टाउन जिला दार्जीलिंग, पिन 734004

177 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

मारग्राम शाखा, ग्राम व पोस्ट मारग्राम, जिला बीरभूम (पश्चिम बंगाल), पिन 731 217

186 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, धूपगडी शाखा बी आर कॉम्प्लेक्स, पहली मंजिल, फलाकांटा रोड, धूपगडी, जिला जलापईगुडी (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिनः 735210

मंगन शाखा, मंगन बाजार मंगन जिला उत्तरी सिक्किम, पिन 737 116

178 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

187 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, गंगाधारी शाखा ग्राम व पोस्टः गंगाधारी, जिला मुर्शिदाबाद (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिनः 742121

179 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

नारायणपुर शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट नारायणपुर वाया रामपुरहाट, जिला बीरभूम (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिनः 731 239

188 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, गंगटोक शाखा एन॰एच॰ 31, एम जी मार्ग, गंगटोक (सिक्किम) पिन 737101

180 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

पुलिंदा शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट पुलिंदा जिला मुर्शिदाबाद (पश्चिम बंगाल), पिन 742 121

189 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, गीजिंग शाखा, पेमायांग्त्से मॉनेस्टरी, गीजिंग बाजार, ओल्ड अद्दा बिल्डिंग, गीजिंग, जिला पश्चिम सिक्किम पिनः 737111

रामपुरहाट शाखा ग्राम व पोस्ट रामपुरहाट जिला बीरभूम (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिनः 731 224

190 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, 181 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, जलपाईगुडी शाखा, 240/ए पहली मंजिल, टैम्पल स्ट्रीट, जिलाः जलपाईगुडी (पश्चिम बंगाल) पिन 735101

रानीपूल शाखा, एन एच 31ए, रानीपूल जिला पूर्व सिक्किम पिन-737 138[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5239 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

200 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, 191 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

सेंथिया शाखा, नजरुल इस्लाम सारनी, पोस्टः सेंथिया, जिला बीरभूम (प॰बं॰) पिन 731 234

192 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

बालुरघाट शाखा, प्रमोद भवन, लीला लॉज के सामने, नारायणपुर, बालुरघाट, जिला दक्षिण दीनाजपुर (प॰बं॰), पिन 733 101

201 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, शाल्दामोर शाखा पोस्टः एम डी बाजार, जिला बीरभूम (प॰बं॰) पिन 731 127

सेवा शाखा, सुखसदन, 37, बिपिन पाल सरनी, कॉलेज पाडा, सिलीगुडी (प॰बं॰) पिन 734 001

193 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

202 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, सिलीगुडी मुख्य शाखा, कृष्णा हाउस, हिल कार्ट रोड, सिलीगुडी (प॰बं॰) पिन 734 001

194 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, सचिन सौरव अपार्टमेंट, अशुतोष मुखर्जी रोड, कॉलेज पाडा, सिलीगुडी (प॰बं॰), पिन 734 001

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय गोवा 203 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, सिंगटॉम शाखा, मेन रोड, पोस्ट सिंगटॉम, जिला पूर्वी सिक्किम पिन 737 134

195 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

कारमोना शाखा सालकेटे, पो॰ कारमोना, गोवा दक्षिण गोवा पिन 403 717

204 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, सिवडी शाखा, न्यू दंगलपाडा, नया बस स्टैण्ड के पास, पोस्ट सिवडी पिन 731101 जिला बीरभूम (प॰बं॰)

फोंडाघाट शाखा 342/2 बी उगाई कॉम्प्लेक्स, बाजार पथ, जिला सिन्धुदुर्ग महाराष्ट्र, पिन 406 601 196 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

205 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, सिक्किम मणिपाल इंस्टीट्‌यूट ऑफ टैक्नालॉजी शाखा (एसएमआईटी) माजीतार, जिला पूर्वी सिक्किम, पिन 737 132

दापोली शाखा एच एण्ड डी हाऊस, फेंमिली मॉल रोड, ता॰ दापोली, जिला रत्नागिरी, पिन 415 712

206 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, 197 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, सिलीगुडी महाकुमा परिषद, (एसएमी) सिलीगुडी शाखा सिलीगुडी, (प॰बं॰), पिनः 734001

सेवा शाखा, मॉडल रेसिडेन्सी शॉप नं॰ 6, 7, 8 सांतिनेज चर्च रोड, सांतिनेज पणजी जिलाः उत्तर गोवा, पिन 403001

198 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

207 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया, सिलीगुडी इन्स्टीट्‌यूट ऑफ टेक्नालॉजी, एस आई टी शाखा, सलबरी, सुकना, सिलीगुडी, जिला दार्जीलिंग (प॰बं॰) पिनः 734 225

कुवरभाब शाखा, श्री समर्थ कृपा, पडवेवाडी मीरजोलि, ग्राम कुवारभाव, जिला रत्नागिरी महाराष्ट्र, पिन 415 639

199 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

208 यूनियन बक ऑफ इंडिया,

गुहागर शाखा, गुहागर एस टी डिपो के पास पोस्ट एवं तालुका गुहागर जिला रत्नागिरी, महाराष्ट्र, पिन 415 703 फालाकाटा शाखा, सुभाष पल्ली, फालाकाटा, जिलाः जलपाईगुडी (प॰बं॰), पिन 735 2115240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय का नाम क्र॰ सं॰ शाखा/कार्यालय का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय 209 यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, तिरूवनंतपुरम कांतलूर शाखा, कोविलकडवु, 210/8,

सहायगिरी पो॰ आ॰ इडुक्की जिला-620 685

210. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पाला शाखा, मून्स भवन, मिनि सिविल स्टेशन के सामने, पाला 686 557-कोट्‌टयम जिला,

211. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, पोन्कन्नम, शाखा (वाषूर) वट्‌टकाट्‌टु भवन, केविएमएस जंक्शन, एनएच, पोन्कुन्नम, 220-जिला कोट्‌टयम पिन-686 575

212. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

वैकम शाखा, कणियंपरंबिल, आर्केड, वलिय कवल बस स्टैण्ड, वैकम, जिला कोट्‌टयम पिन-686 141

213. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

अरूर शाखा, डोर क्र॰ VII/896-बि, 47 एन॰एच॰जी॰ पी॰एच॰ सेन्टर और ग्रामीण कार्यालय के पास अरुरआलप्पुष्पा,

214. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, कार्तिकपल्ली शाखा, कोच्चुपरंबिल भवन, आलप्पुष्पा, पिन-690 516

215. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, काडुतुरथी (वैकम) शाखा, पहली मंजिल, कुमार कॉम्प्लेक्स, सेन्ट्रल कॉम्प्लेक्स, कुडुतरूथी, वैकम तालुक कोट्‌टयम जिला पिन-686 604

216. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

कुमिलि शाखा, दुबाई कॉम्प्लैक्स, एन॰एच॰ 220 कुमिलि पिन-685 509

217. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

वंडिप्पेरियार शाखा, जया भवन, के॰के॰ रोड, वडिप्पेरियार पो॰आ॰, इडुक्की जिला पिन-685 533

218. यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

कुमारपुरम शाखा (तिरूवनंतपुरम), देवी स्कैन्स्‌ भवन, कुमारपुरम, मेडिकल कॉलेज, पो॰ आ॰ 7. तिरूवनंतपुरम पिन-695 011 राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम 10 (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित की जाने वाली शाखाओं की सूची

दिल्ली क्षेत्र

क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

219. मयूर विहार फेस III-2442 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

प्लॉट नं॰ 7 एवं 8, अग्रवाल टावर

डीडीए, शॉपिंग केन्द्र,

कोंडली घरौली, मयूर विहार

फेस-III, दिल्ली-110 096

220. नांगलोई, दिल्ली-2443 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

ए-20, अध्यापक नगर

नज़फगढ़ रोड

हनुमान मंदिर के सामने

नांगलोई,

दिल्ली-110 041

221. मेहरौली, दिल्ली-2444 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

893-ए/8, भूतल, मैन बाजार

मेहरौली

दिल्ली-110 030

222. द्वारका सेक्टर-20, 2445 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

जी-4, भूतल,

मनीष हाई प्लाजा

प्लॉट नं॰ 25

सेवा केन्द्र, सेक्टर 20, द्वारका

नई दिल्ली-110 075

223. अशोक विहार-2259 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

ए-6 अशोक विहार

फेस-II

नार्थ डिस्ट्रिक्ट

नई दिल्ली-110 052

224. मौर्य इन्क्लेव इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

29, 30, 31 के॰पी॰ ब्लॉक

पेसिफिक मॉल, पीतम पुरा (वेस्ट)

मौर्य इन्क्लेव

नार्थ वेस्ट डिस्ट्रिक्ट

नई दिल्ली 110 034

225. नजफगढ़-2261 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

आर॰ जेड-15 भूतल

पुराना रोशनपुरा

नजफगढ़

वेस्ट डिस्ट्रिक्ट

नई दिल्ली-110 043[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5241 क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

226. आनन्द विहार-2356 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

जी-1, प्लॉट नं॰ 11 चेतन कम्प्लैक्स III सूरज मल विहार लोकल शॉपिंग सेन्टर आनन्द विहार नई दिल्ली-110 092

227. मुण्डका-2357 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

खसरा नं॰ 428/4 गॉवः मुण्डका दिल्ली 110 041

228. महीपाल पुर-2358 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

ए-7, ब्रहमपुत्र हाऊस दिल्ली-110 037

229. संचार भवन इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

संचार एवं सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग, संचार भवन संचार मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार अशोक रोड नई दिल्ली-110 001

230. ईस्ट ऑफ कैलाश शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक सी-36, राजा हसन मार्ग ईस्ट ऑफ कैलाश नई दिल्ली-110 048

231. मयूर विहार फेज़-II शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

23 प्रथम तल कृष्णा आर्केड एल॰एस॰सी॰, मयूर विहार फेज़-II नई दिल्ली-110 092

लखनऊ क्षेत्र

232. अयोध्या, 2369 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

पुराना बस स्टैंड, हनुमानगढी, अयोघ्या,-224133-उ॰प्र॰

233. चित्रकूट धाम (कर्वी)-2472 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

440/2, द्वारिकापुरी, मंदाकिनी रोड पुरानी बाजार कर्वी-उ॰ प्र॰, पिन-210205

234. गोसाईगंज-2516 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

प्लाट नं॰ 28, सदरपुर करोरा, गोसाईगंज, जिला-लखनऊ उ॰ प्र॰, पिन-227125 क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

235. इटौंजा-2517 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक प्लाट नं॰ 215, वार्ड नं॰ 7 नगर पंचायत, इटौंजा, जिला-लखनऊ उ॰ प्र॰ पिन-226205

236. लालगंज-2370 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

काकाकुंज, महेश नगर, महेश नगर, लालगंज जिला-रायबरेली, उ॰ प्र॰ 229 206

237. महोना-2512 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

मकान नं॰ 533, शेख टोला इटौंजा-कुर्सी, महोना जिला-लखनऊ, उ॰ प्र॰-227205

238. मऊ आइमा-2471 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

172, स्टेशन रोड, मऊ आइमा, जिला-इलाहाबाद उ॰ प्र॰-212501

239. पट्‌टी-2511 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक मकान नं॰ 1, वार्ड नं॰ 2, सिविल लाइन, पट्‌टी टाउन, जिला-प्रतापगढ़, उ॰ प्र॰-230135

240. सीतापुर-2181 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

मेन मार्केट रोड, सीतापुर-273402, उ॰ प्र॰

241. सुल्तानपुर-2386 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

सिविल लाइन्स, बस रोड के सामने सुल्तानपुर-228001, उ॰ प्र॰

242. प्रतापगढ़-2362 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

चावला आर्केड, भंगवा चूंगी, प्रतापगढ़-230001 उ॰ प्र॰

243. जैदपुर (बाराबंकी)-2361 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

रायेन काम्प्लेक्स, सिधोर रोड, जैदपुर-225414, जिला-बाराबंकी उ॰ प्र॰

244. चन्दौली-2572 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

प्लाट नं॰ 453, शंकर सिंह, अस्पताल के पास, चन्दौली-232104, उ॰ प्र॰5242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

245. माती-2571 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

प्लाट नं॰ 56, माती बाजार, रैदुआ पल्हरी, चिनहटदेवा रोड, पो॰-मुरादाबाद, माती-225301 जिला-बाराबंकी-उ॰ प्र॰

246. महारागंज-2557 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

989, शास्त्री नगर, नगरपालिका परिषद, महाराजगंज, 273303-उ॰ प्र॰

247. महेवा पट्‌टी-2556 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

46डी, इंदलपुर रोड, पुलिस चौकी के सामने, एमपी चौराहा, नैनी, इलाहाबाद-211007-उ॰ प्र॰

मेरठ क्षेत्र

248. भानियावाला-2503 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक

आर्शीवाद भवन, दुर्गा चौक, ऋषिकेश रोड, भानियावाला पोस्ट-डोईवाला, जिला देहरादून-248198

249. जलालपुर-2467 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक जहार वीर मंदिर के पास, खैर रोड, कोईल नहसी, ग्राम जलालपुर-202 001,

250. काशीपुर इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2217 चामुण्डा कॉम्पलैक्स,

रामनगर रोड, काशीपुर, पिन - 244713, जिला - उद्यम सिंह नगर (उत्तराखण्ड)

251. कर्ण प्रयाग इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2529 होटल पार्कदीप, पो॰आ॰ गाँधीनगर,

कर्ण प्रयाग, जिला - चमौली, पिन - 246444, गढ़वाल, उत्तराखण्ड

252. रामनगर इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2216 इंगवाल टावर,

एम॰पी॰ कॉलेज फील्ड के सामने रामनगर, पिन - 244715, जिला - नैनीताल (उत्तराखण्ड) क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

253. रुद्रप्रयाग इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2530 नये बस स्टैण्ड के पास,

रुद्रप्रयाग, जिला - रुद्रप्रयाग, उत्तराखण्ड, पिन - 246171

254. स्टेडियम रोड, बरेली इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2365 पह-5/15, स्टेडियम रोड़,

डीडी पुरम, बरेली, पिन - 243005

255. सुद्दोवाला इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2305 23 ग्रा॰ सुद्दोवाला,

पो॰आ॰ झाझरा तालुक विकास नगर, ब्लॉक नगर, ब्लॉक सहसपुर, देहरादून, पिन - 248007

256. श्रीनगर - गढ़वाल इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2528 संजय टॉकीज बिल्डिंग,

श्रीनगर - गढ़वाल, बद्रीनाथ मैन रोड, पो॰आ॰ पॉड़ी गढ़वाल, उत्तराखण्ड

257. विकास नगर इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2502 बख्तावर सिंह मार्ग,

मुख्य बाजार, विकास नगर, जिला - देहरादून, पिन - 248198

पटना क्षेत्र

258. पूर्णिया शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

मधुबनी बाजार सहरसा रोड़, पूर्णिया, पिन - 854301 जिला - पूर्णिया, बिहार

259. बोरिंग रोड शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

न्यू पाटलिपुत्र कॉलोनी, सी॰आई॰एस॰एफ॰ कार्यालय के पास बोरिंग रोड, पटना, पिन - 800013 जिला - पटना, बिहार

260. सिवान शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

वार्ड सं॰ 16, स्टेशन रोड बाबूनिया मोड़, सिवान, पिन - 841226 जिला - सिवान, बिहार[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5243 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

261. गोपालगंज शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

चूना गली (केनरा बक के पास) जादवपुर रोड़ गोपालगंज, पिन - 841428 जिला - गोपालगंज, बिहार

262. बिहार शरीफ शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

रामराज कॉम्पलेक्स, रामचन्द्रपुरी, बिहारशरीफ, पिन - 803101 जिला - नालन्दा, बिहार

263. मधुबनी शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

वाटसन इन्टर कॉलेज के पीछे, अस्पताल रोड, मधुबनी, पिन - 847211 जिला - मधुबनी, बिहार

264. छपरा शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

हनुमान मंदिर के पास, मौना गोला रोड़, छपरा, पिन - 841301 जिला - सारन, बिहार

265. बेगूसराय शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

श्याम कामर्शियल कॉम्पलैक्स, कचहरी रोड़, बेगूसराय, पिन - 851101 जिला - बेगूसराय

266. कहलगाँव शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

नव चेतना केन्द्र थाना रोड़, कहलगाँव रोड़, पिन - 813203 जिला - भागलपुर, बिहार

267. बक्सर शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

नवदुर्गा कॉम्पलैक्स कलेक्ट्रियट रोड, अम्बेदकर चौक, बक्सर, पिन - 802103 जिला - बक्सर, बिहार

268. आरा शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

महाराणा प्रताप नगर, न्यू पुलिस लाईन रोड़, आरा, पिन - 802301 जिला - भोजपुर

269. हिनू, राँची शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

हिनू, राँची शाखा, आईलेक्स शिवांगी कॉम्पलैक्स के पीछे, मेन रोड़ हिनू, राँची, पिन - 834002 जिला - राँची, बिहार क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

270. साहिबगंज शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

साहिबगंज शाखा, टाउन थाना, चौक बाजार के पास, शशि भूषण रोड़, साहेबगंज, पिन - 816109 जिला - साहेबगंज, बिहार

271. सरायढेला शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

सरायढेला शाखा, वार्ड सं॰ 28 मैन रोड़, सरायढेला धनबाद जिला - धनबाद, बिहार

272. चाईबासा शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

एल॰ डी॰ हाउस, अमला टोला सदर बाजार स्टेशन रोड़, चाईबासा, पिन - 833201, जिला - पश्चिम सिंहभूम, बिहार

273. साकची शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 66, पेन्नार रोड़ साकची, जमशेदपुर, पिन - 831001, जिला - पूर्व सिंहभूम, बिहार

274. कोडरमा शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

प्लॉट सं॰ 3409, वार्ड सं॰ 6, पंजाब होटल के पास, पटना राँची रोड, कोडरमा, पिन - 825410, जिला - कोडरमा, बिहार

275. सिमरी शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

प्रथम तल सिमरी गोविन्दपुर, सिमरी थाना के पास पोस्ट ऑफिस कंसी सिमरी, जिला - दरभंगा, पिन - 847106, बिहार

276. शिक्षा भवन शाखा, इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

बिहार राजभाषा परिषद्‌ कैम्पस, आचार्य शिवपूजन सहाय पथ सैदपुर, जिला - पटना, पिन - 800004

277. लोहरदगा शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

प्रथम तल, एम॰एम॰ मार्केट राना चौक, लोहरदगा, जिला - लोहरदगा, पिन - 835302

278. हाजीपुर शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

प्रथम तल एस॰एस॰ कॉम्पलैक्स, जौहरी बाजार हाजीपुर, वैशाली, बिहार, पिन - 8441015244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

279. भगवानपुर शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

प्रथम तल, गोपाल मार्केट, भगवानपुर चट्‌टी, रेवा रोड़, मुजफ्फरपुर, पिन - 842001

280. गोड्‌डा शाखा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

प्रथम तल, वार्ड सं॰ 6, पीरपती रोड़, हटिया चौक, गोड्‌डा, पिन - 814133, झारखंड

भोपल क्षेत्र

281. विदिशा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2167 प्लॉट नं॰ 60, वार्ड नं॰ 7,

एनएच-86, बस स्टैण्ड के पास, विदीशा, पिन - 464001

282. सीपीआरआई - भोपाल इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

2171 सेन्ट्रल पॉवर रिसर्च इंस्टीट्‌यूट,

गोविन्दपुरा, भोपाल, पिन - 460 023,

283. गोविन्दपुरा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

2233 6 पंजाबी बाग, गोविन्दपुरा,

भोपाल, पिन - 402023, जिला - भोपाल

284. मंडीदीप इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

2327 2-ए, इन्दिरा नगर, एचइजी मंडीदीप

के सामने, जिला - रायसेन, भोपल (म प्र), पिन - 462046

285. लालघाटी - भोपाल इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

2413 39 जानकी नगर, गुफा मंदिर रोड़,

गुफा मंदिर, लालघाटी, भोपाल, पिन - 462002

286. सीहोर इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक,

2419 मकान नंं॰ 40, जयन्ती कॉलोनी,

सेकडाखेडी रोड़, सीहोर, म॰प्र॰, पिन - 466001

287. गुलमोहर कॉलोनी - इन्दौर इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बक, 2415 सुभद्रा हाउस, 11

जय बिल्डर्स कॉलोनी, साकेत, गुलमोहर कॉलोनी के पास, इन्दौर, पिन - 452018

288 मुरवारा-कटनी इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2418 बर्डस्ले इंग्लिश स्कूल कैम्पस,

मुरबारा मिशन चौक, कटनी, वार्ड सं॰ 5, चन्द्रशेखर आजाद वार्ड, मकान सं॰436 से 436/9कटनी, म॰प्र॰, पिन-483 501 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

289 होशंगाबाद इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2416 प्लाट सं॰ 1 आनन्द नगर,

होशंगाबाद, म॰प्र॰, पिन-461 001

290 शिवपुरी इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2420 मकान सं॰ 1326, क्वार्टर सं॰3,

राम आर्केड, झांसी तिराहा,

ए॰बी॰रोड,

शिवपुरी, म॰प्र॰- 473 551

291 मुरैना इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2417 160/3, वार्ड सं॰ 34

एसपी बंग्ला के सामने,

एम॰एस॰ मुरैना, म॰प्र॰, पिन-476 001

292 देवास इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2414 01. मालवा शहनाई कॉम्प्लेक्स,

अपेक्स हास्पीटल के सामने,

तिलक नगर, ए॰ बी॰ रोड,

देवास, म॰प्र॰, पिन-455 001

293 रायगढ़ इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2466 प्रथम तल, मोदी प्लाजा,

जगतपुर रोड, रायगढ़,

छत्तीसगढ़, पिन - 496 001

294 टिल्डा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2323 आर॰के॰एस॰ प्लाजा, खरोरा रोड,

टिल्डा, डाकखाना - निओरा,

जिला - रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़,

पिन - 493 114

295 माना इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2324 द्वारा गौरी जोद्दार,

माना कैंप मेन रोड,

नयोदय क्वाटर्स के सामने,

जिला-रायपुर,

छत्तीसगढ़, पिन - 491 107

296 उतई इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2325 आशा कॉम्प्लेक्स (पाटन पुल),

मेन रोड, उतई, जिला - दुर्ग,

छत्तीसगढ़, पिन - 491 107

297 धनोरा इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2326 द्वारा दामोदर प्रसाद साहू,

ग्राम-धनोरा, डाकखाना-हनोदा,

जिला-दुर्ग, छत्तीसगढ़,

पिन-491 001[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5245 क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

जयपुर क्षेत्र

298 बपुई 2696 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

टिकाना बपुई ग्राम, बपुई, बोली तहसील सवाई माधोपुर, 322023 राजस्थान

299 टोंक 2682 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

द्वारिकेश, ननर बाग पैलेस रोड, टोंक-304001 राजस्थान

300 चांदपोल 2426 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक, 1193, उनियारों का रास्ता, चांदपोल बाजार, जयपुर, पिन-313324 राजस्थान

301 विद्याधर नगर 2427 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

शॉप नं 20-24, ग्राउंड फ्लोर, अलंकार प्लाजा, सेंट्रल स्पाइन, विद्याधर नगर, 303303 राजस्थान

302 जैसलमेर 2428 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

बी-453, मंदिर पैलेस के सामने, ताजिया टावर के पास, जैसलमेर, पिन-321001 राजस्थान

303 राजसमंद 2429 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

पगरिया इस्टेट, पगरिया मार्केट, मुखर्जी सर्किल, राजसमंद, पिन-306401 राजस्थान

304 बाड़मेर 2430 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

गोस्वामी टावर, रॉय कॉलोनी रोड, सिविल हॉस्पिटल बिल्डिंग, बाड़मेर, पिन-322001 राजस्थान

305 चित्तौडगढ़ 2431 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

इनानी रेसीडेंसी, भीलवाड़ा रोड, चित्तौड़गढ़, पिन-332001 राजस्थान

306 दौसा 2432 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

प्लॉट नं 1-2-3, नेशनल हाइवे-11, जयपुर आगरा रोड, दौसा, पिन - 312001 राजस्थान

307 बूंदी 2433 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

देवश्री कॉम्प्लेक्स, बाईपास रोड, बूंदी, पिन - 302023 राजस्थान क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

308 भरतपुर 2434 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

सिंघल नरसिंह होम, काली की बगीची के सामने, सर्कुलर रोड, भरतपुर, पिन - 344001 राजस्थान

309 सवाई माधोपुर 2435 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

शुक्ला भवन, गोवर्धन कॉलोनी, न्यू ग्रेन मंडी रोड, सवाई माधोपुर, पिन - 323001 राजस्थान

310 सीकर 2436 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

बाइस्कोप प्राइवेट लिमिटिड के पास, शास्त्री नगर, रानी सती रोड, सीकर, पिन - 302001 राजस्थान

311 हनुमानगढ़ 2437 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

बाबा श्याम सिंह कॉम्प्लेक्स, हनुमानगढ़, पिन - 345001 राजस्थान

312 पाली 2438 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

जय नारायण व्यास कॉलोनी, पाली, पिन - 335512

313 महवा 2540 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

पुलिस स्टेशन के सामने, जयपुर आगरा रोड, महवा, दौसा, पिन - 321608 राजस्थान

314 निवाई 2539 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

नगर पालिका जयपुर कोटा रोड जमात निवाई, पिन - 304021 राजस्थान

315 लालसोट 2541 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

अनाज मंडी के पास, सवाई माधोपुर रोड, लालसोट, पिन - 303503 राजस्थान

316 पुष्कर 2542 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

बस स्टैंड रोडवे के पास गुरुद्वारे के सामने पुष्कर-अजमेर, पिन - 305022 राजस्थान

317 आबु रोड 2330 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

वार्ड नं॰ 3 मनपुर, माउंट रोड, आबु रोड, सिरोही, पिन - 3072065246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

318 नीमराना 2307 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

शॉप नं॰ 32, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, नीमराना, अलवर, पिन - 301706 राजस्थान

319 बांदीकुई 2607 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

प्रथम तल, पुजारी का कटला 16 राजा बाजार, गल्र्स कॉलेज के पीछे, बांदीकुई, पिन - 303313 राजस्थान

320 राजगढ़ 2608 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

खसरा 551/0.5 एक्सिस बैंक एसबीबीजे के बीच, राजगढ़, जिला अलवर, पिन - 301408 राजस्थान

321 बांसवाड़ा 2698 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

तहसील ऑफिस के सामने बांसवाड़ा, जयपुर रोड मोहन कॉलोनी, बांसवाड़ा 327001 राजस्थान

322 मेहरा जाटूवास 2595 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

बस स्टैंड पटवारघर के पास, खसरा नं॰ 108, मेहरा जाटूवास, झंझुनु, पिन - 333036 राजस्थान

323 नागौर 2893 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

गांध्ी चौक रेलवे स्टेशन नागौर-341001 राजस्थान

324 अजमेर रोड 2790 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

125, ज्ञान विहार न्यू रोमा नर्सिंग होम, डीसीएम, अजमेर रोड, राजस्थान

325 रोहता 2597 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

5 वैष्णो विहार आगरा हाइवे रोहता आगरा 282001 उ॰ प्र॰

326 किरावली 2538 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक, कृषि प्रसार भवन के पास बाईपास रोड किरावली आगरा 283122 उ॰ प्र॰

327 एतमाद्‌पुर 2674 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

भीम मार्केट बरहन रोड एतमाद्‌पुर आगरा 283203 उ॰ प्र॰ क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

328 अछनेरा 2329 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

2414 अग्रवाल बिल्डिंग ग्राम अछनेरा, आगरा उ॰ प्र॰

329 फतेहाबाद 2895 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

पुलिस स्टेशन के पास, सदर बाजार, फतेहाबाद-283111

330 सिकंदरा रोड 2894 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

निहाल कॉम्पलेक्स, सेक्टर 5, उत्तर प्रदेश आवास विकास कॉलोनी सिकंदरा रोड, जिला-आगरा-282007 उ॰ प्र॰

331 दयाल बाग 2911 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

8/30 कौशल पुर, बाई पास रोड, दयाल बाग आगरा-282005 उ॰ प्र॰

332 बिचपुरी 2916 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक, आगरा बिचपुरी मैन रोड, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के सामने, बिचपुरी, जिला-आगरा-283105 उ॰ प्र॰

333 संजय प्लेस 2912 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

शॉप नं॰ 1-10 ग्राउंड फ्लोर 54 प्रतीक टावर एचडीएएसी बैंक के सामने, संजय प्लेस-आगरा-282002 उ॰ प्र॰

334 कीथम 2331 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

कीथम जिला-आगरा उ॰ प्र॰

335 फरह 2611 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

कैलाश नगर बाईपास फरह जिला-मथुरा 28112 उ॰ प्र॰

336 गोकुल 2613 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

नन्दद्वार, गोकुल जिला-मथुरा 281303 उ॰ प्र॰

337 राया 2614 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

195 रेलवे स्टेशन के सामने राया, मथुरा 281204 उ॰ प्र॰

338 गोवर्ध्न 2697 इण्डियन ओवरसीज़ बैंक,

कुंज बिहारी सेवा सदन राध कुंड रोड , बस स्टैंड के सामने गोवर्ध्न-281502 उ॰ प्र॰[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5247 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

339 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

348 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, एस॰ बी॰ कॉलेज, एस॰ बी॰ कॉलेज बिल्डिंग पो॰-पकड़ी जिला-भोजपुर (बिहार)

बांका, कटारिया रोड, बांका पोस्ट-बांका, जिला-बांका (बिहार)

349 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

340 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

शेखपुरा चांदनी चौक, सिनेमा रोड पो॰ शेखपुरा जिला-शेखपुरा (बिहार)

के॰ एल॰ एस॰ कॉलेज, गांध्ीनगर, नवादा, 3 नं॰ बस स्टैंड के पास, पो॰ नवादा, जिला-नवादा (बिहार)

341 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

350 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

किसान कॉलेज कैंपस, पो॰ सोहसराय, जिला-नालंदा (बिहार)

जम्होर ए॰ एन॰ रोड जम्होर पो॰ जम्होर, जिला-औरंगाबाद (बिहार)

342 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

351 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, फुलबारी शरीफ, खगौल रोड, काली मंदिर, पोस्ट-फुलबारी शरीफ जिलाः पटना (बिहार)

मोहनिया चांदनी चौक स्टुआर्ट गंज पो॰ मोहनिया, जिला-कैमूर (बिहार)

343 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

352 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, गंगादेवी महिला कॉलेज, गंगादेवी महिला कॉलेज परिसर, कंकड़बाग, लोहिया नगर, पटना (बिहार)

अंकरोहा, ग्रा॰पो॰ अंकरोहा, जिलाः औरंगाबाद (बिहार)

353 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

344 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पटना विश्वविद्यालय, पटना कॉलेज परिसर, अशोक राजपथ, पटना (बिहार)

जहानाबाद, अंबेडकर चौक, कोर्ट एरिया, पो॰ जहानाबाद, जिला-जहानाबाद, (बिहार)

345 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

वी॰ के॰ एस॰ यू॰ विश्वविद्यालय, कटिरा रोड़ आरा, पो॰-आरा, जिला-भोजपुर (बिहार)

354 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, टी॰पी॰एस॰ कॉलेज, टी॰पी॰एस॰ कॉलेज परिसर, चिरैयाटांड, पटना (बिहार)

346 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

355 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

एस॰ एन॰ सिन्हा कॉलेज कैंपस, पो॰ औरंगाबाद, जिला-औरंगाबाद (बिहार)

महेन्द्रु, चौधरी मार्केट, महेन्द्रु पोस्ट ऑफिस के पास, अशोक राजपथ, पटना (बिहार)

347 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, ए॰ एम॰ कॉलेज, ए॰ एम॰ कॉलेज कैंपस, कटारी हील रोड, पो॰ आर॰ एस॰ गया, जिला-गया (बिहार)

356 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, नोर्टड्रेम एकेडमी, एन॰डी॰ए॰ परिसर, इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, मेन रोड, पोस्ट-पी॰पी॰ कॉलनी, पटना (बिहार)5248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

357 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

367 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, सहरसा कॉलेज, जिला-सहरसा (बिहार)

368 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

चौध्री टोला, जगन्नाथ सिंह लेन, पोस्ट-चौध्री टोला, पटना (बिहार)

358 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

ग्राम एवं पो॰ अमहा, जिला-सुपौल (बिहार)

सी॰डी॰ए॰ सी॰डी॰ए॰ परिसर, राजेन्द्र पथ, पटना (बिहार)

369 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, डाकघर-बहोरवा, परसा व्हाया पिपरा बाजार, जिला-सुपौल (बिहार)

370 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

359 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, हिन्दी विद्यापीठ, बी॰एन॰झा रोड, देवघर, जिला-देवघर (झारखंड)

360 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

सुखासन, डाकघर-श्रीपुर, व्हाया-खरविट्‌टा, जिला-सुपौल (बिहार)

सगमा, डाकघर-कटहरकला, जिला-गढ़वा, (झारखंड)

361 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

371 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, डाकघर-वेलही, व्हाया-निमली, जिला-सुपौल (बिहार)

372 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पुरैनी बाजार, डाकघर-गणेशपुर, जिला-मध्ेपुरा (बिहार)

कुरपनिया, आनन्द बाजार, कुरपनिया, डाकघर-संडे बाजार, प्रखंड-बेरमो, जिला-बोकारो (झारखंड)

373 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

डाकघर-हरदी, व्हाया गम्हरिया, जिला-सुपौल (बिहार)

362 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, एमजीएम, बोकारो शाखा, एमजीएम स्कूल, बोकारो, सेक्टर IV, जिला-बोकारो (झारखंड)

374 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

363 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पंचायत भवन, आलमनगर, जिला-मध्ेपुरा (बिहार)

एन॰ रोड जमशेदपुर, टिस्को एन गेट, जिला-पूर्वी सिंहभूम (झारखंड)

375 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

364 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

आशा पैलेस, काली स्थान, जिला-बेगु सराय (बिहार)

376 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

गोविन्दपुर, तिरूपति कॉम्पलेक्स, जी॰ टी॰ रोड, गोविन्दपुर, डाकघर-गोविन्दपुर जिला-ध्नबाद (झारखंड)

365 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

डाकघर-गौरा, गौरा, व्हाया बरौनी ड्‌योरी, जिला-बेगुसराय (बिहार)

नवहट्‌टा, ग्राम व पो॰ नवहट्‌टा जिला-सहरसा (बिहार)

377 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

366 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पूरब बाजार, जिला-सहरसा (बिहार)

लतौना, त्रिवेनीगंज, जिला-सुपौल (बिहार)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5249 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

378 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

बेलारी, डाकघर बेलारी, व्हाया बुध्मा, जिला-मध्ेपुरा (बिहार)

379 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

इसराइनकला डाकघर - जदुआ पट्‌टी जिला - मधेपुरा (बिहार)

380 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, बरौनी, राजेन्द्र रोड, जिला - बेगुसराय (बिहार)

381 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

अमजदपुर, डाकघर - पिढौली, जिला - बेगुसराय (बिहार)

382 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

महेशखूंट, केशरी मार्केट, जिला-खगडिया (बिहार)

383 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, अलीराजपुर शाखा, 20, नगर पालिका मार्ग, अलीराजपुर - 457887 जिलाः अलीराजपुर मध्य प्रदेश

384 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

झाबुआ शाखा, सिटी पोस्ट ऑफिस के पीछे, हंसा लॉज, झाबुआ - 457661 जिलाः झाबुआ

385 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, जामो बाजार शाखा, ग्राम पोस्टः जामो बाजार प्रखंड, गोरियाकोठी अनुमंडलः महाराजगंज, जिलाः सिवान, डाक सूचकांक 841 413 (बिहार)

386 सेन्ट्रल बक ऑफ इंडिया, पंचदेवडी शाखा, ग्रामपोस्टः पंचदेवडी, जिलाः गोपालगंज, डाक सूचकांक 841 437 (बिहार) क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

387 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

डी॰ए॰वी॰ कॉलेज, सिवान शाखा, डी॰ए॰वी॰ कॉलेज परिसर, सिवान, जिलाः सिवान डाक सूचकांक 841 226 (बिहार)

388 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

हसनपुरा शाखा ग्रामः पोस्ट हसनपुरा, हसनपुरा पुल के पास, जिलाः सिवान, डाक सूचकांक 841 236 (बिहार)

389 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पचलखी शाखा ग्रामः पोस्ट पचलखी, थानाः नौतन, जिलाः सिवान, डाक सूचकांकः 841 436 (बिहार)

390 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

परसा शाखा ग्रामः परसा, पोस्टः परसा, बाजार, थाना प्रखंडः एकमा जिलाः सारण (छपरा), डाक सूचकांकः 841 220 (बिहार)

391 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

जामापुर शाखा, ग्रामः जामापुर, पत्रालयः जीरादेई, प्रखंडः जीरादेई, अनुमंडलः सिवान, जिलाः सिवान, डाक सूचकांकः 841 245 (बिहार)

392 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, मालामिर्जा टुकड़ा शाखा, जे॰पी॰ यूनिवर्सिटी कैम्पस, पत्रालयः छपरा जिलाः सारण (छपरा) डाक सूचकांकः 841 301 (बिहार)

393 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

जगदम्ब कॉलेज शाखा, जगदम्ब कॉलेज परिसर, पत्रालयः छपरा जिलाः सारण (छपरा) डाक सूचकांकः 841 301 (बिहार)

394 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

विद्या विकास मंडल कॉलेज शाखा, कॉलेज कॉॅम्पलेक्स, पेडा, मड़गाव, गोवा 403 6015250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

395 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

सेंट जेवियर कॉलेज शाखा, अल्टीनो, म्हापसा, जिलाः उत्तर गोवा, गोवा 403507

396 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

कलंगुट शाखा, अलगरवी रीट्रीट, पोरबावाददु, कलंगुट, बरडीझ जिलाः उत्तर गोवा, गोवा 403 516

397 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

नवेली शाखा, कोलमोड अशीष बिल्डिंग, कारवार मडगांव रोड, नवेलीम, सालसेट, जिलाः दक्षिण गोवा, गोवा 403 707

398 सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, एनआरआई शाखा, दामोदर बिल्डिंग, गोमंतक निकेतन बिल्डिंग के बाजु में, स्टेशन मार्ग, मडगांव 403 601 सालसेट, जिलाः दक्षिण गोवा,

399. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

ए॰पी॰एम॰सी॰ शाखा, कृषि उत्पाद बाजार समिति परिसर बेतिया-845438 जिलाः पश्चिम चम्पारण फोनः 06254243608 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

400. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

बरवल शाखा, पोस्टः बगहा, जिलाः पश्चिम चम्पारण-845301 फोनः 06251227750 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

401. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, चनपटिया शाखा, पोस्टः चनपटिया, जिलाः पश्चिम चम्पारण-845438 फोनः 06254266139 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected] क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

402. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

दलपत विसुनपुर शाखा, पोस्टः दलपत विसुनपुर, वाया पंचपकडी, जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845427 फोनः 06250282233 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

403. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

देवापुर शाखा, पोस्टः पंचपकरी, जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845427 फोनः 06250250133 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

404. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

डंकन होस्पीटल शाखा, डंकन होस्पीटल परिसर, रक्सौल, जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845305 फोनः 06255220963 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

405. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

गोरा शाखा, शनीचरी चौक, वाया लौरिया, जिलाः पश्चिम चम्पारण-845543 फोनः 06254254243 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

406. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, कंधवालिया शाखा, स्थान कंधवालिया, पोस्टः बगाही, जिलाः पश्चिम चम्पारण-845106 फोनः 06256264463 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

407. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, केहुनिया शाखा, हरदिया चौक, नरकटियागंज, जिलाः पश्चिम चम्पारण-845455 फोनः 06253242028 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

408. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, केसरिया शाखा, ब्लॉक रोडः पोस्टः केसरिया जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845412 फोनः 06257269875 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected][भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5251 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

409. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

पटनी शाखा, स्थान + पोस्टः रामगढवा, जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845433 फोनः 06255233714 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

410. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

फेनहारा शाखा, स्थान + पोस्टः फेनहारा, जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845420 फोनः 06259277153 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

411. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, सिरीनगर शाखा, पोस्टः डुमरी बाजार, जिलाः पश्चिमी चम्पारण-845452 फोनः 06254224322 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

412. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

तौलाहां शाखा, स्थान + पोस्टः रामनगर, जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845105 फोनः 062596224073 ई-मेलः bmmoti [email protected]

413. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

अग्रणी जिला कार्यालय, पूर्वी चम्पारण, बहुआ टाल, मोतिहारी, जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845401 फोनः 06252232793 ई-मेलः [email protected]

414. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

अग्रणी जिला कार्यालय, पश्चिमी चम्पारण, लाल बाजार, बेतिया जिलाः पश्चिमी चम्पारण-845438 फोनः 06254242311, फैक्सः 06254232261 ई-मेलः [email protected]

415. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, बहुआ टाल, मोतिहारी, जिलाः पूर्व चम्पारण-845401 फोनः 06252232448 ई-मेलः

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

416. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

गोढवा शाखा, स्थान + पोस्टः गोढवा, जिलाः पूर्वी चम्पारण

417. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया,

फतेहपुर शाखा, मच्छरगांवा जिलाः पश्चिम चम्पारण

418. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

अब्बिगेरे शाखा श्री स्कंदा काम्पलेक्स, 'एफ' क्रास, अब्बिगेरे मेन रोड, अब्बिगेरे, बेंगलूरू - 560 090

419. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

बन्नेरघट्‌टा शाखा, 383/1ए, हुलिमावू, बन्नेरघट्‌टा रोड, बेंगलूरू - 560 076

420. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

एच॰एस॰आर॰ ले आउट शाखा नं॰ 395, 10वींं मेन, 7वां सेक्टर, मुन्नियप्पा कॉम्पलेक्स के पीछे, एच॰एस॰आर॰ ले आउट, बेंगलूरू - 560 102

421. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया जरगनहल्ली शाखा नं॰1, 1 क्रॉस राजीव गांधी रोड, जरगनहल्ली (जे॰पी॰ नगर), बेंगलूरू - 560 078

422. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

जयनगर IX ब्लॉक शाखा, आर॰जे॰ आर्केड, नं॰ 1029/41, 27वीं 'ए' मेन, 100 फीट रिंग रोड, 9वां ब्लॉक, जयनगर, बेंगलूरू - 560 041

423. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

केम्पापुरा हेब्बाल शाखा 26 एवं 29, आर॰एस॰ कॉम्पलेक्स, आंजनेया टेम्पल स्ट्रीट, केम्पापुरा, बेंगलूरू - 560 024

424. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कोडिगेहल्ली शाखा, नं॰ 20, केम्पेगौडा नगर रोड, विरूपाक्शपुरा, टेलीकॉम सर्कल के पास, विद्यारण्यापुरा पोस्ट, कोडिगेहल्ली, बेंगलूरू - 560 0975252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

425. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

435. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

तुमकूर शाखा, विजय कॉम्पलेक्स, सोमेश्वरपूरम, मेन रोड, तुमकूर 572102

मथिकेरे शाखा 907/6, श्री कॉम्पलेक्स, एम ई एस रिंग रोड, मुत्याल नगर, बेंगलूरू - 560 054

436. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

426. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

दत्तगल्ली शाखा नं॰ 22/23, कनकदास नगर, नेताजी सर्कल एवं डबल रोड, दत्तगल्ली, मैसूर 570023

आर॰टी॰ नगर शाखा नं॰ 9, डी॰आर॰प्लाझा, दिन्नूर मेन रोड, बेंगलूरू - 560 034

437. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

होसकोटे शाखा, नं॰ 211, नागदे टेम्पल के पास, बस स्टैण्ड रोड, होसकोटे 562114

438. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

427. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया विजयनगर शाखा श्री कृष्णा, नं॰ 29, 1 ली मंजील मेन रोड, एम सी ले आउट, विजयनगर, बेंगलूरू - 560 040

428. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

कनकपुरा शाखा, रामनगर जिला 602/655, एम॰जी॰ रोड, रेन्ज फारेस्ट ऑॅफीस के सामने, कनकपुरा 562117

439. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

येलंका शाखा 98 एवं 99 एल आई जी, वेंकटेश्वरा कॉम्पलेक्स, 707, IV फेज, गवर्मेन्ट स्कूल के पास, येलंका न्यू टाऊन, बेंगलूरू - 560 064

429. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सेन्ट्रल सेरीकल्प टे्रनिंग एंड रिसर्च इन्स्टि्‌च्युट (सी एस टी आर आई) शाखा, मैसूर, मानंदवाडी रोड, श्रीरामपुर, मैसूर 570 008

440. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

चर्च ऑफ साउथ इंडिया शाखा, चर्च ऑफ साउथ इंडिया, कौन्सील फॉर चाईल्ड केअर सेन्टर, बेंगलूरू, 26, लावेली रोड, बेंगलूरू - 560001

सेंट अलॉशियस कॉलेज शाखा, मैंगलुर,लाईट हाऊस हिल, मैंगलुर 575003

430. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

441. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मडिकेरी शाखा नं॰ 115/81ए, ब्लॉक नं॰ 2, तल मंजिल गौलीबीडी, कोहिनूर रोड, मडिकेरी 571201

सेन्ट्रल सिल्क बोर्ड शाखा, सी एस बी कॉम्पलेक्स, बी टी एम ले आउट मडीवाला, बेंगलूरू - 560 068

सिंडिकेट बक, राजभाषा प्रभाग, प्रधान कार्यालयः मणिपाल-576104

431. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

सोफिया हाई स्कूल शाखा, 47 पैलेस रोड, बेंगलूरू - 560001

432. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

विडिया (इंडिया) लिमिटेड शाखा, बेंगलूरू 8/9, माईल, तुमकूर रोड, बेंगलूरू - 560 073

442. सिंडिकेट बैंक हुणसूर शाखा #3739/1 बी॰एम॰बाई पास रोड हुणसूर जिला : मैसूर राज्य : मैसूर पिन : 571 105

433. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

443. सिंडिकेट बैंक

इंडियन इंस्टीट्‌यूट ऑफ हारटिकल्चर रीसर्च, (आई आई एच आर) शाखा, लेक पोस्ट, हेसरघट्‌टा 560 089 बेंगलूरू ग्रामीण जिला

434. सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया

मण्डया शाखा नं॰ 5, 28/1121/3, तीसरा मेन रोड, अशोक नगर, मण्डया, मण्डया जिला-571401

सिद्धार्थ नगर शाखा #147/13 मेन रोड सिद्धार्थ कॉम्पलेक्स सिद्धार्थ नगर जिला : मैसूर राज्य : मैसूर पिन : 570 011[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5253 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

444. सिंडिकेट बैंक

450. सिंडिकेट बैंक

आदर्श नगर शाखा डी-27-28, राजन बाबू रोड आदर्श नगर राज्य : दिल्ली पिन : 110 033

445. सिंडिकेट बैंक

राजसमंद शाखा मेन मार्केट भिलवाड़ा रोड जे॰ के॰ कर्व हाथिनाडा कंकरोली जिला : राजसमंद राज्य : राजस्थान पिन : 313 324

451. सिंडिकेट बैंक

मॉडल टाउन शाखा शंकर टॉवर्स के-1/1 मॉडल टॉउन-III पोस्ट ऑफिस के पास राज्य : दिल्ली पिन : 110 009

446. सिंडिकेट बैंक

बूँदी शाखा वार्ड नं॰ 25, लंका गेट रोड बूँदी जिला : बूँदी राज्य : राजस्थान पिन : 323 001

452. सिंडिकेट बैंक

हिम्मतनगर शाखा रतन सागर कॉम्लेक्स सहकारी जिंचर रास्ता छापरिया रोड हिम्मतनगर जिला : सबरकांठा राज्य : गुजरात पिन : 383 001

श्रीकरणपुर शाखा 5-सी ब्लॉक वार्ड नं॰ 15 ओबीसी के सामने श्रीकरणपुर जिला : श्रीगंगानगर राज्य : राजस्थान पिन : 335 073

453. सिंडिकेट बैंक

447. सिंडिकेट बैंक बामैया शाखा C/o ग्राम पंचायत कमिटी हाल बामैया तालुक जिला : पाटन राज्य : गुजरात

448. सिंडिकेट बैंक

बगहा शाखा गांव एवं डाकघर बगहा जिला : सीतामढ़ी राज्य : बिहार पिन : 843 332

454. सिंडिकेट बैंक

पालनपुर शाखा 1,2,3 एच॰के॰ टॉवर्स हनुमान टेकडी आबू हाइवे, पालनपुर जिला : बनासकांठा राज्य : गुजरात पिन : 385 001

बांका शाखा हरेंद मार्केट कटोरिया रोड जिला : बांका राज्य : बिहार पिन : 813 102

449. सिंडिकेट बैंक प्रतापगढ़ शाखा श्री गोविंदनाथजी हवेली गोपालगंज प्रतापगढ़ जिला : प्रतापगढ़ राज्य : राजस्थान पिन : 312 605

455. सिंडिकेट बैंक बलिहार शाखा ग्राम : बलिहार डाकघर एवं थाना सूरजपुरा बलिहार जिला : रोहतास राज्य : बिहार पिन : 802 2265254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

462. सिंडिकेट बैंक

456. सिंडिकेट बैंक

गोड्‌डा शाखा

मेन चौक, गोड्‌डा

जिलाः गोड्‌डा

राज्यः झारखंड

पिनः 814 133

463. सिंडिकेट बैंक

बलहा शाखा ग्राम एवं डाकघर बलहा द्वारा पूसा थाना : चकमहेशी जिला : समस्तीपुर राज्य : बिहार पिन : 848 209

हंसडीहा शाखा

457. सिंडिकेट बैंक

हंसडीहा चौक

जिलाः दुमका

राज्यः झारखंड

पिनः 814 145

464. सिंडिकेट बैंक

हरचंदा शाखा

ग्रामः हरचंदा

डाकघरः पानपुर करियार

बेगुसराय शाखा सत्यवीर शांति प्लाजा हीरालाल चौक आरएसएस बेगुसराय के पास बेगुसराय जिला : बेगुसराय राज्य : बिहार पिन : 851 101

जिलाः मुजफ्फरपुर

458. सिंडिकेट बैंक

राज्यः बिहार

पिनः 843 146

465. सिंडिकेट बैंक

कंचनपुर शाखा

ग्रामः कंचनपुर

जलमा चौक

चित्तलोरिया शाखा ग्रामः चित्तलोरिया डाकघरः डियोसंग चित्तलोरिया जिलाः देवघर राज्यः झारखंड पिनः 814 112

डाकघरः लुपुंग

459. सिंडिकेट बैंक

ब्लॉकः कटकामसंदी

जिलाः हजारीबाग

राज्यः झारखंड

पिनः 825 319

466. सिंडिकेट बैंक

मारपा शाखा

धोबगामा शाखा ग्राम एवं डाकघर धोबगामा थाना पूसा जिलाः समस्तीपुर राज्यः बिहार पिनः 848 125

ग्रामः मारपा

460. सिंडिकेट बैंक

डाकघरः फुलवरिया

जिलाः सीतामढी

राज्यः बिहार

पिनः 843 317

467. सिंडिकेट बैंक

दौलतपुर चांदी शाखा ग्रामः दौलतपुर चांदी जिलाः वैशाली राज्यः बिहार पिनः 844 146

मोतीहारी शाखा

461. सिंडिकेट बैंक

कचहरी रोड

बलुवा चौक

मोतीहरी

जिलाः मोतीहारी

राज्यः बिहार

डुमरी शाखा ग्रामः बलिहार डाकघरः खबरा जिलाः मुजफ्फरपुर राज्यः बिहार पिनः 843 146

पिनः 845 401[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5255 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

468. सिंडिकेट बैंक

477. शाखा प्रबंधक, बिन्दिगनविले

नं॰ 71, बस स्टड रोड बिन्दिगनविले,

नागमंगला तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 802

478. शाखा प्रबंधक, बूकिनकेरे

बूकिनकेरे के आर पेट

रामपुर महेशपुर शाखा ग्राम एवं डाकघरः रामपुर महेशपुर जिलाः समस्तीपुर राज्यः बिहार पिनः 848 130

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 812

479. शाखा प्रबंधक, चिनकुरली

469. सिंडिकेट बैंक

पी बी नं॰ 1, चिनकुरली पांडवपुरा

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 455

480. शाखा प्रबंधक, गुथलु

रीजेंट कांप्लेक्स, गुथलु रोड मंड्‌या

मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 403

समस्तीपुर शाखा बीआरबी कालेज के सामने मोहनपुर रोड समस्तीपुर जिलाः समस्तीपुर राज्यः बिहार पिनः 848 101

481. शाखा प्रबंधक, हाड्‌ली

मेगलापुरा सर्कल, हाडली मलवल्ली

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 430

482. शाखा प्रबंधक, हल्लगेरे हल्लगेरे बसरालु होबली

मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 146

483. शाखा प्रबंधक, होललु (बल्लारी) पी बी नं॰ 1, मेन रोड होललू

470. सिंडिकेट बैंक शेखपुरा शाखा मेन मार्केट चांदनी चौक क्रासिंग जिलाः शेखपुरा राज्यः बिहार पिनः 811 105

हूविनहडगली, तहसील बल्लारी

471. सिंडिकेट बैंक

कर्नाटक 583 217

484. शाखा प्रबंधक, हों गहल्ली

पी बी नं॰ 1, होंगहल्ली श्रीरंगपट्‌टण

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 607

485. शाखा प्रबंधक, कडबल्ली

बिन्दगिनविले होब्ली नागमंगला

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 418

486. का शाखा प्रबंधक, लमुद्दनदोड्‌डी

तरौरा शाखा ग्रामः तरौरा डाकघरः पीरबधौना द्वाराः नगरनौसा तरौरा जिलाः पटना राज्यः बिहार पिनः 801 305

नं॰ 145(1), हलगूर रोड भारती नगर,

स्टेट बक ऑफ मैसूर, प्रधान कार्यालय

के॰एम॰ दोड्‌डी मद्दूर

472. शाखा प्रबंधक, ए डी बी मण्ड्‌या

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 422

487. शाखा प्रबंधक, कल्कुणी

न॰ डी-2/1849/366 मेन बंडीगौडा लेआऊट मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 401

नं॰ 147, स्टेट बैंक रोड, कुल्कुणी

473. शाखा प्रबंधक, अघालय

मलवल्ली, तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 424

संतेबाचहल्ली द्वारा अघालया, के आर

488 शाखा प्रबंधक, किक्केरी

पेट तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 436

पी बी नं॰ 1, नं॰ 117, मेन रोड

474. शाखा प्रबंधक, बेलगुला

किक्केरी के आर पेट

के आर एस मेन रोड, बेलगुला

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 423

श्रीरंगपट्‌टण तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 606

489 शाखा प्रबंधक, कोत्तत्ती

मण्ड्‌या-बन्नूर रोड कोत्तत्ती

475. शाखा प्रबंधक, बेलकवाडि I

पी बी न॰ 1, मेन रोड बेलकवाडी,

मंड्‌या कर्नाटक 571 402

मलवल्ली तहसील मंड्‌या, कर्नाटक 571 417

490. शाखा प्रबंधक, क्यातनहल्ली

नं॰ 327(1), मेन रोड क्यातनहल्ली

476. शाखा प्रबंधक, ल्लाले

बेल्लाले, पाडंवपुरा तहसील मंड्‌या

पांडवपुरा, तहसील मंड्‌या

कर्नाटक 571 434

कर्नाटक 571 4275256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

501. सीसवाली

491. शाखा प्रबंधक, कृष्णराजपेट

पी बी नं॰ 1, नं॰ 259 मेन रोड

पताः

प्रताप चौक, बस स्टैंड

कृष्णराजपेट

पोस्ट-सीसवाली

मंडया कर्नाटक-571 426

जिला-बांरा

492. शाखा प्रबंधक, मण्डया

पिन-325206

पी बी नं॰ 1, विश्वेरय्या रोड मण्ड्‌या

राजस्थान

मंड्‌या कर्नाटक-571 401

493. शाखा प्रबंधक, मेलुकोटे

502. तालेडा

नं॰ 20 मारिगुडी स्ट्रीट मेलुकोटे

पताः

पांडवपुरा, तहसील मंड्‌या

केसशोराइ पाटन तिराहा

कर्नाटक-571 431

जिला-बूंदी

494. शाखा प्रबंधक, नेलमंगला

पिन-323021

नं॰, 1755, मैसूर-बंगलूर रोड

राजस्थान

नागमंगला मंड्‌या कर्नाटक-571 432

495. शाखा प्रबंधक, नगूनहल्ली

503. इन्द्रगढ

चन्दगल रोड नगूनहल्ली श्रीरंगपट्‌टण

पताः

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक-571 805

कम्यूनिटी भवन, वार्ड न॰ 8

496. शाखा प्रबंधक, पालहल्ली

पोस्ट-इन्द्रगढ

पालहल्ली श्रीरंगपट्‌टण

पिन-323613

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक-571 438

राजस्थान

497. शाखा प्रबंधक, शिवसमुद्रम

504. रूपनगढ़

पी बी नं॰ 1, नं. डी-17, एस एन पी लेन

पताः

शिवसमुद्रम मलवल्ली

रूपनगढ़ बस स्टैंड के नजदीक

तहसील मंड्‌या कर्नाटक-571 437

पोस्ट-रूपनगढ़

498. शाखा प्रबंधक, श्रीरंगपट्‌टण

जिला-अजमेर

पी बी नं॰ 1, नं॰ 994947 होटेल

पिन-305814

हरिप्रसाद के पास श्रीरंगपट्‌टण तहसील

राजस्थान

मंड्‌या कर्नाटक-571 438

499. शाखा प्रबंधक, वी सी फार्म

505. अंराई

पताः

पी बी नं॰ 1, वी सी फार्म मंड्‌या कर्नाटक-571 405

पावर हाउस चौराहा के नजदीक

स्टेट बक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर

पोस्ट-अंराई

जिला-अजमेर

प्रधान कार्यालय, जयपुर

पिन-305814

राजस्थान

शाखा जिसे राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम 10(4) के अन्तर्गत राजपत्र में अधिसूचित करना है।

500. कापरेन शाखा

506. मिनी सचिवालय, झालवाड़

पताः

पोस्ट- झालवाड़

जिला-झालवाड़

पिन-326001

पताः पोस्ट-कापरेन जिला-बूंदी पिन-323 301 राजस्थान

राजस्थान[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5257 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

507. आर॰सी॰पी॰सी॰ झालवाड पताः गढ़ झालावाड़ के नजदीक पोस्ट-झालवाड़ जिला-झालवााड़ पिन-326001 राजस्थान

513. मोतीपुरा चौकी पताः सीटीटीपी रेजिडेन्शियल कॉलोनी चौकी मोतीपुरा तहसील-छाबड़ा जिला-बाराँ पिन-325220 राजस्थान

508. विज्ञान नगर पताः कल्पतरु कॉम्पलेक्स पोस्ट-विज्ञान नगर जिला-कोटा पिन-324005 राजस्थान

514. मेडीकल कॉलेज, अजमेर पताः मेडिकल कॉलेज कम्पाउण्ड रंघ बड़ी रोड सहर-कोटा जिला-कोटा पिन-324005 राजस्थान

515. आर एस एम ई सी सी, उदयपुर पताः प्रथम तल चेतक सर्कल पोस्ट-उदयपुर पिन-313001 राजस्थान

509. आर॰सी॰पी॰सी॰ सवाई माधेपुर पताः एसबीबीजे, बजरंग भवन पोस्ट-सवाई माधेपुर जिला-सवाई माधेपुर पिन-322001 राजस्थान

516. हिरण मगरी सेक्टर-14 पताः 2 जी ब्लाक सामुदायिक केंद्र के सामने हिरण मगरी सेक्टर-4 उदयपुर, राजस्थान

510. देई शाखा पताः नैनवा रोड, कृषि उपज मंडी के पास पोस्ट-देई जिला-बूंदी पिन-323802 राजस्थान

517. प्रतापगढ़ पताः महात्मा गाँधी रोड प्रतापगढ़ पिन-312605 राजस्थान

511. कवई शाखा पताः गाँव-कवई पोस्ट-बाराँ जिला-बाराँ पिन-325219 राजस्थान

518. सेथीं शाखा पताः ए-23 बापु नगर, मुख्य सड़क सेंथी (चितौड़गढ़) पिन-312001 राजस्थान

519. वस्सी शाखा पताः जिला-डुगरपुर पिन-314036 राजस्थान

512. सुकार शाखा पताः पोस्ट-सुकर तहसील-बामनवास जिला-सवाई माधोपुर पिन-322212 राजस्थान5258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

527. इंडियन बक

520. सावला शाखा

फतेहगढ़ नौबाद शाखा द्वारा - गुरू काशी विश्वविद्यालय सरदूलगढ़ रोड तलवंडी साबो फतेहगढ़ नौबाद 151302 जिला - बठिंडा (पंजाब)

पताः बस स्टैंड के पास उदयपुर रोड, सावला पिन-314022 राजस्थान

528. इंडियन बक

521. बिछवाडा शाखा

पताः छपिया काम्पलेक्स मुख्य बाजार बिछवाडा जिला-डूंगरूपुर पिन-314801 राजस्थान

जुझार नगर शाखा 39 वेस्ट के सामने मलोया रोड गांवः जुझार नगर 160014 बेहलोपुर जिलाः मोहाली (पंजाब)

522. कानोड़ शाखा

पताः उदयपुर रोड पोस्ट-कानोड झाडोला पिन-313603 राजस्थान

529. इंडियन बक मानसा शाखा नीम वाली गली मानसा - 151505 जिला - मानसा पंजाब

523. लकड़वास शाखा

530. इंडियन बक

पताः जिला-उदयपुर पिन-313012 राजस्थान

524. रास्मेक-कम-सार्क

समराला शाखा एम जी कम्प्लेक्स के सामने खन्ना रोड समराला 141114 जिला - लुधियाना पंजाब

531. इंडियन बक

पताः भीलवाड़ा जिला-भीलवाड़ा पिन-311001 राजस्थान

मोरिंडा शाखा 277-278 वार्ड नं॰ - 8 रेलवे रोड मोरिंडा 140101 जिला - रूपनगर पंजाब

525. कुरुक्षेत्र शाखा पताः एस सी ओ 66, सेक्टर 17 जिला-कुरुक्षेत्र पिन-136118 राज्य-हरियाणा

राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले इंडियन बक के कार्यालयों/शाखाओं की सूची

अंचल कार्यालय-चंडीगढ़

532. इंडियन बक दोराहा शाखा अजैब सिंह कॉम्पलेक्स फ्लाइ ओवर के सामने जी टी रोड दोराहा 136 118 जिला - लुधियाना पंजाब

526. इंडियन बक

533. इंडियन बक

एस॰सी॰ओ॰ः 244-245 (प्रथम एवं द्वितीय तल) सैक्टर - 12 करनाल - 132001 (हरियाणा)

टैगोर नगर शाखा 1105, किरण विला टैगोर नगर - बी सिविल लाइन, लुधियाना - 151505 जिला - लुधियाना[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5259 क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

534. इंडियन बक

आइ एम टी मानेसर शाखा शोरूम : 4-5-7-8, रहेजा ग्राउंड फ्लोर, फ्रं ट साइड आइ एम टी मानेसर - 122050 जिला गुड़गांव (हरियाणा)

535. इंडियन बक

खांडसा रोड, शाखा चौहान कमर्सियल कम्प्लेक्स हिरो होंडा चौक के पास खांडसा रोड गुड़गांव - 122001 (हरियाणा)

536. इंडियन बक

सुशांत लोक शाखा जी - 3, विपुल स्कवेयर ब्लाक बी, फेस - 1 सुशांत लोक गुड़गांव 122002 (हरियाणा)

537. इंडियन बक

सेक्टर - 17, गुड़गांव शाखा 580 हाउसिंग बोर्ड कालोनी सैक्टर - 17 ए मार्केट गुड़गांव 122001 (हरियाणा)

538. आन्ध्रा बक

दम्मईगुडा शाखा दुर्गा एस्टेट, दीप्ति श्रीनगर, मदीनागुडा, सेरिलिंगमपल्ली मंडल, रंगारेड्‌डी जिला, हैदराबाद - 500 049

539. आन्ध्रा बक

हस्तिनापुरम शाखा प्लॉट नं॰ 8, सर्वे नं॰ 30/2, 3 एवं 4, सागर रिंग रोड, हस्तिनापुरम हैदराबाद - 500 079

540. आन्ध्रा बक

भाग्यनगर शाखा वंदना आर्केड, द॰ नं॰ 2-28-298/8एवं 2-28-298/8/1, भाग्यनगर कुकटपल्ली, हैदराबाद 500 072

541. आन्ध्रा बक

मौला-अली शाखा 40-52/4, मौला-अली, हैदराबाद - 500 040

542. आन्ध्रा बक

क्र ॰ शाखा का नाम एवं शाखा का पता सं॰ कोड नं॰

543. आन्ध्रा बक

नादरगुल शाखा नादरगुल गांॅव, सरूरनगर मंडल, हैदराबाद - 501 510

544. आन्ध्रा बक

चेवेल्ला शाखा एम बी एन आर कॉम्प्लेक्स, मेइन रोड, चेवेल्ला, रंगारेड्‌डी जिला - 501 503

545. आन्ध्रा बक

नानकरामगुडा शाखा आन्ध्रा बक एपेक्स कॉलेज कैम्पस, प्लॉट नं॰ 27-29, फाइनैन्शियल डिस्ट्रिक्ट, नानकरामगुडा, हैदराबाद - 500 032

546. आन्ध्रा बक

चौटुप्पल शाखा द॰ नं॰ 5-390, मुख्य रस्ता, वौटुप्पल - 508252

547. आन्ध्रा बक

चिट्‌याला शाखा म॰ नं॰ 8-150 पुलिस स्टेशन के सामने चिट्‌याला - 508114

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi, the 24th January, 2013

S.O. 1995.—In pursuance of sub-Rule(4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended 1987) the central Government hereby notifies following branches of Banks under the control of Department of Financial Services, M/O Finance, whereof more than 80% officers/staffs have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

S.No. Name of Banks Naumber of branches

1. Union Bank of India 218

2. Indian Oversees Bank 120

3. Central Bank of India 103

4. Syndicate Bank 30

5. State Bank of Mysore 28

6. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 26

7. Indian Bank 12

8. Andhra Bank 10

Total

के वी एच बी कॉलोनी शाखा प्लॉट नं॰ 19 एवं 20, तीसरा फेस, कुकटपल्ली, हैदराबाद -500 072

547

[No. 11016/3/2013-Hindi] MIHIR KUMAR, Director (O.L.)5260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

UNION BANK OF INDIA Official Language Implementation Division, Central Office, Mumbai Branches/Offices recommended for notification under Official Language Rule 10(4)

Regional Office, Jaipur 10. Union Bank of India

Baghsuri Branch Village and Post Bagsuri Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer Rajasthan, Pin Code 305401 Name of the Regional No. Name and Address Office of Branch/Office Regional Office, Delhi 1. Union Bank of India (South) Pataudi Branch House No. 1

Ward No. 6, Baba Attawala Chowk, Pataudi Haili Mandi Road, Gurgaon 122504

2. Union Bank of India Bhondasi Branch Village Bhondasi Dist. Gurgaon 122102

3. Union Bank of India

Ujina Branch P.O. Ujina, Dist Mewat, Haryana

Regional Office, 4. Union Bank of India Delhi (North) Bhorgarh Branch

House No. 7/2, Railway Crossing, Narela, New Delhi 110040

5. Union Bank of India Gokalpur Branch A-51, Gokalpur P.O. Gokalpur, New Delhi 110094

6. Union Bank of India

Union Loan Point West Vihar Branch B-2/15, Pashchim Vihar Delhi 110063

Region Office, Jaipur 7. Union Bank of India

Dooni Branch Panchayat Bhavan Village and Post Dooni Tehsil-Deoli District-Tonk Rajasthan 304802

8. Union Bank of India Neemrana Branch Village and Post Neemrana Tehsil Behrorr, District Alwar, Rajasthan, Pin Code 301 705

9. Union Bank of India

Liri Branch Village and Post LIRI, Tehsil Peesangan District Ajmer, Rajasthan, Pin Code 305 203 Regional Office, Karnal 11. Union Bank of India

Union Loan Point, Faridabad, Branch SCO-60, HUDA Market Sector-7, Faridabad, Dist. Faridabad 121001 (Haryana)

12. Union Bank of India Sector-3, Karnal SCO-16, Sector-3, Karnal Dist. Faridabad 132001 (Haryana)

Regional Office, 13. Union Bank of India Azamgarh Sameda Branch (Fi Branch)

Village and Post Sameda District-Azamgarh, Pin Code 276128

14. Union Bank of India

Devara Zadid Branch (Fi Branch) Village and Post Devara Zadid Via Maharajganj, Dist. Azamgarh Pin Code 276137

15. Union Bank of India Mahul Branch Village and Post Mahul District-Azamgarh, Pin Code 223225

16. Union Bank of India Tanda Branch Village and Post Tanda District Ambedkar Nagar Pin Code 224 190

17. Union Bank of India

Devagaon Branch Village and Post Devgaon District Azamgarh, Pin Code 276202

18. Union Bank of India

Mittupur Branch Village and Post Mittupur Block Jahanganj Dist., Jahanaganj, Azamgarh Pin 276131

19. Union Bank of India Kohada Branch Village and Post Kohada Block Pawai, District Azamgarh Pin 276288[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5261

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Regional Office, Patna 30. Union Bank of India Regional Office, 20. Union Bank of India Azamgarh Jokahara Branch

Village and Post Jokahara Block Haraiya, District Azamgarh Pin 276136

21. Union Bank of India

F.I. Branch Ajnaul Village Bhatgama Mansoor Chak Road Post Dal Singh Sarai Dist Samastipur, Bihar Pin 848114

31. Union Bank of India Bhakhara Branch Block Phoolpur Village and Post Bhakhara District Azamgarh, Pin 223226

F.I. Branch Shambhupatti Village and Post Shambhupatti Dist. Samastipur, Bihar Pin 848129

22. Union Bank of India Thatheri Bazar Mohalla No. 10, Main Road, Saraimeer, Nizamabad, Dist. Azamgarh Pin 276305

32. Union Bank of India

Region Office, 23. Union Bank of India Gorakhpur Barhaj Branch

Station Road, AT & Post Barhaj Dist Deoria 274601 (U.P.)

F.I. Bishunpur Harnarain Branch Village Basouli Himmat Singh Post Mahpur, Dist Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin 843103

24. Union Bank of India

33. Union Bank of India Harraiya Branch Samratnagar, Main Market At & Post Harraiya Dist Basti 272 155 (U.P.)

F.I. Branch Labhgaon Branch Village and Post Labhgaon Dist. Khagaria, Bihar, Pin 851204

Regional Office, Patna 25. Union Bank of India

34. Union Bank of India Baxar Branch Thatheri Bazar, Buxar Distt. Rohtas, Bihar, Pin Code 821115

F.I. Branch Pitaunjhia Branch Village and Post Pitaunjhia Dist. Khagaria, Bihar, Pin 843117

Regional Office, Bhopal 35. Union Bank of India

Bareilly Branch 1, Bhutada Colony, J.J. Road, Bareilly, Raisen (M.P.) 26. Union Bank of India Sasaram Branch Near Sahu Talkies G.T. Road, Sasaram Dist. Sasaram, Bihar, Pin Code 802101

Regional Office, Indore 36. Union Bank of India 27. Union Bank of India

Sabour Road Br. Bhagalpur Tilka Manjhi Hatia Road Distt. Bhagalpur, Bihar, Pincode 812001

Nanakheda Branch 13/4-C Block, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra VIP Road, Nanakheda Ujjain (M.P.) 456010

28. Union Bank of India

37. Union Bank of India Madhubani Branch Near Head Post Office Main Road, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar, Pincode 847227

Specialised Financial Inclusion Branch Bada Bangarda, Post Palakhedi Distt. Indore (M.P.) 453112

29. Union Bank of India F.I. Branch Dhutauli At and Post Dhutauli Near Malpa Chawk, Via Chautham Distt. Khagaria, Bihar, Pincode 851201

Regional Office, Indore 38. Union Bank of India Piplyakumar Branch S.S. Aangan 90-91 Deep Palace Colony Village: Piplyakumar Distt. Indore (M.P.) 4520105262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Regional Office, Reewa 48. Union Bank of India Regional Office, Raipur 39. Union Bank of India

Bijapur Branch Main Road,

(In front of HP Petrol Pump)

Transportnagar Satna Branch 2/1, Transport Nagar, Satna Rewa Road, Satna, Madhya Pradesh 485001 Bijapur

Distt. Bijapur (C.G.) 494444

40. Union Bank of India

Dantewada Branch

Near Maa Danteshwari

49. Union Bank of India Atraila Branch At post Atraila Tehsil Teothar Distt. Rewa Madhya Pradesh 485001

Temple Main Road, Dantewada

(C.G.) 494449

50. Union Bank of India Rahat Branch 241, Gram Rahat, Post Rahat, Rewa 484446 41. Union Bank of India

Jashpur Nagar Branch Old Palace, B.S. Market,

Main Road,

Jashpur (C.G.) 496331

51. Union Bank of India Tendua Branch Rewa Road, Gram Tendua, Post Padkhuri, Distt. Sidhi 486669 42. Union Bank of India Baikunthpur Branch

Baisagar Pare, Behind Bank of

India

Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 497625

52. Union Bank of India Bagaiya Branch Panchayat Building, Rest House Gram, Bagaiyan, Tehsil, Chitrangi, Distt. Singrauli 486001

43. Union Bank of India

Regional Office, Allahabad 53. Union Bank of India Financial Inclusion Branch

Dumartarai Main Road, Dumartarai,

Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

Kurmaicha Branch G.T. Road, Kurmaicha, Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) Uttar Pradesh 211003 44. Union Bank of India

Narayanpur Branch Main Road, Near Jai Stambh

Narayanpur (C.G.) 494661

Regional Office, Reewa 45. Union Bank of India

54. Union Bank of India Baraut Branch Post Baraut, Block Handia, Distt. Allahabad U.P. 221502 Amarpatan Branch 128/2, Nagar Panchayat Road

55. Union Bank of India

Shubhas Chowk, Amarpatan,

Distt. Satna Madhya Pradesh

495775

46. Union Bank of India

Panna Branch

Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar Gauriganj Branch Distt. Chhatrapati, Shahuji Maharaj Nagar, Amethi, U.P. 227409

13, Near Shashikiya Grih

56. Union Bank of India Nirman Sansthan, B.T.I. Road,

Distt. Panna Madhya Pradesh

488001

Bina Branch Northern Coalfields Ltd., Bina Project, Distt.: Sonbhadra. U.P. 231220 Regional Office, Allahabad 47. Union Bank of India

Anuppur Branch

Ward No. 7, Near Amarkantak

Tiraha,

57. Union Bank of India Shantipuram Branch G-2, Gohri Road, Shantipur, Fafamau, Distt. Allahabad, U.P. 211013 Anupur Madhya Pradesh 484224[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5263

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

69. Union Bank of India

U.P. State Sugar Corporation

Branch

Vipin Khand,Gomati Nagar, 58. Union Bank of India Agiuna Branch Rizvi Institute and Technology, Agiuna, Manjhanpur, Distt. Kaushambi, U.P. 212207

Lucknow 226010

59. Union Bank of India

70. Union Bank of India

2, Batalian PAC Sitapur Jamunipur Branch Post Modh, Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar, U.P. 221406

Branch

PAC, Lucknow Road, 60. Union Bank of India

Sitapur 261001

71. Union Bank of India

Laharpur Branch

Riyaz Market, Main Mazashah Kaulapur Branch Near Rajpat Dhaba, Post Gopiganj, Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar, U.P. 223103

Crossing

61. Union Bank of India

Laharpur, Sitapur 260135

72. Union Bank of India

Sidhouli Branch Veerampur Branch Block Abhauli Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar, U.P. 221308

Sumandapam Marriage Hall

Sidhouli, Sitapur,

73. Union Bank of India

Aashiayana Branch

M-1/A, Sector I

Aashiyana, Lucknow 226012 62. Union Bank of India Bhurki Branch Vikas Bhavan, Distt. Head Quarter, Post Gyanpur, Distt.Sant Ravidas Nagar, U.P. 221304

74. Union Bank of India

63. Union Bank of India

Sector O Branch

City Montessory School

Sector O, Aliganj

Lucknow 226024 Natwan Aurangabad Branch Post Khamariya, Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar, U.P. 221306

64. Union Bank of India

75. Union Bank of India

Vibhuti Khand Branch

Vibhuti Khanad, Mahjuda Bazar Branch Post Bhori,Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar, U.P. 221404

Near Mantri Awas, Gomati

Regional Office, Kanpur 65. Union Bank of India

Nagar,

Lucknow 226010

Regional Office, Lucknow 76. Union Bank of India Gulamau (F.I.) Branch Gram & Post Gulamau Block Bhavan, Distt. Hardoi, Pin 241001

Kusmaha Branch

Village & Post Kusmaha Regional Office, Lucknow 66. Union Bank of India

Faizabad Akarpur Road,

Faizabad 224135 Bhinga Branch Mohalla Tandawa, Post Bhinga 271831

77. Union Bank of India

67. Union Bank of India

32, Batalian PAC Lucknow

Branch

32, Batalian PAC Alambagh

Lucknow 226005 Sector Q Branch Saraswati Vidya Mandir Sector Q, Alliganj, Lucknow 226024

68. Union Bank of India

78. Union Bank of India

Hardoia Branch

CPL Inter College,

Hardoia, Adampur,

Lucknow

U. P. State Agro Branch U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow 2260015264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

79. Union Bank of India

89. Union Bank of India

Moura Branch

Santha Crossing, Dubagga

Mall Road, Charak Instittue, Lucknow 227107

Chas Branch 564150 Rajlakshmi Tower Bypass Road, Chas post-Chas, Bokaro Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand Pin 827013

90. Union Bank of India 80. Union Bank of India Kuchera Branch Kuchera Bazar, Faizabad Jagdishpur Road, Faizabad 224158

Chandwa Branch Main Road, Chandwa Dist. Latehar, Jharkhand Pin 827013

Regional Office Dehradun 81. Union Bank of India

91. Union Bank of India Union Loan Point Branch Industrial Area, Near Indresh Hospital Patel Nagar, Uttarakhand 248001

82. Union Bank of India

Chatra Branch -564567 Sushila Complex, Gudri Bazar Chatra Gaya Road Distt. Latehar, Jharkhand Pin 829203

92. Union Bank of India Ghansali Branch Shah Bhawan, Chamiyala Road, Distt. Tehri Garhwal, Uttatrakhand

ULP, Jamshedpur Branch 1st Floor, Kamani Center Bishtupur, Jamshedpur, Distt. East Singhbhum Jharkhand 831001

Regional Office Gazipur 93 Union Bank of India 83. Union Bank of India Badasi Grant Branch Post Badasi Grant, Block Raipur Tehsil Dehradun Sadar District Dehradum 248008

Regional Office Jabalpur 84. Union Bank of India

Karhiya Branch Village & Post Pakhanpura, Michati District Ghazipur Pin Code 233227

94. Union Bank of India TFRI Branch Village Neemkhera Post RAFRC Mandla Road, Jabalpur 482021

Yuvrajpur Branch Village & Post Yuvrajpur Block Reotipur, Tahsil Sadar District Ghazipur, Pin 232332 85. Union Bank of India

95. Union Bank of India Waraseoni Branch Katangi Raod, Wara Seoni 481331

Kamupur Branch Village & Post Kamupur Block Barchavar, Tahsil Barchavar District Ghazipur, Pin 232229 86. Union Bank of India Tewar Branch Bheraghat Road, Tewar Jabalpur 482001

Regional Office, Ranchi 87. Union Bank of India

96. Union Bank of India Matsa Branch Village & Post Jeevpur, Block Zamania, Tahsil Mohammadabad District Ghazipur, Pin 232340

97. Union Bank of India Kandra Branch Guru Govind Singh Educational Societies Technical Campus Kandra, Chas, Distt. Bokaro, Jharkhand Pin 827004

Kuchaura Uparvar Branch Village & Post Kuchaura Uparvar Block Karanda, Tahsil Sadar District Ghazipur, Pin 232224 88. Union Bank of India Jamtara Branch 204, New Towen, Jamtara, Distt. Jamtara, Jharkhand, Pin 815351[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5265

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

107. Union Bank of India 98. Union Bank of India

Kosikalan Branch Nandgaon Road, Before Railway Station, Mathura, U.P. 281403 Nari Pachdewara Branch Village & Post Nari Pachdewara Branch Block Deokali, Tahsil Sadar District Ghazipur, Pin 233002

108. Union Bank of India

99. Union Bank of India

Chandausi Branch Chandausi Bal Vidya Mandir Munsif Marg, Bhimnagar, U.P. 202412

Arakhpur Branch Village & Post Arakhpur Block Birano, Tahsil Sadar District Ghazipur, Pin 233005

109. Union Bank of India

F.I. Paintha Branch Paintha, Block Govardhan, Distt. Mathura, U.P. 281502 100. Union Bank of India Sauri Branch Village & Post Sauri Block Manihari, Tehsil Saidpur District Ghazipur, Pin 275205

101. Union Bank of India

110. Union Bank of India Service Branch Agra 1st Floor, Friendswasan Plaza, Sanjay Place, Agra, U.P. 282002

111. Union Bank of India Padumpur Ramrai Branch Village & Post Padumpur Ramrai Block Jakhania, Tehsil Jakhania District Ghazipur, Pin 275203

102. Union Bank of India

Shikohabad Branch Rukanpur Before Adarsh Cinema, Manpuri Road, Distt. Firozabad 205135

Regional Office, 112. Union Bank of India Ahmedabad Nagvasan Branch Sarahula Branch Village & Post Sarahula Block Reotipur, Tahsil Zakhania District Ghazipur, Pin 232326

At Nagvasan, Post Nagvasan Taluka Sidhpur, Distt. Patan 384151, Gujarat

106. Union Bank of India Birpur Branch Village & Post Birpur Block Bhanwarkol, District Ghazipur Pin 233231

Regional Office, Agra 104. Union Bank of India

113. Union Bank of India Kujad Branch Opp. Datar Chamber Kathlal High Way Tluka: Dascroi Distt., Ahmedabad 382 430 State Gujarat

Regional Office, 114. Union Bank of India Rajkot

Jamkhambaliya Branch Rajada Shopping Centre Jodhpur Gate, Jamkhambaliya Distt. Jamnagar 361305 BCS Agra Branch 4 West, Govind Nagar, Bhartiya Charm Udyog Sangh, Saket, New Shahgang, Distt. Agra, U.P. 282010

115. Union Bank of India 105. Union Bank of India

Shaheed Nagar Branch Near Raipur Chungi, Shamshabad Road Agra, U.P. 282007

106. Union Bank of India

Gondal Branch Shop No. 37, Kailash Complex 'A' Wing, Near Gundala Gate, Opp. Gundala Petrol Pump, Gondal, Distt. Rajkot, Gujarat 360311

Vikas Bhawan Dabarai Branch New Collectorate Premises Vikas Bhawan, Shikohabad Road, Dabarai, Distt Firozabad, U.P. 283203

116. Union Bank of India Jasdan Branch Geeta Nagar, Near Khadi Bhavan, Khanpur Road, Jasdan, Distt. Rajkot, Gujarat 3600505266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

117. Union Bank of India

Pipalva Branch Near bus stand, Village & Post-Pipalva Dist. Junagadh, Gujrat

118. Union Bank of Inida Kadukka (FI) Branch Navratri Chowk, Village. post Kadukka Via Lilapur, Distt. Rajkot Pin 360050

119. Union Bank of India Ramparvekra Branch Sri Vekra Swaminarayan Mandir Village Ramparvekra Dist.-Kutch, 370445

Regional Office, Nasik 120. Union Bank of India

Brahamanwada (Financial Inclusion) Branch Tahsil Sinnar (Via Nasik Road) Distt. Nasik, Maharashtra 422109

121. Union Bank of India Wadi Budruk Branch Shop No. 23 to 25, 40 & 41 Suman Heights, Phase II, Knorak Vihara, Pharade Nagar, Wadi (Budruk), Tal. & Distt. Nanded Maharashtra 431605

122. Union Bank of India Raver Branch Shop No. 101, 102, 103 & 104 & 105 Chhoriya Market, Raver, Th. Raver, Distt. Jalgaon

Regional Office, Kolhapur123. Union Bank of India

Mahadwar Road Kolhapur Branch Binkhambi Ganesh Mandir Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur 416412

124. Union Bank of India Mohol Branch At Post Mohol, Tal. - Mohol Dist.-Solapur (Maharashtra) Pin 413307

125. Union Bank of India

Market Yard, Sangli Branch Opp. Vasantdada Market, Market Yard, Sangli Distt .Sangli (Maharashtra) Pin 416416

126. Union Bank of India

Kedgaon Branch House No. 410, Gate No. 78, Tal. Karnataka, Distt. Solapur Pin 413 202

Regional Office, Surat 127. Union Bank of India

Specialised Financial Inclusion Branch At Post Mandav Khadak, Taluka Chikhli, Distt. Navsari, Pin 396060

Regional Office, 128. Union Bank of India Mumbai (W) Nallasopara East Branch

Shop No. 4, 5, 6 Opp. Jay Vijay Nagar 100ft. Vasai Nallasopara Link Road Nallasopara (East), Distt. Thane 401209 Maharashtra

Regional Office, 129. Union Bank of India Mumbai (S) Bandra (East) Branch

Renuka Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Behind Gurunanak Hospital Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051

Regional Office, 130 Union Bank of India Mumbai (N) Kawad Khurd (Finan. Inclu.) Branch Post Angoan, Bhiwandi-wada Road, Taluka Bhiwandi, Pin 421302

131. Union Bank of India

Union Loan Point Kharghar Branch Shop No. 1-4, Plot No. 7 & 18 Daffodils, Sector No. 19 Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Pin 410210

132. Union Bank of India

Kelavane Branch H.No. 722, At Post Kelavane Taluka: Panvel, Distt. Raigarh Pin 410206

133. Union Bank of India

Sanpada Branch Shop No. 14-15, Akhurath Co.Op.Hsg.Soc., Plot No. 11, Sector-14, Near Pam Beanch Road, Vashi, Sanpara, New Mumbai 400705

134. Union Bank of India

Luiswadi Branch Ratna Umed Residency Umed Nagar, Pipe Line Road, Luiswadi, Thane (West) 400604[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5267

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

143. Union Bank of India 135. Union Bank of India

Chhota Udepur Branch House No. 5/704 Vikas Path, Near Kusum Sagar, Dist. Vadodara 391165

144. Union Bank of India Station Road Chembur (West) Branch Swastik Pride, Ground Floor, D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur (West) Mumbai 400 071

136. Union Bank of India

Narsanda Branch At Post Narsanda, Tal. Nadiad, Dist. Kheda, Gujarat 387345

145. Union Bank of India Railway Station Thane (West) Branch Gala No. 15, 16, Ground Floor Paradise heights, Shivaji Path, Thane (West) 400 602

Manjalpur Branch Ground Floor, Hansa Party Plot Vrajdham Mandir Road, Manjalpur, Dist. Baroda, Gujarat 390011

146. Union Bank of India

Latipura Branch At Post Latipura, Tehsil Padra Dist Vadodara, Gujarat 391 440

137. Union Bank of India New Panvel Branch Gala No. 16 to 19, Sri Darshan Co. Op. Hsg. Soc., Sector 9, Plot No. 34, Khanda Colony, New Panvel (West) Navi Mumbai 410 206

147. Union Bank of India

Regional Office, Nagpur 138. Union Bank of India

Sansrod Branch Kamal Said Residence Near Brahmin Falia, Dist. Baroda 392220, Gujarat Kandri (Kanhan) Branch Post Kandri (Kanhan) Taluka Parshivani Nagpur-Jabalpur Highway, Dist. Nagpur 441401

Regional Office, 148. Union Bank of India Belgaum MICR Branch 139. Union Bank of India

Tembhurkheda Branch (F.I.) Post Tembhurkheda, Taluka Warud Dist.-Amravati 444911

Bankers Clearing House, 1049/B2, Khanapur Road, (Opp. Reliance Petroleum), Tilakwadi Belgaum 590006 Karnataka Regional Office, Baroda 140. Union Bank of India

Regional Office, 149. Union Bank of India Hyderabad Survey of India Branch

Survey of India Office Complex Uppal Road, Hyderabad 500039 (Andhra Pradesh) Clearing House & MICR CPC Branch Shantinath Complex, Mayfair Road, Opp. Union Bank Anand Dist. Anand, Gujarat Pin 385 001

141. Union Bank of India

Manjusar Branch 115/116, GIDC Savli Village Manjusar, Gujarat, Pin 385 001

150. Union Bank of India Gayatrinagar Branch Plot No. 3, Gayatrinagar X Road, Gayatrinagar, Karmanghat, Hyderabad 500 097 (Andhra Pradesh)

142. Union Bank of India

151. Union Bank of India Karelibaug Branch Shrusti Avenue, Shop No. 1-4 Opp. Amrapali Complex Water Tank Road, PO Karelibagh Dist. Vadodara

Rudraram Branch Gitam Univertsity Campus, Rudraram Village, Mandal Patancheru, Dist. Medak (AP.), Pin Code 502 3295268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

152. Union Bank of India

160. Union Bank of India

Ambala Branch H.No. 6-4/3, Sriramulapalli, Village- Ambala, Mandal-Kamlapur, Dist. Karim Nagar, Andhra Pradesh-505102

Maruteru Branch Door No. 5-91, Post & at Maruteru, TP Gudem-Palakol Road, Maruteru 534 122, Penumantra Mandal, W. Godavari, Dist. A.P. 153. Union Bank of India

161. Union Bank of India Annaram Branch H.No. 4-67, Main Road, Opp. Grampanchayat, Village-Annaram, Mandal- Manakonduru. Dist.- Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh-505469

Jangareddi Gudem Branch Door No. 5-2-29/2, Kovvuru Road, KK Complex, Near Ganganamma Temple, Jangareddi Gudem 534 447 W. Godavari, A.P. Regional Office, 154. Union Bank of India Vijaywada Mangalgiri Branch

162. Union Bank of India No. 1-643, First Floor, Gautham Buddha Road, (Main Road), Mangalgiri-522 503 Gunnturu Dist A.P.

155. Union Bank of India

Pidugurlla Branch Door No. 7-4-07, Vigneswara Complex, Main Road, (Post & Mandal), Pidugurlla 522413, Dist. Gunturu, Andhra Pradesh

163. Union Bank of India Medepalli Branch Door No. 2-39, Near Hanuman Temple, Medepalli 507158, Mudigonda Mandal Dist. Khammam, A.P.

Thiruvur Branch Door No. 5-147, College Road Near Bose Bomma, Dev. Block Thiruvuru 521235 Distt. Krishna, Andhra Pradesh 521235

164. Union Bank of India 156. Union Bank of India Baswapuram Branch No. 1-22, Kudumuru Bazara, Baswapuram 507318, Chintakani Mandal, Dist. Khammam, A.P.

157. Union Bank of India Kondaveedu Branch Village Edlapadu Mandal Gunturu 522529 A.P.

Budhwar Market Branch Door No. 16-2-207, P.P. Road, Budhwar Market, Bhimavaram 534201 W. Godawari, Dist. A.P.

158. Union Bank of India

165. Union Bank of India Narsarao Pet Branch Door No. 9-9-44, Bank Street, Arandal Pet, Narsarao Pet 522 601. Gunturu Dist. A.P. Sattenapalli Branch Door No. 18-7-36, Surya Talkies Road (Post & Mandal) Sattenapalli 522 403 Dist. Gunturu, Andhra Pradesh

Regional Office, 166. Union Bank of India Visakhapatnam Financial Inclusion

Lakkavaram Branch Main Road, Village Lakkavaram, Chodavaram-Mandalam Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) Pin 531075

159. Union Bank of India Devara Palli Branch Door No. 4-131, Main Road, P.O. Devrapalli, Kovvuru Road, Devarapalli 534313, W. Godavari, Dist. A.P.

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

176. Union Bank of India 167. Union Bank of India

Pendurthi Branch 80 feet Road, Ratnagiri Nagar,

Chinna Mushiriwada,

Pendurthi, Dist. Visakha-

Desh Bandhu Para Branch Siliguri, Deshbandhu Road, PO-Siliguri Town, Dist. Darjeeling Pin 734004,West Bengal patnam. A.P. 530 051

177. Union Bank of India

168. Union Bank of India

Chepala Uppada Branch

At Chepala Uppada,

Dhupguri Branch B.R. Comlpex, First Floor, Falakata Road,Dhupguri, Dist.-Jalpaiguri, Pin 735 210 (West Bengal) Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Dist. Visakhapatnam,

A.P. 531 163

178. Union Bank of India

169. Union Bank of India

Eethakota Branch At Eethakota, Ravulapalem

Gangadhari Branch At & Post Gangadhari, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742 121,W.B.

Mandal, Dist. East Godavari,

179. Union Bank of India A.P. 533 238

Regional Office 170. Union Bank of India Siligudi Bhaluk Road Branch

Gangtok Branch N.H. 31, M.G. Road, Gangtok-737101, Sikkim

Masaldah Bazr, Post Kaariali

180. Union Bank of India Dist. Malda, Pin 732125

(West Bengal)

171. Union Bank of India

Kalingpong Branch

Thana Dara, Post Kalinpong

Geyazing Branch Pemayangtse Monastery Geyazing Bazar, Old Adda Building Geyazing, Pin 737 111 Distt. West Sikkim

181. Union Bank of India Distt. Darjeeling, Pin 734401 (West Bengal)

172. Union Bank of India

Bishnupur Branch

Jalpaiguri Branch 240/A, 1st Floor, Temple Street, Distt. Jalpaiguri, Pin 735 101, W.B.

At & Post Bishnupur, Via - Rampurhat

Dist. Birbhum, Pin 731244

182. Union Bank of India

(West Bengal)

173. Union Bank of India

Bolapur Branch

Mission Compound,

Jorethang Branch Jorethang Bazar. PO Naya Bazar, Dist. South Sikkim, Pin 737 121

Post-Bolpur, Dist-Birbhum

183. Union Bank of India Pin 731 204 (West Bengal)

174. Union Bank of India

Dabgram Branch

Kundal Branch At & Post Kundal Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 731 246 W.B. 558, Surya Nagar

1 No. Dabgram, Siliguri 734 006

Dist. Darjeeling, West Bengal

175. Union Bank of India

184. Union Bank of India Kunuri Branch At & Post ;Kunuri Dist. Birbhum, Pin 731 252, W.B.

185. Union Bank of India Darjeeling Branch 5, Dr. S.M. Das Road,

Anand Palace Hotel, 1st Floor,

Post & Dist. Darjeeling,

Pin 734 101, West Bengal

Margram Branch At & Post Margram Dist. Birbhum, Pin 731 217 (West Bengal)5270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

186. Union Bank of India

197. Union Bank of India

Mangan Branch Mangan Bazar, Mangan Pin 737 116 Dist. East Sikkim

Siliguri Mahakurma Parishad (SMP) Siliguri Branch Siliguri 734 001

198. Union Bank of India 187. Union Bank of India Narayanpur ; Branch At & Post Narayanpur Via-Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum, Pin-731 239, West Bengal

Siliguri Institute of Technology (SIT) Branch Salbari, Sukna Siliguri Distt Darjeeling , Pin 734225 (W.B.)

188. Union Bank of India

199. Union Bank of India Pulinda Branch At & Post Pulinda Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742 121, W. B.

189. Union Bank of India

Falakata Branch Subhas Pally, Falakata, Dist.-Jalpaiguri, Pin 735 211 (W.B.)

200. Union Bank of India Rampurhat Branch At & Post Rampurhat Dist Birbhum, Pin 731 224, W.B.

190. Union Bank of India

Ranipool Branch N.H. 31 A, Ranipool, Pin 737 138, Dist.-East Sikkim

Balurghat Branch Promoda Bhawan, Opposite Lila Lodge, Narayanpur, Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinazpur Pin 733 101 (W.B.)

191. Union Bank of India

201. Union Bank of India Sainthia Branch Najrul Islam Sarani Post - Sainthia, Dist - Birbhum, Pin-731 234, (W.B.)

192. Union Bank of India

Service Branch Sukh Sadan. 37, Bipin Paul Sarani, College Para, Siliguri, Pin 734 001 (W.B.)

202. Union Bank of India Saldhamore Branch Post-M.D Bazar, Dist Birbhum, Pin 731 127 (W.B.)

193. Union Bank of India

Regional Office Siliguri Sachin Saurav Apartment Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, College Para, Siliguri, Pin 734 001 (W.B.)

Regional Office, Goa 203. Union Bank of India Siliguri (Main) Branch Krishna House, Hill-Cart Road, Siliguri, Pin 734 001 (W.B.)

194. Union Bank of India

Carmona Branch At & Post Carmona, Salcete, District-Sourth Goa, Goa Pin 403 717

Singtam Branch Main Road, Post-Singtam Dist. East Sikkim, Pin 737 134

204. Union Bank of India

195. Union Bank of India

Phondaghat Branch 342/2B, Ugwai Complex Bazarpeth, Dist. Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, Pin 406 601

Suri Branch New Dangalpara Near to new Bus Stand, Post- Suri Dist.-Birbhum, Pin 731 101 (W.B.)

196. Union Bank of India

205. Union Bank of India Dapoli Branch H & D House, Family Mall Road, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri Pin 415 712 Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology (SMIT) Branch Majithar, Dist. East Sikkim Pin 737 132[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5271

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

Name of the Regional No. Name and Address

Office of Branch/Office

206. Union Bank of India

Kaduthuruthy, Vaikom taluk Pin 686604 Kottayam District

216. Union Bank of India Service Branch Model Residency, Shop No. 6, 7, 8 St. Inez Church Road, ST. INEZ Dist. North Goa, Pin-403001

207. Union Bank of India

Kumily Branch Dubai Complex NH 220, Kumily 685509

217. Union Bank of India Vandiperiyar Branch Jaya Building, K.K. Road, Vandiperiyear P.O., Idukki, Dist. 685533 Kuwarbav Branch Shree Samartha Krupa Padvewadi, Mirjole, Gram Kuwarbav, Dist.Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, Pin 415 639

218. Union Bank of India 208 Union Bank of India

Kumarapuram Branch (Thiruvananthapuram), Devi Scans Building, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695 011 Guhagar Branch, Pahat, Near Guhagar Depot, Guhagar Chiplun Road, At Post & Tal. Guhagar, Maharashtra, Pin 415 703

Delhi Region

Regional Office, 209. Union Bank of India Trivendrum Kanthaloor Branch

8/210, Kovikadavu, Sahayagiri P.O., Idukki, Dist. 685 620

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

210. Union Bank of India

Pala Branch Moons Building Opp. Mini Civil Station, Pala, Kottayam Dist. 686 575

211. Union Bank of India

219. Mayur Vihar Phase III Indian Overseas Bank 2442 Plot No. 7 & 8 Agarwal Tower DDA Shopping Centre Kondli Gharoli Mayur Vihar Phase III Delhi 110 096

220. Nangloi 2443 Indian Overseas Bank Ponkunnam (Vazhoor) Branch Vattakattu Building, KVMS Junction. NH-220, Ponkunnam, Kottayam 685 506

212. Union Bank of India

A-20 Adhyapak Nagar Nazafgarh Road Opp. Hanuman Mandir Nangloi, Delhi 110 041

221. Mehrauli 2444 Indian Overseas Bank Vaikom Branch Kaniamparambil Arcade, Valiya Kavala Bus Stand Vaikom-686141, Kottayam Dist.

893-A/8, Ground Floor Main Bazar Mehrauli Delhi 110030

222. Dwarka Indian Overseas Bank Sector 20, 2445 G-4 Ground Floor 213. Union Bank of India Aroor Branch Door No. VII/896-B.G. NH 47, Near PH Centre & Village Office, Aroor, Alappuzha

214. Union Bank of India

Manish High Plaza Plot No. 25 Service Centre Sector 20 Dwarka, New Delhi 110 075 Karhikappally Branch Kochuparambil Building Alappuzha 690 516

223. Ashok Vihar 2259 Indian Overseas Bank 215. Union Bank of India

Kaduthuruthy (Vaikom) Branch, Ist Floor, Kumar Complex, Central Complex,

A-6 Ashok Vihar Phase-II North District New Delhi 110 0525272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

224. Maurya Enclave 2260 Indian Overseas Bank

29, 30, 31-P Block Pacific Mall Pitampura (West) Maurya Enclave North West District New Delhi 110 034

225. Najafgarh 2261 Indian Overseas Bank

RZ-15 Ground Floor Oil Roshanpura Najafgarh West Distrct New Delhi-110 043

226. Anand Vihar 2356 Indian Overseas Bank

G-1 Plot No. 11 Chetan Complex Suraj Mal Vihar Local Shopping Anand Vihar New Delhi 110 092

227. Mundka 2357 Indian Overseas Bank

Khasra No. 428/4 Village:Mundka Delhi 110 041

228. Mahipalpur 2358 Indian Overseas Bank

A-7, Brahamputra House Delhi 110 037

229. Sanchar Bhawan 2565 Indian Overseas Bank

DOC & IT Sanchar Bhawan Ministry of Communication Ashok Road New Delhi 110 001

230. East of Kailash 2668 Indian Overseas Bank

C-36, Raja Hessan Marg East of Kailash New Delhi 110048

231. Mayur Vihar Indian Overseas Bank

Phase-II 2661 23 Ist Floor

Krishna Arcade LSC Mayur Vihar Phase-II New Delhi 110 092

232. Ayodhya-2369 Indian Overseas Bank

Old Bus Stand Hanumangari Ayodhya-224 133-U.P.

233. Chitrakoot Dham Indian Overseas Bank

(Karwi) 2472 440/2, Dwarikapuri,

Mandakini Road, Purani Bazar, Karwi- 210 205 U.P.

234. Gosaigang 2516 Indian Overseas Bank

Plot No. 28, Sadarpur Karora Gusainganj Dist- Lucknow, U.P. 227 125

235. Itaunja 2517 Indian Overseas Bank

Plot No. 215, Ward No. 7 Nagar Panchayat Itaunja District-Lucknow, U.P. 226 205

236. Lalganj-2370 Indian Overseas Bank

Kakajunj, Mahesh Nagar, Lalganj-229 206 District-Rae Bareli, U.P.

237. Mahona 2512 Indian Overseas Bank

House No. 533, Itaunja-Karsi Road, Mahona, District Lucknow, U.P. 227 205

238. Mau Aima 2471 Indian Overseas Bank

172, Station Road, Mau Aima, District-Allahabad, U.P. 212 501

239. Patti 2511 Indian Overseas Bank

House No.1, Ward No. 2, Civil Line, Patti Town Distrcit-Pratapgarh, U.P. 230 135

240. Sitapur 2181 Indian Overseas Bank

Main Market Road, Sitapur-273 402, U.P.

241. Sultanpur 2386 Indian Overseas Bank

Civil Lines, In front of Bus Road, Sultanpur 228 001, U.P.

242. Pratapgarh 2362 Indian Overseas Bank

Chawla Arcade, Bhangwa Changi, Pratapgarh-230 001, U.P.

243. Zaidpur Indian Overseas Bank

(Barabanki) 2361 Rayan Complex, Sidhor Road,

Zaidpur-225 414, Distt. Barabanki U.P.

244. Chandauli 2572 Indian Overseas Bank

Plot No. 453, Near Shankar Singh hospital, Chandauli 232 104, U.P.

245. Mati 2571 Indian Overseas Bank

Plot ;No. 56, Mati Bazar, Renduva Palhari, Chinhat Deva Road, Post-Muradhbad, Mati-225 301 District-Barabanki-U.P.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

246. Maharajganj 2557 Indian Overseas Bank

989, Shastri Nagar,

Nagar Palika Parishad,

Maharajganj 273 303 U.P.

247. Maheva Patti 2556 Indian Overseas Bank

46-D, Indalpur Road, in front

of Police Chowki, M.P.

Chauraha, Naini, Allahabad-

211 007 U.P.

255. Sudhowala Indian Overseas Bank

2305 23 Gra, Sudhowala, P.O. Jhajhara Taluk, Vikas Nagar, Block Nagar, Block-Sahaspur, Dehradun- 248 007

256. Srinagar-Gadwal Indian Overseas Bank,

2528 Sanjay Talkies Building,

Meerut Region

248. Baniawala 2503 Indian Overseas Bank

Ashirvad Bhavan, Durga

Chowk,

Rishikesh Road,

Baniawala,

Post-Doyiwala,

Sri Nagar - Gadwal, Badrinath Main Road, P.O. Paudi Gadwal, Uttarakhand 246174

257. Vikas Nagar Indian Overseas Bank,

2502 Bhaktawar Singh Marg,

Main Bazar, Vikas Nagar, District - Dehradun, PIN - 248 198

Patna Region

District-Dehradun-248 198

249. Jalalpur 2467 Indian Overseas Bank

Near Jahar Veer Mandir,

Khair Road, Koeel Tehsil,

Village Jalalpur, 202 001

Distrct-Aligarh

250. Kashipur 2217 Indian Overseas Bank

Chamunda Complex,

Ramnagar Road,

Kashipur-244 713,

District-Udhyam Singh Nagar

(Uttarkhand)

251. Karna Prayag Indian Overseas Bank

2529 Hotel Parkdeep,

P.O. Gandhinagar,

Karna Prayag,

District-Chamoli-246 444,

Gadwal, Uttarkhand

252. Ramnagar 2216 Indian Overseas Bank

Ingwal Tower,

Opposite M.P. College Field,

Ramnagar-244 715

District-Nainital (Uttarakhand)

253. Rudraprayag Indian Overseas Bank

2530 Near New Bus Stand,

Rudraprayag,

District-Rudraprayag,

Uttarakhand-246 171

254. Stadium Road, Bareli Indian Overseas Bank

2365 P-5/15, Stadium Road,

D.D. Puram,

Bareli-243 005

258. Purnea Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Madhubani Bazar, Saharsa Road, Purnia Distt.-Purnia PIN - 854301

259. Boring Road Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

New Patliputra Colony, Near CISF Office, Boring Road Patna, Distt.-Patna PIN - 800013

260. Siwan Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Ward No. 16, Station Road, Babunia More Siwan, Distt.-Siwan PIN - 841226

261. Gopalganj Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Chuna Gali (Near Canara Bank), Jadawpur Road, Gopalganj, Distt.-Gopalganj PIN - 841428

262. Biharsharif Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Ram Raj Complex, Ramchandrapuri, Bihar Shariff, Distt. Nalanda PIN - 803101

263. Madhubani Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Opp. Watson Inter College, Hospital Road, Madhubani, Distt. Madhubani PIN - 8472115274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

264. Chapra Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Near Hanuman Mandir, Mouna Gola Road, Chapra, Distt. Saran PIN-841301

265. Begusarai Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Shyam Commercial Complex, Kachahari Road, Begusarai, Distt. Begusarai PIN-851 101

266. Kahalgaon Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Nav Chetna Kendra, Thana Road, Kahalgaon Road, Distt. Bhagalpur PIN-813 203

267. Buxar Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Nav Durga Complex, Collectorate Road, Ambedkar Chowk, Buxar, Distt. Buxar PIN-802103

268. Arrah Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Maharana Pratap Nagar, New Police Line Road, Arrah, Distt. Bhojpur PIN-802 301

269. Hinoo, Ranchi Branch Indian Overseas Bank, Opp. Eyelex Complex, Main Road, Hinoo, Ranchi, Distt. Ranchi PIN-834 002

270. Sahibganj Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Near Town Thana Chowk Bazar, Shashi Bhushan Rai Road, Sahebganj, Distt.-Sahebganj PIN - 816 109

271. Saraidhela Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Ward No. 28, Main Road, Saraidhela, Dhanbad, Distt. Dhanbad

273. Sakchi Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

66, Pennar Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Distt.-East Singhbhum PIN-831001

274. Koderma Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Plot No. 3409, Ward No. 6, Near Punjab Hotel, Patna Ranchi Road, Koderma, Distt.-Koderma PIN-825410

275. Simri Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

First Floor, Simri-Govindpur, Near Simri Thana, Post Office-Kansi Simri, Distt.-Darbhanga PIN-847106, Bihar

276. Shiksha Bhawan Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

Bihar Rajbhasha Parishad Campus, Acharya Shivpujan Sahay Path, Saidpur, Patna Distt-Patna, PIN-800004

277. Lohardaga Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

First Floor, M.M. Market, Rana Chowk, Lohardaga, Distt.-Lohardaga, PIN-835302

278. Hazipur Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

First Floor, S.S. Complex, Johri Bazar, Hazipur, Vaishali Bihar, PIN-844101

279. Bhagwanpur Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

First Floor, Gopal Market, Bhagwanpur Chatti, Rewa Road, Muzaffarpur, PIN-842001

280. Godda Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

First Floor, Ward No. 6, Pirpainti Road, Hatia Chowk, Godda, PIN-814 133, Jharkhand

BHOPAL REGION

272. Chaibasa Branch Indian Overseas Bank,

L.D. House, Amla Tola, Sadar Bazar, Station Road, Chaibasa, Distt. Paschim Singhbhum PIN-833 201

281. Vidisha 2167 Indian Overseas Bank,

Plot No. 60, Ward No. 7, NH-86, Near Bus Stand, Vidisha, District - Vidisha, PIN-464 001[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5275

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

282. CPRI Bhopal 2171 Indian Overseas Bank,

Central Power Research Institute, Govindapura, P.O. Bhopal, District - Bhopal, PIN-460 023

283. Govindapura 2233 Indian Overseas Bank,

6 Punjabi Bagh, Govindapura, Bhopal, District - Bhopal, PIN-462 023

284. Mandideep 2327 Indian Overseas Bank,

2A, Indira Nagar, Opp. Heg Mandideep, District - Raisen, Bhopal (MP), PIN-462 046

285. Lalghati - Bhopal 2413 Indian Overseas Bank,

39, Janki Nagar, Gufa Mandir Road, Lalghati, Bhopal-462 002

286. Sehore 2419 Indian Overseas Bank,

House No. 40, Jayanti Colony, Sekadakhedi Road, Sehore - 466 001

287. Gulmohar Colony 2415 Indian Overseas Bank,

Subhadra House, 11 Jai Builders Colony, Saket, Gulmohar Colony, Indore - 452 018

292. Devas Indian Overseas Bank,

01, Malwa Shanai Complex, Opp. Apex Hospital, Tilar Nagar, A.B. Road, Devas, M.P. - 496 001

293. Raigarh 2466 Indian Overseas Bank, First Floor, Modi Plaza, Jagatpur Road, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh - 496 001

294. Tilda 2323 Indian Overseas Bank,

R.K.S. Plaza, Kharora Road, Tilda, PO-Neora, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh, PIN-493 114

295. Mana 2324 Indian Overseas Bank,

Gauri Joddar, Mana Camp Main Road, Front of Novodaya Quarters, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, PIN-491 107

296. Utai 2325 Indian Overseas Bank,

Asha Complex (Patan Pul), Main Road, Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, PIN - 491 107

297. Dhanora 2326 Indian Overseas Bank,

Damodar Prasad Sahu, Village Dhanora, PO - Hanoda, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh, PIN - 491 001

JAIPUR REGION

288. Murwara-Katni 2418 Indian Overseas Bank,

Bardsley English School Campur, Murwar Mission Chawk, Katni, Ward No. 5, Chadrashekhar Azad Ward, House No. 436 to 436/9, Katni, M.P. 483 501

289. Hoshangabad 2416 Indian Overseas Bank,

Plot No. 1, Anand Nagar, Hoshangabad, M.P. 461 001

290. Shivpuri 2420 Indian Overseas Bank,

House No. 1326, Quarter No. 3, Ram Arked, Jhansi Triraha, A.B. Road, Shivpuri, M.P. PIN - 473 551

291. Morena 2417 Indian Overseas Bank,

160/3, Ward No. 34, Opp. S.P. Bunglow, M.S. Morena, M.P. 476 001 298. Bapui 2696 Indian Overseas Bank,

Gadh Bapui, Boli Tehsil, Sawai Madhopur - 322023 (Rajasthan)

299. Tonk 2682 Indian Overseas Bank,

Dwarikesh Nazarbagh Palace Road, Tonk-304001 (Rajasthan)

300. Chandpole 2426 Indian Overseas Bank,

1193, Uniyaro Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur-313324 (Rajasthan)

301. Vidhyadhar Nagar 2427 Indian Overseas Bank,

Shop No. 20—24, Gr. Floor, Alankar Plaza, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar-303303 (Rajasthan)

302. Jaisalmer 2428 Indian Overseas Bank,

B-453, Opp. Mandir Palace,5276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Near Tajia Tower, Jaisalmer-321001 (Rajasthan)

303. Rajsamand 2429 Indian Overseas Bank,

Pagaria Estate, Pagaria Market, Mukherjee Circle, Rajasmand - 306401 (Rajasthan)

304. Barmer 2430 Indian Overseas Bank,

Goswami Tower, Roy Colony Road, Opp. Civil Hosp. Building, Barmer-322001 (Rajasthan)

305. Chittorgarh 2431 Indian Overseas Bank,

Innai Residency, Bhilwara Road, Chitorgah-332001 (Rajasthan)

306. Dausa 2432 Indian Overseas Bank,

Plot No. 1-2-3, National Highway-11, Jaipur Agra Road, Dausa-312001 (Rajasthan)

307. Bundi 2433 Indian Overseas Bank,

Devshree Complex, Bye Pass Road, Bundi-302023 (Rajasthan)

308. Bharatpur 2434 Indian Overseas Bank, Singhal Nursing Home, Infront of Kali ki Bagichi, Main Circular Road, Bharatpur-344001 (Rajasthan)

309. Sawai Madhopur 2435 Indian Overseas Bank,

Shukla Bhawan, Goverdhan Colony, New Grain Mandi Road, Sawai Madhopur-323001 (Rajasthan)

310. Sikar 2436 Indian Overseas Bank,

Near Biscope Pvt. Ltd., Shastri Nagar, Rani Sati Road, Sikar-302001 (Rajasthan)

311. Hanumangarh 2437 Indian Overseas Bank,

Baba Shyam Singh Complex, Hanumangarh-345001

312. Pali 2438 Indian Overseas Bank,

Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Pali -35512 (Rajasthan)

313. Mahwa 2540 Indian Overseas Bank,

Opp. Police Station Jaipur-Agra Road, Mahwa, Dausa-321608 (Rajasthan) 314. Newai 2539 Indian Overseas Bank,

Near Nagar Palika, Jaipur Kota Road, Jamat Newai, Tonk-304021 (Rajasthan)

315. Lalsot 2541 Indian Overseas Bank,

New Anaj mandi Sawai Madhopur Road, Lalsot Dausa-303503

316. Pushkar 2542 Indian Overseas Bank,

Near Roadways Bus Stand, Opp. Gurudwara Pushkar, Ajmer-305022 (Rajasthan)

317. Abu Road 2330 Indian Overseas Bank,

Ward No. 3 Manpur, Mount Road, Abu Road, Sirohi-307206 (Rajasthan)

318. Neemrana 2307 Indian Overseas Bank,

Shop No. 32, Industrial Area, Neemrana, Alwar (Rajasthan)

319. Bandikui 2607 Indian Overseas Bank,

Ist Floor Pujari Ka Katla 16, Raja Bazar Behind Girl's College, Bandikui 303313 (Rajasthan)

320. Rajgarh 2608 Indian Overseas Bank,

Khasra 551/0.5 Between Axis Bank & SBBJ, Rajgarh 301408 (Rajasthan)

321. Banswara 2698 Indian Overseas Bank,

Opp. Tehsil Office, Banswara Jaipur (Rajasthan)

322. Mehra Jatuwas 2595 Indian Overseas Bank,

Near Bus Stand Patwargarh, Kharsa No. 108, Mehra Jatuwas, Jhunjhunu-333036 (Rajasthan)

323. Nagaur 2893 Indian Overseas Bank,

Gandhi Chowk, Railway Station, Nagpur-341001 (Rajasthan)

324. Ajmer Road 2790 Indian Overseas Bank,

125, Gyan Vihar, New Roma Nursing Home, D.C.M. Ajmer Road (Rajasthan)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5277

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

325. Rohta 2597 Indian Overseas Bank,

5 Vaishno Vihar Agra Highway, Rohta Agra-282001 (U.P.)

326. Kirawali 2538 Indian Overseas Bank,

Agra Fatehpur Sikri Road, Galla Mandi, Kirawali (Agra)-283122 (U.P.)

327. Etmadpur 2674 Indian Overseas Bank,

Bheem Market Brahan Road, Etmadpur Agra-283202 (U.P.)

336. Gokul 2613 Indian Overseas Bank,

Nand Dwar, Gokul, Distt.-Mathura-281303 (U.P.)

337. Raya 2614 Indian Overseas Bank,

Plot No. 195, Infront of Railway Station, Raya, Dist.-Mathura-281204 (U.P.)

338. Goverdhan 2697 Indian Overseas Bank,

Kunj Bihari Sewa Sadan, Radha Kund Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Goverdhan, Distt.-Mathura PIN-281502 (U.P.)

339. Central Bank of India,

328. Achhnera 2329 Indian Overseas Bank, 2414, Agarwal Building, Village Achhnera, Agra, (U.P.)

329. Fatehabad 2895 Indian Overseas Bank,

Near Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Fatehabad-283111 (U.P.)

Banka Kateria Road, Banka P.O. Banka Distt. Banka (Bihar)

340. Central Bank of India,

Shekhpura, Chandni Chowk, Cinema Road, P.O. Shekhpura Distt.: Shekhpura (Bihar)

341. Central Bank of India,

330. Sikandara Road 2894 Indian Overseas Bank, Nihal Complex, Sector 5, Uttar Pradesh Awas Vikas Colony, Sikandra Agra-282007 (U.P.)

331. Dayal Bagh 2911 Indian Overseas Bank,

Jamhore, A.N. Road Jamhore, P.O. Jamhore, Distt.: Aurangabad (Bihar)

342. Central Bank of India,

8/13 I Kaushal Pur, By Pass Road, Dayal Bagh Agra-282005 (U.P.)

332. Bichpuri 2916 Indian Overseas Bank,

Chandni Chowk, Stuart Ganj, Mohania, P.O. Mohania, Distt. Caimur (Bihar)

343. Central Bank of India,

Agra Bichpuri Main Road, Opp. State Bank of India, Bichpuri, District Agra- 283105 (U.P.)

333. Sanjay Place 2912 Indian Overseas Bank,

Ankorha P.O. Ankorha, Distt. Aurangabad (Bihar)

344. Central Bank of India,

Shop No. 1 & 10 Ground Floor, 54 Prateek Tower Opp. to HDFC Bank, Sanjay Place, Agra-282002 (U.P.)

334. Keetham 2331 Indian Overseas Bank,

Keetham Zila, Agra (U.P.)

Jehanabad, Ambedkar Chowk Court Area, P.O. Jehanabad Distt.: Jehanabad (Bihar)

345. Central Bank of India,

335. Farah 2611               Indian Overseas Bank,                                         V.K.S.U. University,
                              Kailash Nagar,                                                Katira Road, Ara
                              Bypass  Farah,                                                P.O.: Ara
                              Mathura-281122  (U.P.)                                        Distt. Bhojpur (Bihar)

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

355. Central Bank of India,

346. Central Bank of India,

Mahendru, Choudhary Market, Near Mahendru Post Office, Ashok Rajpath, Patna (Bihar)

S.N. Sinha College, S.N. Sinha College Campus, P.O. Aurangabad, Distt.: Aurangabad (Bihar)

356. Central Bank of India,

347. Central Bank of India,

A.M. College, A.M. College Campus, Katari Hill Road, P.O.: R.S. Gaya, Distt. Gaya (Bihar)

Nortdame Academy, N.D.A. Premises, Industrial Estate, Main Road, Post P.P. Colony, Patna (Bihar)

348. Central Bank of India,

S.B. College, S.B. College building, P.O.-Pakari, Distt.-Bhojpur

357. Central Bank of India, Choudhary Tola, Jagannath Singh Lane, Post Choudhary Tola, Patna (Bihar)

358. Central Bank of India,

C.D.A. C.D.A. Premises, Rajendra Path, Patna (Bihar)

349. Central Bank of India, K.L.S. College, Gandhi Nagar, Nawada, Near No. 3, Bus Stand, P.O. Nawada, Distt. Nawada (Bihar)

359. Central Bank of India,

350. Central Bank of India,

Hindi Vidyapeeth, B.N. Jha Road, Distt. Deoghar (Jharkhand)

360. Central Bank of India,

Kisan College, Kisan College Campus P.O. Sohsarai, Distt. Nalanda (Bihar)

Sagma, P.O. Kataharkala, Distt. Garhwa (Jharkhand)

361. Central Bank of India,

351. Central Bank of India, Phulbari Sharif, Khagaul Road, Kali Mandir, Post Phulbari Sharif, Patna (Bihar)

352. Central Bank of India,

Kurpania, Anand Bazar, Kurpania, P.O. Sunday Bazar, Block: Bermao, Distt. Bokaro (Jharkhand)

362. Central Bank of India,

Ganga Devi Mahila College, Ganga Devi Mahila College Premises, Kankarbag, Lohiya Nagar, Patna (Bihar)

MGM Bokara, MGM School, Bokaro, Sector IV, Distt. Bokaro (Jharkhand)

363. Central Bank of India,

N. Road Jamshedpur, Tisco N. Gate, Distt. East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

353. Central Bank of India, Patna University, Patna College Premises, Ashok Rajpath, Patna (Bihar)

364. Central Bank of India,

354. Central Bank of India,

Govindpur, Tirupati Complex, G.T. Road, Govindpur, P.O. Govindpur, Disstt. Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

T.P.S. College, T.P.S. College Premises, Chiraya Tand, Patna (Bihar)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5279

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

365. Central Bank of India,

377. Central Bank of India,

Navhatta, Vill. & P.O. Navhatta, Distt. Saharsa (Bihar)

Latona, P.O. Triveni Ganj, Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)

366. Central Bank of India,

378. Central Bank of India,

Purab Bazar, Distt. Saharsa (Bihar)

Belari, P.O. Belari, Via Budhma, Distt. Madhepura (Bihar)

367. Central Bank of India, Saharsa College, Distt. Saharsa (Bihar)

379. Central Bank of India,

368. Central Bank of India,

Israinkala, P.O. Jadua Patti, Distt. Madhepura (Bihar)

380. Central Bank of India,

Amha, Vill. & P.O. - Amha, Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)

369. Central Bank of India,

Baurani, Rajendra Road, Distt. Begusarai (Bihar)

381. Central Bank of India,

P.O. Bahorva, Parsa Via Pipra Bazar, Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)

370. Central Bank of India,

Amjadpur, P.O. Pidholi, Distt. Begusarai (Bihar)

Sukhasan P.O. Shripur, Via Kharvitta, Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)

371. Central Bank of India,

382. Central Bank of India, Mahesh Khoont, Keshri Market, Distt. Khagaria (Bihar)

P.O. Velhi, Via-Nirmali, Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)

372. Central Bank of India,

383. Central Bank of India, Alirajpur Branch, 20 Nagar Palika Marg, Alirajpur-457887 Distt. Alirajpur Madhya Pradesh

Puraani Bazar, P.O. Ganeshpur, Disstt. Madhepura (Bihar)

373. Central Bank of India,

Hardi, P.O. Hardi, Via Gamharia Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)

384. Central Bank of India, Jhabua Branch Behind City Post Office Hansa Lodge Jhabua-457661 Distt: Jhabua

374. Central Bank of India,

385. Central Bank of India,

Panchayat Bhawan, Alam Nagar, Distt. Madhepura (Bihar)

375. Central Bank of India,

Jamo Bajar Branch, At+PO: Jamo Bajar, Block: Goriakothi Sub-division: Maharajganj Distt: Siwan, Postal Index No. 841413 (Bihar)

Asha Palace, Kali Sthan, Disstt. Begusarai (Bihar)

386. Central Bank of India,

376. Central Bank of India,

P.O. Gaura, Via Barauni Dyori, Distt. Begusarai (Bihar)

Panchdeorhi Branch At+P.O.: Panchdeorhi, Distt: Gopalganj Postal Index No. 841437 (Bihar)5280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

387. Central Bank of India,

D.A.V. College Siwan Branch, D.A.V. College Campus Siwan, Distt.: Siwan, Postal Index No. 841226 (Bihar)

388. Central Bank of India,

Hasanpura Branch At+PO: Hasanpura, Near Hasanpura Bridge, Distt: Siwan Postal Index No. 841236 (Bihar)

389. Central Bank of India, Pachlakhi Branch At+PO: Pachlakhi P.S. Nautan Distt.: Siwan Postal Index No. 841436 (Bihar)

390. Central Bank of India,

Parsa Branch, At: Parsa, PO: Parsa-Bajar, Block+P.S. Ekma Dist: Saran (Chhapra) Postal Index No. 841 220 (Bihar)

391. Central Bank of India, Jamapur Branch, At: Jamapur, PO: Jiradei, Block: Jiradei Sub-division: Siwan Dist: Siwan, Postal Index No. 841 245 (Bihar)

392. Central Bank of India,

Malamirja Tukada Branch J.P. University Campus PO: Chhapra, Dist: Saran (Chhapra) Postal Index No. 841301 (Bihar)

393. Central Bank of India,

Jagadamba College Branch, Jagadamba College Campus PO: Chhapra, Dist: Saran (Chhapra), Postal Index No. 841 301 (Bihar)

394. Central Bank of India,

Vidya Vikas Mandal College Branch, College Complex, Pedda, Margon, Goa 403601

395 Central Bank of India, St. Javier College Alteno, Mapuca, Dist: North Goa, Goa 403 507

396. Central Bank of India

Calangute Branch Algarvi Retreat Porbavaddo, Calngute, Barddez, Dist: North Goa, Goa 403 516

397. Central Bank of India Naveli Branch Colmorod Aishs Building, Carwar, Madgaon Road, Navelim, Salset, Dist: South Goa, Goa 403 707

398. Central Bank of India

NRI Branch Damodar Bldg, Station Road, Near Gomantak Niketan Bldg., Margao 403 601, Salcete, Dist: South Goa,

399. Central Bank of India APMC Branch Krishi Utpad Bajar Samiti Campus, Bettiah-845438 Dist: West Champaran Tel: 06254243608 E-Mail: [email protected]

400. Central Bank of India Barwal Branch At+Post: Bagaha II Dist: 06251227750 E-Mail:[email protected]

401. Central Bank of India

Chanpatia Branch At+Post: Chanpatia Dist: West Champaran-845438 Tel: 06254266139 E-Mail: [email protected]

402. Central Bank of India

Dalpat Vishunpur Branch At+Post: Dalpat Vishunpur Via Panchpakadi Dist: East Champaran-845427 Tel: 06250282233 E-Mail: [email protected][भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5281

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

403. Central Bank of India Devapur Branch At+Post: Panchpakadi Dist: East Champaran-845427 Tel: 06250250133 E-Mail: [email protected]

404. Central Bank of India

Duncan Hospital Branch Duncan Hospital Campus Raxaul Dist: East Champaran-845305 Tel: 06255220963 E-Mail: [email protected]

405. Central Bank of India

Gora Branch At: Shanichari Chauk, Via Lauria Dist: West Champaran-845543 Tel: 06254254243 E-Mail: [email protected]

406. Central Bank of India

Kandhwalia Branch At: Kandhwalia Post: Bagahi, Dist: West Champaran-845106 Tel: 06256264463 E-Mail: [email protected]

407. Central Bank of India Kehunia Branch At: Hardia Chauk Narkatiaganj Dist: West Champaran-845455 Tel: 06253242028 E-Mail: [email protected]

408. Central Bank of India Kesarria Branch Block Road, Post: Kesaria Dist: East Champaran-845301 Tel: 06257269875 E-Mail: [email protected]

409. Central Bank of India

Patani Branch At+Post: Ramgadhwa Dist: East Champaran-845433 Tel: 06255233714 E-Mail: [email protected]

410. Central Bank of India Phenhara Branch At+Post: Phenhara Dist: East Champaran-845420 Tel: 06259277153 E-Mail: [email protected] 411. Central Bank of India

Sirinagar Branch At: Sirinagar Post: Dumari Bazar Dist: West Champaran-845452 Tel: 06254224322 E-Mail: [email protected]

412. Central Bank of India Taulaha Branch At+Post: Ramnagar Dist: West Champaran-845105 Tel: 062596224073 E-Mail: [email protected]

413. Central Bank of India

Lead District Office, East Champaran Balua Tal, Motihari Dist: East Champaran-845401 Tel: 06252232793 E-Mail: [email protected]

414. Central Bank of India

Lead District Office, West Champaran Lal Bazar, Bettiah Dist: West Champaran - 845438 Dist: 06254242311, Fax: 06254232261 E-Mail:

415. Central Bank of India Regional Office, Balua Tal, Motihari Dist: East Champaran-845401 Tel: 06252232448 E-Mail: [email protected]

416. Central Bank of India Gorwa Branch At+Post: Gorwa Dist: East Champaran

417. Central Bank of India Fetehpur Branch Machharaganva Dist: West Champaran

418. Central Bank of India

Abbigere Branch Sri Skanda Complex, "F" Cross, Abbigere Main Road, Bangalore-560 090

419. Central Bank of India Bannerghatta Branch, 383/1A, Hulimavu, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 0765282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

420. Central Bank of India

HSR Layout Branch No. 395, 10th Main, 7th Sector, Behind Muniyappa Complex, HSR Layout, Bangalore 560 102

421. Central Bank of India Jaraganahalli Branch, No. 1, 1st Croass, Rajiv Gandhi Road, Jaraganahalli (J.P. Nagar) Bangalore 560 078

422. Central Bank of India

Jayanagar IX Block Branch R J Arcade, No. 1029/41, 27th A Main, 100 ft Ring Road, 9th Blcok, Jayanagar Bangalore 560 041

423. Central Bank of India

Kemoapura Hebbal Branch 26&29, R.S. Complex, Anjaneya Temple Street, Kempapura, Bangalore 560 024

424. Central Bank of India

Kodigehalli Branch No. 20, Kempegowda Nagar Road, Virupakshapura, Near Telecom Circle, Vidhyaranyapura Post, Kodigehalli, Bangalore 560 097

425. Central Bank of India

Mathikere branch, 907/6, Sir Complex, MES Ring Road, Muthyal Nagar, Bangalore 560 054

426. Central Bank of India

Ramamurthy Nagar Branch, 72/73, Maruthi Complex, Hoysala Nagar, 4th Main, T.C. Palya Main Road, Ramamurthy Nagar Extn., Bangalore 560 016

427. Central Bank of India

R.T. Nagar Branch, No. 9 D.R. Plaza, Dinnur Main Road, Bangalore 560 034

428. Central Bank of India Vijayanagar Branch, Sir Krishna, No. 29, 1st Floor, Magadi Main Road, M.C. Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore 560 040

429. Central Bank of India

Yelahanka Branch, 98 & 99, LIG Venkateshwara Complex, 707, 4th Phase, Near Govt. School, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore 560 064 430. Central Bank of India

Church of South India Branch Church of South India Council for Child Care, Centre, Bangalore, 26, Lavelle Road, Bangalore 560 001

431. Central Bank of India

Central Silk Board Branch C.S.B. Complex, BTM Layout, Madiwala, Bangalore 560 068

432. Central Bank of India

Sophia High School Branch Bangalore, 47, Palace Road, Bangalore 560001

433. Central Bank of India

Widia (India) Ltd., Branch, Bangalore, 8/9 Mile, Tumkur Road, Bangalore 560 073

434. Central Bank of India

Indian Institute of Harticultural Research (IIHR) Branch, Lake Post, Hesaraghatta 560 089 Bangalore Rural Dist.

435. Central Bank of India

Mandhya Branch No. 5, 28/1121/3, 3rd Main Road, Ashoknagar, Mandya, Mandya Dist. 571401

436. Central Bank of India

Hassan branch, 77/15A, Near Stadium, Vidyanagar, M.G. Road, Diast. Hassan 573 201

437. Central Bank of India Tumkur Branch Vijaya Complex Someshwarapuram Main Road, Tumkur 572 102

438. Central Bank of India

Dattagalli Branch 22/23, Kanakadasa Nagar, Netaji Circle & Double Road, Dattagalli, Mysore 570 023

439. Central Bank of India

Hosakote Branch No. 21, Near Nagadeshwara Temple, Bus Stand Road, Hossakote 562114 Karnataka[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5283

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

447. Syndicate Bank

440. Central Bank of India

Kanakpura Branch Ramanagara District, 602/655, M.G. Road, Opp. Range Forest Office, Kanakapura 562 117

Vamaiya Branch C/o Gram Panchayat Committee Hall Vamaiya Taluk Dist: Patan State: Gujarat

448. Syndicate Bank

441. Central Bank of India Madikeri Branch No. 115/81 A, Block No. 2, Ground Floor, Gowlibeedi, Kohinoor Road, Madikeri 571 201.

Syndicate Bank, Official Language Division, HO:

Manipal-576 104

Palanpur Branch 1,2,3, H.K. Towers Hanuman Tekari Abu Highway, Palanpur Dist: Banaskantha State: Gujarat Pin : 385 001

449. Syndicate Bank

442. Syndicate Bank Hunsur Branch # 3739/1 B.M. By Pass Road Hunsur Dist: Mysore State: Mysore Pin : 571 105

443. Syndicate Bank

Pratapgarh Branch Sri Govindnathji Haweli Gopalganj Pratapgarh Dist: Pratapgarh State: Rajasthan Pin : 312 605

450. Syndicate Bank

Siddartha Nagar Branch # 147/13 Siddartha Complex Siddartha Nagar Dist: Mysore State: Mysore Pin : 570 011

444. Syndicate Bank

Rajasamand Branch Main Market Bhilwara Road J.K. Curve Hathina M K Kankroli Dist: Rajsamand State: Rajasthan Pin : 313 324

451. Syndicate Bank

Adarsh Nagar Branch D-27-28, Rajan Babu Road Adarshnagar State: Delhi Pin : 110 033

445. Syndicate Bank

Bundi Branch Ward No. 25 Lanka Gate Road Bundi Dist: Bundi State: Gujarat Pin : 323 001

Model Town Branch Sanker Towers K-1/1 Model Town-111 Near Post Office State: Delhi Pin : 110 009

452. Syndicate Bank

446. Syndicate Bank

Sri Karanpur Branch 5-C Block Ward No. 15 Opp. OBC Sri Karanpur Dist: Sriganganagar State: Rajasthan Pin : 335 073

Himmatnagar Branch Ratan Sagar Sahkari Jinchar Rasta Chhaparia Road Himmathnagar Dist: Sabarkantha State: Gujarat Pin : 383 0015284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

453. Syndicate Bank

460. Syndicate Bank

Bagha Branch Village & P.O. Bagha Dist: Sitamarhi State: Bihar Pin : 843 332

Daulathpur Chandi Branch Village Daulathpur Chandi Dist: Vaishali State: Bihar Pin : 844 146

454. Syndicate Bank

Banka Branch Harendra Market Katoriya Road Dist: Banka State: Bihar Pin : 813 102

461. Syndicate Bank Dumari Branch Village Balihar P.O. Khabra Dist: Muzaffarpur State: Bihar Pin : 843 146

462. Syndicate Bank

Godda Branch Main Chowk Godda Dist: Godda State: Jharkhand Pin : 814 133

455. Syndicate Bank Balihar Branch Village Balihar PO & PS Surajpura Balihar Dist: Rohtas State: Bihar Pin : 802 226

463. Syndicate Bank

456. Syndicate Bank

Hansdiha Branch Hansdiha Chowk Dist: Dumka State: Jharkhand Pin : 814 145

464. Syndicate Bank

Balha Branch Village & P.O. Balha Via Pusa Ps. Chakmahesi Dist: Samastipur State: Bihar Pin : 848 209

457. Syndicate Bank

Harchanda Branch Village Harchanda P.O. Panpur Kariya Dist: Muzaffarpur State: Bihar Pin : 843 146

465. Syndicate Bank

Begusarai Branch Satyaveer Shanti Plaza Hiralal Chowk Near RSS Begusarai Dist: Begusarai State: Bihar Pin : 851 101

458. Syndicate Bank

Kanchanpur Branch Village : Kanchanpur Jalma Chowk P.O. Lupung Block : Katkamasandi Dist: Hazaribagh State: Jharkhand Pin : 825 319

Chittaloriya Branch Village Chittaloriya P.O. Deosung Chittaloriya Dist: Deoghar State: Jharkhand Pin : 814 112

466. Syndicate Bank

459. Syndicate Bank

Marpa Branch Village Marpa P.O. Phulwaria Dist: Sitamarhi State: Bihar

Pin : 843 317

Dhobgama Branch Village & P.O. Dhobgama PS Pusa Dist: Samastipur State: Bihar Pin : 848 125[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5285

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

467. Syndicate Bank

474. The Branch Manager

Belagula

KRS Main Road, Belagula

Srirangapatna Taluk

Mandya-Karnataka-571606

475. The Branch Manager

Belakavadi

Mothihari Branch Kutchery Road Balua Chowk Motihari Dist: Motihari State: Bihar Pin : 845 401

PB No. 1, Main

468. Syndicate Bank

Road Belakavadi, Malavali

Taluk Mandya

Karnataka-571417

476. The Branch Manager

Bellale

Ramapur Maheshpur Branch Village & P.O. Ramapur Maheshpur Dist: Samastipur State: Bihar Pin : 848 130

Bellale, Pandavapura Taluk

Mandya, Karnataka-571434

469. Syndicate Bank

477. The Branch Manager

Bindiganavile

No. 71, Bus Stand Road

Bindiganavile Nagaman-

gala Taluk Mandya

Samastipur Branch Opp. BRB College Mohanpur Road Samastipur Dist: Samastipur State: Bihar Pin : 848 101

Karnataka-571802

470. Syndicate Bank

478. The Branch Manager

Bookinakare

Bookinakere R Pet Taluk,

Mandya Karnataka-571812

Sheikhpura Branch Main Market Chandni Chowk Crossing Dist: Sheikhpura State: Bihar Pin : 811 105

479. The Branch Manager

Chinakurali

PB No. 1,

Chinakuralipandavapura

Taluk Mandya, Karnataka-571455

480. The Branch Manager

Guthalu

Regent Complex, Guthalu

Road Mandya, Mandya

471. Syndicate Bank Taraura Branch Village : Taraura P.O. Peerbadhouna Via : Nagarnausa Taraura Dist: Patna State: Bihar Pin : 801 305

Karnataka-571403

472. The Branch Manager

481. The Branch Manager

ADB Manda

Hadli

Megalapura Circle, Hadli

Malavalli Taluk Mandya

No. D-2/1849/366, I Main Bandigowda Layout Mandya Mandya-Karnataka-571401

Karnataka-571430

473. The Branch Manager

482. The Branch Manager

Aghalaya

Hallagere

Hallagerebasaralu Hobli

Via Santhebachahallyaghalaya, K R Pet Taluk Mandya Karnataka-571436

Mandya, Karnataka-5711465286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

491. The Branch Manager

483. The Branch Manager

Krishnarajpet

Holalu (Bellary)

PB No. 1, Main Road

Holaluhuvinahadagali Taluk

PB No. 1, No. 259, Main Road Krishnarajapet Mandya Karnataka-571426

Bellary, Karnataka-583217

492. The Branch Manager

484. The Branch Manager

Mandya

Hongahally

PB No. 1, Hongahally

Srirangapatna Taluk

PB No. 1, Visveshwaraiah Road Mandya Mandya Karnataka-571401

Mandya, Karnataka-571607

493. The Branch Manager

Melkote

485. The Branch Manager

Kadaballi

Bindaginavile Hobli

No. 20, Marigudi Street Melkote Pandavapura Taluk Mandya Karnataka-571431

Nagamangala Taluk Mandya

494. The Branch Manager

Karnataka -571418

Nagamangala

486. The Branch Manager

Kalamuddanadoddi

No. 1755, Mysore-Bangalore Road nagamangala Mandya Karnataka-571432

No 145(1), Halagur

Roadbharathinagar,

495. The Branch Manager

K.M. Doddi Maddur Taluk

Nagoonahalli

Mandya, Karnataka-571422

487. The Branch Manager

Kalkuni

Chandagal Road, Nagoonahall Isrirangapatna Taluk Smandya, Karnataka-571805

No. 147, State Bank Road,

496. The Branch Manager

Kalkuni, Malavalli Taluk

Palahally

Mandya, Karnataka-571424

488. The Branch Manager

Palahally Srirangapatna Taluk Mandya Karnataka-571438

Kikkeri

PB No. 1, No. 117, Main Road

497. The Branch Manager

Sivasamudram

Kikkeri K.R. Pet Talu

Mandya, Karnataka-571423

489. The Branch Manager

Kothathi

PB No. 1, No D-17, S N P Laneshivasamudrammal-vali Taluk Mandya Karnataka-571437

Mandya-Bannur Road

498. The Branch Manager

Kothathi Mandya

Srirangapatna

Karnataka-571402

PB No. 1, No 994947 Opp.

Hotel Hariprasad Srirangapatna

490. The Branch Manager

Kyathanahalli

Taluk Mandya Karnataka-571438

No. 327(1), Main Road

499. The Branch Manager

Kyathanahalli Pandavapura

Taluk Mandya

Karnataka-571427

V C Farm PB No. 1, V C Farm Mandya Karnataka-571405[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5287

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

507. R.C.P.C. JHALAWAR

STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR

HEAD OFFICE

JAIPUR

Branch to be notified in the Official Gazette under Rule 10(4) of Official Language Rules, 1976.

500. KAAPREN
     Address:
     Po-Kaapren
     Dist-Bundi
     Pin-323 301
     Rajasthan
501. SISWALI
     Address :
     Pratap Chowk, Bus Stand
     Po-Siswali
     Dist-Baran
     Pin-325206
502. TALERA
     Address :
     Kesshoria Patan Tiraha
     Dist-Bundi
     Pin-323021
     Rajasthan
503. INDRAGARH
     Address :
     Community Bhawan, Ward No. 8,
     Post-Indragarh
     Dist-Bundi
     Pin-323613
     Rajasthan
504. ROOPNAGARH
     Address :
     Near Bus Stand
     Po-Roopnagarh
     Dist-Ajmer
     Rajasthan
505. ARAIN
     Address :
     Near Power House Chouraha
     Po-Arain
     Dist-Ajmer
     Pin-305814
     Rajasthan
506. JHALAWAR MINI SECTT.
     Address :
     Post-Jhalawar
     Dist-Jhalawar
     Pin-326001
     Rajasthan

Address : Near Ghar Jhalawar Post-Jhalawar Dist-Jhalawar Pin-326001 Rajasthan

508. VIGYAN NAGAR
     Address :
     Kalpataru Complex,
     Post-Vigyan Nagar
     Dist-Kota
     Pin-324005
     Rajasthan
509. SAWAI MADHOPUR
     Address :
     SBBJ, Bajrang Bhawan
     Post-Sawai Madhopur
     Dist-Sawai Madhopur
     Pin-322001
     Rajasthan
510. DAI BRANCH
     Address :
     Nainwa Road, Opp Krishi Upaj Bhawan
     Post-Dei
     Dist-Bundi
     Pin-323802
     Rajasthan
511. KAWAI BRANCH
     Address :
     Village-Kawai
     Post-Kawai Salpura
     Dist-Baran
     Pin-325219
     Rajasthan
512. SUKAR
     Address :
     Post-Sukar
     Tehsil-Bamanwas
     Dist-Sawai Madhopur
     Rajasthan
513. CTTP CHOKI
     Address :
     CTTP Residential Colony
     Choki Motipura
     Tehsil-Chhabar
     Dist-Baran
     Pin-325220
     Rajasthan

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

514. MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTA

522. KANOD BRANCH

Address: Udaypur Road Post-Kanod Pin-313603 Rajasthan

523. LAKADWAS BRANCH

Address : Medical College Compound Rangh Badi Road City-Kota Disti-Kota Pin-324005 Rajasthan

515. RSMECC, UDAYPUR

Address: Dist-Udaypur Pin-313012 Rajasthan

524. BHILWARA

Address: Ist Floor Chetak Circle Post-Udaypur Pin-313001 Rajasthan

516. HIRAN MAGARI

Address: Bhilwara Dist-Bhilwara Pin-311001 Rajasthan

525. KURUKSHETRA BRANCH

Address: 2-G Block Near Community Centre Hiran Magari Sector-14 Udaypur, Rajasthan

Address: SCO 66, Sector-17 Dist-Krukshetra Pin-136118 Haryana

517. PRATAPGARH Address: Mahatama Gandhi Road Pratapgarh Pin-312605 Rajasthan

List of Branches/Offices of Indian Bank to be notified

under Rule 10(4) in the Gazette of Government of India

518. SETHIN

Zonal Office Chandigarh

     Address:
     A-23 Bapu Nagar, Main Road                         526   Indian Bank
     Sethin (Chittorgarh)                                     Tagore Nagar Branch
     Pin-312001                                               1105 Kiran Vila
     Rajasthan                                                Tagore Nagar B
                                                              Civil Lines
519. VASSI BRANCH
                                                              Ludhiana 151505
     Address:
                                                              Dist.-Ludhiana
     Dist-Dugarpur
     Pin-314036                                         527   Indian Bank
     Rajasthan                                                Fatehgarh Nauban Branch
                                                              C/O Guru Kashi University
520. SAWALA BRANCH
                                                              Sardoolgarh Road
     Address:
     Near Bus Stand                                           Talwandi Sabo
     Udaypur Road, Sawala                                     Fatehgarh Naubad 151302
     Pin-314002                                               Dist.-Bathinda (Punjab)
     Rajasthan                                          528   Indian Bank
521. BICHWADA BRANCH                                          Jujhar Nagar Branch
     Address:                                                 Opp 39 West
     Chhapiya Complex, Main Market Bichwara                   Maloya Road
     Dungarpur                                                Village Jujhar Nagar 160014
     Pin-314801                                               Behlopur
     Rajasthan                                                District Mohali (Punjab)

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

Sl. Name of the Branch, Branch Address

No. Code No.

529 Indian Bank

आन्ध््र बैंक Andhra Bank (भारत सरकार का उपक्रम A Government of India Undertaking)

538 Andhra Bank

Manasa Branch Neemwali Gali Manasa 151505 Dist.-Manasa Punjab 530 Indian Bank

Dammaiguda Branch 6-40, RGA Estate, Deepthi Srinagar, Madinaguda, Serilingampalli Mandal Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad-500049

539 Andhra Bank

Samrala Branch Opp. to M G Complex Khanna Road Samrala-141114 Dist.-Ludhiana Punjab 531 Indian Bank

Hastinapuram Branch Plot No. 8, Survey No. 2, 3 & 4, Sagar Ring Road, Hastinapuram Hyderabad-500079

540 Andhra Bank

Morinda Branch 277-278, Ward No. 8, Railway Road Morinda 140101 Dist.-Roopnagar Punjab 532 Indian Bank

Bhagya Nagar Branch Vandana Arcade, D.No. 2-28-298/8 & 2-28-298/8/1, Bhagyanagar Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072

541 Andhra Bank

Moula-Ali Branch 40-52/4, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad-500040

542 Andhra Bank

Dhoraha Branch Ajjaib Singh Complex Opp. to Flyover G T Road Dhoraha 136118 Dist.-Ludhiana Punjab

Zonal Office Karnal

KPHB Colony Branch Plot No. 19 & 20, III Phase, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072

543 Andhra Bank

533 Indian Bank Zonal Office SCO 244-245, (FF & SF) Sector 12 Karnal 132001 (Haryana)

534 Indian Bank

Nadargul Branch Nadargul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad-501510

544 Andhra Bank

IMT Manesar Showroom No. 4-5-7-8, Raheja Ground Floor, Front Side IMT Manesar 122050 District Gurgaon Haryana

Chevella Branch MBNR Complex, Main Road, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District-501503

535 Indian Bank

545 Andhra Bank

Khandsa Road Branch Chauhan Commercial Complex Near Hero Honda Chowk Khandsa Road

Nanakramguda Branch Andhra Bank, Apex College Complex, Plot No. 27-29, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad-500032

' Gurgaon 122001 (Haryana) 536 Indian Bank

546. Andhra Bank

Choutuppal Branch Door No. 5-390, Main Road Choutuppal-508252

Sushant Lok Branch G-3, Vipul Square Block-B, Phase-1 Sushant Lok Gurgaon 122002 (Haryana)

547 Andhra Bank

537 Indian Bank

Sector-17 Gurgaon Branch 580, Housing Board Colony Sector 17-A Market Gurgaon 122001 (Haryana)

Chityala Branch H. No. 8-150 Opp: Police Station Chityal-5081145290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 11 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 1996.—भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अध्निियम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की धरा 21क के साथ पठित धरा 21 की उप-धरा (1) के खण्ड (ग) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके, एतद्‌द्वारा, श्री दिनेश कुमार (जन्म तिथि 26.10.1966) को उनकी नियुक्ति की अध्सिूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवध् िके लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के दिल्ली स्थानीय बोर्ड में सदस्य नामित करती है।

[फा॰ सं॰ 3/33/2012-बीओ-I] विजय मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013

S.O. 1996.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, read with section

21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the

Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of

India, hereby nominates Shri Dinesh Kumar (DOB:

26.10.1966), as a Member on the Delhi Local Board of State

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

notification of his appointment or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 3/33/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

(कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त) जयपुर, 12 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 1997.—आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अध्निियम, 1961(1961 का 43वां) की धरा 10 के खण्ड (23 सी) की उपधरा (vi) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्‌द्वारा निर्धरण वर्ष 2012-13 एवं आगे के लिये कथित धरा के उद्देश्य से ''दी आईसीएफएआई यूनिवर्सिटी, खसरा नं॰ 505/1, गांव जामडोली, आगरा रोड, जयपुर (स्थाई खाता संख्या-AAAJT2439E) को स्वीकृति देते हैं।

2. बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम, 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अध्निियम, 1961 की धरा 10 के उपखण्ड (23सी) की उपधरा (vi) के प्रावधनों के अनुरूप कार्य करे।

[अध्सिूचना सं॰ 09/2013-14/क्रमांकः मुआआ/अआआ/ (मु॰)/जय॰/10(23सी)(vi)/13-14/3474]

अतुलेश जिंदल, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Jaipur hereby approves "THE ICFAI University, Khasra No. 505/1, Vill. Jamdoli, Agra Road, Jaipur" for the purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2012-13 onwards, provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub-clause(vi) of clause(23C) of section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules,

1962.

[Notification No. 9/2013-14/No. CCIT/JPR/ITO (Tech)/

10(23C)(vi)/2013-14/3474]

ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2013

का॰आ॰ 1998.—केन्द्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (यथासंशोधित 1987) के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, वित्त मंत्रालय, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग के नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित बैंक की शाखाओं को, जिनके 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी में कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।

क्र॰ सं॰ बैंक का नाम शाखाओं की संख्या

1. आन्ध्रा बैंक 53

2. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक 08

कुल 61

[सं॰ 11016/13/2013-हिन्दी] राजीव कुमार, सहायक निदेशक (रा॰भा॰)

आन्ध्रा बैंक (भारत सरकार का उपक्रम)

क्रम सं॰ शाखा का नाम एवं पता

1. आन्ध्रा बैंक

पोदलकूर रोड शाखा, पद्‌मावती सेंटर, नेल्लोर-524004 आं॰प्र॰

2. आन्ध्रा बैंक

एस॰एस॰एन॰ डिग्री कालेज, मुगमूरू रोड, ओंगोल-523001 आं॰प्र॰

3. आन्ध्रा बैंक दर्शी शाखा, एल॰पी॰ रोड, दर्शी-523 427, प्रकाशम जिला, आं॰प्र॰

(Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax)

Jaipur, the 12th September, 2013

S.O. 1997.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- 4. आन्ध्रा बैंक

मार्टूर शाखा, राष्ट्रीय मार्ग-5, रजिस्ट्रार आफिस के नजदीक, मार्टूर-523301 आं॰प्र॰[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5291 क्रम सं॰ शाखा का नाम एवं पता

क्रम सं॰ शाखा का नाम एवं पता

5. आन्ध्रा बैंक

18. आन्ध्रा बैंक

स्वर्ण भारत ट्रस्ट शाखा, वेंकटाचलम-524320, नेल्लोर जिला, आं॰प्र॰

पोदलकूरू शाखा (1980) पोदलकूरू-524345 नेल्लोर जिला आं॰प्र॰

6. आन्ध्रा बैंक

19. आन्ध्रा बैंक

कंभम शाखा, नायक स्ट्रीट, कंभम-523333, प्रकाशम जिला, आं॰प्र॰

बेलतला शाखा भू-तल, मेघा प्लाजा बेलतला चिराली बेलतला, गुवाहाटी असम-781029

7. आन्ध्रा बैंक

20. आन्ध्रा बैंक

मेदरमेट्‌ला शाखा, मेदरमेट्‌ला-523212, प्रकाशम जिला, आं॰प्र॰

8. आन्ध्रा बैंक

देवघर शाखा, कोर्ट रोड, वीआईपी चौक देवघर नगर निगम के सामने, देवघर, झारखण्ड-814112

कुरिचेडू शाखा, कुरिचेडू-523304, प्रकाशम जिला, आं॰प्र॰

21. आन्ध्रा बैंक

9. आन्ध्रा बैंक

दाउदपुर शाखा, ग्राम एवं पोस्ट - दाउदपुर, जिला-छपरा, बिहार-841205 मुत्तुकूरू शाखा, मैन रोड, मुत्तुकूरू-524344 नेल्लोर जिला, आं॰प्र॰

22. आन्ध्रा बैंक

10. आन्ध्रा बैंक

गयेशपुर शाखा आर्यन बिल्डिंग गयेशपुर, हावड़ा-711405 रिम्स (आेंगोल) शाखा, ओंगोल-523001 प्रकाशम जिला, आं॰प्र॰

11. आन्ध्रा बैंक

एस॰बी॰एम॰सी॰ शाखा, बपूजी मार्केट काम्पलेक्स, ओंगोल-523001, आं॰प्र॰

23. आन्ध्रा बैंक मिर्जा शाखा पार्वती मार्केट, प्रथम तल मिर्जा, जिला-कामरूप, असम-781125

12. आन्ध्रा बैंक

24. आन्ध्रा बैंक

धनलक्ष्मीपुरम शाखा (1834), मुत्तुकूरू रोड, नेल्लोर-524002, आं॰प्र॰

13. आन्ध्रा बैंक

मोहिउद्‌दीन नगर शाखा जयसवाल मार्केट, प्रथम तल, पश्चिम चौक, मोहीउद्‌दीन नगर, समस्तीपुर जिला, बिहार-845501

मुसनूरू शाखा (1835), मुसनूरू (कावलि)-524201, नेल्लोर जिला, आं॰प्र॰

14. आन्ध्रा बैंक

25. आन्ध्रा बैंक छपरा शाखा माउना चौक, छपरा, बिहार-841301

26. आन्ध्रा बैंक

बी॰वी॰ नगर शाखा (1537), सर्वोदय कालेज कैम्पस, नेल्लोर-524003, आं॰प्र॰

15. आन्ध्रा बैंक

जानीपुर शाखा रॉय कॉलोनी, नया टोला, जानीपुर रोड, फुलवारी शरीफ, पटना, बिहार-801505

विंजमूरू शाखा (1905), विनायक नगर, विंजमूरू-524228 नेल्लोर जिला, आं॰प्र॰

27. आन्ध्रा बैंक

16. आन्ध्रा बैंक

तूर्पु नायुडु पालेम शाखा (1933) तूर्पु नायुडु पालेम-523272 प्रकाशम जिला, आं॰प्र॰

बेगूसराय शाखा एम एस कॉम्पलेक्स, विष्णु सिनेमा चौक, मीरगंज, बेगूसराय, बिहार-851101

17. आन्ध्रा बैंक

28. आन्ध्रा बैंक

येर्रगोंडपालेम (1941) कोत्तमासु काम्पलेक्स, मेन रोड, येर्रगोंडपालेम-523327 आं॰प्र॰

क्षेत्रीय वसूली केन्द्र 9, रविन्द्र सारणी, कोलकाता-7000015292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] क्रम सं॰ शाखा का नाम एवं पता

क्रम सं॰ शाखा का नाम एवं पता

40. आन्ध्रा बैंक

29. आन्ध्रा बैंक

शिलांग शाखा द आर्केड, जेल रोड, शिलांग-793001

रूड़की शाखा 74/1, रामनगर, विपरीत-दूरसंचार भवन, एन एच-73, रूडकी, उत्तराखंड-247667

30. आन्ध्रा बैंक

41. आन्ध्रा बैंक

मुरलीधर गल्र्स कॉलेज शाखा पी-411/14, कोलकाता-700029

31. आन्ध्रा बैंक,

रोहतक शाखा एस सी एफ-15, तथा 15 ए, हुडा भवन, रोहतक, हरियाणा-403507

चक्रधरपुर शाखा जीवन बीमा निगम भवन, रांची-चक्रधरपुर मेन रोड, चक्रधरपुर-833102 झारखण्ड

42. आन्ध्रा बैंक हमीरा शाखा जिला-कपूरथला, पंजाब-144802

32. आन्ध्रा बैंक

43. आन्ध्रा बैंक

तिनसुकिया शाखा रंगगोरा रोड, अपोलो क्लिनिक के नजदीक, तिनसुकिया, असम-786125

होशियारपुर शाखा बी-11-1505/ए/3, वसुंधरा भवन, आर्य समाज रोड, शिमला पहाड़ी चौक, होशियारपुर, पंजाब-146001 33. आन्ध्रा बैंक

44. आन्ध्रा बैंक

सेक्टर 44डी शाखा एच एस सी ओ 357, सेक्टर 44 डी, चंडीगढ़-160047

सिरसा शाखा श्री प्रकाश रतन कॉम्पलेक्स, बरनाला रोड, सिरसा-125055 34. आन्ध्रा बैंक

45. आन्ध्रा बैंक

कुम्ब्रा शाखा कुम्ब्रा गांव, नजदीक गोल टैंक, सेक्टर-68, मोहाली, जिला पंजाब-160062

कुल्लू शाखा चंडीगढ़-मनाली एन एच-21, नजदीक पुनारा बस स्टैंड, अखाड़ा बाजार, कुल्लू-175101

35. आन्ध्रा बैंक

46. आन्ध्रा बैंक

जीरकपुर शाखा एस सी ओ 18, सिल्वर सिटी मेन, जीरकपुर, पंजाब-140603

36. आन्ध्रा बैंक

रामपुर शाखा रामपुर ग्राम पंचायत, रामपुर गांव, पायल तहसील, लुधियाना जिला, पंजाब-141418

47. आन्ध्रा बैंक

मोहाली शाखा एस. सी एफ. 93, फेज-7, एस ए एस नगर, मोहाली, पंजाब-160062

अम्बाला शाखा होटल दीप पैलेस, 177/1ए, राई बाजार, अम्बाला छावनी, अम्बाला, हरियाणा-133001

48. आन्ध्रा बैंक

37. आन्ध्रा बैंक खरड शाखा मुख्य चंडीगढ़ रोड, खरड, एन एच-21, डेसुमाजरा, जिला-मोहाली, पंजाब-140301

चिन्नाईगूडेम शाखा कोत्तपेटा, चिन्नाईगूडेम, पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला-534316

38. आन्ध्रा बैंक

49. आन्ध्रा बैंक

नवांशहर शाखा अम्बेडकर चौक, बंगा रोड, नवांशहर, पंजाब-144514

दूबचर्ला शाखा चेब्रोल रोड, दूबचर्ला, पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला-534112

39. आन्ध्रा बैंक

50. आन्ध्रा बैंक

कुंडली शाखा एस सी ओ-39-40, एच एस आई आई डी सी, वाणिज्यिक भवन, कुंडली, जिला-सोनीपत, हरियाणा-131028

वेंकटरामन्नागूडेम शाखा डॉ॰ वाई॰एस॰आर॰हार्टिकल्चर यूनिवर्सिटी कैंपस, चिन्नाईगूडेम, पश्चिम गोदावरी जिला-534101[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5293 क्रम सं॰ शाखा का नाम एवं पता

क्रम सं॰ शाखा का नाम एवं पता

51. आन्ध्रा बैंक

आसिफाबाद शाखा तारा काम्पलेक्स, मेन रोड, आसिफबाद, आदिलाबाद जिला-504293

फुटकर परिसम्पित्तियॉं लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम शहरी ऋण केन्द्र, मुख्य शाखा भवन, प्रथम तल, दिल्ली रोड़, हिसार, (हरियाणा), पिनकोड-125001

52. आन्ध्रा बैंक

7. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

मेलचेरूवू शाखा पी॰ शंकर रेड्‌डी परिसर, मेलचेरूवू, नलगोंडा जिला-508246

53. आन्ध्रा बैंक

आंचलिक कार्यालय एस. सी. ओ. -200-201, सेक्टर-17 सी, चंडीगढ-160017

फुटकर परिसम्पित्तियॉं लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम शहरी ऋण केन्द्र, अम्बाला शहर शाखा भवन, अम्बाला शहर, (हरियाणा), पिनकोड-133003 8. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

राजभाषा नियम (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम 4 के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों की सूचीः—

1. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

फुटकर परिसम्पित्तियॉं लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम शहरी ऋण केन्द्र, तीसरा तल, प्रशासनिक कार्यालय भवन, सिटी सेन्टर, सैक्टर-5, पंचकूला, (हरियाणा), पिनकोड-134009

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2013 क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय, स्थित कृषि विकास शाखा भवन, प्रथम तल, डबवाली रोड़, सिरसा (हरियाणा) पिनकोड-125005

2. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

क्षेत्रीय व्यवसाय कार्यालय, स्थित होटल स्काई हॉक भवन, प्रथम तल दिल्ली बाई पास रोड़, रोहतक (हरियाणा), पिनकोड-124001

S.O. 1998.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended 1987) the central Government hereby notifies following branches of Banks under the control of Department of Financial Services, M/o Finance, whereof more than 80% officers/staffs have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

3. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

S.No. Name of Banks Number of

Branches

1. Andhra Bank 53 फुटकर परिसम्पित्तियॉं लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम शहरी ऋण केन्द्र, हुडा कॅमर्शियल कॉम्पलेक्स, रोहतक (हरियाणा), पिनकोड-124001

2. State Bank of India 08

4. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

Total 61

[No. 11016/13/2013-Hindi] RAJIV KUMAR, Asst. Director (O.L.)

ANDHRA BANK (A Government of India Undertaking) फुटकर परिसम्पित्तियॉं लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम शहरी ऋण केन्द्र, मुख्य शाखा भवन, प्रथम तल, शक्ति कॉलोनी, करनाल (हरियाणा), पिनकोड-132001

Sl. No. Name and Address of the Branch 5. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,

1. Andhra Bank

Podalakur Road Branch, Padmavathi Centre, Nellore-5824004 A.P.

2. Andhra Bank

फुटकर परिसम्पित्तियॉं लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम शहरी ऋण केन्द्र, मुख्य शाखा भवन, प्रथम तल, जी टी रोड़, पानीपत, (हरियाणा), पिनकोड-132103

S.S.N. Degree College Branch, Mungamur Road, Ongole-523001 A.P. 6. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक,5294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sl. No. Name and Address of the Branch

Sl. No. Name and Address of the Branch

16. Andhra Bank

3. Andhra Bank

Darshi Branch, L. P. road, Darsi-523427, Prakasam District A.P.

T. Naidu Palem Branch, Thurpunaidu Palem-523272, Prakasam District, A.P.

4. Andhra Bank

17. Andhra Bank

Martur Branch,

N.H.-5, Near Registrar's Office, Martur-523301

A.P.

Yerragondapalem Branch, Kothamasu Complex, Main Road, Yerragondapalem, 523327, Prakasam Distt., A.P.

5. Andhra Bank

18. Andhra Bank

Swarna Bharath Trust Branch, Venkatachalam 524320, Nellore Distt., A.P.

Podalakur Branch, Podalakur-524345 Nellore District A.P.

6. Andhra Bank

19. Andhra Bank

Cumbum Branch, Naick Street, Cumbum-523333, Prakasam District A.P.

Beltola Branch, Ground Floor, Megha Plaza, Beltola, Chirali Beltola, Guwahati-781029.

7. Andhra Bank

20. Andhra Bank

Medarametla Branch, Medarametla-523212, Prakasam District, A.P.

Deoghar Branch, Court Road, VIP Chowk, Opp., Deoghar Nagar Nigam, Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112 8. Andhra Bank

21. Andhra Bank

Kurichedu Branch, Kurichedu-523304, Prakasam District, A.P.

Daudpur Branch, Vill.+P.O.-Daudpur, Distt-Chapra, Bihar-841205.

9. Andhra Bank

22. Andhra Bank

Muthukur Branch, Main Road, Muthukur-524344, Nellore District, A.P.

Gayespur Branch, Aryan Building, Gayespur, Howrah-711405.

10. Andhra Bank RIMS Branch, Ongole-523001, Prakasam District, A.P.

23. Andhra Bank Mirza Branch, Parvati Market, First Floor, Mirza, Distt-Kamrup, Assam-781125

11. Andhra Bank

24. Andhra Bank

S.B.M.C. Branch, Sri Bapuji Marketing Complex, Ongole-523001, A.P.

12. Andhra Bank

Mohiuddin Nagar Branch, Jaiswal Market, First Floor, Paschim Chowk, Vill/P.O.-Mohiuddin Nagar, Distt-Samastipur, Bihar-845501.

Dhanalaxmipuram Branch, Muthukur Road, Nellore-524002, A.P.

25. Andhra Bank

Chapra Branch,

13. Andhra Bank

Mauna Chowk, Chapra, Bihar-841301 Musunur Branch, Musunur, Kavali-524201, Nellore District, A.P.

26. Andhra Bank

Janipur Branch,

14. Andhra Bank

Roy Colony, 'Naya Tola Janipur Road', Phulwari Sarif, Patna Bihar-801505.

B.V. Nagar Branch, Sarvodaya College Campus, Nellore-524003, A.P.

27. Andhra Bank

15. Andhra Bank

Begusarai Branch, MS Complex, Vishnu Cinema Chowk, Mirganj, Begusarai, Bihar-851101.

Vinjamur Branch, Vinayak Nagar, Vinjamur-524228, A.P.

Sl. No. Name and Address of the Branch

Sl. No. Name and Address of the Branch

28. Andhra Bank

41. Andhra Bank

Rohtak Branch,

Regional Collection Centre, 9, Ravindra Sarini, Kolkata-700 001.

SCF 15 & 15A, Huda Complex, Rohtak,

Haryana-403507

29. Andhra Bank

42. Andhra Bank

Shillong Branch, The Arcade, Jail Road, Shillong-793001

Hamira Branch,

30. Andhra Bank

Hamira, Distt.-Kapurthala, Punjab-144802

43. Andhra Bank

Murlidhar Girls College, P-411/14, Gariahaat Road, Kolkata-700029.

Hoshiarpur Branch,

31. Andhra Bank

B-11-1505/A/3, Vasundhra Building, Arya Samaj

Road, Shimla Pahari Chowk, Hoshiarpur,

Punjab-146001

Chakradharpur Branch, LIC Building, Ranchi-Chakradhapur Main Road, Chakradharpur-833102. Jharkhand

44. Andhra Bank

32. Andhra Bank

Sirsa Branch,

Shree Prakash Ratna Complex, Barnala Road, Tinsukia Branch, Ranga Gora Road, Near Apollo Clinic, Tinsukia Assam-786125.

Sirsa-125055

33. Andhra Bank

45. Andhra Bank

Kullu Branch,

Sector-44 Branch, HSCO 357, Sector 44D, Chandigarh-160047.

Chandigarh-Manauli NH-21, Near Old Bus

34. Andhra Bank

Stand, Akhara Bazar, Kullu-175101

46. Andhra Bank

Rampur Branch,

Kumbra Branch, Kumbra Village (PO), Near Goal Tank, Sector-68, Mohali, Punjab-160062

Rampur Gram Panchayat, Rampur Village, Payal 35. Andhra Bank

Tehsil, Ludhiana District, Punjab-141418

47. Andhra Bank

Zirakpur Branch, SCO 18, Silver City Main, Zirakpur, Punjab-140603

Ambala Branch,

Hotel Deep Palace, 177/1A, Rai Market, 36. Andhra Bank

Ambala Cantt., Ambala, Haryana-133001

48. Andhra Bank

Mohali Branch, SCF 93, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160062

Chinnaigudem Branch,

37. Andhra Bank

Kothapeta, Chinnaigudem,

West Godavari Distt.-534316

49. Andhra Bank

Kharar Main Branch, Chandigarh Road, Kharar, NH-21, Desumajra, Distt.-Mohali, Punjab-140301

Doobacherla Branch,

38. Andhra Bank

Cebrole Road, Doobacherla,

West Godavari-534112

Nawanshahar Branch, Ambedkar Chowk, Banga Road, Nawan Shahar, Punjab-144514.

50. Andhra Bank

39. Andhra Bank

Venkataramannagudem Branch,

Dr. YSR Horticulture University Campus,

Chinnaigudem-534101

Kundli Branch, SCO 39-40, HSIIDC, Commercial Complex, Kundli, Distt.-Sonipat, Haryana-131028

51. Andhra Bank

40. Andhra Bank

Asifabad Branch,

Tara Complex, Main Road, Asifabad, Adilabad

Distt.-504293

Roorkee Branch, 74/1, Ramnagar, Opp. Telephone Exchange, NH-73, Roorkee, (UK)-247667.

क्रम सं॰ शाखा का नाम एवं पता

52. Andhra Bank

Melacheruvu Branch,

P. Shankar Reddy Premises, Melacheruvu,

Nalgonda Distt.-508246

53. Andhra Bank

Zonal Office,

SCO-200-201, Sector-17C, Chandigarh-160017

First Floor, Delhi Road, Hisar (Haryana)

Pincode-125001

7. State Bank of India

Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises City Credit Centre, Ambala City Branch Bhavan, Ambala City (Haryana) Pincode-133003

8. State Bank of India

List of Offices to be notified under Sub-Rule 10(4) of Rule

1976 of Official Language Rules (For the official purposes

Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises City Credit Centre, Third Floor Administrative Office Bhavan, City Centre, Sector-5, Panchkula (Haryana) Pincode-134009

of Union Government)

1. State Bank of India

Regional Business Office,

Located at A.D.B. Branch Bhavan,

First Floor, Dabwali Road,

Sirsa (Haryana)

Pincode-125005

2. State Bank of India

Regional Business Office,

Located at Hotel Sky Hawk Bhavan,

First Floor, Delhi By Pass Road,

Rohtak (Haryana)

Pincode-124001

3. State Bank of India

Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises

City Credit Centre,

Huda Commercial Complex,

Rohtak (Haryana)

Pincode-124001

4. State Bank of India

Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises

City Credit Centre, Main Branch Bhavan,

First Floor, Shakti Colony,

Karnal (Haryana)

Pincode-132001

5. State Bank of India

Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises

City Credit Centre, Main Branch Bhavan,

First Floor, G.T. Road, Panipat (Haryana)

Pincode-132103

6. State Bank of India

Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises

City Credit Centre, Main Branch Bhavan, नई दिल्ली, 16 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 1999.—केन्द्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (यथासंशोधित 1987) के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, वित्त मंत्रालय, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग के नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित बैंक की शाखाओं को, जिनके 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी में कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।

क्र॰ सं॰ बैंक का नाम शाखाओं की संख्या

1. पंजाब नेशनल बैंक 33

2. सिंडिकेट बैंक 24

3. सिडबी 3

कुल 60

[सं॰ 11016/13/2013-हिन्दी] राजीव कुमार, सहायक निदेशक (रा॰ भा॰)

मंडल कार्यालय एनसीआर नोएडा

1. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

गांव नूर नगर सिहानी गाजियाबाद-201003 विशिष्ट संख्या-7562

2. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालयः रावली कलां गाजियाबाद-201003 विशिष्ट संख्या-7681

3. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

मंडल कार्यालयः एनसीआर नोएडा सी-13, तीसरी मंजिल, सैक्टर-01, नोएडा विशिष्ट संख्या-7487[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5297 मंडल कार्यालय बठिंडा

10. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

4. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

सादिक जंड साहिब मार्ग पोस्ट ऑफिस-सादिक पिन-151212 विशिष्ट संख्या-7526

शाखा कार्यालयः हिरनोदा डाकः बस स्टैंड के पास, हिरनोदा तहसीलः फुलेरा जिलाः जयपुर पिनः 303338 (राजस्थान) विशिष्ट संख्या-7345

5. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

11. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

महल कलां पोस्ट ऑफिस-महल कलां पिन-148104 विशिष्ट संख्या-7527

6. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालयः चाकसू डाकः नीलकंठ धर्मकांटा के पास, टोंक रोड़ तहसीलः चाकसू जिलाः जयपुर पिनः 303901 (राजस्थान) विशिष्ट संख्या-7344

12. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

सेहना पोस्ट ऑफिस-सेहना पिन-148103 विशिष्ट संख्या-7528

मंडल कार्यालय धर्मशाला

शाखा कार्यालयः न्यू आतिश मार्केट ए-5, सन्नी मार्ट, न्यू आतिश मार्केट, मानसरोवर तहसीलः सांगानेर जिलाः जयपुर पिनः 302020 (राजस्थान) विशिष्ट संख्या-7504

मंडल कार्यालय पटना

7. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शाखा कार्यालयः रझूं उप-तहसील धीरा तहसील पालमपुर जिलाः कॉंगड़ा हिमाचल प्रदेश पिनः 176065 विशिष्ट संख्या-7563

13. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

मंडल कार्यालय जयपुर

8. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालयः राजीव नगर रोड नं॰ः 19 पटना-800024 विशिष्ट संख्या-7578

14. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालयः उनियारा डाकः जैन चेतालय, मेन मार्केट उनियारा तहसीलः उनियारा जिलाः टोंक पिन-304024 (राजस्थान) विशिष्ट संख्या-7269

शाखा कार्यालयः सगुना मोड़ रामजयपाल रोड न्यू बेलीरोड पटना-801503 विशिष्ट संख्या-7577

9. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

मंडल कार्यालय बुलंदशहर

15. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालयः शाहपुरा डाकः शाहपुरा तहसीलः शाहपुरा जिलाः जयपुर पिनः 303103 राजस्थान विशिष्ट संख्या-7219

शाखा कार्यालयः तलसपुर कलां तलसपुर कलां रोड, कवार्सी जिलाः अलीगढ़ बुलंदशहरः 202001 (उत्तर प्रदेश) विशिष्ट संख्या-75085298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 16. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

विशिष्ट संख्या-6256

22. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखा कार्यालयः भीकमपुर सम्भावली शुगर मिल के सामने (भीकमपुर) जी॰ टी॰ रोड़ अलीगढ़ (उत्तर प्रदेश) विशिष्ट संख्या-7507

शाखाः एम॰ पी॰ सांइस कॉलेज पताः गोबरशाही चौक शहरः मुजफ्फरपुर जिलाः मुजफ्फरपुर (बिहार) पिनः 842002 विशिष्ट संख्या-6306

मंडल कार्यालय मुजफ्फरपुर

23. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

17. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शाखाः शिवहर पताः शिवहर शहरः शिवहर जिलाः शिवहर पिनः 843329 विशिष्ट संख्या-4993

शाखाः मुद्रा तिजोरी, छपरा पताः हथुआ मार्केट, छपरा शहरः छपरा जिलाः सारण (बिहार) पिनः 841301 विशिष्ट संख्या-7120

24. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखाः मुद्रा तिजोरी, जे॰ एल॰ रोड पताः जवाहर लाल रोड, मुजफ्फरपुर शहरः मुजफ्फरपुर जिलाः मुजफ्फरपुर (बिहार) पिनः 842001 विशिष्ट संख्या-7121

18. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शाखाः बिदुपुर पताः शिवहर शहरः हाजीपुर जिलाः वैशाली पिनः 844503 विशिष्ट संख्या-6016

25. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

19. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखाः मुद्रा तिजोरी, सिवान पताः बबुनिया मोड़, सिवान शहरः सिवान जिलाः सिवान (बिहार) पिनः 841226 विशिष्ट संख्या-7122

शाखाः जिला परिषद्‌ भवन पताः जिला परिषद भवन स्टेशन रोड, मुजफ्फरपुर शहरः मुजफ्फरपुर जिलाः मुजफ्फरपुर (बिहार) पिनः 842001 विशिष्ट संख्या-6169

26. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखाः मुद्रा तिजोरी, मोतिहारी पताः मेन रोड़, मोतिहारी शहरः मोतिहारी जिलाः पूर्वी चम्पारण (बिहार) पिनः 845401 विशिष्ट संख्या-7123

27. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

20. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शाखाः मुजफ्‌फरपुर एलआईसी विभाग कार्यालय पताः अघोरिया बाज़ार दया कॉम्पलेक्स, मुजफ्फरपुर शहरः मुजफ्फरपुर (बिहार) जिलाः मुजफ्फरपुर पिनः 842002 विशिष्ट संख्या-6255

21. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

शाखाः पीएनबी, नरईपुर तिरुपती शुगर मिल के नजदीक बगहा-2 शहरः बगहा जिनाः पूर्वी चम्पारण (बिहार) पिनः 845105 विशिष्ट संख्या-7164

शाखाः हाजीपुर, नबियादा पताः हाजीपुर, नबियादा स्टेशन रोड, मुजफ्फरपुर शहरः हाजीपुर जिलाः हाजीपुर (बिहार) पिनः 844001

28. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शाखाः चकिया[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5299 सिंडिकेटबैंक, राजभाषा प्रभाग, प्रधान कार्यालयः मणिपाल-576104

1. सिंडिकेट बैंक

पताः रूपमहल सिनेमा के सामने डाकघरः चकिया शहरः चकिया जिलाः पूर्वी चम्पारण (बिहार) पिनः 845412 विशिष्ट संख्या-7211

29. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

अकबरपुर शाखा मकान सं॰-213 नया नं 175/4, वार्ड नं 3 मोहसिनपुर, मन्सूरपुर पी॰डब्ल्यू॰डी॰ आफिस के सामने अकबरपुर जिलाः अंबेडकरनगर राज्यः उत्तर प्रदेश पिनः 224122

2. सिंडिकेटबैंक

शाखाः नरकटियागंज पताः उत्तर बिहार ग्रामीण बैंक के सामने, मेन रोड शहरः नरकटियागंज जिलाः पश्चिमी चम्पारण (बिहार) पिनः 845455 विशिष्ट संख्या-7212

30. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

मिर्जापुर शाखा 29क तथा 29ख वार्ड नं 8 चौबे टोला डंकिनगंज जिलाः मिर्जापुर राज्यः उत्तर प्रदेश पिनः 231001

3. सिंडिकेटबैंक

शाखाः सुरसंड असली पताः सुरसंड चौक डाकघरः सुरसंड शहरः सुरसंड जिलाः सीतामढ़ी (बिहार) पिनः 843331 विशिष्ट संख्या-7214

रामा डेन्टल कालेज शाखा लखनपुर, A-1/8 जिलाः कानपुर राज्यः उत्तर प्रदेश पिनः 208024

4. सिंडिकेटबैंक

31. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक शाखाः भोरे पताः डॉ॰ चौधरी क्लीनिक, मीरगंज के सामने, भोरे शहरः भोरे जिलाः गोपालगंज (बिहार) पिनः 841426 विशिष्ट संख्या-7323

32. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

महाराजगंज शाखा भूतल, प्लॉट नं-1066 वार्ड नं-14 फरेन्डा रोड जिलाः महाराजगंज राज्यः उत्तर प्रदेश पिनः 273303

शाखाः बरबट्‌टा, सोनपुर पताः डीआरएम कार्यालय बरबट्‌टा, सोनपुर शहरः सोनपुर जिलाः सारण (बिहार) पिनः 841101 विशिष्ट संख्या-7555

33. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक

5. सिंडिकेटबैंक हरदोई शाखा परिसर नं-471 लाईनपुरवा सिविल लाइन्स जिलाः हरदोई राज्यः उत्तर प्रदेश पिनः 241001

6. सिंडिकेटबैंक

शाखाः मुजफ्फरपुर, बैक ऑफिस पताः मुजफ्फरपुर, बैक ऑफिस, जे॰ एल॰ रोड़, बिहार शहरः मुजफ्फरपुर जिलाः मुजफ्फरपुर (बिहार) पिनः 842001 विशिष्ट संख्या-6873

मंझनपुर शाखा आराजी नं॰ 249 न्यू होलेंड ट्रेक्टर एजेंसी के पास मंझनपुर ओ॰एस॰ए॰ रोड5300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] राज्यः उत्तराखंड पिनः 262401

जिलाः कौशाम्बी राज्यः उत्तरप्रदेश पिनः 212207

13. सिंडिकेटबैंक

7. सिंडिकेटबैंक

बिलासपुर शाखा कामरी रोड आनंदनगर बी॰एस॰एन॰एल॰ऑफिस के पास जिलाः रामपुर राज्यः उत्तरप्रदेश पिनः 244921

कानपुर किदवईनगर शाखा वाई ब्लाक, मकान नं॰ 1339 किदवई नगर जिलाः कानपुर राज्यः उत्तरप्रदेश पिनः 208011

8. सिंडिकेटबैंक

शाहाबाद शाखा भूतल म॰नं॰ 90 मोहल्ला चौक जिलाः हरदोई राज्यः उत्तर प्रदेश पिनः 241124

14. सिंडिकेटबैंक बिलारी शाखा सहकारी गन्ना विकास समिति चंदौसी रोड जिलाः मुरादाबाद राज्यः उत्तरप्रदेश पिनः 244411

15. सिंडिकेटबैंक

9. सिंडिकेटबैंक

पीलीभीत शाखा शुक्ला कॉम्प्लेक्स गांधी स्टेडियम रोड जिलाः पीलीभीत राज्यः उत्तरप्रदेश पिनः 262001

16. सिंडिकेटबैंक

हैदरगढ़ शाखा एस॰बी॰आई॰ के पास (नई शाखा) पिओर मिठाई वार्ड लखनऊ- सुल्तानपुर नेशनल हाइवे जिलाः बाराबंकी राज्यः उत्तरप्रदेश पिनः 227301

10. सिंडिकेटबैंक

गोपालगंज शाखा ठाकुर मेंशन श्याम सिनेमा रोड जिलाः गोपालगंज राज्यः बिहार पिनः 841428

बलरामपुर शाखा मकान नं॰ 62 मोहल्ला नया बाजार जिलाः बलरामपुर राज्यः उत्तर प्रदेश पिनः 271201

11. सिंडिकेटबैंक

17. सिंडिकेटबैंक बक्सर शाखा थाना रोड समाशोधन गृह के सामने बक्सर राज्यः बिहार पिनः 802101

18. सिंडिकेटबैंक

भिंगा शाखा भूतल, इलाहाबाद बैंक के पास मो॰ बन्दरहा लकड़ी मंडी भिंगा सिरसिया रोड जिलाः श्रावस्ती राज्यः उत्तरप्रदेश पिनः 271831

12. सिंडिकेटबैंक

बाजपुर शाखा रामराज रोड कॉरपोरेशन बैंक के सामने बाजपुर जिलाः उधमसिंहनगर

अडाजण सूरत शाखा शॉप सं॰ 6 से 11 अख्ांड आनंद कांप्लेक्स 9 स्क्वायर के पास हनी पार्क, मेन रोड जिलाः सूरत राज्यः गुजरात पिनः 385009[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5301 19. सिंडिकेटबैंक

अर्जुन पार्क सोसाइटी नाना मावा रोड, राजकोट जिलाः राजकोट राज्यः गुजरात पिनः 360005

भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक

1. भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक, जोधपुर शाखा कार्यालय धारंगधरा शाखा सं॰ 3, भूतल परिवार एवेन्यू ममताबेन अस्पताल के पास क्लब रोड, धारंगधरा जिलाः सुरेन्द्रनगर राज्यः गुजरात पिनः 363310

ई-4, भूतल, सुविधा कॉम्प्लेक्स, शास्त्री नगर जोधपुर, राजस्थान-342003

20. सिंडिकेटबैंक

2. भारतीय लघु उद्‌योग विकास बैंक, किशनगढ़ शाखा कार्यालय

प्रथम तल, अग्रसेन भवन के पास जयपुर-अजमेर मार्ग, मदनगंज, किशनगढ़ राजस्थान-305801

3. भारतीय लघु उद्‌योग विकास बैंक, क्षेत्रीय शाखा कार्यालय-जयपुर

प्रथम तल, उमराव कॉम्प्लेक्स संसार चन्द्र मार्ग, जयपुर, राजस्थान-302001

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013 वढ़वाण शाखा शॉप सं॰ 11एवं 12, भूतल इंद्रप्रस्थ, 80 फूट रोड़ तपोवन बंगला के सामने भक्तिनगर सर्किल के पास वढ़वाण, जिलाः सुरेन्द्रनगर राज्यः गुजरात पिनः 363030

S.O. 1999.—In pusuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies following branches of Banks under the Control of Department of Financial Services, M/ O Finance, whereof more than 80% officers/staffs have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

Sl. No. Name of Banks Number of branches 21. सिंडिकेटबैंक दाहोद शाखा 4207ए नेताजी बाज़ार पादव रोड, महेश दुग्धालय के सामने जिलाः दाहोद राज्यः गुजरात पिनः 389151

1. Punjab National Bank 33

2. Syndicate Bank 24

3. Sidbi 3

Total 60

[No. 11016/13/2013-Hindi] RAJIV KUMAR, Asst. Director (O.L)

Circle Office NCR NOIDA

22. सिंडिकेटबैंक गोधरा शाखा सं॰ 1 से 6 लोवर ग्राउंड फ्लोर जय जलरमा प्लाज़ा एस॰टी॰ बस स्टैंड के सामने साइन्स कॉलेज के पीछे गोधरा, जिलाः पंचमहल राज्यः गुजरात पिनः 389001

1. Punjab National Bank

23. सिंडिकेटबैंक

Village-Noor Nagar Sinhani Gaziabad-201003 Disn No. 7562

2. Punjab National Bank B.O.-Ravali Kalan Gaziabad-201003 Disn No. 7681

3. Punjab National Bank

एआरएम अहमदाबाद शाखा नेप्च्यून टावर्स (नेहरू ब्रिज के सामने) नवरंगपुरा, अहमदाबाद जिलाः अहमदाबाद राज्यः गुजरात पिनः 380009

24. सिंडिकेटबैंक

Circle Office-NCR Noida C-13, 3rd Floor Sector-1, Noida Disn No. 7487

नाना मवा राजकोट शाखा गोल्डन व्यू, पहला तल5302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Circle Office BATHINDA

Tehsil: Chaksu District: Jaipur Pin: 303901 (Rajasthan) Disn No. 7344

12. Punjab National Bank

4. Punjab National Bank Jand Sahib Road P.O.- Sadiq Pin Code-151212 Sadiq Disn No. 7526

5. Punjab National Bank

Mehal Kalan P.O.-Mehal Kalan Pin Code-148104 Mehal Kalan Disn No. 7527

6. Punjab National Bank

B.O.-New Aatish Market Post: A-5, Sunny Mart, New Aatish Market, Mansarovar Tehsil: Sanganer District: Jaipur Pin: 302020 (Rajasthan) Disn No.: 7504

Circle Office Patna

Sehna P.O.-Sehna Pin Code-148103 Sehna Disn No. 7528

Circle Office Dharamshala

13. Punjab National Bank B.O.-Rajiv Nagar Road No.: 19 Patna: 800024 Disn No.: 7578

7. Punjab National Bank

14. Punjab National Bank

B.O.-Saguna More Ramjaypal Road New Bailey Road Patna: 801503 Disn No.: 7577

B/O Rajhoon Sub Teh.-Dheera Tehsil-Palampur District Kangra Himachal Pardesh Pin-176065 Disn No. 7563

Circle Office Bulandshahar

Circle Office Jaipur

                                                          15. Punjab National Bank
8. Punjab National Bank
    B.O.-Uniara                                                B.O- Talaspur Kalan
    Post: Jain Chetalaya,                                      Talaspur Kalan Road Kwarsi
    Main Market                                                Aligarh
    Uniara                                                     Bulandshahar: 202001
    Tehsil: Uniara                                             Disn No.: 7508
    District: Tonk                                        16. Punjab National Bank
    Pin: 304024                                                B.O.-Bhikampur
    (Rajasthan)
                                                               Opp. Simbhawali Sugar Mill
    Disn No.: 7269
                                                               (Bhikampur) G.T. Road
9. Punjab National Bank                                        Aligarh
                                                               Disn No.: 7507

Circle Office Muzaffarpur

     B.O.-Shahpura
     Post: Shahpura
     Tehsil: Shahpura
     District: Jaipur                                       17. Punjab National Bank
     Pin: 303103                                                 B.O.: Sheohar
     (Rajasthan)                                                 Address:  Sheohar
10. Punjab National Bank                                         City: Sheohar
     B.O.-Hirnoda                                                Dist.: Sheohar
     Post: Near Bus Stand                                        Pin-843329
     Tehsil: Phulera                                             Disn No.: 4993
     District: Jaipur
                                                            18. Punjab National Bank
     Pin: 303338
                                                                 B.O.: Bidupur
     (Rajasthan)
                                                                 Address: Bidupur
     Disn No.: 7345
                                                                 City: Hajipur
11. Punjab National Bank                                         Dist.: Bidupur
     B.O.-Chaksu                                                 Aishali (Bihar)
     Post: Near Neelkanth Dhram                                  Pin-844503
     Kanta, Tonk Road                                            Disn No.: 6016

19. Punjab National Bank                                    26. Punjab National Bank
     B.O.: Zila Parishad Bhawan                                  B.O.: Currency Chest, Motihari
     Address: Zila Parishad                                      Address: Main Road, Motihari
     Bhawan, Station Road,                                       City: Motihari
     Muzaffarpur                                                 Dist.: East Champaran (Bihar)
     City: Muzaffarpur                                           Pin-845401
     Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)                                  Disn No.:7123
     Pin-842001
                                                            27. Punjab National Bank
     Disn No.: 6169
                                                                 B.O.: Naraipur
20. Punjab National Bank                                         Near Tirupati Sugar Mill,
     B.O.: Muzaffarpur, LIC Div.                                 Bagha-2
     Office                                                      City: Bagha
     Address: Aghoria Bajar, Daya                                Dist.: East Champaran
     Complex, Muzaffarpur                                        (Bihar)
     City: Muzaffarpur                                           Pin-845105
     Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)                                  Disn No.: 7164
     Pin-842002
                                                            28. Punjab National Bank
     Disn No.: 6255
                                                                 B.O.: Chakia
21. Punjab National Bank                                         Address: In front of Rupmahal
     B.O.: Hajipur, Nabiyada                                     Takies
     Address: Hajipur Nabiyada                                   PO: Chakia
     Station Road, Muzaffarpur                                   City: Chakia
     City: Hajipur                                               Dist.:  East Champaran (Bihar)
     Dist.: Vaishali (Bihar)                                     Pin-845412
     Pin-844001                                                  Disn No.: 7211
     Disn No.: 6256
                                                            29. Punjab National Bank
22. Punjab National Bank                                         B.O.: Narkatiaganj
     B.O.: M.P. Science College                                  Address: In front, of Uttar
     Address: Gobershahi Chowk                                   Bihar Gramin Bank, Main Road
     City: Muzaffarpur                                           Narkatiaganj
     Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)                                  City: Narkatiaganj
     Pin-842002                                                  Dist.: West Champaran
     Disn No.: 6306                                              (Bihar)
                                                                 Pin-845455
23. Punjab National Bank
                                                                 Disn No.:7212
     B.O.: Currency Chest,
     Chhapra                                                30. Punjab National Bank
     Address: Hathua Market,                                     B.O.: Sursand Asli
     Chhapra                                                     Address: Sursand Chowk
     City: Chhapra                                               PO: Sursand
     Dist.: Saran (Bihar)                                        City: Sursand
     Pin 841301                                                  Dist: Sitamarhi (Bihar)
     Disn No.: 7120                                              Pin-843331
                                                                 Disn No.: 7214
24. Punjab National Bank
     B.O.: Currency Chest, J.L. Road                        31. Punjab National Bank
     Address: Jawahar Lal Road                                   B.O.: Bhore
     Muzaffarpur                                                 Address: In front of
     City Muzaffarpur                                            Choudhary Clinic
     Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)                                  Mirganj, Bhore
     Pin-842001                                                  City: Bhore
     Disn No.: 7121                                              Dist.: Gopalganji (Bihar)
                                                                 Pin-841426
25. Punjab National Bank
                                                                 Disn No.: 7323
     B.O.: Currency Chest, Siwan
     Address: Babunia, Siwan                                32. Punjab National Bank
     City: Siwan                                                 B.O.: Barbatta, Sonepur
     Dist.: Siwan (Bihar)                                        Address: DRM Office, Baratta,
     Pin-841226                                                  Sonepur, Bihar
     Disn No.: 7122                                              City: Sonepur

Dist.: Saran (Bihar) Pin-841101 Disn No.: 7555

33. Punjab National Bank

B.O.: Muzaffarpur Back Office Address: Muzaffarpur Back Office' J.L. Road, Bihar City: Muzaffarpur Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar) Pin-842001 Disn No.:6873

1. Syndicate Bank

Akbarpur Branch House No. 213 New No. 175/4, Ward No. 3 Mohsinpur, Mansoorpur Opp. P.W.D. Office Akbarpur Dist; Ambedkarnagar State: Uttar Pradesh Pin : 224122

2. Syndicate Bank

Mirzapur Branch 29A&29B Ward No. 8 Chaubey Tola Dankinganj Dist: Mirzapur State: Uttar Pradesh Pin: 231001

3. Syndicate Bank

Rama Dental College Branch Lakhanpur A-1/8 Dist: Kanpur State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 208024

4. Syndicate Bank

Maharajganj Branch Ground Floor, Plot No. 1066 Ward No. 14 Farenda Road Dist: Maharajganj State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 273303

5. Syndicate Bank Hardoi Branch Premises No. 471 Linepura Civil Lines Dist: Hardoi State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 241 001

6. Syndicate Bank

Manjhanpur Branch Aaraji No. 249

Near New Holland Tractor Agency Manjhanpur O.S.A. Road Dist: Kaushambi State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 212207

7. Syndicate Bank

Kanpur Kidwaingar Branch Y. Block H. No. 1339 Kidwainagar Dist: Kanpur State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 208 011

8. Syndicate Bank

Shahabad Branch Ground Floor H. No. 90 Mohalla Chowk Shahabad Dist: Hardoi State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 241 124

9. Syndicate Bank

Haidergarh Branch Near SBI (New Branch) Piyor Mithai Ward Lucknow-Sultanpur National Highway Dist: Barabanki State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 227 301 10. Syndicate Bank

Balrampur Branch H. No. 62 Mohalla Naya Bazar Dist: Balrampur State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 271 201

11. Syndicate Bank Bhinga Branch Ground Floor Near Allahabad Bank Mohalla Bandraha Lakri Mandi Bhinga Sirsiya Road Dist: Shravasti State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 271 831

12. Syndicate Bank Bajpur Branch Ramraj Road Corporation Bank Bajpur Dist: Udhamsingh Nagar State Uttaranchal Pin: 262 401

13. Syndicate Bank

Bilaspur Branch Kamri Road Anand Nagar[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5305 Near BSNL Office Dist: Rampur State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 244 921

14. Syndicate Bank

Indraprastha, 80Ft. Road Opp. Tapovan Bunglows Near Bhakthinagar Circle Wadhwan, Dist: Surendranagar State: Gujarat Pin: 363 030

21. Syndicate Bank

Bilari Branch Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Chandausi Road Dist: Moradabad State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 244 411

Dahod Branch 4207, Netaji Bazar, Padav Road Opp. Mahesh Dugdhalay Dist: Dahod State: Gujarat Pin: 389 151

15. Syndicate Bank Pilibhit Branch Shukla Complex Gandhi Stadium Road Dist: Pilibhit State Uttar Pradesh Pin: 262 001

16. Syndicate Bank

22. Syndicate Bank Godhra Branch No. 1 to 6 Lower Ground Floor Jai Jalram Plaza Opp. S. T. Bus Stand Behind Science College Godhra, Dist: Panchmahal State: Gujarat Pin: 389 001

Gopalganj Branch Thakur Mansion Shyam Cinema Road Dist: Gopalganj State: Bihar Pin: 841 428

23. Syndicate Bank

ARM, Ahmedabad Branch Neptune Towers (Opp. Nehru Bridge) Navarangpura, Ahmedabad Dist: Ahmedabad State: Gujarat Pin: 380 009

17. Syndicate Bank Buxur Branch Thana Road Opp. Clearing House Buxur State: Bihar Pin: 802 101

24. Syndicate Bank

18. Syndicate Bank

Nana Mawa Rajkot Branch Golden View, First Floor Arjun Park Society Nana Mawa Road, Rajkot Dist: Rajkot State: Gujarat Pin: 360 005

Small Industries Development Bank of India

Adajan Surat Branch Shop No. 6 to 11 Akhand Anand Complex Near 9 Square Honey Park, Main Road Dist: Surat State: Gujarat Pin: 385 009

1. Small Industries Development Bank of India,

19. Syndicate Bank

Jodhpur Branch Office E-4, Bhutal, Suvidha Complex, Shastri Nagar Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342003

2. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Kishan

Garh Branch Office 1st Floor, Near Agrasen Bhavan Jaipur-Ajmer Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh Rajasthan-305801

Dhrangadhra Branch No. 3, Ground Floor Parivar Avenue Near Mamathaben Hospital Club Road, Dhrangadhra Dist: Surendranagar State: Gujarat Pin: 363 310

3. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Zonal

20. Syndicate Bank

Office-Jaipur 1st Floor, Umrao Complex Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001 Wadhwan Branch Shop No. 11 & 12, Ground Floor5306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ा

ण् र

व व

ि

े

9

ार् ष्

क

ं े

ा

0 9 9 1

2 0 0 2

4 0 0 2

व

3 9 9 1

ं े

स स

इ

ा

ल

न ज

ि

ु

न

क

8

ि

-

-

-

अ

-

ै

ह

ा

त र

क

त च

ि

ू

स

ा

ध्

ि

ग

अ

7

ा ा

ा

-

-

-

भ्

-

र

ा

्‌

द्व द त ए

े

ा

र

ू

य

ब्

ा

क

6

म

न

ा

ा ा

म

4 9 6

4 3 0 8

3 4 5 4 1

भ्

1 5 1 4

य

ी

त र

ा ा

य ल

भ्

ा

ं े

)

ा

ं

ए ल

ं े

म

ा

ि

व

त्र म

े

ा

ा

े

क

ा

ी

क

ण् र

ट

े

त

ा

क ल

ि

ृ

क

ा

े

ा

ै

ु

ल अ

क

े

ल ज

ट म ल् ह

स न

क

स प

ल ब क

च

ा

्र

क

ण् र त व

म्

ि

क

ी ा

त ट ल्

े

अ

प

े

त

त

क

प

ा

े

ा

य प

न

ध्

क्ष् र

ं

व

3 1 0 2

ा

द

क

े

क

र्

क

य

ल क

ि ा

न्

) ग

ट ल्

े

ी

ि

र्

म

न

द

स

ा

र

ल ज

ा ा

ि

ी र

न्

, र

इ

5

भ्

ा

ा

ी

ा ष् ी ा

व

ो) यूर

य

र्

ब

व

े

श्

ब्

न ज

ल

ी

ि

स

स

र्

म्

ी

) 5 (

ज व

ी

ए ल

े

ा

ब ज क

ि

ै

क

ले

त र

र ट

े

े

ा

ू

व

ा

ब ज क

न

ै

ी

स

म

त स

ा ा

ा

ज् म न

र न म

ा

ि

ु

0 0 1 1

क य क प

ि

प

प ( ि

भ्

म क

म

र

ै

म

च स न

ा

म य न

ा

4

ि

य

ी

अ

अ

व

, ी

ि

त ोक् त र

ा

ा ा

द्य

ा ा

प उ

े

भ् (

ख्

, ल ल् द

भ् प उ (

ि

क

,

े

र्

, ा

4 5

, र

, ा

,

इ न

ल म

य

नं॰ ा

ज

ग न

,

,

) 4 (

ल ज

ी

र ि

म

ि

स उ

ी र

, र

ा

म

ए

ा

,

ा

ह

े

स स

े

ल ग

ि

र

स न

त क्

े

म य न

3 2

इ ,

त्त् उ

ा

,

ि

ा

्र

- ल ए

ा ा

व

ल य

,

ा

ी

म

ी

्र

स ल् र न म

व

1 0 0 1 2 1

स स क् ए

ि

ि

प ड

े

ा

ी

े

ा

1 2 4

र

े

ा

ं

,

े

-

र

भ् प उ

प र ट इ

क

6 0 0 2 2 1

क

॰

ं

ा

र ट क् स

ल

छ

प च ए

ी

द

ी

ी

न

स

ा

-

ी र

,

ा

ट स् ड ण् इ

, ी

5 0 0 1 2 1

प

प

व क् ए

त प

ट म ए इ

ब

1 0 4 3 2 1 -

ा ा

े

ा

प

ट

न

ा

े

ा

स

व

ं

ा

ध्

ा

ह व् इ

र्

ब्

ा

र

े

-

4

ा

म

द

व

ड़ी

क

9 3 2 1 - 8 3 2 1

अ

इ

ा

8 8 9 1

)

)

)

)

ा

ं े

ल

ा

व

ॅ

ब

क

द

ा

ी र

ा

प्

ा ा

ा ा

ा ा

ा ा

,

ा

ड ण् ए

व

ु

े

ब

स स म

फ

ण्

ण्

ण्

ण्

य श्

ा

ा

8

0 1

ा

ा

ा

ा

फ

ल क इ

क

ब

ग ड ग

र ि

, ॰

ी

ा

ए

ा

न

ी

म

ी

य

य

य

य

ा

ा

ा

,

ा

म य न

द

ल

ल

ि

थ्

स ए

श्र

न व ए

र ि

र ि

र ि

र ि

ी र

े

ै

ं व

॰

॰

॰

॰

ै

ै

ै

ै

ि ॰ ा

्र

ि

ल ज

ल ल् द

ल ज

ल ज

म

र ट क् स

ि ि

ह ( म

स म ए

य ज स फ

म

9 - ए ि

ह (

म प

र ट क् स

ि

ह (

ह (

—

ं ै

) न

ा

ः ह

ण्

ा

्र

ए ग

म प (

े

े

ए द

ा

ि

र

ू

न र

र

य

ा

ब्

क

थ्

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

क

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

ि

.

.

.

.

त

ृ

त

क

त

ृ

ि

न

क

3

7 0

7 0

7 0

7 0

ी

ा

ी

.

.

.

.

क

ी

म

क

5 1

0 1

3 0

व स्

2 0

य

व स्

ी

े

व

त र

,

ं ै

ा ा

भ् ह

—

ा

.

ए ग

ं

ए द

य ख् स

ि

ल ए

0 0 0 2

ं े

/

ं े

म

॰ ा

स स

ी

2

म ए

इ ी

ा

अ

ू

स

॰ ा

3 6 0 4 1 8 4 - ल ए

0 7 9 3 1 8 4 - ल ए

7 6 8 2 1 8 4 - ल ए

9 5 0 2 1 8 4 - ल ए

ल

ु

च स न

क

अ

े

च

1

.

ी

.

.

.

4

3

न

सं॰

1

2

म क्र[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5307 ] 9

ी र

ा

1 1

क

ा

ः

ध्

ि

3 1

अ

/ ी

3 9 9 1

4 0 0 2

8 8 9 1

3 0 0 2

8 8 9 1

9 9 9 1

8

ग

ा ा

ु

ड म ए

ी

भ् न

अ

स सं॰

, र

[

ा

ु

म क

ु

द

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

न्

ब

ि

1 0

-

1 0

-

1 0

-

6

3 8 7 1

3 4 5 4 1

4 5 5 1

8 5 4

8 9 0 7

7 1 4 1

ं

ु

ी ा

ए त

क

ध्

े

) त ह

ी र

ा

ा ा ा

त

ि र

ध्

प इ

र्

ु

ा

र

ै

न

े

ा

ी र

प

ट ल्

े

ा

ा

ा

क

ं

ल ब क

श्र म

र त द्य व

अ

ा

ट

ि

े

व

ु

ि

क

क य क

ी

र्

ा

)

ा

ी र

ा

व

क

्र

ा

र्

त

क

म ड

क ट्री

े ़

त

ा

ि

ृ

्र

ल अ

ट ल्

े

े

ल ज

म ड

ा

लेक्

ड ब

क य क

क

ा

्र

े

ड ट

ए ह

ी

ु

क

न

े ़

ं

ए ल

ी

त ह

प ल्

ढ

ि र ह म

ा

ि

ु

क

े

ं

क्र क

श्

ल

ी

ण् व स्

स

ड ज

ं

इ

0 0 1 1

क

य

इ

व

ी

क

प

े

ए ल

ल

)

ि

ा

क

य प

ी

े

द

व

े ्र

न्

े

द

क

ल ज

इंसुलेि

ा

ि / ा

ा ा

त ह

5

व ए

,

ा ा

ा

ि

ए - ड ग

यूट

न्

र

त ह

0 0 1 1

ा

ि

ी

ण्

व ए

त ल

ा

्र

थ् इ

र्

ि

ू

स ड

स

े

ल

ि

स

ी

स

थ् स्

ी

ा

ा ष् ा

ी

ु

र्

्र

भ्

ा ा

1 - ग

त ट ल्

े े

ब ज क

ै

ा ा

द

1 - ग

त ट ल्

े

े

व

ा

थ् स् प न ल

ै

प

त द्ध

ु

ा

ू

ा ा

न्

ा

हैव

ब ज क

ै

ी

ा

ा ा

ा ा

र न म

ब भ्

प

प ( ि

प

ढ व प

न ल ब प (

अ प त भ्

थ् त व ण् व स् अ श्

ा

)

,

ा

, र

ा ा

)

ा

ा

ल

े

॰

(

ल ब क

थ् त व

, ा

स

ा

ल

े

॰

ा

॰

स

ण्

,

े

घ्

ा ा

ा

ा

न्

ण्

ल ज

ल

प

,

े

े

ल

ि

ल

ा

ल

ल ग अ

य

स

ि

ि

ल ग अ

ल

)

ि

े

ा

ल ज

य

ि

5 1 - फ

र ि

र त म

क ड

स

ह प े

क

र त म

ा ा

,

॰ ा

्र

ि

स

ह प

॰ ा

॰ ा

्र

्र

, I

ि

र ि

ए , ी

े

ी

, व

प

ण्

ट

प

,

ा

े

,

प

स स

ह (

स

ू

ि

-

स ड ण् ए

व

ं

ज

ह (

ा

इ

ा

ल

) ग

ं

र्

न उ

व

ं

य

क

ू

ा

ज

स

ा

़

ी

्र

न

ा

र ि

ग

2 -

ल

ी

ल

ा

े

े

्र

5 0 1 1 2 1 ॰

ल क

ी

,

ा

ग

े

क

ॅ

ि

ल क

े

,

ट न

े

ट

ट

स् ज

ा

स्

ज

,

स न ट

5 0 5 4 2 1 - ढ ग

4 0 0 1 2 1 - द

ा

ा

ड

े

ल

ा

-

,

ा

स फ

ल

र

न

े

फ्र

ड

े

ा

ा

न्

ह (

ु

ा

फ

न

े

क

ै

ा

र

फ्र

ज ल

च (

ल ि ॰ ा

्र

ा

ा

ब्

,

प्

स ह त

ा

4

प

ु

,

व

प र ट ण् इ

र

ु

2 0 0 2 2 1

क ल

,

न इ

र्

ब

र द

ल

क

ा

,

़

ा

प्

, र ा

ट स् ड ण् इ

र ट क् स

ड

े

द

ट स्

ा ,

ड

़

े

र

ु

क ल

न इ

क

) े

ट स्

ा

)

)

ा

ा

ज

र्

र्

ा

5 3 0 3 2 1

ल ी

े

र्

ब् ि

थ्

ा ा

क

ल

र्

ह ब

े

ी र

ब

ब् ि

थ्

ा ा

ा ा

ा

ा

स

ू

ा

-

ल

र प द

ा

ण्

क

ल

प

ा

ट

म

-

ा

इ

क स

ल व ल प

व

ा

व

ं

न

े

ा

ी

़

ी

े ्र

स

य

ा ा

ा

त

ं

ै

ब

म

़

ा

र

ण् व स

ल

ज्

ल

ा

म

ा

त

ढ ग

ण्

ण्

इ

प

ट

म

ा

ा

ा

ा

फ

झ

, ा

ा

ं

5 0 1 1 2 1 - ल व ल प

न

ु

ि ा

भ्

ी

य

य

ा

ा

द

द

ै

ै

ा

म

ब

ग स

ा

ा

़

ा

क

ि

ण् व स

ज म प

ड

ा ा

र ि

ल

ा

व

ड ल्

ं

े

ह ल्

ल ड

े

श्

ु

क

र ि

र ि

ल

,

ल ड

उ

े

॰

॰

॰

॰

॰

॰

ै

ै

ै

ै

ु

ा

ा

ु

ा

ै

ा

ल ज ै

ै

ु

ै

ा

ा

ल ज

ल ज ल ज

म

स अ

स अ

म ह

ल ल् ब

ि

ह (

म

म ग प रेव

म

4 7

ह द

ल ग ह ि

ह ( म

) स ल व ज् ( ग स

ग ड ग

4 7

ह द

ल ग ह ि

ह (

ि

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

.

.

.

.

3

.

.

7 0

7 0

7 0

7 0

7 0

7 0

.

.

.

.

.

.

0 3

2 2

9 1

7 1

7 1

5 1

2

9 7 8 8 1 8 4 - ल ए

0 7 3 6 1 8 4 - ल ए

8 6 5 4 1 8 4 - ल ए

2 7 5 6 1 8 4 - ल ए

4 6 1 4 1 8 4 - ल ए

6 6 1 5 1 8 4 - ल ए

1

.

.

.

.

.

7

0 1

9

8

5

65308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] , s d

9

r a e

Y

3 9 9 1

4 0 0 2

0 9 9 1

2 0 0 2 r a d n a

t

S

n a

i

.

d n

I

f

c e S

8

-

-

-

-

o

u a e r

u B

e h

t

7

-

- . t r a P

-

-

f

o

,

8 8 9 1

.

o

s n o

i t

a

6

N S

l

N O

4 9 6

4 3 0 8 I

1 5 1 4

3 4 5 4 1

I

u g e

R

T U B

)

I

n o

i t

R T S

I

a c

V

r e

t

D C

s t

a

f

I

i f i t r e

s e

o

0 0 1 1

d

)

w

l

) l

C

e s p

s t

(

e g a

a r

b a

g n

e

g n

i

t l

m ) s r

u

i

i

t

s r e d

s d

o

m

i

r a d n a

a

a

l

3 1 0 2

d u

t

u P

V

k n

l

e

) r e

R

C d e

f f

N

t

S

e

t

i r

l

H

a

e

a

c n

d

g n

A

l

l

b

I

i

, r e b

:

r a d n a

e h

W

t

k

e

t

r e

e v

n a h

5

l

m

l

r

t

S

f

i t

e

u s n

o

i s r e m

t

c y c r

d n a

o

I

u

o

c e

m n a

W

o

e

s

t

t

r e h

i

t

a r e n

r

t

o

i

o

p e S

p

l t i

L B U P D N A D O O F

r

S D R A D N A T S N A

n o

O

d n

,

u d e h c s

I

h

C V P

b u S T

P M

d e g a k c a P (

M

o F U

I

t

C

f

4

f

S R

o

g n

o

D N

I

i

I

t

e h

t

w

E L U D E H C S

o

n e

, i

u a e r

l l

h

m

l

o

e

f

, u B

e h

, e h

l

t

y n o

, D w

t

t r a p e

l

,

, )

a

e

,

f

,

n

,

, .

D

i

,

8

o

(

N

0 1

d

r e

t

F O U A E R U B

,

- r

l

4

( r

s e s i r (

a u q

,

o

L

o

p

t

o C y a

t

n e v

5 0 0 1 2 1

j

d a o R

i

,

- n o

. t

s b a

i r t s u d n

e e h

6 0 0 2 2 1

r e

I

g

t

-

i t

C

A m

,

s s e r

1 0 4 3 2 1

c e S

w

a

c e S

v P

i

n a S

l

,

-

o

n E

,

a r a

9 3 2 1 d d

e r a

s s a P

1 0 0 1 2 1

-

s e

- i r a

m

d a b a d

-

,

n o a g

w

,

e s u o

4 5

r

e e s n e c

a y h S

1 2 4

i r

, r a g a

w

i

.

h c

u g e r

4

u

L P H

, r a s e n a

.

s l

e

3 2 i

H

n a

A &

B n o v

o

i r

L

o

e y B

h

i r a F

G

R

- r

M

r e h T

P & S

S

K

A

i

e

e h

,

N

) a n a y

) a n a y

) a n a y

) a n a y

d n

r e

N

o

N m

t

.

.

.

.

w

i

,

d a b a d

h

t e h

t

A F F A R E M U S N O C F O Y R T S

a

T

m

l

a r e n

i l f

t

w

r a

r a

r a

r a

9

f

I

s /

s /

s /

s / i

o

o s s e c c

a

e

-

a e r

a

t t

. t t s i

. t t s i

. t t s i

h e

o

l

f

o

M H

H

H

H

N

)

M

M N o

M A P I

D

(

M M A A

i r a F (

B

o P D U D

(

8 3 2 1 F C M G

c e S D

(

I

5

(

s r a

M

l

n o

u c

i t

a

l

i t r a p

u g e r -

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

.

.

.

.

3

t

e

t

7 0

7 0

7 0

7 0

b u s

.

.

.

.

s e c n e c

a

n a r

f i l

o

0 1

5 1 G D

2 0

3 0

f

o

t

n a r

g

e c n a u s r

-

e h

u p

L

t

/

n

I

s e

M C

—

.

.

2

i f i t

s e c n e c

0 7 9 3 1 8 4

3 6 0 4 1 8 4

9 5 0 2 1 8 4

o

i

-

-

-

L N

7 6 8 2 1 8 4 - ल ए

L

L

L o n

0 0 0 2

.

.

.

.

.

.

O

o

.

. l

S N 1

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0 S

y b e r e h[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5309 ] r e c

1 1

:

i f f

9

3 1

/

O

3 9 9 1

3 0 0 2

8 8 9 1

8 8 9 1

4 0 0 2

9 9 9 1

n o

i t

D M C

.

o

c e S

,

N

[

-

-

-

-

-

-

8

R A M U K U D N

I

1 0

-

-

1 0

1 0

-

7

B

6

3 4 5 5 1

3 8 7 1

7 1 4 1

8 5 4

8 9 0 7

4 5 5 1

1

o

o

c

. t

t

t

r e

e n e

1

t

P

l

a

,

s

p u

p u

g n

i t s a

s e p

,

s d n e

i

V

V

l

w

i

y h

l

m

s e

t

t

k

l

- s t

P

u

y e v a e

- t r a P

a r

r

p o

e g a

e g a

s y o

r a

g n

e y

e

H

u

d e x

i

l

t

t l

t l

t

l l

(

m

s e

u o h

b a c

i f

) t

M

0 0 1 1

0 0 1 1

l

a

c a f e

t i

k n

,

A

c

D A

o P

o v

o v

) r e

t r

d e

N

t

n e

d

b a

i r

t

g n

g n

l

W

a

e g

i r t

A

i

i

a

d

r e h T

m

o /

d n a

l

g n

g n

i

i

r a

W

e d a r

y

c e

e r c n o C

l

n a h

d u

d u

l

k

k

l

d e k n

t

l

l

d e

5

,

e c r

G

r

r

d n a

e

r e

t

u s n

:

s

C d e h

o

G &

o

o

i

a

)

l l

t

1

c n

c n

f

h

l

i

i

e

m

y

d

w

w

n

r e h

t

t i

l

a r e n

i

t

u

i l s s o

i

s s e n e n

r

r

w

u

r

o

r

e

i

t s a c e r

o

o

O

u s n

W

d e g a k c a P

D

- t r a P

P ( R

C I

a e h S f

d n a

C V P D

f

d n a

(

M

G

e J F

,

n

, .

, .

, l

, l

, l

, l

, )

d

w

d

t

o

o

t

o

t

L

L

r t i

r t i

,

,

,

5 3 0 3 2 1

. t

5 0 5 4 2 1

,

. t

,

,

-

M

M

o o h c S

o o h c S

n u F

,

g n a h C

,

,

h

,

,

,

s e

a z a

a z a

v P

(

c

c

v P

d

l

l

.

- i r a

s e s i r

2

s r e n

l

r

l

i l

i l

i

P

P

d

p

k o L

e

e g a

e g a

,

- r

w

t

e

r a g s n o S &

a

r a e

t

t

t

4 0 0 1 2 1

r

t

e

o

l l

l l

r e

L

-

t

l l i

l l i

d a o R

d a o R

t

N

2 0 0 2 2 1

R

i j l

b u P

b u P

-

a r f

,

. t

V

V

,

a r f

o T

o T

a

i r t s u d n

5 0 1 1 2 1

5 0 1 1 2 1

,

,

n

a r

a r

l

l

n

n E

I

I

s a

V

c e S

e r

b a

b a

I

- l

- l

r a o B g n

v P

k u o S d

,

l

l

l

. t t s i

, r a

o

a

a

u d a h a

n o C k

l

n

u h

u h

i j

w

n

d a b a d

h

u

u

n o a g

n a h s u S

t

t

e n o

e n o

j j

o

a d o

a d o

r

w

w

B

,

a

a

M

r a

m

l

l

, .

a h

G

G

, u

G

i s u o

) s r e

H

H

l

a n u

4

i t r a

C

d

t s e

t s e

D &

e r

,

M

M

o

o

t

-

a h J l l

i r a F

G

a P

a P

H

t

t

K

l i

l i

k a n o R

r a v S

K

w S

P

i

i

e r

e r

e

) a n a y

) a n a y

) a n a y

) a n a y

) a n a y

) a n a y a P

L

t

t

r a g b a

.

.

.

.

.

5 1

.

u p 9 0 3 5 d a S e g a

h

h

o

o

.

-

l

l

M

M

w

l l

. t

r a

r a

r a

r a

r a

r a k c o

s /

s /

s /

s /

s /

s /

a d u a s

r a e

e

e

a d u a s

x e

x e

. t t s i

. t t s i

l l i

. t t s i

. t t s i

. t t s i

l

a

f e

f e

.

H

H

H

H

H

H

M

M

v P

e J (

F G B

, I - e s a h P D

(

M V

O P

l i s h e T (

M

4 7 D N B D

(

M

4 7 D N B D

(

N B D

(

A A D M

(

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

3 1 0 2

.

.

.

.

.

.

3

7 0

7 0

7 0

7 0

7 0

7 0

.

.

.

.

.

.

9 1

2 2

0 3

7 1

7 1

5 1

0 7 3 6 1 8 4

6 6 1 5 1 8 4

9 7 8 8 1 8 4

2 7 5 6 1 8 4

8 6 5 4 1 8 4

4 6 1 4 1 8 4

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

L

L

L

L

L

L

.

.

.

.

.

.

7 0

8 0

9 0

0 1

5 0

6 0

15310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2001.—अध्सिूचना भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌ द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैंः—

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित स्थापित तिथि संख्या,वर्ष और शीर्षक भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि

कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

1. आई एस 16097ः2013 निजोवाणक

अगस्त 2013 एक बार उपयोग स्कल्प वन विंगदार सइ इनफवूजन सट

इस मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलूरू, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं।

[संदर्भ एम एच डी/जी-3.5] एस॰ किशोर कुमार, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख (एम एच डी)

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013

S.O. 2001.—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, particluars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued.

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. No. & Year of the No. and year of Indian Standards, if any, Date established Indian Standards

superseded by the new Indian Standard

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1. IS 16097:2013: Sterline single use

August 2013 scalpvein (Winged Needle) infusion

set

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. MHD/G-3.5]

S. KISHORE KUMAR, Scientist 'F' & Head (MHD)

नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2002.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌ द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैंः—

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों,

यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

1 आई एस 4484ः2013 पोतनिर्माण-विद्युत वेल्डिड - अगस्त 2013 स्टड कड़ी वाली एंकर जंजीरें तथा संयोजी सांकलें और पिरकियां-विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2 आई एस 16045ः2013 कॉपर एलॉय स्क्रू-समुद्री - अगस्त 2013 प्रयोग हेतु डाउन स्टॉप वाल्व एवं स्टॉप एवं चैक वाल्व - विशिष्टि

3 आई एस 16057ः 2013 एल पी जी चालित - अगस्त 2013 आंतरिक दहन इंजिन - सुरक्षा एवं कार्यकारिता अपेक्षाएं - विशिष्टि

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों, अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं।

[संदर्भ टी ई डी/जी-16] पी॰ सी॰ जोशी, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख (टी ई डी)

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013

S.O. 2002.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the 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 Indian Standards Established Standards, if any, Established

Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 4484:2013 Shipbuilding - Electrically - August 2013 welded stud link anchor chains and connecting shackles and swivels - Specification (Third Revision)

2 16045:2013 Copper alloy screw - Down - August 2013 stop valves and stop and check valves for marine application - Specification

- August 2013 3 16057:2013 LPG operated internal combustion engines - Safety and performance requirements - Specification

Copy of these Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch5312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore-Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. TED/G-16]

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

नई दिल्ली, 16 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2003.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वे स्थापित हो गये हः

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

1 आई एस 6003ः2010 पूर्व प्रतिलंबित कंक्रीट में प्रयुक्त आई एस 6003ः1983 20 सितम्बर 2013 दॉतेदार तार - विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफ़र मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों, अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् है।

[संदर्भ सीईडी/राजपत्र] ज॰ रॉय चौध्री, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख (सिविल इंजीनियरी)

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013

S.O. 2003.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the 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 Standards Established                  Standards, if any,                  Established
                                                          Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1 IS 6003:2010 Indented wire for

-- 20 September 2013 prestressed concrete - Specification (Second revision)

Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore-Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. CED/Gazette] J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5313

नई दिल्ली, 16 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2004.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिस मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वे स्थापित हो गया है :

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1) आई एस 4326 : 2013 भवनों की आई एस 4326 : 1993 31 अगस्त 2013 भूकम्प प्रतिरोध्ी डिजाइन और संरचना- रीति संहिता (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफ़र मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों, अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् है।

[संदर्भ सीईडी/राजपत्र] ज॰ रॉय चौध्री, वैज्ञाानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख (सिविल इंजीनियरी)

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013

S.O. 2004.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated it :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. No. & Year of the No. & year of Indian Date

Indian Standards Established Standards, if any, Established

Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1 IS 4326 : 2013 Earthquake IS 4326: 1993 31 August 2013 Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings - Code of Practice (Third Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore-Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. CED/Gazette] J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)5314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 16 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2005.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वे स्थापित हो गया हः

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

(1) आई एस 1200 (भाग 5)ः 2013 भवन आई एस 1200 31 जुलाई, निर्माण और सिविल इंजीनियरिंग कार्यों की (भाग 5)ः 1982 2013 मापन पद्धतियांः भाग 5 फॉर्मवर्क (चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफ़र मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं।

[संदर्भ सीईडी/राजपत्र] ज॰ रॉय चौध्री, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख (सिविल इंजीनियरी)

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013

S.O. 2005.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule below has been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. No. and Year of the No. and year of Indian Date when Indian Standards Established Standards, if any, Established and title

Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1) IS 1200 (Part 5):2013 Method IS 1200 (Part 5): 1982 31 July, 2013 of measurement of building

and civil engineering works Part 5 Formwork (Fourth Revision)

Copy of the Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5315

नई दिल्ली, 16 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2006.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वे स्थापित हो गये हः

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

(1) आई एस 16074ः2013 इस्पात के - 31 अगस्त 2013 सपाट दरवाजे के शटर्स - विशिष्टि

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफ़र मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं।

[संदर्भ सीईडी/राजपत्र] ज॰ रॉय चौध्री, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख (सिविल इंजीनियरी)

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013

S.O. 2006.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule below has been established on the date indicated against each:

Sl.No. No. and Year of the No. and year of Indian Date when Indian Standards Established Standards, if any, Established and title

Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1) IS 16074:2013 Steel flush - 31 August, 2013 door shutters - Specification

Copy of the Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette] J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)

नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2007.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गये हः5316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

1. आई एस 16123 (भाग 1)ः 2013/

- 31 अगस्त, 2013 आईएसओ 13053-1ः2011 प्रक्रिया सुधर में मात्रात्मक पद्धतियां- सिक्स सिग्मा भाग 1 डीएमएआईसी पद्धति

2. आईएस 16123 (भाग 2)ः 2013/

- 31 अगस्त, 2013 आईएसओ 13053-2ः2011 प्रक्रिया सुधर में मात्रात्मक पद्धतियां - सिक्स सिग्मा भाग 2 औजार एवं तकनीकें

इस मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफ़र मार्ग, नई दिल्ली 110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं।

[संदर्भ एम एस डी/जी-8 अधिसूचना] के॰ एन॰ राव, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख (प्रबंध् एवं तंत्र विभाग)

New Delhi, the 17th September, 2013

S.O. 2007.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which is given in the schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. No. and Year of the No. and year of Indian Date of Indian Standards Established Standard, if any, Established

Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1. IS 16123 (Part 1):2013/

- 31 August, 2013 ISO 13053-1:2011 Quantitative methods in process improvement - Six sigma- Part 1 The DMAIC Methodology

2. IS 16123 (Part 2):2013/

- 31 August, 2013 ISO 13053-2:2011 Quantitative methods in process improvement - Six sigma- Part 2 Tools and Techniques[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5317 Copy of above Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices: at Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. MSD/G-8 Notification] K. N. RAO, Scientist 'F' & Head (MSD)

नई दिल्ली, 18 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2008.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम (1) के खंड के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिस मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया हैः

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

(1) आई एस 1126 : 2013 प्राकृतिक आई एस 1126 : 1974 31 अगस्त, 2013 निर्माण पत्थरों का टिकाउपन ज्ञात करना - परीक्षण पद्धति (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग नई दिल्ली 110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयाें : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं।

[संदर्भ सीईडी/राजपत्र] ज॰ रॉय चौध्री, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख (सिविल इंजीनियरी)

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2013

S.O. 2008.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated it:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. No. and Year of the No. and year of Indian Date of Indian Standards Established Standards, if any, Established

Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1) IS 1126 : 2013 Determination of IS 1126 : 1974 31 August, 2013 Durability of Natural Building Stones - Method of Test (Second Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar March, New Dehi-110 002 and Regional Offices: Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Coimbator, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette] J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)5318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2009.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद्‌ अध्निियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धरा 11 की उप-धरा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद्‌ से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त अध्निियम की पहली अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोध्न करती है नामतः :—

''गुरु गोबिंद सिंह इंद्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय, नई दिल्ली'' के सामने 'मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' [इसके आगे कॉलम (2) के रूप में संदर्भित] के अंतर्गत शीर्षक 'पंजीकरण के लिए संप्रेक्षण' [इसके आगे कॉलम (3) के रूप में संदर्भित] के अन्तर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंध्ति प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः—

2 3

''बैचलर ऑफ मेडीसिन और एम॰ बी॰ बी॰ एस॰ बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी'' (यह प्रति वर्ष 100 एम॰ बी॰ बी॰ एस॰ छात्रों के वार्षिक प्रवेश सहित दिसंबर, 2012 अथवा उसके बाद आर्मी आयुर्विज्ञान कॉलेज, नई दिल्ली में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध् में गुरु गोविंद सिंह इन्द्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय, नई दिल्ली द्वारा एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

[सं॰ यू॰ 12012/61/2004-एमई (पी-II)] अनीता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव (2)

(3)

"Bachelor of Medicine and MBBS Bachelor of Surgery" (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being trained at Army College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi with annual intake of 100 MBBS students on or after December, 2012.)

[No. U. 12012/61/2004-ME(P-II)] ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2010.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद्‌ अध्निियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धरा 11 की उप-धरा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद्‌ से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त अध्निियम की पहली अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोध्न करती है नामतः :—

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में ''मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता'' शीर्षक के तहत (कॉलम 2 में) और पंजीकरण के लिए संप्रेषण रूप के अंतर्गत (कॉलम 3 में) ''राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर'' निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः :—

2 3

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2013

S.O. 2009.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act.

In the said First Schedule after "Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi" and under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

''बैचलर ऑफ मेडीसिन और एम॰ बी॰ बी॰ एस॰ बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी'' (यह प्रति वर्ष 150 एम॰ बी॰ बी॰ एस॰ छात्रों के वार्षिक प्रवेश सहित फरवरी, 2013 अथवा उसके बाद गीतांजलि मेडिकल कॉलेज एवं अस्पताल, उदयपुर, राजस्थान में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध् में राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, जयपुर द्वारा एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

[सं॰ यू॰ 12012/496/2007-एमई (पी-II] अनीता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2013

S.O. 2010.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said First Schedule against "Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [in column (2)] and under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [in column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

"Bachelor of Medicine and MBBS Bachelor of Surgery" (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajasthan University of Helath Sciences, Jaipur in respect of students being trained at Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital, Udaipur, Rajasthan on or after February, 2013 with annual intake of 150 students per year.)

[No. U. 12012/496/2007-ME (P-II)] ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2011.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद्‌ अध्निियम, 1956 (1956 की 102) की धरा 11 की उप-धरा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद्‌ से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त अध्निियम की पहली अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोध्न करती है नामतः :—

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में ''मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता'' शीर्षक के तहत (कॉलम 2 में) और पंजीकरण के लिए संप्रेषण रूप के अंतर्गत (कॉलम 3 में) ''डॉ॰ भीमराव अंबेडकर विश्वविद्यालय, आगरा (उत्तर प्रदेश)'' निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः :—

2 3

''बैचलर ऑफ मेडीसिन और एम॰ बी॰ बी॰ एस॰ बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी'' (यह प्रति वर्ष 100 एम॰ बी॰ बी॰ एस॰ छात्रों के वार्षिक प्रवेश सहित अप्रैल, 2013 अथवा उसके बाद रामा मेडिकल कॉलेज अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधन केन्द्र, कानपुर, उत्तर प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध् में डॉ॰ भीमराव अंबेडकर विश्वविद्यालय, आगरा (उत्तर प्रदेश) द्वारा एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी।)

[सं॰ यू॰ 12012/336/2006-एमई (पी-II)] अनीता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 2011—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said First Schedule against "Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedker University, Agra (Uttar Pradesh)" under the

heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [in column (2)] and under the heading "Abbreviation for Registration" [in column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

(2)

(3)

"Bachelor of Medicine and MBBS Bachelor of Surgery" [This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedker University, Agra (Uttar Pradesh) in respect of students being trained at Rama Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,

Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh on or after April, 2013 with annual intake of 100 students per year on or after April, 2012].

[No. U. 12012/336/2006-ME (P-II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 19 अगस्त, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2012.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद्‌

अध्निियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धरा 11 की उप-धरा (2)

द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद्‌ से

परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त अध्निियम की पहली अनुसूची में

निम्नलिखित और संशोध्न करती है नामतः :—

उक्त अनुसूची में—

(क) ''मणिपाल उच्च शिक्षा अकादमी (मानित विश्वविद्यालय),

कर्नाटक'' के सामने 'मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' [इसके आगे

कॉलम (2) के रूप में संदर्भित] के अंतर्गत शीर्षक 'पंजीकरण

के लिए संप्रेषण' [इसके आगे कॉलम (3) के रूप में संदर्भित]

के अन्तर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंध्ति प्रविष्टि के बाद

निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः—

2 3

''डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडीसिन डी॰एम॰ (तांत्रिका विज्ञान) (तांत्रिका विज्ञान)'' (यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह कस्तूरबा मेडिकल कॉलेज, मणिपाल, कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध् में, मणिपाल उच्च शिक्षा अकादमी (मानित विश्वविद्यालय), कर्नाटक द्वारा वर्ष 1995 में अथवा उसके पश्चात्‌ प्रदान की गई हो।)

''मास्टर ऑफ चिरुरगई एम॰ सी एच॰ (न्यूरो सर्जरी) (न्यूरो सर्जरी)'' (यह एक मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह कस्तूरबा मेडिकल कॉलेज, मणिपाल, कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्याथयों के संबंध् में, मणिपाल उच्च शिक्षा अकादमी (मानित विश्वविद्यालय), कर्नाटक द्वारा वर्ष 1995 में अथवा उसके पश्चात्‌ प्रदान की गई हो।)

सभी के लिए टिप्पणीः

(2)

(3)

"Doctor of Medicine D.M. (Neurology) (Neurology)" (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Deemed University), Karnataka in respect of students being trained at Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka on or after 1995.)

"Master of Chirurgiae M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery) (Neuro Surgery)" (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Deemed University), Karnataka in respect of students being trained at Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Karnataka on or after 1995.)

Note to all:

1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्‌यक्रम के लिए स्वीकृति 5 वर्ष की अध्कितम

अवध् िके लिए होगी, जिसके बाद इसकी पुनरीक्षा की जाएगी।

2. उप-धरा 4 में अपेक्षित अनुसार मान्यता को समय पर नवीकरण नहीं कराने के फलस्वरूप संबंध्ति स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्‌यक्रमों में निरपवाद रूप से दाखिला बन्द हो जाएगा।

[सं॰ यू॰ 12012/21/2013-एमई (पी-II)] अनीता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013

S.O. 2012.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against "Manipur Academy of Higher Education (Deemed University), Karnataka" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

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

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U.12012/21/2013-ME (P-II) ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

वस्त्र मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2013.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम 4 के अनुसरण में वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को जिसमें 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अध्सिूचित करती हैः—

1. अनुसंधन प्रसार केन्द्र व समूह विकास केन्द्र, केरेअवप्रसंं, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, वार्ड नं॰ 6, मकान नं, 252, नौशेरा-185151, जिला-राजौरी (ज. व क.)।

2. अनुसंधन प्रसार केन्द्र, केरेअवप्रसं, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड,

घुमारवीं-174021, हिमाचल प्रदेश।

3. अनुसंधन प्रसार केन्द्र, केरेअवप्रसं, केन्द्र रेशम बोर्ड,

नादौन-177033, हिमाचल प्रदेश।

4. समूह विकास केन्द्र, केरेअवप्रसं, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, कालसी-विकास नगर, अम्बाडी रेशम फार्म, देहरादून (उत्तराखण्ड)।

[सं॰ ई-11016/1/2011-हिंदी] सुनयना तोमर, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the13th September, 2013

S.O. 2013.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for the official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles, more than 80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:

1. Research Extension Centre-cum-Cluster Development Centre, CSR&TI, Central Silk Board, Ward No. 6, House No. 252, Nowshera-185151 Dist. Rajouri (J&K).

2. Research Extension Centre, CSR&TI, Central Silk

Board, Ghumarwin-174021, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Research Extension Centre, CSR&TI, Central Silk

Board, Nadoun-177033, Himachal Pradesh.

4. Cluster Development Centre, CSR&TI, Central Silk Board, Kalasi, Vikas Nagar, Ambari Resham Farm, Dehradun (Uttarakhand).

[No. E-11016/1/2011-Hindi] SUNAINA TOMAR, Jt. Secy.

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2014.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के ब्यौरे रेखांक संख्यांक एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/सीजीएम(पीएलजी)/ भूमि/13/441, तारीख 10 अप्रैल, 2013 का निरीक्षण कलक्टर, उमरिया (मध्य प्रदेश) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1, काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्‌स लिमिटेड (राजस्व अनुभाग), सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 (छत्तीसगढ़) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है।

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धरक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अध्निियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात्‌ उक्त अध्निियम कहा गया है) की धरा 4 की उप-धरा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;

उपरोक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति, इस अध्सिूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन की अवध्ि के भीतर भारसाध्क अध्किारी या विभागाध्यक्ष (राजस्व), साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफीलडस लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 (छत्तीसगढ़) से—

(i) उक्त अध्सिूचना की धरा 4 की उप-धरा (3) के अध्ीन की गई किसी कार्रवाई से हुई या संभवतः होने वाली किसी क्षति के लिए अध्निियम की धरा 6 के अध्ीन प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या

(ii) उक्त अध्निियम की धरा 13 की उप-धरा (1) के अध्ीन पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों के प्रभावहीन होने के संबंध् में या उक्त अध्निियम की धरा 13 की उप-धरा (4) के अध्ीन खनन पट्‌टे प्रभावहीन होने के लिए प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा और उसे उक्त अध्निियम की धरा 13 की उप-धरा (1) के खंड (i) से (iv) में विनिर्दिष्ट मदों की बाबत उपगत व्यय को उपदर्शित करने के लिए पूर्वोक्त भूमि से संबंध्ति सभी मानचित्रों, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को परिदत्त कर सकेगा।

अनुसूची

मालाचुआ ब्लाक, सोहागपुर क्षेत्र,

जिला-शहडोल, मध्य प्रदेश

[रेखांक संख्यांक एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/सीजीएम (पीएलजी)/भूमि/13/441, तारीख 10 अप्रैल, 2013]

(क) राजस्व भूमिः

क्र॰  ग्राम का नाम       जनरल            पटवारी         तहसील          जिला           क्षेत्र        क्षेत्र        टिप्पणी
सं॰                      संख्या          हल्का                                        हेक्टर         एकड़
                                         नम्बर                                        में            में
1.      औढेरा              39            40             पाली           उमरिया         305.262         754.30         भाग
2.     मालाचुआ           852             41             पाली           उमरिया         467.980        1156.38         भाग
3.   ब्लाक पडरी          752             42             पाली           उमरिया         106.690         263.63         भाग

कुलः 879.932 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 2174.31 एकड़ (लगभग)5322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (ख) वन भूमिः

क्रम कम्पार्टमेंट रेन्ज संभाग वन का ब्लाक क्षेत्र क्षेत्र टिप्पणी सं॰ संख्या

प्रकार हेक्टर में एकड़ में

1. 223, 225, घुनघुटी उमरिया आरक्षित सोहागपुर 186.070 459.78 भाग

वन

229, 230, 232

कुलः 186.070 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 459.78 एकड़ (लगभग)

कुल योग (क+ख)ः 879.932+186.070 = 1066.002 हेक्टर (लगभग) या

2174.31+459.78 = 2634.09 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा वर्णनः

क-ख रेखा ग्राम औढेरा के पश्चिमी सीमा में बिन्दु 'क' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम औढेरा और मालाचुआ के उत्तरी भाग, आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेंट संख्या 223 तथा ग्राम ब्लाक पडरी के पश्चिमी भाग से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'ख' पर मिलती है।

ख-ग रेखा आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेंट संख्या 223, 225, ग्राम ब्लाक पडरी के पश्चिमी भाग, आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेंट संख्या 229 के पूर्वी भाग से गुजरती हुई बिंदु 'ग' पर मिलती है।

ग-घ रेखा आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेंट संख्या 229 के दक्षिणी भाग, आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेंट संख्या 230 के मध्य भाग से गुजरती है और बिंदु 'घ' पर मिलती है।

घ-क रेखा आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेंट संख्या 230, ग्राम औढेरा के पश्चिमी भाग और आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेंट संख्या 232 के दक्षिणी भाग से गुजरती हुई आरंभिक बिंदु 'क' पर मिलती है।

[फा॰ सं॰ 43015/05/2013-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I] वी॰ एस॰ राणा, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2013

S.O. 2014.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM (PLG)/Land/13/441, dated the 10th April, 2013 containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District-Umaria (Madhya Pradesh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may—

(i) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or

(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting licence ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 (Chhattisgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

Malachua Block, Johilla Area,

District-Umaria, Madhya Pradesh

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM(PLG)/Land/13/441, dated the 10th April, 2013]

(A) Revenue land:

Sl. Name of       General    Patwari            Tahsil       District      Area in      Area         Remark
No.village        number     halka number                                  hectares     in acres
1. Awdhera         39          40               Pali         Umaria        305.262      754.30       Part
2. Malachua       852          41               Pali         Umaria        467.980     1156.38       Part
3. Block          752          42               Pali         Umaria        106.690      263.63       Part
   Padari

Total: 879.932 hectares (approximately) or 2174.31 acres (approximately)

(B) Forest land:

Sl. Compart-          Range       Division     Type of      Block        Area in     Area in      Remark
No. ment                                       Forest                    hectares    acres
    number
1. 223,               Ghunghuti   Umaria       Reserve      Sohag-       186.070     459.78       Part

Forest pur

225,229, 230, 232

Total: 186.070 hectares (approximately) or 459.78 acres (approximately)

Grand Total (A+B): 879.932+186.070=1066.002 hectares (approximately) or 2174.31+459.78=2634.09 acres

(approximately)

Boundary Description:

A-B Line starts from point 'A' on the western boundary of villages Awdhera and passes through northern part of village Awdhera, Malachua, western part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 223, village Block Padari and meets at point 'B'.

B-C Line passes through western part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 223, 225, village Block Padari, eastern part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 229 and meets at point 'C'.

C-D Line passes through southern part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 229, middle part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 230 and meets at point 'D'.

D-A Line passes through Reserve Forest Compartment no. 230, western part of village Awdhera, southern part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 232 and meets at starting point 'A'.

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2015.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन) अध्निियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धरा 6 की उप-धरा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अध्सिूचना संख्या का॰आ॰ 2063 तारीख 19/06/2002 में जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II, खण्ड 3, उप-खण्ड (ii) में प्रकाशित की गई थी, में निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, अर्थात्‌ः—

उक्त अध्सिूचना की अनुसूची की ''तहसील भीनमाल''

[F.No. 43015/05/2013-PRIW-I] V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

(क) स्तम्भ 1 में गांव ''भीनमाल''

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''5307'', के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''0-0783'' के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल ''शून्य'' रखा जायेगा।

(ii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''5308'', के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''0-3111'' के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल ''शून्य'' रखा जायेगा।

[फा॰ सं॰ आर-31015/39/2001-ओआर-II]

पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव5324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013

S.O. 2015.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S.O. 2063, dated 19/6/2002 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), of the Gazatte of India, namely:—

In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil Bhinmal:—

(A) against village "Bhinmal" in column 1,

(i) In survey No. "5307", in column 2, for the areas "0-0783", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

(ii) In survey No. "5308", in column 2, for the areas "0-3111" in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substituted.

[F. No. R-31015/39/2001-OR-II] PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2016.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन) अध्निियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धरा 6 की उप-धरा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अध्सिूचना संख्या का॰आ॰ 2695 तारीख 21/08/2002 में जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II, खण्ड 3, उपखण्ड (ii) में प्रकाशित की गई थी, में निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, अर्थात्‌ः—

उक्त अध्सिूचना की अनुसूची की ''तहसील खींवसर''

(क) स्तम्भ 1 में गांव ''कांटियां''

(ii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''279'', के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''0-03'' के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल ''शून्य'' रखा जायेगा।

(घ) स्तम्भ 1 में गांव ''शिवपुरा''

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''1052'', के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''1-11'' के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल ''0-16'' एवं स्तम्भ 2 में सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''1052/1612'', स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''0-15'' रखा जायेगा।

(ii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''1060'' के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''3-01'' के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल ''1-11'' एवं स्तम्भ 2 में सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''1060/1613'', स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''1-10'' रखा जायेगा।

(ङ) स्तम्भ 1 में गांव ''माडपुरा''

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''1140'', के स्थान पर

''1140/1508'' रखा जायेगा।

(ii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''1331'', के स्थान पर

''1331/1090'' रखा जायेगा।

[फा॰ सं॰ आर-31015/46/2002-ओआर-II] पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013

S.O. 2016.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 2695, dated 21/08/2002 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), of the Gazatte of India, namely:—

In Schedule to the said notification of "Tehsil

Khinwsar":—

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''1113'', के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''2-11'' के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल ''0-12'' रखा जायेगा।

(ख) स्तम्भ 1 में गांव ''दुजासर''

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''978'', के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''2-02'' के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल ''1-02'' रखा जायेगा।

(ग) स्तम्भ 1 में गांव ''चावण्डिया''

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''278'', के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में क्षेत्रफल ''0-03'' के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल ''शून्य'' रखा जायेगा।

(A) against village "Kantiya", in column 1,

(i) In survey No. "1113", in column 2 for the areas "2-11", in column 4 the area "0-12" shall be substituted.

(B) against village "Dujasar", in column 1,

(i) In survey No. "978", in column 2, for the areas "2-02", in column 4, the area "1-02" shall be substituted.

(C) against village "Chanwandiya", in column 1,

(i) In survey No. "278", in column 2, for the areas

"0-03", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be

substituted.

(ii) In survey No. "279", in column 2, for the areas

"0-03", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be substited.

(D) against village "Shivpura", in column 1,

(i) In survey No. "1052" , in column 2 for the areas "1-11", in column 4, the area "0-16" and in column 2, survey No. "1052/1612", in column 4, the area "0-15" shall be substituted.

(ii) In survey No. "1060" , in column 2 for the areas "3-01", in column 4, the area "1-11" and in column 2, survey No. "1060/1613", in column 4, the area "1-10" shall be substituted.

(E) Against village "Madpura", in column 1,

(i) In survey No. "1140" , in column 2, survey

No. "1140/1508" shall be substituted.

(ii) In survey No. "1331" , in column 2, survey

No. "1331/1090" shall be substituted.

[F. No. R-31015/46/2002-OR-II] PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2013

Section 3, sub-section (ii), of the Gazatte of India, namely:—

In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil Luni:—

(A) against village "Sinli" in column 1,

(i) In survey No. "203", "203/1", "203/3", in column 2, for the total areas "6-02", in column 2 and 4, survey No. "203" area "0-15", survey No. "203/2" area "1-10", survey No. "203/1" area "1-07", survey No. "203/3", area "2-10" shall be substituted.

[F. No. R-31015/33/2001-OR-II] PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2018.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 02/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05/08/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/67/2007-आईआर (बी-II)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

का॰आ॰ 2017.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाईपलाईन (भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन) अध्निियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धरा 6 की उपधरा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुऐ, पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अध्सिूचना संख्या का॰आ॰ 477 तारीख 07/02/2003 में जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग 2 खण्ड 3 उपखण्ड (ii) में प्रकाशित की गई थी, में निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, अर्थात्‌ः—

उक्त अध्सिूचना की अनुसूची की ''तहसील लूनी''

(क) स्तम्भ 1 में गांव ''सिनली''

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''203'', ''203/1'', 203/3'', के सामने स्तम्भ 4 में कुल क्षेत्रफल ''6-02'', के स्थान पर स्तम्भ 2 व स्तम्भ 4 में सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''203'' क्षेत्रफल ''0-15'', सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''203/2'' क्षेत्रफल ''1-10'', सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''203/1'', क्षेत्रफल ''1-07'', सर्वेक्षण संख्या ''203/3'' क्षेत्रफल ''2-10'' रखा जायेगा।

[फा॰ सं॰ आर-31015/33/2001-ओआर-II] New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 2018.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/02/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Bank of Maharashtra and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05.08.2013.

[No. L-12012/67/2007-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013 BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR S.O. 2017.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 477, dated 07.02.2003 published in Part II, Case No. CGIT/NGP/02/2008 Date 25.07.2013

Party No. 1 The Chief Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, Mahabank Building, Dr. Munje Marg,5326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sitabuldi, Nagpur-440012.

Party No. 2 The General Secretary,

Union of the Manarashtra Bank Employees, 542, Dr. Munje Marg, Congress Nagar, Nagpur-440012

AWARD

(Dated: 25th July, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman, Shri V.P. Dhanodkar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 12012/67/2007-IR(B-II) dated 18.01.2008, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Nagpur in imposing the punishment of "Censure" and to make good the amount of loss of Rs. 33,000/- to the Bank immediately vide Appellate Authority Order Ref. AX7/NR/PERS/VPD/Appeal/ 2006 dated 16/11/2006 on Shri V.P. Dhanodkar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union, "Union of the Maharashtra Bank Employees", ("the Union" in short), filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri V.P. Dhanodkar, ("The workman" in short) and the management of Bank of Maharashtra, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that the Party No. 1 is a Nationalised Bank and is an industry within the meaning as provided under the Act and the service conditions of the Bank Employees including the Party No. 1 are governed by the provision of the Sastry award, Desai Award and different settlements signed between the union and the management, which are called as "Bipartite settlements" and the workman was working at Nandanwan Branch and was assigned the post of special assistant on temporary basis, in absence of the permanent special assistant and while working at Nandanwan Branch, the charge sheet dated 12.01.2005 came to be issued against the workman containing two charges, both independently covered under clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement and a regular departmental enquiry was ordered and one Shri A.D.Lapalikar was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges and the enquiry officer after conducting the departmental enquiry submitted his report dated 25.10.2005, holding the charges to have been proved against the workman and such declaration was without application of judicious mind and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 23.02.2006 awarded punishment of bringing down the pay scale of the workman by one state for charge No. 1 and punishment of warning for charge No. 2 and under the grab of administrative order dated 25.02.2006, Shri Burange, who was offciating as the Chief Manager directed the recovery of Rs. 33,500/- from the salary of the workman with immediate effect and as a consequence of the aforesaid orders, an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month came to be deducted from the salary payabale to the workman and before passing of the order dated 25.02.2006, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the workman in total denial of the principles of natural justice and the action of recovery was resisted by the workman vide his representation dated 06.03.2006 and the workman filed an appeal dated 10.04.2006, before the appellate authority and the appellate authority after hearing the workman modified the order dated 23.02.2006 vide his order dated 16.11.2006 and confirmed the punishment of censure for charge No. 1 and so also for charge No. 2 and the appellate authority also upheld the order of the disciplinary authority in directing the workman to make good the loss of the amount of Rs. 33,500/- and the said order is unjustified and illegal. The further case of the workman is that the charges framed in the charge-sheet were basically wrong and recklessly framed and there was no evidence on record to prove and substantiate the charges and the findings of the enquiry officer were totally perverse and not based on any logical reasoning and the departmental enquiry was unfair and not proper and the action of recovery of an amount of Rs.33,500/- was also illegal and improper and the reasoning given were cryptic in nature and the report of the enquiry officer was casual and mechanical and the reasons assigned by the enquiry officer were not based on the evidence on record and documents which were specifically demanded were not supplied during the course of the enquiry and as the charges were not proved, the action taken by the first party is not justified and the person, who awarded the punishment was having no authority to pass the punishment. The union has prayed to answer the reference in their favour and to set aside the order dated 16.11.2006 and for a direction to Party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.33,500/- recovered from the salary of the workman.

3. The Party No.1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that a charge sheet dated 12.01.2005 was issued against the workman for the acts of misconduct committed by him, while he was officiating as a special assistant in Nandanwan Branch and on 27.04.2004 the workman received an application for issuance of a cheque book in the savings bank account No. 25414 of Shri S.M. Deshbratar and on the same day, he issued a cheque book bearing cheques from 857951 to 857960 in the savings bank[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5327 account No.25414, without verifying the signature of the applicant and tallying the same with the specimen signature available with the bank and photographs from the specimen signature book and thereby, he committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and a gross misconduct under clause 19.5(j) of Bipartite settlement and on 28.04.2004, the workman verified the signature on cheque No. 857951 in the above stated account, before the same was sent for passing for payment and subsequently, it was transpired that the signature verified by the workman did not tally with the specimen signature available in the branch records and photographs from the specimen signature book and due to the latches of the workman, an amount of Rs. 67,000/ - was fraudulently withdrawn from the savings bank account No. 25414 of Shri S.M. Deshbratar on 28.04.2004, through self cheque bearingNo. 857951 and the act of negligence committed by the workman amounted to gross misconduct under clause 19.5(j) of Bipartite settlement, 1966 and as such, the departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman and the enquiry was commenced on 02.02.2005 and concluded on 17.08.2005 and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 25.10.2005, holding the charges levelled against the workman to have been proved and thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the workman vide letter dated 17.01.2006, informing him about the proposed punishment and he was accorded personal hearing on 24.01.2006 to submit his say on the proposed punishment and the workman appeared before the disciplinary authority and made his submissions and considering the materials on record of the departmental enquiry and the gravity of the misconduct, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 23.02.2006, imposing the punishment of bringing down the scale of pay by one stage without cumulative effect for charge No.1 and punishment of censure for charge No.2 and the appeal preferred by the workman was duly considered by the appellate authority and the appellate authority modified the punishment imposed in respect of charge No.1 and imposed the punishment of censure for charge No 1 and confirmed the punishment of censure for charge No.2 and the appellate authority upheld the order of recovery of Rs.33,500/- from the workman and the charges were framed correctly against the workman and there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the charge and the enquiry was fair and proper and the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse and the order for recovery of Rs.33,500/- was also legal and proper and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. The workman filed the documents of the departmental enquiry including the findings given by the enquiry officer, final order of punishment, order of the appellate authority and day to day proceedings of the departmental enquiry and all the documents were admitted in to evidence on behalf of the workman on admission by the Party No. l.

5. As this is a case of imposition of the punishment against the workman after holding of a departmental enquiry against him, the legality of the departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated 11.07.2012, the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the enquiry officer without application of judicious mind and without any evidence declared both the charges as mentioned in the charge-sheet as proved and on the basis of such findings, the officiating Chief Manager purported himself to be the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of bringing down pay of scale by one stage for charge No.1 and warning for charge No. 2 against the workman, by order dated 23.02.2006 and under the grab of administrative order dated 25.02.2006, directed recovery of Rs. 33,500/- from the salary payable to the workman with immediate effect, as a consequent of the aforesaid order, an amount of Rs. 2008/ - per month came to be deducted from the salary payable to the workman and before passing of the order dated 25.02.2006, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the workman in total denial of principles of natural justice and on appeal by the workman against the punishments, the Appellate Authority by order dated 16.11.2006, modified the punishment of bringing down pay of scale by one stage for charge No.1 to one of censure, but confirmed the order of recovery of Rs. 33,500/- and the punishment is not just, fair and legal and the person, who awarded the punishment was having no authority to pass the final order of punishment and the order of recovery of the amount of Rs. 33,500/- was without any show cause notice or personal hearing of the workman and as such, the same is against the principles of natural justice and as such, the said order is liable to be set aside and the party No.1 be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 33,500/- to the workman.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that by order dated 11.07.2012, the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has been held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence on record of the enquiry and not on any extraneous materials and due to the failure on the part of the workman, an amount of Rs. 67,000/- was withdrawn fraudulently from the Saving Bank account of one Shri S.M. Deshbratar on 28.04.2004 and commission of gross misconduct has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the punishment and the order for recovery of the amount of Rs. 33,500/- was effected correctly from him and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 2019.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/07/2010-11 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Indistrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IDBI BANK and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/08/2013.

[No. L-12011/09/2009-IR (B-II)] SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

8. On perusal of the materials on record including the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, it is found that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the materials available on record. The enquiry officer has reached the findings after assessing the evidence on record of the enquiry in a rational manner. The findings of the enquiry officer are not based on any extraneous materials. It is also found that this is not a case of no evidence. So, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse. The workman has been found guilty of the charges levelled against him in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. The punishment of censure imposed against the workman also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved against him. Hence, there is no question of interfering with the punishment of censure imposed against the workman for both the charges proved against him.

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

9. Now, the only question remains for consideration is in regard to the order passed by the Chief Manager (officiating) on 25.02.2006 directing recovery of Rs. 33,500/- from the salary of the workman with immediate effect.

Case No.CGIT/NGP/07/2010-11 Date: 30.04.2013.

Party No.1 The Dy. General Manager,

Industrial Development Bank of India

At. WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai-400005.

Versus

Party No.2 The General Secretary,

The I.D.B.I. Karmachari Sangh,

143/146, Bhavani Peth,

Satara- 415002.

AWARD

On perusal of the document, Ext. W-IV, the order passed by the Chief Manager (O), Nagpur region, Nagpur on 25.02.2006, it is found that the same is an administrative order to make good of 50% of the loss of Rs. 67,000/- i.e. Rs. 33,500/- caused to the Bank. The said order was passed after the workman was found guilty of the charges levelled against him under clause 19.5 (J) of Bipartite Settlement, 1966 in the departmental enquiry. The above said order is an administrative order passed by the Chief Manager (O) and not as the Disciplinary Authority and the same is not an order of punishment in the departmental enquiry. Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the said order. Hence, it is ordered:—

(Dated: 30th April, 2013)

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Nagpur in imposing the punishment of "Censure" and to make good the amount of loss of Rs. 33,000/- to the Bank immediately on Shri V.P. Dhanodkar is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2019.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई॰डी॰बी॰आई॰ के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 07/2010-11) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/08/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12011/09/2009-आईआर (बी-II)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of IDBI Bank and their workman, Shri S.G. Bobde, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12011/09/2009- IR (B-II) dated 01.09.2010, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai in issuing office order no. 1779 dated 07.02.2008 transferring the services of Shri S.G. Bobde, workmen from Nagpur Branch to Raipur Branch in Chhattisgarh is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union, The I.D.B.I. Karmachari Sangh, ("the union" in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri S.G.Bobde, ("the workman" in short) and the management of I.D.B.I. Bank, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as projected by the union in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a registered[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5329 settlement deals with the shifting of the post of special assistant, when the same is found not useful or becomes redundant at a particular branch to other branch/office in the same city where the services of a special assistant can be utilized, whereas, clause 15 deals with administrative transfers and according to clause 15 of the said settlement, "without prejudice to the provisions, in respect of the transfers of award staff, as provided in Bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1966 as amended up-to-date, a special Assistant can be transferred within city, on administrative grounds, after a period of three years from the date the duties of special assistant are assigned to him and the transfer within Municipal/Corporation/Agglomeration area will be treated as a transfer within city having the same CCA/HRA." and applying the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that Party No.1 committed breach of the settlement and willfully violated the same, by transferring the workman out of the state of Maharashtra i.e. Chhattisgarh State and the order is therefore, illegal and arbitrary.

trade union and Party No.1 is a public sector bank and is an "Industry" within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the Act and as per notification dated 10th September, 2006 of the Government of India, the United Western Bank Ltd, ("the UWBL" in short) was amalgamated with the Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. ("the I.D.B.I." in short) with entire business, properties, assets and liabilities and according to clause 8 of the above mentioned notification, all the employees of the UWBL were deemed to have been appointed in the transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 02.09.2006. It is further pleaded by the union that it was previously operating as a registered trade union in the name and style of "United Western Bank Karmachari Sangh" and was the majority union of the employees of erstwhile UWBL and after the amalgamation, it was necessary to change the name and as such, it got its name changed as "IDBI Karmachari Sangh", ("the union" in short), with due approval of the authorities under the Trade union Act and the Party No.1 was requested to give it the status of recognized majority union and furnished the list of its office bearers vide communication dated 25.11.2006 and the list of the protected workmen to be declared as protected workmen under Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 ("the Rules" in short) was forwarded to the Party No.1 every year and as Party No.1 did not make any correspondence with it, the grievance was raised before the competent authority under the Act and the said authority directed the Party No.1 to declare the protected workmen vide order dated 09.02.2010.

The further case of the union is that the genesis of the present dispute was order No. 1779 dated 07.02.2008, by which, the workman, who was its prime office bearer was transferred from Laxminagar branch, Nagpur to Raipur Branch, in the state of Chhattisgarh and the workman was working in the clerical grade in the erstwhile UWBL since 03.10.1977 and there was posts of special assistant having special allowance in the UWBL and the modalities and formalities for selection and filling up the posts of special assistant were settled by way of Settlement dated 26.07.1997 between the management of the UWBL and the then Western Bank Karmachari Sangh and in pursuance to the said settlement, the workman was selected and offered the post of Special Assistant and was posted to Laxminagar, Nagpur branch and he was working at the said branch as a Special Assistant with higher allowance and on 07.02.2008, the day on which, the workman was transferred by Party No.1 to Raipur Branch, there was no existing post of Special Assistant in Raipur branch and as such, the order No. 1779 dated 07.02.2008 was arbitrary and illegal and posts of special assistant are different posts than a clerical post and it was well decided in the settlement dated 26.07.1997 as to how, when and where the existing special assistants can be transferred by the bank and clauses 12 of the said

The further plea of the union is that the provisions of Sastry award were applicable to the employees of erstwhile UWBL, by virtue of the settlement signed by the parties and clause 535 of Sastry Award provides the issue of transfer of award staff employees and the approach of the management towards transfers of office bearers of the Trade unions and the workman was holding the post of Deputy General Secretary of the union and he was prime and main office bearer of the union, which fact was very well within the knowledge of the Party No.1 and the workman was representing the union before the various conciliation officers and was acting as defence representative in the matter of disciplinary actions initiated by Party No .1 in respect of few employees and it is not unlikely that it is for the said reasons only, the Party No. 1 decided to shift him to faraway place to curb the trade union activities and before issuing the order impugned, no notice was given to the workman, as required under the provision of para 535 of Sastry award and the order was issued with ulterior motive and in a most calculated and disgraceful manner by Party No.1 and suddenly on 04.02.2008, the workman was relieved from Laxminagar branch for Bhandara branch and when the workman was on leave for organization purposes, he was relieved from Laxminagar branch on 21.02.2008, actually without serving the order of transfer from Nagpur to Raipur on him and the workman protested against such transfer by his representation dated 22.02.2008 and by his notice dated 23.02.2008, but Party No.1 did not cancel the transfer, so the present industrial dispute was raised and the order of transfer of the workman was not an administrative order issued in public interest and there was neither a post of special assistant nor there was any need of a special assistant at Raipur and the transfer was not effected in normal circumstances and the same is illegal and arbitrary and unfair labour practice as provided in item 7 of the Vth Schedule to the Act and the transfer of the5330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workman was made in colourable exercise of powers by the party No.1 and therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.

The union has prayed to declare that the party No.1 has indulged in unfair labour practices, to declare the order of transfer of the workman dated 07.02.2008 as illegal and unjustified and to set aside the same and to repatriate the services of the workman to his original branch i.e. Laxminagar branch.

3. The party No.1 in the written statement have admitted the amalgamation of UWBL with IDBI as per notification dated 30.09.2006 and that according to provisions of chapter V of the Scheme of amalgamation, "all the employees on the transferor bank shall continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed in the transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service, as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 02.09.2006.

It is further pleaded by party No.1 that after the amalgamation, it became necessary to streamline their business strategy and fully integrate the different segments to active synergy and operating efficiency and for that transfer of various employees including the workman was done purely as an administrative decision and due to office exigencies and the transfer of the workman was in full conformity with the applicable settlement governing the terms and conditions of services of the employees of erstwhile UWBL and was not violative of any applicable laws or the terms of settlement governing the workman and the reference is not maintainable on the ground of absence of cause of action. It is further pleaded by party No.1 that in terms of clause 11 of the scheme of amalgamation, they closed/relocated/shifted 48 branches and five zonal offices of UWBL as well as the co-operative office, necessitating the redeployment of the employees to their new locations and the transfer of the workman was done in the routine way in normal course as was done in case of other employees and the service conditions of the workman were governed by the settlement dated July 11, 2005 and there were express provisions for transfer of award staff in the said settlement and the workman was deployed from Nagpur branch to Raipur branch, which was within the permitted distance of 300 Kms and hence, the statement of claim needs to be rejected in limine.

The party No.1 have pleaded further that the directions of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to declare the office bearers of the union as protected workmen was vide the proceedings dated 26th November, 2008, based on initial letter dated 11th February, 2008, whereas, the posting order of the workman was issued on 7th February, 2008, i.e. before the union had raised the demand for according protected workmen status for its office bearers and the workman was not a protected workman till the proceedings were recorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the settlement dated 26th November, 1997 was in force for a period of three years, from the date of its inception and as such, the said settlement was not applicable with regards to the posts of special assistant due to efflux of time and at the time of transfer of the workman, the settlement dated 11th July, 2005 was in force and in the said settlement, there are express provisions for transfer of award staff and the discretion lies with the bank to identify the number of the employees to be redeployed from each centre/branch/office to meet its requirements and the workman was not transferred out of Nagpur since 1985 i.e. for more than 22 years and his transfer to Raipur branch was well within the permissible distance from his earlier place of posting i.e. Laxminagar branch in Nagpur and due to non continuance of the settlement of 1997, all the special assistants, who were employed by UWBL lost the protections available to them under the settlement of 1997, even though they continued to draw the salary of special assistants and this was further fortified from the fact that the settlement of 2005, which was entered into by the employees of UWBL and UWBL did not recognize the protections to any class of workers, on the contrary, a detailed policy of deployment of staff encompassing all was formulated and the same was accepted by the union in toto and therefore, there is no merit in the submission that the workman should have been transferred to a branch at least where a post of special assistant was in existence or the transfer should have been made in Municipal Limit only and the transfer order in perfectly legal and just and proper and the workman was paid the allowance of special assistant and categorized as special assistant, even after his transfer to Raipur and as the workman was neither the president nor the vice president or the secretary of the union and was the Deputy General Secretary of the union, he was not entitled for protection as provided in Sastry Award and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In support of their respective stands, both the parties have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence.

The workman has been examined as a witness by the union, whereas, one Shri Harshad Anil Kelkar has been examined as a witness by party No. 1.

The workman in his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that there was a settlement between the union and the management of UWBL on 11.07.2005 and as per schedule V of the said agreement, there was understanding for deployment of staff of the bank and as per Ext. W-III, the order of the ALC Mumbai dated 09.02.2010, the office bearers of the union were declared as protected workmen.

5. The evidence of the witness examined on behalf of party No.1 is also the reiteration of the facts mentioned in[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5331 the written statement filed by Party No. 1. In his cross- examination, the witness for Party No.1 has admitted that the workman was an office bearer of his union and he was working as a special assistant in UWBL and there was no post of special assistant at Raipur branch, but the workman was paid allowance of special assistant, while working at civil lines branch, Raipur.

6. Before delving into the merit of the matter, it is to be mentioned here that there is no dispute between the parties that as per the notification dated 30.09.2006, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, the UWBL was amalgamated with IDBI and all the employees of UWBL became the employees of IDBI w.e.f. 02.09.2006 and that the workman was working as a special assistant in UWBL, before such amalgamation and that while he was working as such in Laxminagar branch, he was transferred to Raipur branch of IDBI on 07.02.2008.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the union that according to clauses 12 and 15 of the settlement dated 26.07.1997, the transfer of a special assistant can only be made within city i.e. within the Municipal Corporation area, on administrative grounds, after a period of three years from the date of assignment of the duties of special assistant to him and the Party No.1 committed branch of the provisions of the said settlement and willfully violated the provisions by transferring the workman out of the state of Maharashtra. It was further argued by the learned advocate for the union that clause 535 of Sastry Award provides the procedure of transfer of award staff employees and that of the office bearers of Trade Unions and the workman was the Deputy General Secretary of the union and he was involved in various Trade Union activities and only to harass, victimize and discourage the workman from Trade Union activities, he was transferred to Raipur, in violation of clause 535 of Sastry Award and even though, the workman was a protected workman, he was transferred with ulterior motive and even though, there was no post of special assistant of Raiput branch, the workman was transferred to the said branch and the action of the Party No.1 is illegal and unfair labour practice and as such, the order of transfer is liable to be set aside and the workman is to be reposted to Laxminagar branch.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocate for the union placed reliance on the decision reported in 1995 I LW-678 (A.P. John Vs. Karnataka State Transport Corporation).

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the transfer of the workman was in full conformity with the applicable settlement governing the terms and conditions of services of the workman and there was no necessity of serving of any notice to the workman as per clause 535 of Sastry Award before his transfer and the UWBL entered into an agreement with their employees' union on 11.07.2005 and the same was applicable to the workman at the time of his transfer and in the said settlement thère were express provisions for transfer of award staff and the discretion of transfer lies with Party No.1 to meet its requirements and in accordance with Schedule V of the said settlement, the workman was transferred to Raipur branch on 07.02.2008 from Laxminagar branch, which is situated within the permitted distance of 300 kilometers, on account of exigencies of business of Party No.1 and there was no violation of any provision and since, the subject matter was/is subjudiced, and there was no specific request from the workman, he was not redeployed, after lapse of one year, as during the pendency of the dispute, the service condition is required to be unchanged and the conditions given in the amalgamation notification ended on 02.10.2009 and the terms and conditions of service prevailing in the Party No.1 have become applicable to the employees of UWBL including the workman, as per the internal circular dated 01.10.2009. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was transferred on 07.02.2008 and the union vide its letter dated 11.02.2008 furnished the list of the office bearers demanding to declare them as protected workman under the provision of the Act and the workman was not the President, Vice President or Secretary of the union at the time of his transfer, so he cannot be said to be a protected workman and the protection given in Sastry Award for transfer of office bearers is not applicable to him and the settlement dated 26.07.1997 expired after the expiry of three years, as per clause 19 of the said settlement and as such, the said settlement is not applicable to the workman due to efflux of time and the transfer of the workman is just and proper and in accordance with the provisions of the settlement applicable to the parties and it was never malafide or ill intent and there was no unfair labour practice or victimization and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of employment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service and a challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are appellate authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirement of the situation concerned. In support of such contentions, the learned advocate for the Party No.1 placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2004 III CLR-78 (State of UP Vs. Goverdhan Lal) and 2008 III CLR-136 (Airport Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey).

Now, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Courts in the decisions cited by the learned advocates for the parties, the case in hand is to be considered.

9. The first contention raised by the learned advocate for the union is that there was violation of clause 15 of the settlement dated 26.07.1997 (Exbit-W IV) as the transfer of the workman was not made with the city as provided in the said clause. There is no doubt clause 15 of the aforesaid settlement provided that, "without prejudice to the provisions, in respect of the transfers of award staff, as provided in bipartite settlement dated 19th October, 1966 as amended up to-date, a special assistant can be transferred within city on administrative grounds, after a period of three years from the date the duties of the special assistant are assigned to him.

The transfer within Municipal/Corporation/ agglomeration area shall be treated as transfer within city having the same CCA/HRA."

However, clause 19 of the settlement dated 26.07.1997 clearly provides that the said settlement was in force for a period of three years from the date of this settlement so the aforesaid settlement automatically became in operative, due to efflux of three years time from the date of signing of the settlement. Admittedly, the transfer of the workman was made on 07.02.2008. So the conditions of transfer as mentioned in the settlement dated 26.07.1997 were not applicable to the workman. The workman is not entitled to claim privilege from the said settlement.

10. The next contention raised by the learned advocate for the union is that the workman was a protected workman and as such, he should not have been transferred to Raipur and on that ground also, the transfer of the workman is illegal. However, from the own document filed by the union, Ext. W-III, it is found that the union made an application dated 07.07.2009 under sub-Rule 4 of Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 ("the Rules" in short) to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Bombay-III for a direction to the Party No.1 to declare the members of the union as protected workmen and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-III, Mumbai on 9.02.2010 passed orders directing Party No.1 to declare the 16 office bearers of the union including the workman as protected workman. Admittedly, the workman had not been declared as a protected workman on the date of his transfer and there was no violation of any provision by the Party No.1 by transferring the workman to Raipur branch.

11. The third contention raised by the learned advocate for the union is that there was violation of the provision of 535 of the Sastry Award by Party No. 1 . Clause 535 of Sastry Award provides that,

1. "Every registered bank employees' union, from time to time, shall furnish the bank with the names of the President, Vice-President and the Secretaries of the union.

2. Except in very special cases, whenever the transfer of any of the above mentioned officers is contemplated, at least five clear working days notice should be put up on the notice boards of the bank of such contemplated action.

3. Any representations, written or oral, made by the

union shall be considered by the bank.

4. If any order of transfer is ultimately made, a record shall be made by the bank of such representations and the banks reasons for regarding them as inadequate, and

5. The decision shall be communicated to the union

as well as to the employee concern."

It is clear from the above provisions that the directions given in clause 535 are in regard to the transfer of the President, Vice-President and the Secretaries of the union. Admittedly, the workman was not the President, Vice- President or the Secretary of the union on the date of his transfer. He was the Dy. General Secretary. So the workman is not entitled to get the benefits of clause 535 of Sastry Award.

12. Schedule "V" of the memorandum of settlement dated 11th July, 2005, Exhibit-M-II, which was in operation on the date of transfer of the workman provides the deployment of staff of Party No.1. Clause-II of the said schedule provides that in cases necessitating deployment outside the district, the workman concerned may be deployed to any branch/office of the Bank situated outside the district up to a distance not exceeding 300 kilometers from his present place of posting and the tenure of such transfer should be three years, two years and one year, in case of transfer up to a distance of 100 Kms, 200 Kms and 300 Kms respectively. According to the Party No.1, the distance between Laxminagar branch and Raipur branch is 280 Kms and the transfer of the workman was well within the distance of 300 Kms. Though the workman has claimed that the distance between Laxminagar branch and Raipur branch is more than 300 Kms, there is no legal evidence on record in support of such claim. Hence, it cannot be said that the transfer of the workman was made beyond 300 kms and therefore is illegal.

13. Though the workman has claimed that his transfer was made to victimize him and to discourage him to take part in union activities and unfair labour practice was adopted by Party No.1, there is no legal evidence on record in support of such claims. From the materials on record, it cannot be held that there was any victimization or adoption of unfair labour practice by Party No. 1. Hence, the transfer of the workman cannot be declared as illegal.

14. Admittedly, the workman has already worked for more than five years at Raipur branch and that his transfer had been made to a place more than 200 Kms away, but less than 300 Kms. So the workman is entitled to be brought back to his previous place of posting or if the same is not[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5333

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

possible due to administrative ground, then to any of the three centers of the choice of the workman. According to the Party No.1, as the dispute raised by the union was subjudiced and there was no request by the workman, the workman could not be brought back to the original centre. Hence, it is necessary for the Party No.1 to bring back the workman to the original centre, from where he was transferred or if the same is not possible due to administrative ground, then to any one of the three centers opted by the workman. The workman is also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1000/- per month as per the provision of clause IX of Schedule "V" of Ext. M-II. Hence, it is ordered.

Case No. CGIT/NGP/22/1999 Date: 22.07.2013.

Party No. 1 The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, S.V. Patel Road, P.B. No. 4, Nagpur-440001.

Party No. 2 The Zonal Secretary,

Bank of India Workers' Organization, House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg, Congress Nagar, Nagpur.

AWARD

ORDER

The action of the management of IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai in issuing office order No. 1779 dated 07.02.2008 transferring the services of Shri S.G. Bobde, workman from Nagpur Branch to Raipur Branch in Chattisgarh is legal and justified. However, the Party No.1 is directed to bring back the workman to the original centre from where he was transferred or if the same is not possible due to administrative ground, then to any one of the three centers opted by the workman. The workman is also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1000/- per month as per the provision of clause IX of Schedule "V" of Ext. M-II, from the date of his joining at Raipur Branch till the date of his transfer from the said branch.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त 2013

का॰आ॰ 2020.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंध् तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 22/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/08/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/187/90-आईआर (बी-II)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 2020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/22/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01.08.2013

[No. L-12012/187/90-IR (B-II)] SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer (Dated: 22nd July, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri Bala Shesrao Barade to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/187/90 IR (B-II) dated 25.09.1990, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Nagpur by terminating the services of Shri Bala Shesrao Barade is justified? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this Tribunal by the Central Government for disposal according to Law.

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India Workers' Organization ("the union" in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Bala Shesrao Barade, ("the workman" in short), and the management of Bank of India, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim by the union is that the workman came to be appointed in Newegaon Khairi Branch of Party No. 1 on 18.04.1983 and although no formal appointment order was issued to the workman, he was appointed on existing full time permanent vacancy and with the express consent of the Zonal Manager and though the engagement of the workman was to perform duties of full time permanent peon/ sepoy, he was paid meager daily wages and the appointment and service conditions forced upon the workman were in violation of the provisions of various bi-partite settlements and awards, which govern the service5334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] conditions of the employees of Party No. 1 and the workman was employed till 25.02.1985 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 25.02.1985 for reasons best known to Party No. 1 and the workman was not appointed thereafter, although vacancy continued and fresh hands such as, Shri Ramesh Tukaram Darwai, Shri Prabhakar Ramaji Dhurve, Shri Naresh Padmakar Raut, Shri Vasanta Ramchandra Darwai, Shri Moreshwar Vithoba Mandhenar and Shri Ashok Damodar Gajbhiye were appointed by Party No. 1 from time to time at Nawegaon Khairi Branch, in violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act and out of them, Shri Ramesh Darwai is in employment of Party No. 1 even today as a peon-cum-seoy at Nawegaon Khairi Branch and one Shri Rajan Ghate, who was junior to the workman and who was working with the workman at Nawegaon Khairi Branch as a peon-cum-sepoy on daily wages was appointed as a permanent peon-cum-sepoy at the said branch and after the termination of the services of the workman, one Shri Vittal Shende was appointed as permanent sepoy-cum-peon at Kalmeswar Branch of Party No. 1 and the superior claim of the workman was ignored and thus, Party No. 1 violated the provisions of Section 25- H of the Act.

The further case as presented by the union is that Party No. 1 has been since last many years indulging in grave unfair labour practice of appointing persons from time to time on daily wages, under the guise of badlee employment and the practice of terminating such persons and to appoint fresh hands is rampant with the sole object to sabotage the claim of permanency and several disputes arising out of the aforesaid malpractice are pending before the Industrial Tribunals for adjudication and as the non- engagement of the workman and engagement of fresh hands is an unfair labour practice, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and all consequential benefits including wages and seniority.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was not appointed on 18.04.1983 on any existing full time vacancy with express consent of the Zonal Manager, but he was engaged on purely casual basis for the first time on 18.04.1983 and as and when the workman reported and as and when there was work on leave vacancy and/or there was temporary increase of work, he was engaged purely on casual basis temporarily and the workman put in 317 days of work till 25.02.1985. It is also pleaded by Party No. 1 that specially in rural branches and one-man branches, against leave vacancy and /or when there is temporary increase of work, local hands are engaged in the sub-staff category on purely casual basis and they have no legal right or any cause to raise any dispute under the Act and Shri D.B. Bajan Ghate was engaged for the first time on casual basis on 31.03.1983, whereas, the workman was engaged for the first time on casual basis on 18.04.1983 and practically, in all branches of the Bank, casual sepoys/badlee sepoys were engaged directly by the Managers and they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, so it was decided to hold a simple written test on National Level, in order to empanel such workmen as badlee sepoy and /or to absorb them against available vacancies of sub-staff and accordingly, examination was held on 26.02.1984, where in the workman and Shri Bajan Ghate appeared and results of the said examination was declared on 09.02.1985, where in, both Shri Bajan Ghate and the workman were declared unsuccessful and in view of the same, both of them were discontinued in February, 1985 and thereafter, to maintain the continuous flow of work at the branch, indents were placed with the Employment Exchange on 12.02.1985, 27.02.1985, 26.03.1985 and 08.04.1985 for sponsoring the name of candidates, who could be empanelled as badlee sepoy and/ or who could be absorbed in available vacancies in the branch, as the case may be and in the last notice to the Employment Exchange, it was specifically stated that if the name of the candidates would not be received within 15 days, it would be presumed by the Bank that no candidates are available and in that event, they would empanel local persons in the panel of badlee sepoy and as the Employment Exchange did not respond to the said ultimate notice, the branch was constrained to empanel/ absorb local persons and as Shri D.B. Bajan Ghate and the workman had earlier been engaged as casual sepoys, it was decided to give them chance first and Shri Bajan Ghate was absorbed against the vacancy of permanent sepoy, since he was senior to the workman and in view of the aforesaid facts, provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G are not applicable to the case of the workman.

The Party No. 1 has also pleaded that the workman worked for 128 days, 160 days and 29 days in 1983, 1984 and 1985 respectively and he had not worked for 240 days in a block of 12 months and in the preceding 12 months, he had put in only 160 days of work and they did not indulge in unfair labour practice and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence, the union has examined six witnesses, namely, Shri B.S. Burade (the workman), Shri Vinayak Joshi, Shri Shirish A. Damle, Shri Arvind Madhukar Tamhaney, Shri Suresh N. Panwilkar and Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar in support of its claim.

One Shri Rajkumar Tulsiram Naik has been examined as the only witness by the Party No. 1.

5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the union representative that the workman was engaged as a peon on 18.04.1983 at Nawegaon Khairi Branch of Party No. 1, against the existing full time permanent vacancy and the appointment was made by the Branch Manager with the consent and approval of the Zonal Manager of the Bank, Nagpur and the workman was enrolled in the Employment Exchange and sent by the Employment[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5335 Exchange as per bank's demand and though the workman was paid on daily wages basis, he was required to perform the duties of a full time peon and he worked continuously from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without a single day break and inspite of having permanent vacancy, the workman was not regularized by the Party No. 1 and juniors to the workman were retained and regularized by the Bank and the pleadings made in the statement of claim have not been specifically denied and dealt with in the written statement and the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the union has not been seriously challenged in the cross- examination and the witness examined by the Party No. 1 has admitted the case of the workman and that he was engaged at the branch as per the direction of the Zonal Manager and it is clear from the evidence including the admission of the witness for party no.1 that the workman was terminated illegally and the Party No. 1 did not produce the documents, even though the documents were demanded by the union and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity seniority, full back wages and all consequential benefits.

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the management representative that the workman was engaged on purely casual basis for the first time on 18.04.1983 on temporary basis on leave vacancy and or whenever there was increase of work on temporary basis and the workman did not complete 240 days of service in the preceding 12 calendar months and the workman in his evidence has admitted that he has no evidence of working continuously in the branch and he worked for 317 days in two years and had received the wages for the same and except the oral evidence, no document has been filed by the workman to demonstrate that he worked for 240 days continuously and the workman has failed to discharge the burden of proving of his working for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of his termination and the evidence on affidavit of the other witnesses examined by the union is general in nature and no reliance can be placed on the same in absence of any documentary evidence to support the same and the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H do not apply to the case of the workman and his termination is perfectly legal and justified.

In support of the submissions, reliance was placed by Party No. 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC- 4791 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs Hariram), (2006) 1 SCC-106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC- 697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs Mohd. Raffi), (2006) 9 SCC-132 (Surendra Nagar District Paanchayat Vs Gangaben), Writ Petition No. 1072/2002 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench and (2006) 6 SCC-221 (Reserve Bank of India Vs Gopinath Sharma).

7. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that it is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental thereto.

8. It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decisions including the decisions reported in (2006) 1 SCC-106 (Supra), (2006) 9 SCC-697 (Supra) and (2006) 9 SCC -132 (Supra) to avail the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary for the workman to proof that in fact he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination and the burden of proof of such facts lies on the workman.

9. First of all, I will take of the submission made by the union representative regarding non production of documents by the Party No. 1. The term of reference in this case is regarding the legality or otherwise of the termination of the workman from services. On perusal of the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties, the claim of the workman about his engagement on 18.04.1983 and his termination from services on 25.02.1985 has been admitted by the Party No. 1 in their written statement. Accordingly to the union and the workman, the workman worked continuously from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without any break, whereas according to Party No. 1, the engagement of the workman was on casual basis as and when required and the same was not continuous from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985. The workman in his cross- examination has admitted that he was engaged as a casual employee and he does not have any evidence of his working continuously in the Bank and he worked for 316 days in the Bank and he had appeared in the test dated 26.02.1984 and he cannot say if he had passed the test or not and wages for 316 days were paid to him. In view of such admission by the workman, it is clear that he was not appointed against any permanent post and his engagement was on casual basis intermittently and he did not work continuously from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without any break. In view of the admission of the Party No. 1 about the engagement of the workman on 18.04.1983 on casual basis and working of the workman till 25.02.1985 intermittently and in view of the pleadings of the parties and the admission of the workman in his cross-examination as mentioned above and applying the principles enunciated in the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC-4791 (Supra) and (2006) 1 SCC 156 (Supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding as to when adverse inference is to be drawn for non production of documents by a Party to the case in hand, it is found that there is no need to draw adverse inference against the Party No. 1 for non production of documents.

10. Though the reference has been made by the central Government for adjudication of the legality or otherwise of the termination of the workman, the union, in5336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the guise of raising the dispute on behalf the workman has tried to challenge the policy adopted by the Party No.1 of engaging persons on temporary basis, inspite of having number of permanent vacancies in the cadre of sub-staff at different branches of the Bank. In view of the settled principles that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference as already mentioned above and in view of the fact that such specific terms of reference has not been made by the Government, such claim cannot be adjudicated.

Moreover, from the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the engagement of the workman in this case as Budlee sepoy was not against any permanent vacancy in the branch, but his engagement was on temporary basis as a daily wager, as and when required basis against leave vacancy of the permanent sub- staff or due to temporary increase of workload in the branch.

At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour Law-Daily wager-Disengagement of- Validity-Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day basis, held had no right to post."

11. At this juncture, I also think it necessary to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC- 1806 (Secretary, State of Karnatak Vs. Umadevi & others)(Constitutional Bench).

It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court

that :—

"Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the court/Tribunal cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors of rules-State owned/ operated corporations-Appointment—Modes of appointment · Held regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Public Sector- Appointment- Mode of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Labour Law- Appointment- Mode of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Regularization- Held, not a permissible mode of appointment."

It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—

"The term 'temporary employee' is a general category which has under it several sub categories e.g. casual employee, daily-rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc. A daily-rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee, and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post, or to be continued in service, to get absorption, far less of being regularized and getting regular pay. No doubt, there can be occasions when the state or its instrumentalities employee persons on temporary or daily wage basis in a contingency as additional hands without following the required procedure, but this does not confer any right on such persons to continue in service or get regular pay. Unless the appointments are made by following the rules, such appointees do not have any right to claim permanent absorption in the establishment. The Court cannot direct continuation in service of a non-regular appointee. Even if an ad hoc or casual appointment is made in some contingency the same should not be continued for long, as was done in the present case. A casual or temporary employment is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure establish by law for public employment."

It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—

"Employment on daily wage · Confers no right of permanent employment- Daily wager appointed on less than minimum wages—Not forced labour— Continued on post for long period—Daily wagers from a class by themselves. They cannot claim parity vis-a-vis those regularly recruited on basis of relevant rules and cannot be made permanent in employment.

Employees were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who were working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate and made permanent in employment even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming the equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed in daily wages or temporally or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. They cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment to be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equal with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equally treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5337 treating unequal as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of relevant recruitment rules."

12. Perused the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties. Taking into consideration the materials on records and the submissions made during the course of argument by both the parties, it is found that the workman was engaged by Party No. 1 on 18.04.1983 on casual basis on daily wages and he worked intermittently as and when required basis till 25.02.1985. It is also found that the engagement of the workman was not according to the Rules of Recruitment of sub-staff of Party No. 1 against any permanent post. According to the own pleadings of the union and so also the evidence of the workman that the engagement of the workman was done by the Manager of the branch with the consent and approval of the Zonal Manager. Even if, the said claim is held to be true, still then, it cannot be said that the engagement of the workman is according to the Rules of Recruitment of Party No. 1, as it is neither pleaded nor proved that the workman was appointed by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant Rules of Recruitment of Party No. 1 or that the name of the workman was called for alongwith others from the Employment Exchange and that after facing the interview the workman was selected for appointment. The workman or the union has not filed a single document regarding the appointment of the workman against a permanent post and his working continuously from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985.

So far the oral evidence adduced by the union in regard to the appointment and working days of the workman is concerned, it is found that workman himself has admitted that he worked for 316 days in total at Nawegaon Khairi Branch and wages for 316 days were paid to him and he has no document to show that he worked continuously with the Bank.

So far the evidence of Shri Vinayak Josh, Shri Shirish Anandrao Damle, Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney and Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar is concerned, the same is very general in nature and most part of their evidence is regarding the availability of vacancies in the Sub-Staff Cadre in different branches of the Bank of Party No. 1 and in respect of the policy adopted by Party No. 1 regarding engagement of badlee sepoy/peon instead of filling up the posts by making regular recruitment, which is not the subject matter of adjudication in this reference, as already mentioned above.

Shri Joshi in his examination-in-chief without mentioning the name of the workman has generally mentioned that every workman covered by the reference has completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period. Shri Joshi has not stated that the workman in fact had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of termination. Nothing has also been mentioned by Shri Joshi about the period during which every workman involved in the reference completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period. In his cross-examination, Shri Joshi has stated that the method of recruitment of sub-staff is to call for the names from the Employment Exchange and after interview, to select suitable candidates for permanent, temporary, full time and part time employees and in small branches having only one sub-staff, temporary arrangements have to be made by the Branch Manager with consultation with administrative office, which the said sub-staff proceeds on leave or sick and as per the document, Ext. W-10, Bank is allowing to appoint sub-staff/sepoy on casual basis in small branches.

Shri Damle, in his cross-examination has stated that the Bank has authorized the manager to engage casual employees.

The evidence of Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney in the examination-in-chief itself is contradictory to the stand taken by the union and the workman in the statement of claim. According to the union the workman worked continuously from 18.041983 to 25.02.1985 without a single day break, where is in paragraph 24 of his affidavit, Shri Tamhaney has mentioned that," In the instant case, the concerned employee was given illegal break in service by management on many occasion without any reason and with malafide intention."

Moreover, in his cross-examination, Shri Tamhaney has admitted that his affidavit is a general affidavit and the same does not have any specific reference to the concerned workman and the workman was working with the Bank intermittently for several years and he has not mentioned as to the period of engagement of the workman or the number of days he worked for the Bank.

Shri Suresh N. Panwilkar has been examined to show that the workman worked continuously at Nawegaon Branch from the date of the opening of the Branch. On perusal of the evidence of Shri Panwilkar, it is found that his evidence in the examination-in-chief itself is not consistent with the stands taken by the union in the reference. According to the case of the union and workman, the workman was appointed on 18.04.1983 and Shri Bajanghate was junior to him and Shri Bajanghate was retained and regularized by the Bank, where as the evidence of Shri Panwilkar is that the Branch of Nawegaon Khairi was opened on 31.03.1983 and the workman and Shri Bajanghate were appointed from the beginning of the Bank and the workman was discontinued after two years and Shri Bajanghate was removed earlier to the workman.

In view of the own admission of the workman as already mentioned above and the evidence on record, it is clear that the workman worked intermittently as a casual daily wager as and required and as he did not pass the5338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] interviews held for permanent absorption, he was terminated from service on 25.02.1985 and as the workman has filed to plead and prove that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the dated of his termination, i.e. 25.02.1985, he is not entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act and there was no need for Party No. 1 to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

13. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about the principles envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra) and AIR 2006 SC-839 (Supra).

In the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :

Assuming that there was a violation of the Shastry award

by the appellant bank in both cases either in not issuing

appointment letters or not maintaining a seniority list,

service book in respect of temporary employees etc., this

would not mean that therefore the respondents had been

properly appointed and their services wrongly terminated.

Admittedly no procedure whether in law or under any award

or settlement was followed either of the respondents in

both appeals. No conditions of services were agreed to

and no letter of appointment was given. The nature of the

respondents' employment was entirely ad hoc. They had

been appointed without considering any rule. It would be

ironical if the person who have benefited by the flouting of

the rules of appointment can rely upon those rules when

their services are dispensed with."

Judging the case in hand with the touch stone of the

principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as

mentioned above, it is found that there is no merit in the

case of the workman and he is not entitled to any relief.

Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

"Labour law Daily wager—Disengagement of— Validity—Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day basis, held, had no right to the post—Hence, his disengagement on acquiring a qualification exceeding the maximum prescribed, held, could not be treated as arbitrary or amounting to wrongful dismissal within the meaning of item 3 of schedule II to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947— High Court erred in holding otherwise—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, schedule II item 3—Wrongful dismissal—What is not—Post—Right to— Daily wager, held, devoid of such a right.

Labour law—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Ss. 256 and 25F- Applicability of Section 25G—Where High Court had not found the workman to have been retrenched within the meaning of S. 25F, held, it erred in holdings. 25G to be applicable.

In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC—839 (Supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:

"Retrenchment—Respondent employed as messenger on daily wage basis by bank—No appointment letter issued to him—Termination of his service—Reference was not made regarding validity of retrenchment under S. 25G—But for not considering respondent for reemployment under S. 25H—Order of reference did not refer to S. 25G but only to S. 25H—Thus finding by Tribunal that order terminating services of respondent was in violation of S. 25G—Illegal—Further respondent in his application under S. 33-C(2) never raised plea that his services were illegally terminated—In circumstances High Court's view that termination of services of respondent was invalid under S. 25H—Not sustainable as S. 25H proceedes on assumption that retrenchment has been validly made.

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), schedule 3 item 1— Shastry award, para 497—Benefit under—Respondent employed by bank on ad hoc basis—no appointment order was issued—Dispensation of his services—Not in violation of para 497.

Para 497 deals with the right of apprentices and has no application to temporary employees like the respondent.

The action of the management of Bank of India in

terminating the services of Shri Bala Shesrao Barade is

justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2021.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 20/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/08/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/188/90-आईआर (बी- II)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 2021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/20/1999 of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Bank of India and their workman, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01/08/2013.

[No. L-12012/188/90-IR(B-II)] SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5339

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER,CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/20/1999 Date: 25.06.2013

Party No. 1 : The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, S.V. Patel Road, P.B. No. 4, Nagpur-440001.

Party No. 2 : The Zonal Secretary,

Bank of India Workers' Organization, House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg, Congress Nagar, Nagpur.

Saoner Branch, without assigning any reason and without serving any termination notice or order him, as required by Sastry Award and Bipartite Settlements and therefore, the termination of his services was highhanded and totally illegal and the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding one year of his termination and in view of completion of one year of continuous service, he ought to have been continued in service and by terminating his services, Party No. 1 violated the provisions of the Act.

AWARD

(Dated: 25th June, 2013)

In exercise of the powrs conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short) the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri Ashok Bapurao Nanwatkar to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/188/90-IR(B-II) dated 12.10.1990, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Bapurao Nanwatkar is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this Tribunal by the Central Government for disposal according to Law.

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India Workers' Organisation", ("the union" in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Ashok Bapurao Nanwatkar, ("the workman" in short) and the management of Bank of India, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The Case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim by the Union is that the workman entered in the service of Party No. 1 on 10.12.1985 as a Badlee Sepoy on daily wages in Saoner Main Branch and he was required to work at Saoner, Kelward, Nandgomukh and Telmampetee branches, whenever the regular sepoy was remaining absent and his appointment was through the Employment Exchange and with the consent of Zonal Manager and the General Manager of the Bank and he continued to work as such till 19.01.1988, on which date, his services were terminated abruptly by the Manager of The further case of the workman as presented by the union is that at no point of time, the Party No. 1 gave him any appointment order and such act of Party No. 1 was also in violation of the provisions of Sastry Award and various Bipartite Settlements and Party No. 1 used to give illegal break during the long span of service of the workman and lastly to get rid of him and with malafide intension, the Party No. 1 terminated his services, without giving him any termination notice or compensation and thus violated the provisions of the Act. It is also pleaded by the union that instead of appointing the workman in a permanent post of sepoy, Party No. 1 appointed one Jayant Sure directly, superseding him and there by deprived him from his legitimate claim of permanent service in the Bank and after his termination, number of persons were engaged by Party No. 1 for different span of time and the entire records, which can prove his case are in possession of the Party No. 1 and as such, it is necessary to direct the Party No. 1 to produce those relevant documents.

The union has prayed for the reinstatement of the workman in service on a permanent post of sepoy with continuity in service, full back wages and all consequential benefits.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged as Badlee Sepoy on daily wages, at their Saoner Branch w.e.f. 10.12.1985, but such engagement was not with the consent of their General Manager and the workman was not disengaged/discontinued by them, but the workman himself abruptly stopped coming to the branch, for the reason best known to him and on several occasions, the workman was contracted by the Manager, Saoner Branch and was advised by him to come to work as Badlee Sepoy, whenever such vacancy arose due to taking of leave by the regular Sub-Staff and/or whenever there was temporary increase of work, but the workman flatly refused to work as Badlee Sepoy and asked for his absorption as a permanent Sub-Staff in the Bank's service. Party No. 1 has also pleaded that during the course of conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur, it was emphasized by them that they would have no objection, if the workman would work as Badlee Sepoy against leave vacancy of regular Sub-Staff and/or temporary increased of work, as and when would arise and the workman was advised to report at the branch immediately for his such engagement5340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and accordingly though the workman started reporting for duties as Badlee Sepoy, the same was very infrequent and before the ALC, it was submitted by them that the candidature of the workman would be considered for absorption as permanent Sub-Staff against furture vacancy as and when the same would arise, and the workman though became very irregular, he used to send letters by post alleging that though he was reporting for duty, he was not being engaged and sending such letters by the workman was an attempt to create alibi that he was not being engaged as Badlee Sepoy at the branch.

Party No. 1 has admitted that the workman had put in more than 240 days of service with them in the preceding 12 months, but it has been pleaded that only because of the same, the workman is not entitled for absorption as permanent Sub-Staff and as the workman himself had stopped reporting for work, they cannot be held responsible for the same and there was no violation of the provisions of the Act by them and the demand for production of the ducuments has no relevance and the workman be directed to report at Saoner Branch to work as Badlee Sepoy as and when required.

4. Besides placing reliance on the documents, both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims. The union has examined six witnesses including the workman in support of case. The witnesses examined on behalf of the workman are (1) Shri Ashok Nanwatkar (the workman), (2) Shri Vinayak Joshi, (3) Shri Shirish Damle, (4) Shri Arvind Tamhaney, (5) Shri Rajendra Dahikar and (6) Shri Tilak Virji Maishere.

Only one witness, namely, Shri Chandrakanta Purusottam Ghaskadvi has been examined on behalf of the Party No. 1.

5. Before delving in to the merit of the matter, I think it necessary to mention here that it is well settled by the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decisions that the Tribunal cannot travel outside the reference and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial dispute is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and matters incidental then to.

In this case, the reference has been made by the Central Government for adjudication as to whether the termination of the services of the workman by Party No. 1 is justified or not and if the same is not justified, then to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled. In view of such scheduled of reference, the only point for consideration is the legality or otherwise of the termination of the workman from services by the Party No. 1.

I think it necessary to mention here that in the schedule of reference the date on which, the services of the workman were terminated has not been mentioned. Of course, the union in the statement of claim has mentioned that the workman was terminated from services w.e.f. 19.02.1988.

6. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the Party No. 1 has admitted the claim of the workman that he was engaged as Badlee sepoy on daily wages at Saoner Branch w.e.f. 10.12.1985 and he had put in more than 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination. However, the Party No. 1 has pleaded that they did not terminate the workman from services, but the workman himself did not report for work and refused to work on termporary basis.

In view of the admission of Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged on 10.12.1985 and he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his alleged termination, there is no need to analyze the evidence adduce by the parties in the respect. In view of the facts mentioned above, with respect, I am of the view that the decisions reported in 2006(1)SCC-106 (R.M. Yellati Vs Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC-697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs Mohd. Rafi), (2006) 9 SCC-132 (Surendra Nagar Dist. Panchyat Vs Ganghben) and Writ Petition No. 1072/2002 (Hon'ble Bombay High court, Nagpur Bench) and which have been cited by the Party No. 1 on the point of burden of prove of working of 240 days preceding the date of termination by the workman, have no clear application.

7. At the time of argument, much emphasis was given by the union representative to draw adverse inference against the Party No. 1 for non production of documents, inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal. However, I find no ground to draw adverse inference against the Party No. 1 for non production of documents, in view of the admissions as mentioned above and the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding drawing of adverse inference for non production of ducuments in the decisions reported in (2006) 1 SCC-106(Supra) and AIR 2004 SC-479 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs Hariram).

8. Now, the question for consideration is as to whether, the workman did not report for work and he refused to work on temporary basis and there was no termination by the Party No. 1. On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that Party No. 1 has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent evidence in that regard. It is clear from the evidence on record that though the workman had worked for more than 240 days prior to 19.01.1988, Party No. 1 terminated his services without service of one months' notice or payment of one months' wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation, which are mandatory as per the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal.

9. Now, the question remains for consideration is as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled. It is the admitted case of the workman and so also the case of the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5341 Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged as a Badlee Sepoy on daily wages basis and he was engaged in four different branches of the Bank, whenever, the regular sepoy remained absent. The engagement of the workman was not against any regular post, but his engagement was on the basis of need of work on daily wages. The workman was engaged as daily wager by Party No. 1 in the year 1985 i.e. 10.12.1985 and his engagement continued intermittently up to 19.01.1988.

Taking into consideration the facts mentioned above, I think it proper to mention about the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010 (8) SCALE-583 (Incharge Officer & another Vs Shankar Shetty) in this regard. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

"Industrial Disputes Act 1947/Section 25F/Daily wager/Termination of service in violation of section 25(F)/ Award of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement/ Respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by appellants in 1978/His engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to 06.09.85/Respondent raised industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging violation of procedure prescribed in sec. 25(F) of the Act/ Labour Court rejected respondents claim: holding that section 25(F) of the Act was not attracted since the workman failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination 06.09.85. On appeal, High Court directed reinstatement of Respondent into service holding that termination of respondent was illegal-Whether an order of reinstatement will automatically follow in a case where engagement of a daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of section 25(F) of the Act—Allowing the appeal-held:

The action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Bapurao Nanwatkar is not justified. The workman is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement. The Party No. 1 is directed to carry out the award within one month from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2013

का॰आ॰ 2022.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 31/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01/8/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12011/60/92-आईआर(बी-II)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 2022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/31/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01.08.2013.

[No. L-12011/60/92-IR(B-II)] SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

The High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 year intermittently up to September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one it appears to us that relief of reinstatment cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion the compensation of rupees one lakh (Rs. 1,00,000) in lieu of reinstatment shall be appropriate, just and equitable".

Case No. CGIT/NGP/31/1999 Date: 22.07.2013.

Party No. 1 The Regional Manager,

Bank of India, 13-Mul Road,

Chanrapur-442401.

Party No. 2 Shri S.R. Tripurwar, Regional Secretary,

Bank of India Workers' Organisation, Shri Ram Ward, Ram Mandir,

Chandrapur-442401.

AWARD

The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision are quite applicable to this case. So, applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present case, it is found that the relief of the reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice and in my considered opinion, monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable, Hence, it is ordere:—

(Dated: 22nd July, 2013)

ORDER

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government had referred the industrial5342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of and their workmen, Shri V.V. Siddam, Shri A.G. Chahande, Shri B.J. Datarkar, Shri P.D. Madheswar and Shri G.M. Mendulkar to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for adjudication, as per letter No. L.-12011/60/92-IR (B-II) dated 12.03.1993, with the following schedule:—

Manager through office voucher to avoid obligation of law and the services of the workman were utilized for the whole day for doing sub-staff work and the vacancy was a clear vacancy and his services were termination on 30.12.1990 and the workman had put in one year of continuous service as contemplated by section 25-B of the Act and before such termination, no retrenchment compensation as required under the law was paid and as such, his termination is illegal.

Case of Shri B.J. Datarkar

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Chandrapur in terminating the services of Shri V.V. Siddam from 13.06.91, Shri A.G. Chahande from 30.12.90, Shri B.J. Datarkar from 23.05.89, Shri P.D. Madheshwar from 19.04.91 and Shri G.M. Mendulkar from 19.04.91 respectively is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

Subsequently, the case was transferred to this

Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India Workers' Organisation" ('the union" in short), filed the statement of claim on behalf of the five workmen, ("the workmen" in short) and the management of Bank of India, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The workman was appointed as a sub-staff at Chikli branch right from the date of inception of the branch in a clear vacancy, but his services were illegally terminated w.e.f. 23.05.1989 i.e. after putting in more than 240 days of work preceding the date of termination and duties of sub- staff were extracted from him without making payment in accordance with the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement and after the termination of the workman, one Shri Bathkal, who was junior to the workman was appointed in his place and no retrenchment compensation as contemplated under the law was paid to him and therefore, provisions of sections 25-B, 25-F and 25-H are attracted and the termination of the workman is illegal.

Case of Shri P.D. Madheshwar

The case of the five workmen as projected by the union in the statement of claim is that it (union) is duly registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the workmen involved in the dispute are its members and party no.1 is a Nationalised Bank and the service conditions of the employees of the Bank are inter-alia governed by the provisions of Sastry Award, Desai Award and Bipartite Settlements and this is a common reference for the action impugned for termination of the five workmen by party no.1 and brief facts in respect of each employee are mentioned separately for clarity and convenience and such facts are:—

The workman came to be appointed as a sub-staff on 03.10.1988 at Gunjewahi branch, right from the date of opening of the said branch and he put in continuous service of more than two years and finally his services were terminated w.e.f. 19.04.1991 and after his termination, a junior person was appointed in his place and the workman by virtue of having put in more than 240 days of service in a clear vacancy, he had acquired the status of a confirmed employee and no retrenchment compensation was paid to him prior to termination and the termination of the workman attracts sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act and the termination is bad in law.

Case of Shri N.V. Siddam

Case of Shri G.M. Mendulkar

The workman, Shri N.V. Siddam was appointed at Engineering college extension counter, Chandrapur w.e.f. 07.06.1990 and his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 13.06.1991 and he worked for more than 240 days, preceding the date of termination and payment was made to him on vouchers purported to have been shown as reimbursement to the Branch Manager, to avoid obligation of law and the vacancy was filled in subsequent to the termination of Shri Siddam, by one Shri Dewanand Madhav Uike and no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman before his termination and therefore, the termination is illegal and unjustified.

The workman came to be appointed in the subordinate cadre at Neri Branch w.e.f. 01.01.1985 in a clear vacancy and he had put in more than 240 days of work preceding 12 months of the date of termination i.e. 19.04.1991 and after his termination, one Shri Vijay Borsare was appointed, who was junior to the workman in service and therefore, the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-H are applicable and no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman and therefore, the termination of the workman is illegal.

Case of Shri A.G. Chahande

The workman was employed as a sub-staff at Vilam Branch w.e.f. 15.03.1990 in a clear vacancy and the salary paid to him was illegally shown as reimbursement to Branch It is further pleaded by the union that all the five workmen were appointed against clear vacancy and each of them had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of their respective termination and none of them was terminated as a[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5343 consequence of any departmental enquiry and junior employees were given preference in the vacancy created due to termination of the services of the workmen and as there was violation of the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act by the party no.1, the termination of all the five workmen is therefore, ab-initio bad in law and party no.1 played mischief in making payment of salary to the workmen through vouchers purported to have been reimbursement to the Branch Manager and such action of party no.1 amounts to unfair labour practice.

The union has prayed to declare the action of the party no. 1 in terminating the services of the workmen as illegal and to reinstate the five workmen in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The party no. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the services of Shri Siddam were utilized purely on casual basis as a stop gap arrangement pending appointment to the vacancy of sub-staff by usual procedure and he did not complete 240 days of service preceding his discontinuance/non-employment and pending the regular selection of sub-staff, it was necessary to give minimum expected services to the customers and as such, the services of Shri Siddam were utilized by the Branch Manager as stop gap arrangement only and Shri Devandra Madhav Uikey was selected as a regular sub-staff after following the procedure and the same was not in the vacancy of Shri Siddam, as the employment of Shri Siddam was being casual in nature and as he did not put in 240 days of continuous services, he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation and there was also no question of giving any charge sheet, since there was no charge against him and the further non-employment of Shri Siddam was due to the regular appointment of the Sub-staff in the Engineering college extension counter, Chandrapur.

It is also pleaded by the party no.1 that after opening of Vilam branch, pending regular appointment of sub-staff, the services of Shri Chahande were utilized on casual basis as a stop gap arrangement by the branch manager to provide minimum expected customer services and under the own authority of the branch manager, payment was made to Shri Chahande, which was reimbursed to the branch manager and such procedure was followed for the reasons as mentioned above and not to avoid any obligation of law and there was no illegality in the said procedure and Shri Chahande did not complete one year of continuous service as contemplated by section 25-B of the Act and there was no question of departmental enquiry, since there was no dismissal/termination as alleged and further non- employment of the workmen was due to appointment of a regular sub-staff in the said branch.

The further case of party no. 1 is that the services of Shri Datarkar were utilized purely on casual basis as a stop gap arrangement pending appointment to the vacancy of sub-staff by usual procedure and he did not complete 240 days of service preceding his discontinuance/non- employment and pending the regular selection of sub-staff, it was necessary to give minimum expected services to the customers and as such, the services of Shri Datarkar were utilized by the Branch Manager as stop gap arrangement only and Shri Devandra Madhav Uikey was selected as a regular sub-staff after following the procedure and the same was not in the vacancy of Shri Datarkar, as the employment of Shri Datarkar was being casual in nature and as he did not put in 240 days of continuous services, he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation and there was also no question of giving any charge sheet, since there was no charge against him and the further non-employment of Shri Datarkar was due to the regular appointment of the Sub-staff in the Engineering college extension counter, Chandrapur.

It is also pleaded by the party no. 1 that after opening of Ganjewahi branch, the services of Shri P.D. Madheshwar were utilized on casual basis as a stop gap arrangement by the branch manager to provide minimum expected customer services and under the own authority of the branch manager, payment was made to Shri P.D. Madheshwar, which was reimbursed to the branch manager and such procedure was followed for the reasons as mentioned above and not to avoid any obligation of law and there was no illegality in the said procedure and Shri P.D. Madheshwar did not complete one year of continuous service as contemplated by section 25-B of the Act and there was no question of departmental enquiry, since there was no dismissal/ termination as alleged and further non- employment of the workmen was due to appointment of a regular sub-staff in the said branch.

The further case of party no. 1 is that the services of Shri Medulkar were utilized purely on casual basis as a stop gap arrange pending appointment to the vacancy of sub-staff by usual procedure and he did not complete 240 days of service preceding his discontinuance/non- employment and pending the regular selection of sub-staff, it was necessary to give minimum expected services to the customers and as such, the services of Shri Mendulkar were utilized by the Branch Manager as stop gap arrangement only and Shri Devandra Madhav Uikey was selected as a regular sub-staff after following the procedure and the same was not in the vacancy to Shri Mendulkar and as the employment of Shri Mendulkar was being casual in nature and as he did not put in 240 days of continuous services, he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation and there was also no question of giving any charge sheet, since there was no charge against him and the further non- employment of Shri Mendulkar was due to the regular appointment of the sub-staff in the Engineering college extension counter, Chandrapur.

Party no. 1 has further pleaded that the employment of the workmen was purely of casual nature and as a stop5344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] gap arrangement pending selection of the regular staff by normal procedure and their appointment was made by the respective branch managers, who have no authority to appoint any person, but who were authorized to make stop gap arrangement to provide minimum expected services to the customers, in the absence of a regularly appointed employee and no junior employee had been given precedence as alleged and the services of the workmen came to an end automatically with the appointment of the regular employee and their cases were not cases of termination from service, but the same were cases of non- employment and the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act had no application to their cases and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

4. In support of the claim, the union has examined six witnesses including two workmen, besides placing reliance on the documentary evidence. The witnesses examined by the union are (1) Shri Vilas Siddam (workman), (2) Shri Arun D. Mahadeshwar (workman), (3) Shri Vinayak Joshi, (4) Shri Shirish A. Damle, (5) Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney and (6) Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar.

Party No. 1 has not adduced any oral evidence.

5. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that it is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental thereto.

6. During the course of argument, it was submitted by the union representative that the workmen were appointed by the respective Branch Managers with the consent and approval of the Zonal Manager and they were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they performed the duties of full time peons, although they were paid on daily wage basis and they worked continuously between 1984 to 1989 and despite the existence of permanent vacancies, Party No. 1 did not regularize the workmen and there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and the Party No. 1 adopted unfair labour practice. It was further submitted by the union representative that Party No. 1 has virtually admitted the allegations made in the statement of claim, in the written statement and the oral evidence adduced by the workmen, which has not been challenged seriously in the cross-examination, the documentary evidence produced by the workmen and absence of any rebuttal evidence from the side of Party No. 1 have fully proved the claim of the workmen and as such, the workmen are entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and all consequential benefits. It was also submitted by the union representative that during the conciliation proceedings before the ALC, Chandrapur, Minutes of understanding were signed by the union and party no. 1 and party no. 1 assured to absorb the workmen, Shri Qureshi and Shri Bamburde and also gave assurance for absorption of the three other workmen, but party no. 1 did not implement the said settlement, which is quite illegal and the workmen are entitled for their absorption against permanent vacancies.

It was further submitted by the union representative that though the Tribunal passed orders directing the Party No. 1 to produce the relevant documents, the Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against Party No. 1 and the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the representative for the Party No. 1 that the workmen were engaged on purely casual basis temporally for different spells, in the respective branches and their engagement was as and when required basis, due to taking of leave by the permanent Sub-staff or temporary increase of work load in the branch and none of the workmen completed 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of termination and the workmen have admitted such facts and the evidence on affidavits of the witnesses examined by the workmen are general affidavits and no reliance can be placed on the same, as no document has been produced by the workmen to demonstrate that they had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination and the workmen have failed to discharge the burden of proving that in fact they had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of termination, so the provisions of the Act are not applicable and adverse inference is not to be drawn for non production of the documents and Party No. 1 did not adopt any unfair labour practice and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

In support of the submissions, reliance was placed by Party No. 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC- 4791 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs Hariram), (2006) 1 SCC-106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC- 697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Raffi), (2006) 9 SCC-132 (Surendra Nagar District Panchayat Vs Gangaben), Writ Petition No. 1072/2002 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, (2006) 6 SCC-221 (Reserve Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma) and AIR 2006 S.C.-839 (Regional Manager, SBI Vs Rakesh Kumar).

8. First of all, I will take of the submission made by the union representative regarding drawing of adverse inference against the party no. 1, for non production of the documents. Admittedly, order was passed by the Tribunal directing the party no. 1 to produce documents as demanded by the union. However, the party no. 1 failed to produce the documents. The terms of reference in this case is as to whether the five workmen are entitled to get the employment. On perusal of the materials on record[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5345 including the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the claim of the workmen about their engagement on different branches on casual basis on daily wages has been admitted by the party no. 1 in the written statement. Moreover, the union during the course of hearing of the case has produced almost all the documents, which it had demanded for production by party no. 1. In view of such admitted facts and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions reported in AIR 2004 S.C-4791 (supra) and (2006) 1 SCC-106 (supra) in regard to drawing of adverse inference for non production of documents by a party, to the case in hand, it is found that there is no need to draw adverse inference against the party no. 1 for the non production of the documents.

9. Though the reference has been made by the Central Government for adjudication of the dispute as to whether the workmen are entitled to get employment, the union, in the guise of raising the dispute on behalf the workmen has tried to challenge the policy adopted by the party no. 1 of engaging persons on temporary basis, inspite of having number of permanent vacancies in the cadre of sub-staff at different branches of the Bank. In view of the settled principles that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference as already mentioned above and in view of the fact that such specific terms of reference has not been made by the Government, such claim cannot be adjudicated.

Moreover, from the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the engagement of the workmen in this case by party no.1 was not against any permanent vacancy in the respective branches, but their engagement was on temporary basis as daily wages, as and when required basis, against leave vacancy of the permanent sub-staff or due to temporary increase of workload in the branch.

10. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:—

"Labour Law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-Validity- Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day basis, held had no right to post."

11. At this juncture, I also think it necessary to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC-1806 (Secretary, State of Karnatak Vs. Umadevi & others) (Constitutional Bench).

It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court

that:—

"Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the court/Tribunal cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors of rules-State owned/ operated corporations-Appointment-Modes of appointment-Held regularization cannot be a mode of appointment-Public Sector- Appointment-Mode of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Labour Law-Appointment-Mode of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode of appointment-Regularization-Held, not a permissible mode of appointment."

It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—

"The term 'temporary employee' is a general category which has under it several sub-categories e.g. casual employee, daily-rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc. A daily-rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee, and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post, or to be continued in service, to get absorption, far less of being regularized and getting regular pay. No doubt, there can be occasions when the state or its instrumentalities employee persons on temporary or daily wage basis in a contingency as additional hands without following the required procedure, but this does not confer any right on such persons to continue in service or get regular pay. Unless the appointments are made by following the rules, such appointees do not have any right to claim permanent absorption in the establishment. The Court cannot direct continuation in service of a non-regular appointee. Even if an ad hoc or casual appointment is made in some contingency the same should not be continued for long, as was done in the present case. A casual or temporary employment is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure establish by law for public employment."

It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—

"Employment on daily wage-Confers no right of permanent employment-Daily wager appointed on less than minimum wages-Not forced labour- Continued on post for long period-Daily wagers from a class by themselves-They cannot claim parity vis-a-vis those regularly recruited on basis of relevant rules and cannot be made permanent in employment.

Employees were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who were working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against5346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate and made permanent in employment even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming the equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed in daily wages or temporally or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. They cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment to be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equal with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equally treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequal as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of relevant recruitment rules."

12. It is also well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decisions reported in (2006) 1 SCC-106 (Supra), and (206) 9 SCC-697 (Supra) that the onus to prove the 240 days' of continuous service lies on the workman and it is for workman to adduce cogent evidence, both oral and documentary and mere affidavits and self serving statements made by the workman will not suffice.

So, keeping in view the settled principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned above, now, the case in hand is to be considered.

13. The two workmen, namely, Shri Vilas B. Siddam and Shri Arun D. Madheswar in their examination-in-chief have reiterated the stands taken by the union in the statement of claim. They have further stated in their examination-in-chief that their appointment was made by the party no.1 after due selection in the interview and their names were sponsored by the employment exchange. However, such statements cannot be taken into consideration in absence of such pleadings in the statement of claim. Nothing has been mentioned in the statement of claim as to how the workmen came to be appointed in the respective branches of the Bank and as to who appointed them. Moreover, during the course of argument, it was submitted by the union representative that the workmen were appointed by the respective branch managers with the approval of the Zonal Manager and the names of the workmen were sponsored by the employment exchange, which is quite contradictory to the evidence of the workmen. In absence of such pleadings and any documentary evidence on record in that regard, such statements cannot be relied upon.

In his cross-examination, workman, Shri Siddam has stated that he received the interview call from the employment exchange, but he has not filed the copy of the interview letter and he was not issued with any appointment order and he has not submitted any evidence to show that he worked in the said bank.

Workman, Shri Madheswar in his cross-examination has stated that he has not filed any document to show that his name was sponsored by employment exchange and that he was called for the interview by the Bank. He has admitted that he was engaged by the Bank on daily wages and he has not filed any document in support of his claim that he worked for 635 days and he had completed more than 240 days of work from 1988 to August 1989 and from September, 1989 to June, 1990. He has also admitted that he was engaged by the branch manager as and when required.

14. So far the evidence of Shri Vinayak Joshi, Shri Shirish Anandrao Damle, Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney and Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar is concerned, the same is very general in nature and most part of their evidence is regarding the availability of vacancies in the Sub-Staff Cadre in different branches of the Bank of Party No. 1 and in respect of the policy adopted by Party No. 1 regarding engagement of badlee sepoy/peon instead of filling up the posts by making regular recruitment, which is not the subject matter of adjudication in this reference, as already mentioned above.

Shri Joshi in his examination-in-chief without mentioning the name of any of the workmen has generally mentioned that every workman covered by the reference has completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period. Shri Joshi has not stated that the workmen in fact had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of termination. Nothing has also been mentioned by Shri Joshi about the period during which every workman involved in the reference completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period. In his cross-examination, Shri Joshi has stated that the method of recruitment of sub-staff is to call for the names from the Employment Exchange and after interview, to select suitable candidates for permanent, temporary, full time and part time employment and in small branches having only one sub-staff, temporary arrangements have to be made by the Branch Manager with consultation with administrative office, when the said sub-staff proceeds on leave or sick and as per the document, Ext. W-10, Bank has permitted to appoint sub-staff/sepoy on casual basis in small branches.

Shri Damle, in his cross-examination has stated that the Bank has authorized the manager to engage casual employees.

The evidence of Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney in the examination-in-chief itself is contradictory to the stand taken by the union and the workman in the statement of claim. According to the union the workman worked continuously[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5347 from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without a single day break, where is in paragraph 24 of his affidavit, Shri Tamhaney has mentioned that, "In the instant case, the concerned employee was given illegal break in service by management on many occasion without any reason and with malafide intention."

Moreover, in his cross-examination, Shri Tamhaney has admitted that his affidavit is a general affidavit and the same does not have any specific reference to the concerned workman and the workman was working with the Bank intermittently for several years and he has not mentioned as to the period of engagement of the workman or the number of days he worked for the Bank.

14. It is necessary to mention here that except Shri Siddam and Shri Madheshwar, the other three workmen did not enter into the witness box.

15. On perusal of the record, it is found that neither the union nor the workmen have filed a single document regarding the appointment of the five workmen after their due selection as per Rules of recruitment and that they were appointed against any permanent post.

Taking into consideration the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the parties, it is found that the workmen were engaged in the respective branches of the party no. 1 by the respective branch managers on casual basis on daily wages as and when required and they worked intermittently and their engagement was not against any permanent post and their appointment was not in accordance with the Rules of recruitment of party no. 1 of regular sub-staff. It is also found from the materials on record that neither the union nor any of the five workmen has been able to prove that the workmen in fact had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of their respective date of termination, which is necessary to avail the benefits of section 25-F of the Act. As the workmen failed to discharge the burden which was upon them to prove, they are not entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about the principles envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra) and AIR 2006 SC · 839 (Supra).

In the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-High Court erred in holding otherwise-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, schedule II item 3-Wrongful dismissal-What is not-Post-Right to-Daily wager, held, devoid of such a right.

Labour law-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss. 25G and 25F-Applicability of Section 25G-Where High Court had not found the workman to have been retrenched within the meaning of S. 25F, held, it erred in holding S. 25G to be applicable.

In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC-839 (Supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:

"Retrenchment-Respondent employed as messenger on daily wage basis by bank-No appointment letter issued to him-Termination of his service-Reference was not made regarding validity of retrenchment under S. 25G-But for not considering respondent for reemployment under S. 25 H-Order of reference did not refer to S. 25G but only to S. 25H-Thus finding by Tribunal that order terminating services of respondent was in violation of S. 25G-Illegal- Further respondent in his application under S. 33-C(2) never raised plea that his services were illegally terminated-In circumstances High Court's view that termination of services of respondent was invalid under S. 25H-Not sustainable as S. 25H proceeds on assumption that retrenchment has been validly made.

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), schedule 3 item 1-Shastry award, para 497-Benefit under-Respondent employed by bank on ad hoc basis-no appointment order was issued-Dispensation of his services-Not in violation of para 497.

Para 497 deals with the right of apprentices and has no application to temporary employees like the respondent. Assuming that there was a violation of the Shastry award by the appellant bank in both cases either in not issuing appointment letters or not maintaining a seniority list, service book in respect of temporary employees etc., this would not mean that therefore the respondents had been properly appointed and their services wrongly terminated. Admittedly no procedure whether in law or under any award or settlement was followed either of the respondents in both appeals. No conditions of services were agreed to and no letter of appointment was given. The nature of the respondents' employment was entirely ad hoc. They had been appointed without considering any rule. It would be ironical if the person who have benefited by the flouting of the rules of appointment can rely upon those rules when their services are dispensed with."

Judging the case in hand with the touch stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, it is found that there is no merit in the case of the workman and he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

"Labour law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-Validity- Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day basis, held, had no right to the post-Hence, his disengagement on acquiring a qualification exceeding the maximum prescribed, held, could not be treated as arbitrary or amounting to wrongful dismissal within the meaning of item 3 of schedule II to The reference is answered in the negative and against the union and the workmen. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer5348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2013

dkñvkñ 2023.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्व नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 21/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5/8/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/442/89-आईआर (बी-II)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013

S.O. 2023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/21/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5.8.2013.

[No. L-12012/442/89-IR(B-II)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer Tandulkar is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Subsequently the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law, by the Central Government.

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India Workers' Organization", (''the union'' in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Namdeo Chirkutrao Tendulkar , ('the workman' in short), and the management of Bank of India, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/21/1999 Date: 22.07.2013.

Party No.1 The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, S.V. Patel Road,

P.B. No. 4, Nagpur — 440001.

Party No.2 The Joint Secretary,

Bank of India Workers' Organization,

House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg,

Congress Nagar, Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd July, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri Namdeo Chirkutrao Tandulkar, to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/442/89- D-II (A) dated 19.03.1990, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Namdeo Chirkutrao The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim by the union is that the workman was appointed in Kalmeswar Branch of the Bank on 08.06.1983 as a Badlee Sepoy in the Sub-staff Cadre and contrary to the various provisions of the bi-partite settlements and awards, governing the service conditions of the employees of Party No. 1, no appointment order was issued to him and from the date of his appointment till his discontinuance, the workman had put in more than 400 days of Badlee employment and he had put in 229 days of employment in a block period of 12 consecutive months and taking into consideration the Sundays and holidays, he had put in 240 days of employment in the preceding 12 calendar months, amounting to one year of continuous service within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Act and although the workman had completed 240 days of employment in 12 calendar months, his claim for permanent employment came to be illegally ignored by Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 on 12.10.1985, directly appointed one Shri Shende as a Sub-staff at Kalmeswar Branch, who had admittedly not worked as a Badlee Sepoy prior to his appointment and even after the appointment of Shri Shende, Party No. 1 continued to engage the workman as a Badlee Sepoy till December 1986, on which date, he was informed that his services have been terminated and that he would not be continued in future and the services of the workman were discontinue, only to deprive permanent status to him and the consequent service benefits and on 10.03.1987, a telegram from the Zonal Office was received in Kalmeswar Branch in which, direction was given to discontinue his services with immediate effect and a bare perusal of the said communication would reveal that the workman was engaged to perform duties of permanent nature and a permanent vacancy did exist at Kalmeswar Branch and the workman could have been absorbed in the said post and the Branch Manager of Kalmeswar Branch terminated the services of the workman without any written order and the sequence of events narrated above would reveal that Party No. 1 adopted unfair labour practice. The further case of the union is that after the discontinuance of the workman from service, the Party No. 1 engaged Shri Bhakte,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5349 reliance on the documentary evidence. The witnesses examined by the union are (1) Shri Chandrasekhar Gathibande (the workman himself), (2) Shri Vinayak Joshi, (3) Shri Shirish A. Damle, (4) Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney, (5) Shri Balaji H. Bokde, (6) Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar and (7) Shri Suresh Wirukar.

Shri Ganarkar, Shri Tapase and Shri Durge from time to time in his place and as the workman had done more than 400 days of work, he had a prior claim to further appointment, which was illegally ignored by Party No.1 and Party No. 1 violated the provision of Section 25-H of the Act. The union has prayed for his reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity, full back wages and consequential benefits.

One Shri Raj Kumar Tulsiram Naik has been examined

as the only witness on behalf of the Party No. 1.

5. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that it is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental there to.

6. During the course of argument, it was submitted by the union representative that the workman was appointed by the Branch Manager with the consent and approval of the Zonal Manager and he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he performed the duties of a full time peon, although he was paid on daily wage basis and he worked continuously from 08.06.1983 to December 1986 and despite the existence of a permanent vacancy, Party No. 1 did not regularize the workman and there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and the Party No. 1 adopted unfair labour practice. It was further submitted by the union representative that Party No. 1 has virtually admitted the allegations made in the statement of claim, in the written statement and from the oral evidence adduced by the union, which has not been challenged seriously in the cross- examination, the documentary evidence produced by the union and the admission of the witnesses examined by the Party No. 1,it can be held that the claim of the workman has been fully proved and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and all consequential benefits.

It was further submitted by the union representative that though the Tribunal passed orders directing the Party No. 1 to produce the relevant documents, the Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against Party No. 1 and the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged as Badlee Sepoy in the leave vacancy at Kalmeswar branch from time to time and the same was done according to the work available in the said branch, on account of either leave vacancy or temporary increase in the work and the workman put in 86 days, 121 days, and 158 days of work in 1983, 1984 and 1985 respectively and he had not put in 240 days of work within a block period of 12 months and even according to the workman, the maximum number of days worked by him in a block period of 12 consecutive months was 229 days and from about 30th December, 1985, the workman for reason best known to him, stopped reporting and coming to the branch to ask about the availability of work and it had neither terminated the services of the workman nor stopped to offer work to him as and when the same was available, due to taking of leave by the permanent sub- staff or due to temporary increase in work and before the conciliation officer, a clear offer was made by it to the workman to report at Kalmeswar branch for badlee work and that he would be provided work against leave vacancy of permanent sepoy and he would be considered for permanent absorption against permanent vacancy, as and when such vacancy would arise in future, as per his turn and his seniority and eligibility as per Rules and inspite of giving of such offer in writing on 18.08.1989, before the conciliation officer, the workman did not turn up to work as badlee sepoy and it was not obligatory on its part at any point of time to specifically call the workman for work and as the workman had not put in 240 days of work including paid holydays (intervening holidays) within 12 calendar months, he is not entitled to claim the benefits of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It is further pleaded by Party No.1 that the recruitment of Shri Shende, the sub- staff was done after following proper procedure and the communication dated 10.03.1987, if any, is wholly irrevalent as the workman had no connection with the Bank since December, 1985 and there was no unfair labour practice and the engagement of other badlee Sepoy was due to failure of the workman to report for doing the work and the same did not affect his alleged right, as seniority of badlee employees for permanent absorption is counted on the basis of the total days of employment put in by the badlee sepoy, in case of his continuance for duty and there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the representative for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged on purely casual basis temporally on 08.06.1983 and his engagement was as and when required basis, due to taking of leave by the permanent Sub-staff or temporary increase of work load in the branch and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of termination and the union has admitted such facts and the evidence on affidavits of the witnesses examined by the union general affidavits and no reliance can be placed 4. In support of the claim, the union has examined seven witnesses including the workman, besides placing5350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] on the same, as no document has been produced by the union or the workman to demonstrate that the workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination and the workman has failed to discharge the burden of proving that in fact he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of termination, so the provisions of the Act are not applicable and adverse inference is not to be drawn for non production of the documents and Party No. 1 did not adopt any unfair labour practice and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of the submissions, reliance was placed by Party No. 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC — 4791 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs Hariram), (2006) 1 SCC — 106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC — 697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs Mohd. Raffi), (2006) 9 SCC — 132 (Surendra Nagar District Paanchayat Vs Gangaben), Writ Petition No. 1072/ 2002 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, (2006) 6 SCC — 221 (Reserve Bank of India Vs Gopinath Sharma) and AIR 2006 S.C. — 839 (Regional Manager, SBI Vs Rakesh Kumar).

8. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the union representative regarding drawing of adverse inference against the Party No. 1 to produce documents as demanded by the union. Party No. 1 could not able to file the documents. The terms of reference in this case is regarding the legality or otherwise of the termination of the workman from services. On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that Party No. 1 has admitted the engagement of the workman as a badlee sepoy on 08.06.1983 and that he worked on daily wages basis till December, 1985, in the written statement. It is to be mentioned here that in the schedule of reference, the alleged date of termination of the workman from services has not been mentioned. According to the union and the workman, the workman was terminated from service in December, 1986. The date of termination has not been mentioned in the statement of claim. Moreover most of the documents demanded by the union were produced by it during the course of adducing evidence. Neither the union in the statement of claim nor the workman in his evidence on affidavit has pleaded that the workman had in fact put in 240 days of work in the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination. In view of the facts mentioned above and the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC — 4791 (Supra) and (2006) 1 SCC — 106 (Supra) in regard to drawing of adverse inference for non production of documents by a party, it is found that there is no need to draw adverse inference against the Party No. 1 for non production of documents.

9. it is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decisions including the decisions reported in (2006) 1 SCC — 106 (Supra), (2006) 9 SCC — 697 (Supra) and (2006) 9 SCC -132 (Supra) that to avail the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary for the workman to proof that in fact he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination and the burden of proof of such facts lies on the workman.

10. Though the reference has been made by the central Government for adjudication of the legality or otherwise of the termination of the workman, the union, in the guise of raising the dispute on behalf the workman has tried to challenge the policy adopted by the Party No.1 of engaging persons on temporary basis, inspite of having number of permanent vacancies in the cadre of sub-staff at different branches of the Bank. In view of the settled principles that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference as already mentioned above and in view of the fact that such specific terms of reference has not been made by the Government, such claim cannot be adjudicated.

Moreover, from the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the engagement of the workman in this case as Badlee sepoy was not against any permanent vacancy in the branch, but his engagement was on temporary basis as a daily wager, as and when required basis against leave vacancy of the permanent sub- staff or due to temporary increase of workload in the branch.

At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour Law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-Validity- Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day basis, held had no right to post."

11. At this juncture, I also think it necessary to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC-1806 (Secretary, State of Karnatak Vs. Umadevi & others)(Constitutional Bench).

It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court

that:—

"Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the court/Tribunal cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors of rules-State owned/operated corporations-Appointment Modes of appointment — Held regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Public Sector- Appointment- Mode of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Labour Law- Appointment- Mode of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Regularization- Held, not a permissible mode of appointment."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5351 It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:

"The term 'temporary employee' is a general category which has under it several sub-categories e.g. casual employee, daily-rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc. A daily-rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee, and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post, or to be continued in service, to get absorption, far less of being regularized and getting regular pay. No doubt, there can be occasions when the state or its instrumentalities employee persons on temporary or daily wage basis in a contingency as additional hands without following the required procedure, but this does not confer any right on such persons to continue in service or get regular pay. Unless the appointments are made by following the rules, such appointees do not have any right to claim permanent absorption in the establishment. The Court cannot direct continuation in service of a non-regular appointee. Even if an ad hoc or casual appointment is made in some contingency the same should not be continued for long, as was done in the present case. A casual or temporary employment is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure establish by law for public employment."

It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—

"Employment on daily wage — Confers no right of permanent employment-- Daily wager appointed on less than minimum wages — Not forced labour — Continued on post for long period — Daily wagers from a class by themselves — They cannot claim parity vis-a-vis those regularly recruited on basis of relevant rules and cannot be made permanent in employment.

Employees were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who were working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate and made permanent in employment even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming the equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed in daily wages or temporally or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. They cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment to be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equal with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equally treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequal as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of relevant recruitment rules."

Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned

above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

12. On perusal of the materials on record including the pleading of the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made during the course of argument by both the parties, it is found that the workman was engaged by Party No. 1 on 08.06.1983 on casual basis on daily wages as a badlee sepoy and he worked intermittently as and when required basis in four different branches of Party No. 1 including Kalmeswar Branch. It is also found that the engagement of the workman was not according to the Rules of Recruitment of Sub-Staff of Party No. 1 against any permanent post. Though the workman and two other witnesses, namely, Balaji H. Bokade and Suresh Wirurkar have stated that the workman faced the interview and was selected for appointment, no reliance can be placed on their evidence, in absence of any such pleadings in the statement of claim. The discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses as to the person, who had taken the interview of the workman, make their evidence more unreliable. According to Shri Suresh Wirurkar, the workman was interviewed by Shri Chandrakant Joshi, the Asstt. Manager of Kalmeswar Branch, whereas, according to the workman, one Shri Dharvekar took his interview. It is to be mentioned here that the workman has admitted in his cross-examination that the Bank did not issue any call letter for the interview and order of appointment was not given to him and he was working on daily wages basis in different branches of the Bank, where ever works were available. Likewise, witness, Shri Suresh Wirurkar in his cross-examination, has stated that the workman was engaged on daily wages and he was being sent to different branches, where works were available and the appointment of Shri V.S. Shende was done in accordance with the Rules of Recruitment of Sub-Staff in the Bank.

The workman has not filed a single document

regarding his appointment against any permanent post.

So far the evidence of Shri Vinayak Joshi, Shri Shirish Anandrao Damle, Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney and Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar is concerned, the same is very general in nature and most part of their evidence is regarding the availability of vacancies in the Sub-Staff Cadre in different branches of the Bank of Party No. 1 and in respect of the policy adopted by Party No. 1 regarding engagement of badlee sepoy/peon instead of filling up the posts by making regular recruitment, which is not the subject matter of adjudication in this reference, as already mentioned above.

Shri Joshi in his examination-in-chief without mentioning the name of the workman has generally mentioned that every workman covered by the reference has completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period. Shri Joshi has not stated that the workman in fact had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of termination. Nothing has also been mentioned by Shri Joshi about the period during which every workman involved in the reference completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period. In his cross-examination, Shri Joshi has stated that the method of recruitment of sub-staff is to call for the names from the Employment Exchange and after interview, to select suitable candidates for permanent, temporary, full time and part time employees and in small branches having only one sub-staff, temporary arrangements have to be made by the Branch Manager with consultation with administrative office, which the said sub-staff proceeds on leave or sick and as per the document, Ext. W-10, Bank is allowing to appoint sub-staff/sepoy on casual basis in small branches.

Shri Damle, in his cross-examination has stated that the Bank has authorized the manager to engage casual employees.

The evidence of Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney in his examination-in-chief itself is contradictory to the stand taken by the union and the workman in the statement of claim. According to the union the workman worked continuously from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without a single day break, where is in paragraph 24 of his affidavit, Shri Tamhaney has mentioned that," In the instant case, the concerned employee was given illegal break in service by management on many occasion without any reason and with malafide intention."

More over, in his cross-examination, Shri Tamhaney has admitted his affidavit is a general affidavit and the same does not have any specific reference to the concerned workman and the workman was working with the Bank intermittently for several years and he has not mentioned as to the period of engagement of the workman or the number of days he worked for the Bank.

Shri Suresh N. Panwilkar has been examined to show that the workman worked continuously at Nawegaon Branch from the date of the opening of the Branch. On perusal of the evidence of Shri Panwilkar, it is found that his evidence in the examination-in-chief itself is not consistent with the stands taken by the union in the reference. According to the case of the union and workman, the workman was appointed on 18.04.1983 and Shri Bajanghate was junior to him and Shri Bajanghate was retained and regularized by the Bank, where as the evidence of Shri Panwilkar is that the Branch of Nawegaon Khairi was opened on 31.03.1983 and the workman and Shri Bajanghate were appointed from the beginning of the Bank and the workman was discontinued after two years and Shri Bajanghate was removed earlier to the workman.

In view of the own admission of the workman as already mentioned above and the evidence on record, it is clear that the workman worked intermittently as a casual daily wager in different branches as and when required. The workman has failed to plead and prove that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of his termination, so, he is not entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act and there was no need for the Party No. 1 to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

13. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about the principles envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra) and AIR 2006 SC — 839 (Supra).

In the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221

(Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:

"Labour law — Daily wager — Disengagement of — Validity — Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day basis, held, had no right to the post — Hence, his disengagement on acquiring a qualification exceeding the maximum prescribed, held, could not be treated as arbitrary or amounting to wrongful dismissal within the meaning of item 3 of schedule II to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — High Court erred in holding otherwise — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, schedule II item 3 — Wrongful dismissal — What is not — Post — Right to — Daily wager, held, devoid of such a right.

Labour law — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Ss. 25G and 25F- Applicability of Section 25G — Where High Court had not found the workman to have been retrenched within the meaning of S. 25F, held, it erred in holding S. 25G to be applicable.

In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC — 839 (Supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:

"Retrenchment — Respondent employed as messenger on daily wage basis by bank — No appointment letter issued to him — Termination of his service — Reference was not made regarding validity of retrenchment under S. 25G — But for not considering respondent for reemployment under S. 25H — Order of reference did not refer to S. 25G but only to S. 25H — Thus finding by Tribunal that order terminating services of respondent was in violation of S. 25G — Illegal — Further respondent in his application under S. 33-C(2) never raised plea that his services were illegally terminated — In circumstances High Court's view that termination of services of respondent was invalid under S. 25H — Not sustainable as S. 25H proceedes on assumption that retrenchment has been validly made.

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), schedule 3 item 1 — Shastry award, para 497 — Benefit under —

Respondent employed by bank on ad hoc basis — no appointment order was issued — Dispensation of his services — Not in violation of para 497.

Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/192/2003-IR(CM-II)] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Para 497 deals with the right of apprentices and has no application to temporary employees like the respondent. Assuming that there was a violation of the Shastry award by the appellant bank in both cases either in not issuing appointment letters or not maintaining a seniority list, service book in respect of temporary employees etc., this would not mean that therefore the respondents had been properly appointed and their services wrongly terminated. Admittedly no procedure whether in law or under any award or settlement was followed either of the respondents in both appeals. No conditions of services were agreed to and no letter of appointment was given. The nature of the respondents' employment was entirely ad hoc. They had been appointed without considering any rule. It would be ironical if the person who have benefited by the flouting of the rules of appointment can rely upon those rules when their services are dispensed with."

Case No.CGIT/NGP/272/2003 Date: 24.07.2013.

Party No.1(a) The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Ajani, Nagpur, Nagpur - 440015.

Party No.1(b) The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgatye, Mumbai - 400020.

Versus

Judging the case in hand with the touch stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, it is found that there is no merit in the case of the workman and he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:—

Party No. 2 : The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

ORDER

AWARD

The action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Namdeo Chirkutrao Tandulkar is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2024.—औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एफ सी आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्व नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 272/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं॰ एल-22012/192/2003-आईआर (सी एम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 272/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Dated: 24th July, 2013

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, Shri Prabhakar Shankar Nikore, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/192/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the services of Shri Prabhakar Shankar Nikore, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Prabhakar Shankar Nikore, (''the workman'' in short), filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 23.12.1993 and he was initially engaged5354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1, as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary Party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 23.12.1993 to14.03. 1999 , without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period for two years, but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.

The further case of Party No.1 is that for the relief as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5355 the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of the workman.

The further case of Party No.1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence.

The workman in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that FCI had not issued advertisement and the contractor informed them about the vacancy in FCI and the contractor took them to FCI and the management of FCI did not issue any order to them and he does not know if he was appointed by Singh Security Services and they have not filed any document showing payment by FCI and he has no document to show that he was terminated by FCI and it is correctly mentioned in his statement of claim that he was appointed through contractor.

5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade, the witness examined on behalf of the Party No.1 has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement, in his examination-in- chief, which is on affidavit. The evidence of the witness for the management has remained unchallenged, as none appeared from the side of the workman to cross-examine him.

6. It is necessary to mention here that as none appeared on behalf of the workman to make argument on 20.06.2013, the date on which the reference was fixed for argument, order was passed to proceed with the case ex- parte against the workman.

7. At the time argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was never appointed by Party No.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement, the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no question of Party No.1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No.1 and the workman and the Party No.1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and Party No.1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim" filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur5356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others [reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

XX XX XX XX

In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redress of their grievances."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1.

9. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the Party No.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Wardha as a security guard, through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, the workman was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for the period of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every two years, the Party No.1 on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and Party No.1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.

In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food Corporation of India as a Security Guard through a contractor.

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross-examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor, it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.

10. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours, in the decisions reported in 1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India), 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others) and 1994 II CLR 402 (R.K. Panda Others Vs. Steel Authority of India and Others).

In the decision reported in 1985-11 LLOJ-4 (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor, the labour force employed by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do....... " 'The expression' employed has at least two known connotations, but as used in the definition, the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience. The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be, in other words, an employment of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5357

      his  by  the  employer  and  that  there  should  be  a         contractor has been interposed either on the ground
      relationship between the employer and employee or               of having undertaken to produce any given result for
      master and servant unless a person is thus employed             the establishment or for supply of contract labour
      there can be no question of his being a "workman"               for  work  of  the  establishment  under  a  genuine
      within the Definition of the term as contained in the           contract  or  is  a  mere  ruse/camouflage  to  evade
      Act.                                                            compliance of various beneficial legislations so as
                                                                      to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If
      Dharangadhara  Chemical Works  Ltd. Vs.  State  of
                                                                      the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere
Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a contractor
                                                                      camouflage, the so called contract labour will have
employs a workman to do the work which he contracted
                                                                      to be treated as employees of the principal employer
with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it
                                                                      who shall be directed to regularize the services of
stands, the workman of the contractor would not without               the contract labour in the concerned establishment.
something more become the workman of that third person.               If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor                employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall
were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no              give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
claim to that effect has been made by the union."                     otherwise  found  suitable,  and,  if  necessary,  by
      11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656              relaxing  the  condition  as  to  maximum  age
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—                       appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
                                                                      workers at the time of their initial employment by
      "The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to           the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
      be  constructed  liberally  in  favour  of  the  class  for     academic  qualifications  other  than  technical
      whose  benefit  it  is  intended,  does  not  extend  to        qualifications.
      reading  in  the  provisions  of  the  Act  what  the
                                                                      Air  India's  case  1997  AIR  SCW430  Overruled
      legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
                                                                      prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
      necessary  implication,  or  substituting  remedy  or
                                                                      D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/
      benefits  for  that  provided  by  the  legislature.  The
                                                                      -9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -
      intendment  of  the  CLRA  Act  is  to  regulate  the
                                                                      17-4-1998  (Kant):  W.P.  No.  4050  of  1999,  D/  -
      conditions of service of the contract labour and to
                                                                      2-8-2000  (Born)  and  W.P.  No.  2616  of  1999,  D/  -
      authorize  in  Section  10(1)  prohibition  of  contract
                                                                      23-12-1999  (Bom),  1998  Lab  IC  2571  (Cal),
      labour  system  by  the  appropriate  Government  on
                                                                      Reversed.
      consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
      (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant               It  cannot  be  said  that  by  virtue  of  engagement  of
      factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,        contract labour by the contractor in any work of or
      provide no ground for absorption of contract labour             in connection with the work of an establishment, the
      on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the              relationship of master and servant is created between
      appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in             the principal employer and the contract labour. Even
      Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the             a combined reading of the definition of the terms
      consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the            "Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman"
      CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and              does not show that the legal relationship between
      25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or            the person employed in any industry and the owner
      the  Supreme  Court  to  read  in  some  unspecified            of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as
      remedy  in  Section  10  or  substitute  for  penal             to who has brought about such relationship. The word
      consequences  specified  in  Sections  23  and  25  a           "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic
      different sequel be it absorption of contract labour            term of which contract labour is a species. It is true
      in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser          that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
      or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of              and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in
      the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the            any establishment would have direct relationship with
      principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of           the principal employer as a servant of master. But
      interpretative  legislation  and  as  such  clearly             what is true of a workman could not be correct of
      impermissible.                                                  contract  labour.  When  the  provisions  of  the Act
                                                                      neither contemplate creation of direct relationship
      Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under              of master and servant between the principal employer
      S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment                 and the contract labour nor can such relationship be
      of  contract  labour  or  otherwise,  in  an  industrial        implied  from  the  provisions  of  the  action  issuing
      dispute brought before it by any contract in regard             notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A
      to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator            fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
      will  have  to  consider  the  question  whether  the           exist from the rules and the forms made there under."

      12. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402 (Supra),        through  contract  labour  except  under  and  in
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—                               accordance with a license issued in that behalf by
                                                                      the licensing authority. The license so issued may
      With the industrial growth, the relation between the
                                                                      contain  conditions  in  respect  of  hours  of  work,
      employer and the employees also has taken a new
                                                                      fixation of wages and other essential amenities in
      turn.  At  one  time  the  establishment  being  the
                                                                      respect  of  contract  labour  as  the  appropriate
      employer  all  persons  working  therein  were  the
                                                                      Government may deem fit to impose in accordance
      employees  of  such  employer.  But  slowly  the
                                                                      with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity
      employer including Central and State Governments
                                                                      required  to  be  provided  under  section  16,  section
      started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.
                                                                      17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
      Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who
                                                                      contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
      has no direct relationship with the establishment in
                                                                      provided by the contractor within the time prescribed
      which  they  were  employed.  Many  contractors
                                                                      by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
      exploited the labourers engaged by them in various
                                                                      such  amenity  shall  be  provided  by  the  principal
      manners including the payment of low wages. Hence,
                                                                      employer within such time as may be prescribed and
      the  Contract  Labour  (Regulation  and Abolition)
                                                                      all expensed incurred by the principal employer in
      Act, 1970 was enacted to regulate the employment
                                                                      providing  the  amenity  may  be  recovered  by  the
      of  contract  labour  in  certain  establishment  and  to
                                                                      principal  employer  from  the  contractor  "either  by
      provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and
                                                                      deduction from any amount payable to the contractor
      for matters connected therewith.
                                                                      under  any  contract  or  as  a  debt  payable  by  the
      The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section               contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
      2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed              be  responsible  for  the  payment  of  wages  to  each
      as contract labour in or in connection with the work            worker employed by him as contract labour but at
      of  an  establishment  when  he  is  hired  in  or  in          the same time in order to protect the interest of such
      connection with such work by or through a contractor,           contract labour, it requires every principal employer
      with  or  without  the  knowledge  of  the  principal           to nominate a representative duly authorized by him
      employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to             to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
      mean a person who undertakes to produce a given                 by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor
      result for the establishment, other than a mere supply          to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence
      of  goods  or  articles  of  manufacture  to  such              of  the  authorized  representative  of  the  principal
      establishment,  through  contract  labour  or  who              employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if
      supplies  contract  labour  for  any  work  of  the             the contractor fails to make payment of wages within
      establishment  and  includes  a  sub-contractor.                the prescribed period, then the principal employer
      "Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i)               shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
      in  relation  to  any  office  or  department  of  the          contact  labour  employed  by  the  contractor  and
      Government  or  a  local  authority,  the  head  of  that       recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any
      office  or  department  or  such  other  officer  as  the       contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
      government or the local authority, as the case may              made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
      be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory,
      the  owner  or  occupier  of  the  factory.  In  view  of       From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
      section 10, of the appropriate Government may after             that  the  framers  of  the  Act  have  allowed  and
      consultation with the Central Board or, as the case             recognized  contract  labour  and  they  have  never
      may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in             purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary
      the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour             object  appears  to  be  that  there  should  not  be  any
      "in  any  process,  operation  or  other  work  in  any         exploitation  of  the  contract  labourers  by  the
      establishment,"  Sub-section  (2)  of  Section  10              contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
      requires that before issuing any such notification, in          object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have
      relation  to  an  establishments,  the  appropriate             been  imposed  on  the  contractor  as  well  as  on  the
      Government shall have regard to the conditions of               principal employer. Of course if any expenses are
      work and benefits provided for the contract labour              incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
      in that establishment and other relevant factors. One           labourers or towards the payment of wages by the
      of  the  relevant  factors,  which  is  to  be  taken  into     principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same
      consideration is whether the work performed by the              from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
      contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12           that  all  appropriate  government  may  after
      enjoins  that  no  contractor  to  whom  this  Act  is          consultation with the central board or the state board,
      applicable  shall  undertake  or  execute  any  work            as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official

gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour in such process, operation or the work into consideration.

Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is discernible that after having work for some years, they make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal employer and be treated as employees of the principal employer especially when the principal employer is the central government or the state government or an authority which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become the employees of the principal employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object and scope of the act as follows:—

"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of contract labour and also to introduce better condition of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and practicable and where it cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working conditions of the contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of work and contemplates progressive abolition to the extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."

Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other works in any establishment by the appropriate government, under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the central government or by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer.

It is true that with passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and on whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them."

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered.

In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question and to decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the government after considering the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its employment saying that, the contract labourers have not been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers 13. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings5360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour- cum- Court, NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/92/2008-IR(CM-II)] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labor contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.

14. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:—

Case No.CGIT/NGP/38/2008 Date: 29.07.2013.

Party No.1 The Chief General Manager,

Chandrapur Area of WCL, Post & Distt. Chandrapur, Maharashtra.

Party No.2 : Shri Shriram M. Niranjane

Through President, Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU), Qr. No. M-305, Shakti Nagar Colony, Po. Durgapur, Distt. Chandrapur. (MS)

AWARD (Dated: 29th July, 2013)

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to, any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2025.—औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्व नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औघोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औघोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 38/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं॰ एल-22012/92/2008-आईआर (सी एम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, Shri Maroti Niranjane, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/92/ 2008-IR (C-II) dated 10.11.2008, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Chandrapur Area of M/s. WCL in dismissing Shri Sriram Maroti Niranjane, Sr. Clerk w.e.f. 21.05.2007 is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Shriram Niranjane, ("the workman" in short) through his union, "Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU)" ("the union" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL, ("party no.1" in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that the Party No.1 is a public sector[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5361 undertaking and he was a permanent employee of party No.1 and he was appointed as a Badli Loader on 10.04.1982 and in 1984, he was promoted as a General Mazdoor category I and in 1987, he was promoted as a senior clerk and continued in the said post and his service record was clean and unblemished and in his entire service career, no charge sheet or show cause notice was ever served on him and he had all along been helping his colleagues in need, in his humble way, although he himself was not financially very well of and in the month of April, 2004, One Ramesh Nanaji Belekar, who was working as a Haulage Khalasi and was known to him for the last eight years approached him (workman) to lend him Rs. 5000/- to meet his urgent needs with the promise to return the same within a short period and he gave a loan of Rs. 5000/- to meet his urgent needs and promised to return the same within a short period and he gave a loan of Rs. 5000/- to shri Belekar with the condition that the said amount should be refunded within a specified time and immediately thereafter, Shri Belekar applied for voluntary retirement from service, which came to be effected from July, 2004 and shri Belekar received most of his legal dues from the management during the months of September and October 2004 and in the meantime, shri Belekar paid a sum of Rs. 1500/- to him, but he was reluctant to return the rest amount of Rs. 3500/ - and therefore, he contacted shri Belekar and asked him to pay back the said amount and shri Belekar initially dodged him, whenever he tried to meet shri Belekar, but finally, shri Belekar intimated him to come to his house (Shri Belekar's house) at about 9.30 AM on 03.11.2004 to receive the money and accordingly, he went to the house of shri Belekar at about 9.30 AM on 03.11.2004 to receive the money and as soon as he received the money from shri Belekar, CBI pounced on him and arrested him on the charge of taking bribe from shri Belekar and he was produced before the designated court on 03.11.2004 itself and was released on bail on the same day and on 24.12.2004, charge sheet was filed against him by the CBI before the court of Special Judge, Chandrapur in Regular case No. 20/2004 and the matter is subjudiced before the Designated court.

The further case of the workman is that the Party No.1 also issued a charge sheet-cum suspension order against him on 26.12.2004, relating to the same charges as mentioned in the charge sheet filed by the C.B.I. before the special judge, Chandrapur and he submitted his reply to the said charge sheet and thereafter, a departmental enquiry was started and a mere perusal of the proceedings of the enquiry would show that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common and he was constrained to participate in the enquiry at the cost of causing prejudice to his case pending before the designated court and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on extraneous consideration and not based on facts and it was clearly demonstrated by him and his defence representative from the evidence adduced in the enquiry that the money received by him from shri Belekar was not a bribe, but the refund of the money taken by shri Belekar from him as a loan and the alleged offence of taking bribe by him was not at all proved in the enquiry and the enquiry officer totally failed to apply his judicious mind and mechanically drew the conclusion that he (workman) was guilty of accepting bribe and on the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned order of dismissal in a huff w.e.f. 21.05.2007 against him and the order of dismissal is wholly illegal, unfair and arbitrary and due to such illegal dismissal, he has come to the street and he is without any job and he is passing his days with utmost poverty and desperation.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and all consequential benefits.

3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have pleaded that the order dated 10.12.2008 of the Central Government reveals that the present industrial dispute is between the Party No.1 and the union, but the statement of claim has been filed by the workman instead of the union and as such, the statement of claim is not valid and the reference is not maintainable for want of necessary party i.e. the union.

The further case of Party No.1 is that the punishment of dismissal dated 21.05.2007 was imposed against the workman in accordance with the service conditions prescribed in certified standing orders and prior to inflicting the punishment of dismissal, regular departmental enquiry was conducted on the charges levelled against him and a trap of CBI was materialized against the workman and he was caught red handed while accepting the bribe and a regular criminal case was initiated against him in the court of Special Judge, Chandrapur and in view of the same, they decided to suspend the workman pending investigation and served a charge sheet against him and the workman replied to the charge sheet denying the charges and therefore, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against him and the workman attended the enquiry with his co-worker, Shri Baig and their witnesses were examined in presence of the workman and full opportunity was given to the workman to cross-examine the witnesses and opportunity was also given to the workman to adduce evidence in his defence and the workman examined four witnesses besides himself and the defence witnesses were cross- examined by the management representative and the enquiry officer submitted his report declaring the charges to have been proved against the workman and a second show cause notice alongwith the copy of the report of the enquiry officer was served on the workman and the workman submitted his written say to the same and after completing the exercise as required under the law and5362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] procedure of departmental enquiry and taking the approval of the competent authority, the punishment was imposed against the workman and no appeal was preferred by the workman against the punishment, even though there is provision for the same in the certified standing orders and every opportunity was offered to the workman to defend himself in the departmental enquiry and the principles of natural justice were followed without any breach and the enquiry is fair and valid and the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer are based on the evidence recorded during the course of the enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on any extraneous consideration and the findings have been derived with due reasoning and the charges levelled against the workman were very serious in nature and in view of the gravity of the misconduct, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed and the punishment was squarely commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and the same was legal and justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from services, after conducting of a departmental enquiry, the validity or otherwise of the departmental enquiry has been taken for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated 10.04.2013, the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the enquiry conducted against the workman is totally vitiated in law, because the enquiry against the workman was conducted by the Personal Manager, who had initiated the departmental enquiry against the workman and the enquiry officer did not permit a family member of the workman, who was the sole eye witness in the matter to give evidence as a defence witness and there was denial of reasonable opportunity to the workman in breach of principles of natural justice. It was further contended by the learned advocate for the workman that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on extraneous consideration and not based on facts and the enquiry officer totally failed to apply his judicious mind and mechanically drawn his conclusion holding the workman guilty of accepting bribe and the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the quantum of offence, considering the fact that the service record of the workman was absolutely unblemished and as such, the order of dismissal is wholly illegal, unfair and arbitrary and the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman.

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that by order dated 10.04.2013, the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the departmental enquiry has already been declared as valid and legal and nothing has been demonstrated in this case as to how the findings of the enquiry officer can be termed as perverse and the enquiry officer has given his findings only on the basis of the evidence recorded during the course of the departmental enquiry and there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the charges proved against the workman are serious in nature and the punishment awarded is also as per the standing order and no sympathy can be shown much less demanded in this case and the punishment of dismissal from services imposed against the workman is justified and legal and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. The first contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman is that the enquiry conducted against the workman is totally vitiated as the enquiry was conducted by the Personal Manager, who himself initiated the departmental enquiry against the workman. However, after going through the documents of the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman, I find no force in the same, as because the charge sheet was submitted against the workman by the Suptd./Manager of the mines, Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery, whereas Shri P.D. Kawle, the then Personal Manager (Per.), Chandrapur was appointed as the enquiry officer at first and on his transfer, Shri D. Ramdeva Rao, Personal Manager (IR), Chandrapur was appointed as the enquiry officer and Shri D. Ramdeva Rao completed the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report to the Suptd. of Mines/Manager, Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery. So, the submission made by the learned advocate for the workman in this respect fails.

8. So far the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman regarding the enquiry officer not allowing the workman to examine his family member as a defence witness is concerned, it is to be mentioned that the said contention was raised and decided at the time of deciding the issue of the validity of the departmental enquiry. So, there is no scope to consider the said submission again.

9. Before delving in to the merit of the matters, it is to be mentioned here that it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a series of decisions that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters for punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction and the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or the competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse and if there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and if the penalty can be lawfully imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.

Keeping in view the above settled principles, now,

the case in hand is to be considered.

After perusing the material on record including the papers of the departmental enquiry and taking into[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5363 of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/167/2003-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

consideration the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, it is found that the enquiry officer has arrived at the conclusions by analyzing the evidence adduced in the departmental proceeding systematically and so also in a rational manner. The findings of the enquiry officer are based on the materials on record of the enquiry proceedings and not on any extraneous consideration. It is also found that this is not a case of no evidence or that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on no evidence. The findings of the enquiry officer are not as such, which could not have been reached by a prudent man on the materials available on record. Hence, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.

10. So, for the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, it is found that serious and grave misconduct of taking bribe has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and therefore there is no question of consideration of the past record of the workman. The punishment of dismissal from services imposed against the workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the serious misconduct proved against the workman. Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence, it is ordered:—

Case No. CGIT/NGP/33/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No. 1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur(MS)

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Mohan S/o Sh. Tukaram

ORDER

The action of the management of Chandrapur Area of M/s. WCL in dismissing Shri Sriram Maroti Niranjane, Sr. Clerk w.e.f. 21.05.2007 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2026.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 33/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/167/2003-आईआर (सीएम—II)] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area)

Deshmukh R/o. Minzhari, Post: Khadsanghi, Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur Maharashtra.

AWARD (Dated: 3rd May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Mohan Tukaram Deshmukh, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/167/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Mohan S/o Tukaram Deshmukh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Mohan Tukaram Deshmukh, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

of notice, Party No.1(b), neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No.1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of in a clines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open excavation work was to be completed within period of 3 1/2months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No.1(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No.1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it [Party No.1(a)] was related to Party No.1(b), only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1 (a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appinted by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract and the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No.1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [2006(2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No.1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No.1(a) also engaged Party No.1(b), M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party No.1(b) is working with Party No.1(a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General Mazdoor on 28.12.1992 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No.1(b) w.e.f. 01.05.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No.1(a), sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had undergone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/ employee of Party No.1(a) and Party No.1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No.1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties no. 1(a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with Parties No 1(a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with Party No.1(a), and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the Party No.1(a), and 1 (b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No.1 was the principal employer and Party No.1(b) was the contractor of Party No.1(a), for each and every act of the Party No.1(b), the Party No.1(a), is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No.1(a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite

The further case of Party No.1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to Party No.1 (b), as they were of having different legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5365 employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murpar colliery by Party No. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 28.12.1992 to 02.07.1996 as a General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party No.1 (b), another contractor from 01.05.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1 (a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No. 1 (a) had sent him for vocational training and he had undergone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No. 1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No. 1 (b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that:-

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended C1. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble5366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Apex Court have held that,

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B (1) and (2)—Continuous service-Scope of sub- sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases- Continuous Service).

claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

ORDER

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "continuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S.25-F, 10- Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services without payment of—Dispute referred to Tribunal- Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim denied by management—Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination." The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2027.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 34/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/168/2003-आईआर (सीएम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 34/2006 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/168/2003-IR (CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his Case No. CGIT/NGP/34/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No. 1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) :M/s. Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5367

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Dnyaneshwar S/o Sh.

Pandurang Nannaware, R/o, Minzhari, Post: Khadsangi, Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur, Maharashtra.

AWARD (Dated: 3rd May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Dnyaneshwar Pandurang Nannaware, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/168/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following Schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Dnyaneshwar S/o Pandurang Nannaware is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Dnyaneshwar Pandurang Nannaware, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No. 1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L.". in short) for the purpose of preparing underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1 (b), M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party No. 1 (b) is working with Party No. 1 (a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General Mazdoor on 17.07.1993 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No. 1 (b) w.e.f. 01.07.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No. 1 (a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/ employee of Party No. 1 (a) and Party No. 1 (a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No. 1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties no. 1(a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with Party No. 1 (a) and (b) they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the Parties No. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1 (b) was the contractor of Party No. 1 (a), for each and every act of the Party No. 1 (b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and as such, the Party No. 1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice, Party No. 1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No.1 (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it (Party No.1(a)) was related to Party No.1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their5368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] need. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1 (a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract and the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No.1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006 (2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The further case of Party No.1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to Party No.1 (b), as they were of having different legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of sections 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murpar colliery by Party No.1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 17.07.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party No.1 (b), another contractor from 01.07.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No.1 (a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No.1 (a) had sent him for vocational training and he had under gone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No.1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No. 1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No.1(a) and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No.1(a) was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No.1 (b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that:—

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B (1) and (2)—Continuous service-Scope of sub- sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases- Continuous Service).

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S.25-F, 10- Retrenchment compensation—Termination of services without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal-Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim denied by management—Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

ORDER

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "continuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Honble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2028.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 39/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/41/2009-आईआर (सी एम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी5370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2009) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Wani Area of WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/41/2009-IR (CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/39/2009 Date 31.05.2013.

Party No. 1 : The Chief General Manager,

Wani Area of WCL, AT & PO: Urjanagar, Chandrapur (MS).

Party No. 2 : The Secretary,

Sanyukt Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), At: Sanyal Bhawan, Gandhi Nagar, PO : Ghugus, Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 31st May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, Shri Surendra Kalwal, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/41/2009- IR (CM-II) dated 11.11.2009, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the demand of Sanyukt Koyala Mazdoor Sangh, (SKMS) for regularization of Shri Surendra Kalwal in the post of Clerk is legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled for?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union, "Sanyukt Koyala Madzoor Sangh", ("the union" in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Surendra Kalwal, ("the workman" in short) and the management of WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as pleaded by the union in the statement of claim is that it is a registered union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is affiliated to AITUC and Party No. 1 is a Government Coal Company, owned and controlled by the Central Government and is a state within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India and the workman passes SSC examination in 1982 and he was appointed as General Mazdoor (daily rated) grade-I and he was given service linked upgradation twice as per the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreements ("the NCWA" in Short) to daily rated category-II and category-III and being transferred from Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery of Chandrapur, he joined Mungoli open caste project in January, 1998 and the Party No. 1 posted him against the permanent vacancy of the post of "Tripman", a clerical grade-III post on from 09.01.1988 and since then, he is continuing in the same post, but he is being paid the wages of daily wages category-III, instead of clerical grade-III and during the meeting held with the representatives of the union, R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC) on 03.03.2000 and 06.03.2000 at Director (Personnel) level and on 07.03.2000 at CMD level, Party No. 1 had agreed to regularize all the eligible daily rated employees, who were engaged in clerical job, prior to 25.08.1998 as clerk grade III and the minutes of the said meeting was circulated vide circular no. 17/1037 dated 17.04.2000 and the minutes of the meeting was quite contrary to the provision of clauses 3.5. and 3.6 of the Certified Standing Order, Mines Act and Rules made thereunder, the Act and Rules made thereunder and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for continuous service of one year and regularization etc. and it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the terms of employment specified in the Standing Order would prevail over the corresponding contract of service.

The further case of the union as presented on behalf of the workman is that the management of Wani Area sent a list of 15 workers to the headquarters of WCL, Nagpur including the name of the workman at Serial No. 15, for regularization as clerk grade-III and in the said list, the name of Shri Vijay Anand Katakar, trainee (maintenance) cat.-II, who was transferred and placed in clerical job w.e.f. 01.10.1988 was included at Serial No. 14, contrary to the direction contained in the minutes of discussion with R.K.K.M.S., where in the cutoff date was 25.08.1998 and the same was done only to favour the members belonging to the particular union and though there were lesser number of clerks than the sanctioned manpower, as approved by the Functional Director and four and nine workers, out of the list of 15 workers were regularized by Party No. 1 notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1999, with financial benefit from 01.01.2000, as per letter dated 03.11.2000 and 22.09.2004 respectively, but the Party No. 1 did not regularize Shri Vijay Anand Kaharkar and the workman as clerk grade- III, on the grounds that Shri Vijay was diverted from 01.10.1998 i.e. after the date of embargo (25-08-1998) and the workman could no put 240 days of attendance either in the year 1998 or 1999 and PartyNo. 1 regularize the services[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5371 of Shri Vijay and three others as clerk grade-III with immediate effect as per letter dated 29.03.2004 followed by letter dated 12.01.2005 and from such facts, it is clear that Party No. 1 showed favoritism towards certain union and the workman was not regularized, even though, he was placed as Tripman in clerical grade-III w.e.f. 08.01.1998, much before the date of embargo i.e. 28.08.1998 and though the workman made several representations including the representations in the year 2003 and 2004 for his regularization after completion of the required attendance, his case was not considered and the Personnel Manager, Mungoli sub-area submitted the detailed particulars of attendance of the workman to Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Wani Area vide note sheet dated 08/09.01.2007 through the proper channel and the attendance of the workman in the calendar year 2001 was 241 days and in the year 2004 and 2005 was 241 days and 286 days respectively and as such, the workman is entitled for regularization w.e.f. 2001 notionally and to get financial benefit from 01.01.2002 in clerical grade-III and other consequential benefits and the workman is entitled for regularization in clerical grade-III w.e.f. 08.07.1998, in terms of certified standing order or from 08.01.1999, after expiry of one year from the date of his deployment.

240 days attendance in the calendar year 1999, as required by the condition for regularization in clerical grade-III and he had put in only 193 days of work in 1999 and as such, he was not eligible for regularization in clerical grade-III and as per the said decided norm of reuglarisation of daily/time rated employees in clerical grade, the employees, who fulfilled the conditions were regularized and this procedure of regularization continued till the year 2004 for Wani Area and the workman was not paid the wages of clerical grade- III he was not regularized in the said post and the minutes of the meeting is not contrary to the provisions of certified standing order or the Act and Rules made thereunder or the Mining Act and rules made thereunder the workmen, who were found to be eligible as per conditions decided for regularisation in clerical grade-III were regularized irrespective of their union membership and when such regularisation has already been completely banned, it is not open for the union at this belated stage to say that the minutes of the meeting is contrary to the certified standing order and other laws. It is further pleaded by Party No. 1 that they had never shown any favour to any particular union and so far regularization of Shri Vijay Anand Katarkar is concerned, the same was done as per the norms of regularization, as it was subsequently found that he was deployed as clerk in central workshop, Tadali from 01.07.1998 and subsequently, he was transferred to Wani area, where he continued to be deployed as clerk from 01.10.1998 and he had more than the minimum required attendance of 240 days in 1999 and the workman was never victimized and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, the union has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. It has further pleaded that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decision have held that 240 days of work includes the days of sick leave and authorized leave etc. and according to the Party No. 1, the practice of regularization continued till 2004 for Wani Area and as the workman put in 241 days of attendance in the year 2001, which was much prior to 2004, he is entitled for regularization.

5. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence, the union has examined two witnesses, namely, Shri Narendra Chanderya Nune and Shri Surendra Kalbal (the workman) in support of its case. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the management.

Both the witnesses examined by the union have reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder, in their evidence on affidavit.

6. Perused the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by them. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the documentary evidence, I find that there is no necessity to analyze the oral evidence adduced by the union.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the case filed on behalf of the workman is false, fabricated, frivolous and not maintainable in the eye of law and is liable to be rejected and the workman has suppressed the material facts and tried to mislead the Tribunal and he has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and on that count, the reference is to be answered in the negative. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the workman was appointed as a Badli worker on 28.01.1985 at Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery, Chandrapur Area and he was regularized as General Mazdoor-Cat-I w.e.f. 01.06.1986 and he was transferred to Wani are and posted at Mungoli Sub-Area on 07.01.1998 and the workman was being occasionally deployed as and when required basis, as Tripman and in the year 2001, vide letter dated 08.06.2001, decision regarding regularization of daily/time rated employees, who were being deployed to do clerical nature of work, in the post of clerical grade-III, mentioning the criteria fixed for assessing eligibility for regularization in the post of clerical grade-III was communicated by G.M. (IR) and the said letter was issued as per the meeting held with RKKMS union on 3rd, 6the and 7th March, 2000, for regularizing daily rated employees, who were doing the duty of clerk prior to 25.08.1998 and as per the said decision, all the eligible daily rated employees had to fulfill two conditions for regularization in clerical grade and the conditions are that the eligible workman must have been engaged in clerical job prior to 25.08.1998 and he must have put in 240 days in the preceding calendar year (i.e. 1999 as the decision was taken in the year, 2000) and the workman had not completed5372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

7. It is not disputed by Party No. 1 about issuance of the letter regarding "Promotion Avenue of daily rated workers regularized as clerk" and that on the basis of such letter, the name of the workman along with 14 others were submitted for consideration for regularisation as clerk grade-III and that out of the list of 15 employees, except the workman, the other 14 employees were regularized in different batches as clerk grade-III and besides them, some other daily rated workers deployed to do the work of clerk grade-III were also regularized upto the year 2004. The case of the Party No. 1 in not regularizing the workman is that he did not fulfill the condition of working 240 days in the preceding year, i.e. 1999.

8. On perusal of the record, it is found that the workman himself has pleaded that he worked for 193 days in the year 1999. The workman has no where pleaded that he had worked for 240 days in the year including sick leave and authorized holiday. In absence of such pleadings, the submission that the days of sick leave and authorized holiday should be taken into consideration at the time of calculating 240 working days in a year, is of no avail to the case of the workman.

9. The case of the workman is not a case of treating him as a permanent employee after working for 240 days in a year or that he was employed to work as a clerk on probationer and as such, the submissions made by the learned advocate for the union in that regards cannot be entertained.

The demand of Sanyukt Koyala Mazdoor Sangh, (SKMS) for regularization of Shri Surendra Kalwal in the post of Clerk is legal and justified. The workman is entitled for regularization in clerical grade-III notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and financial benefits from 01.01.2002 alongwith all consequential benefits.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2029.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 123/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/181/2002-आईआर (सी एम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 123/2003) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Limited, A.B. Incline Silewara, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/181/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

10. The union has tried to blow hot and cold in the same breathe. The union though has claimed the benefit for the workman basing on the letter for regularisation of daily rated workman as clerk grade-III, it has challenged the said letter stating that the same is against the certified standing order and other laws. Hence, the contention raised in that regard by the union fails.

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/123/2003 Dated 27.05.2013

Party No. 1 : The Superintendent of Mines/

Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, A.B. Incline Silewara, Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

V/s.

Party No. 2 : Shri Mukesh S. Ghodeswar,

R/o ward No. 4, Near Ranchhodas Primary School, PO. Khparkheda, Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

AWARD

11. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the workman completed 241 days of work in 2001. The Party No. 1 pleaded in the written statement that the procedure of regularization in clerk grade-III continued till 2004. It is also found that Party No. 1 had given notional fixation to different employees on different dates i.e. to four employees w.e.f. 01.01.1998 as per Ext. W-III, to four employees w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and five employees w.e.f. 01.01.2000 as per W-IV, to one employee w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and three employees w.e.f. 01.01.2000 as per Ext. W-VIII. From Ext. W-VIII, it is found that Party No. 1 had also made regularization of four employees on 12.01.2005 and not till 2004, as claimed by Party No. 1. As the workman fulfilled the condition in 2001 and the Party No. 1 implemented the instruction of regularization of clerical grade-III till 12.01.2005, it is found that the workman is entitled for regularization in clerical grade-III notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and financial benefits from 01.01.2002. hence, it is ordered:—

(Dated: 27th May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5373 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, Shri Mukesh Ghodeswar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/181/ 2002-IR (CM-II) dated 08.05.2003, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. through the Superintendent of Mines/Manager, A.B. Incline Silewara Group of Mines, P.O. Silewara, Distt. Nagpur in dismissing the workman Shri Mukesh Shivcharan Ghodeswar from Service w.e.f. 06.07.1999 is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri Mukesh Ghodeswar, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that the Party No. 1 is an industry and he is a workman and the employees of Party No. 1 are governed by the Standing Order of the Party No. 1 and so also by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and other Statutes framed for the benefits of the employees and he was appointed by the Party No. 1 as a workman in Sillewara colliery and his entire service record was clean and excellent and he was performing his duty sincerely, honestly and to the satisfaction or his superiors and there was never any complaint or show cause notice against him during his service tenure and due to working continuously in the underground, he suffered from chest pain and other diseases and due to such ailments, he was remaining under continuous medical treatment and due to his illness, whenever he was not in a position to attend duties, he used to proceed on medical leave and after becoming fit, he used to submit fitness certificate granted by the doctor and to resume duty and Party No. 1 was very much aware about his such ailments and treatment and inspite of the same, Party No. 1 developed grudge against him and started issuing charge sheet against him on the pretext of his not attending duties regularly and enjoying leave without sufficient cause and Party No. 1 issued charge sheets No. 658 and 683 against him in 1994 and in 1995 respectively, for remaining absent from duty, but later on dropped the proceedings and such action of Party No. 1 clearly shows that they had intended to remove him from services and Party No. 1 again submitted charge sheet no. 431 dated 23.8.1997 against him, on the allegation of his remaining absent without any just and proper reason and he was in habit of remaining absent without sanctioned leave and he submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 25.08.1997, with a request to withdraw the same, but the Party No. 1 appointed enquiry officer for conducting the enquiry and the enquiry officer started the enquiry, but the enquiry was postponed, as his co-worker remained absent on the date of enquiry and thereafter, he made representation to allow him to change his representative and in the mean time, he fell ill and as such, he sought for adjournment of the enquiry, but his request fell into the deaf ears of the enquiry officer and inspite of his best efforts to attend the enquiry, he could not able to attend the enquiry due to his illness and consequently, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the concerned authority, without following the principles of natural justice or giving him any opportunity to change his representative and to defend himself and as such, the enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and the final order of his dismissal from services was issued on 06.07.1999, without giving him full and proper opportunity.

It is further pleaded by the workman that Party No. 1 had sanctioned the period of his absence as sick leave and made endorsement on the certificate and when leave had been allowed by the Party No. 1, his so-called absence from duties cannot be said to be absence without just and proper reasons and as such, the very ground of charge sheeting him was false to the knowledge of the Party No. 1 and therefore, the final order passed by Party No. 1 cannot stand to reason and the same cannot be sustained.

The further case of the workman is that as he was suffering from ailment since the year 1996, the Chief Medical Officer, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Charitable Hospital had advised light duty to him and he had also applied to Party No. 1 by his letter dated 05.11.1996 for light duty, but his request did not yield any result and he was forced to work underground, due to which his health deteriorated and he was required to take medical treatment every now and then and Party No. 1 had also issued another charge sheet against him for his absence during the year 1998-99, even though, they were aware of submission of similar charge sheet in the year 1996 and the conduct of Party No. 1 clearly shows that they were not acting in good faith and even though he was made to answer the charge sheet for his absence during 1996 and 1998, the Party No. 1 while passing the final order dated 06.07.1999, considered his absence from duty for another five years, for which he was not given any opportunity to show cause and Party No. 1 thus had acted upon extraneous material, while passing the final order and the facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that the action of Party No. 1 amounts to unfair labour practice by way of victimization and in colourable exercise of the powers and with undue haste, without following the principles of natural justice and patently for false reasons.

The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 06.07.1999 and to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement, denying the allegations made in the statement of claim have pleaded inter-alia that WCL is a Central Government undertaking and is having all medical facilities at every minor and is also having super specialty facility in their hospitals for the sole benefit of the employees working with them and they have their own certified standing order and the employees working with them are governed by the same and the workman is not governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and other Statutes and the workman attended duties for 80 days, 72 days, 57 days, 43 days, 79 days and 22 days in the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and up to May 1999 respectively and the said figures clearly demonstrate the fact that the workman himself was bent upon for enjoying leave, without any just and proper reason and without obtaining the leave from them and charge sheet dated 28.03.1997 was issued against the workman on the ground of absenteeism and the workman submitted his reply to the same and having found the reply of the workman not to be sufficient, they appointed enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the workman in terms of the charge sheet and the enquiry officer commenced the enquiry proceedings and the same were adjourned on the request of the workman himself and the workman had never requested to allow him to change his representative and on the first day of the enquiry, i.e. 12.01.1998, the representative of the workman failed to attend the proceedings and therefore, the proceedings came to be adjourned to 21.02.1998 and as on 21.02.1998, even though, neither the workman nor his representative attended the enquiry, the enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry to 03.03.1998, to give a chance to the workman to take part in the enquiry and in the interest of natural justice and as on 03.03.1998 also, neither the workman nor his representative attended the enquiry, the enquiry officer was constrained to proceed exparte against the workman and second show cause notice was issued to the workman on 05.12.1998, but the workman failed to reply to the same and in order to give full and fair opportunity to the workman, they issued the second show cause notice again on 18.05.1999, calling upon him to give his reply to the same, but the workman failed to give any reply, so, the order of dismissal from services was passed on 06.07.1999 and the period of absence of the workman was never treated as sick leave and the same was never allowed.

It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that it is settled position of law that even during the pendency of an enquiry proceedings, the employer is not debarred from issuing another charge sheet against the delinquent employee, in case of committing of similar misconduct during subsequent periods and no unfair labour practice was adopted by them and the workman was not victimized in any manner.

The specific plea of the Party No. 1 is that the workman had formed the habit of remaining absent from duties without giving any kind of intimation to them and at no point of time, he had submitted any application for any kind of leave or any medical certificate to demonstrate the fact of his illness and the workman was given all kind of opportunities, before issuance of the termination order and from the conduct of the workman, it was clear that he was not interested in continuing in services and he choose to remain absent not only from duties, but also did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In his rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the

facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from services, after holding of a departmental enquiry, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and as per order dated 03.01.2013, the departmental enquiry was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

6. At the time of argument, the learned advocate for the workman reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that in the years 1994 and 1995, Party No. 1 had submitted separate charge sheets against the workman on the allegations of remaining habitually absent from duty, but dropped the said proceedings and the Party No. 1 intended to remove the workman anyhow from his services and in view of such facts, it can be safely said that the present removal of the workman from services is nothing but by way of victimization and in colourable exercise of power and due to working continuously in the underground, the workman suffered from chest pain and other diseases and he was undergoing continuous treatment and he used to proceed on medical leave and after becoming fit, he used to submit fitness certificates from the doctor and used to resume duty and inspite of such facts, Party No. 1 had developed grudge against the workman and as the enquiry officer without offering any opportunity to the workman to defend himself had submitted the enquiry report, the said report is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and the so-called absence from duty of the workman was treated as sick leave and there were endorsement on the medical certificate regarding grant of such sick leave and as such, it cannot be said that the absence of the workman from duty was without just and proper reasons and thus, the very ground of submission of the charge sheet is false and therefore, the final order dated 06.07.1999 cannot stand to reason and cannot be sustained.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the charge sheet submitted against the workman in 1994 and 1995 were dropped on humanitarian ground and to give him opportunity to improve his conduct, but inspite of the same, the workman failed to improve his attendance and remained absent without obtaining any leave and as such, the Party No.1 was constrained to submit the charge sheet on 21.08.1997[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5375 and the charges were duly proved against him in the departmental enquiry and accordingly, the service of the workman was terminated vide dismissal order dated 06.07.1999 and the workman has not filed a single document to demonstrate that he was ever suffering from any disease and he has informed about the same to Party No.1 and obtained leave and the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has already been held to be legal and proper and the order of punishment cannot be termed as harsh and there is no scope to interfere with the punishment.

In support of the contention, the learned advocate for the Party No.1 placed reliance on the decision reported in (2008) SCC-224 (L&T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udaykumar).

8. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions including the decision cited by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 regarding the jurisdiction and power of the Tribunal in regard to interference with the findings and punishment in a departmental enquiry.

It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—

"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the enquiry officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."

It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—

"The disciplinary authority and on appeal, the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

In departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well-settled principle that even though judicial review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision- making process."

So, keeping in view, the principles as mentioned above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

9. On perusal of the materials on record including the documents produced by the parties, it is found that this is not a case of no evidence against the workman. Though the workman has taken the plea that due to his illness, he5376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was remaining absent from duty after due intimation to Party No.1 and during the relevant period, he was ill and after becoming fit, he submitted fitness certificate issued by the doctor and the period of absence was treated as sick leave and there was endorsement in that regard on the medical certificate, the workman has failed to produce a single document regarding the same. The workman has failed to prove that he had intimated the Party No.1 about his remaining absent from duty, due to his illness, by filing any application or even submission of any application for sick leave or that sick leave was granted to him.

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2012- 13) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur Area, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/159/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P.CHAND. PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record of the enquiry and not on any extraneous matters. The Enquiry Officer has assigned reasons in support of his findings, after analyzing the evidence in a rational manner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are not as such, which cannot be reached by a prudent man on the materials available on record. The findings are also not against the evidence on record. Hence the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse.

Case No. CGIT/NGP/19/2012-13 Date: 27.06.2013.

Party No.1 : The Chief General Manager,

WCL Nagpur Area, Kasturba Road, Jaripatka, Nagpur.

Party No.2 : The General Secretary, Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, (CITU), C/o. WCL Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

AWARD

10. So, far the proportionality of the punishment imposed against the workman is concerned, commission of gross misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the workman is therefore cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate, calling for any interference. Hence, it is ordered:

(Dated: 27th June, 2013)

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. through the Superintendent of Mines/Manager, A.B. Incline Silewara Group of Mines, P.O. Silewara, Distt. Nagpur in dismissing the workman Shri Mukesh Shivcharan Ghodeswar from Service w.e.f. 06.07.1999 is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2030.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2012- 13½ को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/159/2012-आईआर (सी एम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, Shri Vijay Kashinath, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/1/2012- IR (CM-II) dated 16.11.2012, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL, Nagpur through its General Manager in not providing Pay Protection of Category-IV to Shri Vijay Kashinath while providing lighter job on surface due to his accident on 24.09.2004 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Vijay Kashinath ('the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim, claiming that he is entitled for pay protection after he was provided light job on surface.

3. When the reference was fixed for filing of written statement by the Party No.1, a joint pursis of compromise[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5377 was filed by the parties on 17.06.2013 with a prayer to dispose of the reference in terms of the compromise.

4. In the pursis, it is mentioned that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated 15.11.2011 in writ petition no. 4700/2010 (Dhammadip Mankar Vs. Union of India and others) and in view of the circular dated 11.05.2013 circulated by Party No.1 in terms of the above said judgment, the parties entered in anamicable settlement with the terms that the pay of the workman shall be protected and the amount of difference of wages shall be paid to him within a period of six months from the date of order by the Tribunal.

As the parties have settled the Industrial dispute by amicable settlement, the pursis is allowed. Accordingly, the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman in terms of the settlement as mentioned in the compromise pursis. Hence, it is ordered:—

4. Hence the parties have entered into a amicable

settlement on the following terms :

(a) That the pay of the Party No. 2 shall be

protected.

(b) That the amount of difference of wages of Party No. 2 shall be paid by the Party No. 1 to the Party No. 2 within a period of six months from the date of order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

(c) That the Party No. 2 shall not be entitled for interest on the said amount of difference of wages from the Party No. 1 and shall also not claim the same at any time in future.

(d) That the Party No. 2 shall not be entitled for any costs arising out of this litigation and shall also not claim the same at any time in future.

ORDER

The reference is answered in favour of the workman in terms of the settlement mentioned in the compromise pursis. The compromise pursis is made part of the award.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer (e) That the right of the Party No.1 to send back the Party No. 2 on his original post in case the Party No. 2 is medically found to be fit. Subsequently for the said post shall not be affected.

5. That the present reference as such may be disposed off in terms of the aforesaid compromise/settlement as agreed upon by and between the parties.

ANNEXURE

Party No. 2 Nagpur Dt.17.6.2013 Sd/- S/d-

C.F. Party No. 1 Vijay Kasinath BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/19/2012 F.F. 17.6.2013

Party No.1 : The Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd. Nagpur Area, Nagpur

VERSUS

Party No. 2 : Vijay Kashinath

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

COMPROMISE PURSIS

The parties to the reference most respectfully begs

to submit as under:

1. That the Party No. 2 workman has filed the present reference claiming pay protection since the date he has been posted in alternate job after meeting with an accident.

2. That the Party No. 2 has approached the Party No. 1 to settle their claim of pay protection in terms of Judgement Dt. 15.11.2011 of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.4700/2010 (Dhammadip Mankar Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

3. That the Party No.1 has taken out a Circular Dt.11.5.2013 No.WCL/ IR/ SE/2013/C-160/988 in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

dkñvkñ 2031.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2012- 13½ को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/160/2012-आईआर (सी एम- II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 20/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur Area, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/160/2012-IR(CM-II)] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer5378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/20/2012-13 Date: 27.06.2013 As the parties have settled the Industrial dispute by amicable settlement, the pursis is allowed. Accordingly, the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman in terms of the settlement as mentioned in the compromise pursis. Hence, it is ordered :—

ORDER

Party No.1       The Chief General Manager,
                 WCL Nagpur Area, Kasturba Road,
                                                                  The reference is answered in favour of the workman
                 Jaripatka, Nagpur.                         in terms of the settlement mentioned in the compromise
Party No.2       The General Secretary,                     pursis. The compromise pursis is made part of the award.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, (CITU), C/o. WCL Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

AWARD

BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

(Dated: 27th June, 2013)

Ref.No.CGIT/NGP/20/2012F.F. 17.6.2013

Party No. 1 The Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd. Nagpur Area, Nagpur

VERSUS

Party No. 2 Sankata Prasad Hira Prasad

COMPROMISE PURSIS

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, Shri Sankata Prasad Hira Prasad, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/160/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 12.11.2012, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL, Nagpur through its General Manager in not providing Pay Protection of Category-IV to Shri Sankata Prasad Hira Prasad while providing lighter job on surface due to his bilateral Profound hearing loss (on hearing aids) is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Sankata Prasad Hira Prasad ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim, claiming that he is entitled for pay protection after he was provided light job on surface.

3. When the reference was fixed for filing of written statement by the Party No.1, a joint pursis of compromise was filed by the parties on 17.06.2013 with a prayer to dispose of the reference in terms of the compromise.

4. In the pursis, it is mentioned that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated 15.11.2011 in writ petition no. 4700/2010 (Dhammadip Mankar Vs. Union of India and others) and in view of the circular dated 11.05.2013 circulated by Party No.1 in terms of the above said judgment, the parties entered an amicable settlement with the terms that the pay of the workman shall be protected and the amount of difference of wages shall be paid to him within a period of six months from the date of order by the Tribunal.

The parties to the reference most respectfully begs

to submit as under :

1. That the Party No.2 workman has filed the present reference claiming pay protection since the date he has been posted in alternate job after meeting with an accident.

2. That the Party No.2 has approached the Party No.1 to settle their claim of pay protection in terms of Judgement Dt.15.11.2011 of Hon'ble high Court in Writ Petition No.4700/2010 (Dhammadip Mankar Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

3. That the Party No.1 has taken out a Circular Dt.11.5.2013 No.WCL/IR/SE/2013/C-160/988 in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

4. Hence the parties have entered into a amicable

settlement on the following terms :

(a) That the pay of the Party No.2 shall be protected.

(b) That the amount of difference of wages of Party No.2 shall be paid by the Party No.1 to the Party No.2 within a period of six months from the date of order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

(c) That the Party No.2 shall not be entitled for interest on the said amount of difference of wages from the Party No.1 and shall also not claim the same at any time in future.

(d) That the Party No.2 shall not be entitled for any costs arising out of this litigation and shall also not claim the same at any time in future.

(e) That the right of the Party No.1 to send back the Party No.2 on his original post in case the Party No.2 is medically found to be fit. Subsequently

for the said post shall not be affected,

5. That the present reference as such may be disposed off in terms of the aforesaid compromise/settlement as agreed upon by and between the parties.

Nagpur संकठा प्रसाद Party No. 2 Dt.17.6.2013

S/d- S/d-

C.F. Party No. 1 C.F. Party No. 2

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2032.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 21/2012-13) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/161/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)] बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2032.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2012-

13) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Ltd., Nagpur Area, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/161/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

AWARD (Dated: 27th June, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workmen, Shri Kasim Ali Wald Chand Miya, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/161/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 16.11.2012, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL, Nagpur through its General Manager in not providing Pay Protection of Category-IV to Shri Kasim Ali Wald Chand Miya while providing lighter job on surface due to total knee replacement on the left side already where heavy load bearing in contraindicated is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Kasim Ali Wald Chand Miya, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim, claiming that he is entitled for pay protection after he was provided light job on surface.

3. When the reference was fixed for filing of written statement by the Party No.1, a joint pursis of compromise was filed by the parties on 17.06.2013 with a prayer to dispose of the reference in terms of the compromise.

ANNEXURE

4. In the pursis it is mentioned that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated 15.11.2011 in writ petition no. 4700/2010 (Dhammadip Mankar Vs. Union of India and others) and in view of the circular dated 11.05.2013 circulated by Party No.1 in terms of the above said judgment, the parties entered in an amicable settlement with the terms that the pay of the workman shall be protected and the amount of difference of wages shall be paid to him within a period of six months from the date of order by the Tribunal.

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/21/2012-13 Date: 27.06.2013

Party No.1 The Chief General Manager,

WCL Nagpur Area, Kasturba Road, As the parties have settled the Industrial dispute by amicable settlement, the pursis is allowed. Accordingly, the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman in terms of the settlement as mentioned in the compromise pursis. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

Jaripatka, Nagpur.

Party No. 2 The General Secretary,

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union,

(CITU), C/o. WCL Coal Estate,

Civil Lines, Nagpur.

The reference is answered in favour of the workman in terms of the settlement mentioned in the compromise pursis. The compromise pursis is made part of the award.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer5380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

Nagpur Dt.17.6.2013

BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

Ref.No.CGIT/ NGP/ 21/ 2012 F.F. 17.6.2013

PARTY No. 1 The Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur Area, Nagpur

S/d- S/d- C.F. Party No. 2 C.F. Party No. 1 (Kasim Ali Wald Chand Miya) Party No. 2

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

VERSUS

PARTY No. 2 Kasim Ali Wald Chand Miya

COMPROMISE PURSIS

The parties to the reference most respectfully begs

to submit as under :

1. That the Party No.2 workman has filed the present reference claiming pay protection since the date he has been posted in alternate job after meeting with an accident.

2. That the Party No.2 has approached the Party No.1 to settle their claim of pay protection in terms of Judgement Dt.15.11.2011 of Hon'ble high Court in Writ Petition No.4700/2010 (Dhammadip Mankar Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

3. That the Party No.1 has taken out a Circular Dt.11.5.2013•No.WCL/IR/SE/2013/C-160/988 in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

4. Hence the parties have entered into a amicable dkñvkñ 2033.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 26/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/97/2003-आईआर (सीएम-II)] बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2033.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2006) of the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project (Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/97/2003-IR(CM-II)] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

settlement on the following terms:

(a) That the pay of the Party No.2 shall be protected.

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COUR, NAGPUR

(b) That the amount of difference of wages of Party No.2 shall be paid by the Party No.1 to the Party No.2 within a period of six months from the date of order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

(c) That the Party No.2 shall not be entitled for interest on the said amount of difference of wages from the Party No.1 and shall also not claim the same at any time in future.

(d) That the Party No.2 shall not be entitled for any costs arising out of this litigation and shall also not claim the same at any time in future.

Case No.CGIT/NGP/26/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No.1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCLMurpar Project (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)

Versus

(e) That the right of the Party No.1 to send back the Party No.2 on his original post in case the Party No.2 is medically found to be fit. Subsequently for the said post shall not be affected.

5. That the present reference as such may be disposed off in terms of the aforesaid compromise/settlement as agreed upon by and between the parties.

Party No.2 Shri Ramkishan

S/o Sh. Sakharam Tekam, R/o.Murpar, Post: Khadsanghi, Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur Maharashtra.

AWARD

(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workmen Shri Ramkishan Sakharam Tekam, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/ 97/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Ramkishan S/o Sakharam Tekam is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Ramkishan Sakharam Tekam, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No.1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No.1(a) also engaged Party No.1 (b), M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party No.1 (b) is working with Party No.1(a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General Mazdoor on 07.06.1992 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No.1 (b) w.e.f. 01.05.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No.1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No.1 (a) and party No.1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No.1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by Parties No.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with parties no.1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. I was the principal employer and Party No.1(b) was the contractor of Party No.1 (a), for each and every act of the Party No.1 (b), the Party No.1(a) was responsible and as such, the Party No.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice, Party No.1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No.1 (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No.1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it [Party No.1(a)] was related to Party No.1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1 (a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers5382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract and the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No.1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [2006 (2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The further case of Party No.1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to Party No.1 (b), as they were of having different legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murpar colliery by Party No.1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 07.06.1992 to 02.07.1996 as a General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party No.1 (b), another contractor from 01.05.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No.1 (a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No.1 (a) had sent him for vocational training and he had under gone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No.1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No.1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No.1(a) and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No.1(a) was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No.1 (b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that:—

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5383 workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25-B and the unamended Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B (1) and (2)- Continuous service-Scope of sub-sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-Continuous Service).

to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

ORDER

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "continuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) S.25-F, 10- Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal-Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim denied by management- Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2034.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 27/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/98/2003-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2034.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.27/2006 of the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,5384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/98/2003-IR (CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/27/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No.1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur(MS)

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Manohar S/o Sh. Gopala Dehade, R/o. Minzhari, Post: Khadsangi, Teh.- Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur Maharahtra.

AWARD (Dated: 3rd May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Manohar Gopala Dehade, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/ 98/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Manohar S/o Gopala Dehade is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Manohar Gopala Dehade, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No.1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No.1(a) also engaged Party No.1 (b), M/ s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party No.1 (b) is working with Party No.1(a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a Pump Khalasi/Loader on 17.08.1993 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No.1 (b) w.e.f. 05.01.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No.1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/ employee of Party No.1 (a) and Party No.1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No.1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties no.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with parties no.1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not fulfil the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No.1 was the principal employer and Party No.1(b) was the contractor of Party No.1 (a), for each and every act of the Party No.1 (b), the Party No.1(a) was responsible and as such, the Party No.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No.1(a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice, Party No.1(b) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.

for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No.1 (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No.1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it [Party No.1(a)] was related to Party No.1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1(a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract and the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No.1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [2006 (2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The further case of Party No.1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to Party No.1(b), as they were of having different legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of sections 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murpar colliery by Party No.1(a) and BGML engaged him from 17.08.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a Pump Khalasi/Loader and that he was again engaged by Party No.1(b), another contractor from 05.01.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No.1(a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No.1(a) had sent him for vocational training and he had under gone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No.1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No.1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the5386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No.1(a) and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No.1(a) was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No.1(b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that:—

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25-B and the unamended Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B."

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "continuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947)- S.25-F, 10- Retrenchment compensation—Termination of services without payment of—Dispute referred to Tribunal-Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination—Claim denied by management—Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year—In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

ORDER

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B (1) and (2)—Continuous service-Scope of sub-sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-Continuous Service).

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5387 नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2035.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 28/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/99/2003-आई आर (सी एम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/99/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer adjudication, as per letter No. L-22019/99/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Mahadeo S/o Vikru Shivarkar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Mahadeo Vikru Shivarkar, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/28/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No. 1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) : M/s Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Mahadeo S/o Vikru Shivarkar,

R/o Minzhari, Post: Khadsangi, Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur Maharashtra .

AWARD

(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Mahadeo Vikru Shivarkar, for The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1(a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No. 1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing underground roap up to the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1(b), M/s Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1947 and till Party No. 1(b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as a General Mazdoor on 18.08.1993 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No. 1(b) w.e.f. 20.01.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No. 1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/ employee of Party No. 1(a) and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No. 1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties no. 1(a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with parties no.1(a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further5388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the parties no. 1(a) 1(b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. 1 was the principal employer and party 1(b) was the contractor of Party No. 1(a), for each and every act of the Party No. 1(b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and as such, the Party No. 1(a) is responsible for illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in services with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice, Party No. 1(b) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like and stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.5.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it [party no1(a)] was related to Party No. 1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employee as per their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1(a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it was no way invovled in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006 (2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman is not entitled for regulariziation or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexux between the contract given to B.H.M.L. and the contract given to party Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in suport of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the undeground of Murpar colliery by Party No. 1(a) and BGML engaged him from 18.08.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party No. 1(b), another contractor from 20.01.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for vocational training and he had undergone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No. 1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or a[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5389 connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and workman does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry if created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the term "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinon not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually, destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that:—

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrrupted service is necessary if the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has not removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd)., the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

"Industrial Disptues Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B (1) and (2) - Continuous service-Scope of sub- sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases- Continuous Service).

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "continuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 203 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947-S.25-F, 10— Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services without payment of —Dispute referred to Tribunal- Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination-Claim denied by management—Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year—In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.''

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is5390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

Case No.CGIT/NGP/29/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No. 1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)

Versus

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

Party No.2 : Shri Vijay S/o Sh. Tulshiram Athargade,

R/o, Murpar, Post: Khadsanghi,

Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur

Maharashtra.

AWARD

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2036.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 29/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/100/2003-आई आर (सी एम-II)]

बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/100/2003-IR(CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Vijay Tulshiram Athargade, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/100/ 2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Vijay S/o Tulshiram Athargade is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Vijay Tulshiram Athargade, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party no. 1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L." is short) for the purpose of preparing underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5391 mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1(b), M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party No. 1(b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as a General Mazdoor on 17.05.1992 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No. 1 (b) w.e.f. 05.01.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No. 1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No. 1(a) and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No. 1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties no.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with parties no. 1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC(C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1 (b) was the contractor of Party No. 1 (a), for each and every act of the Party No. 1 (b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and as such, the Party No. 1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice, Party No. 1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open 1 2

excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3 3-— months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No. 1 (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it Party No. 1(a) was related to Party No. 1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1(a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract and the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [2006 (2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce5392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murpar colliery by Party No. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 17.05.1992 to 02.07.1996 as a General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party No. 1(b), another contractor from 05.01.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for vocational training and he had undergone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No. 1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that:—

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the Principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25B and the unamended Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this serivce must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25- B(1) and (2)-Continuous serivce-Scope of sub- sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5393 Continuous Service).

applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

ORDER

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from serivce. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "Ccontinuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B(2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) S-25-F, 10- Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services without payment of-Dispute referred to Tribunal- Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination-Claim denied by management-Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2037.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 31/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/102/2003-आईआर (सीएम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2037.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.09.2013.

[No. L-22012/102/2003-IR (CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

Case No. CGIT/NGP/31/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No. 1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)

Versus

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not Party No. 2 : Shri Pundlik S/o Shri Manik Kosare,5394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsanghi, Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur Maharashtra.

AWARD

(Dated : 3rd May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Pundlik Manik Kosare, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/ 102/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Pundlik S/o Manik Kosare is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Pundlik Manik Kosare, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Areas Manager, Murpar Project and Party No. 1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1(b), M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party No. 1(b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as a Loader on 11.07.1993 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No. 1(b) w.e.f. 05.1.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No. 1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No. 1(a) and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No. 1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties No. 1(a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with parties No. 1(a) and (b) they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with parties No. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the parties No. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC(C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December, 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1(b) was the contractor of Party No. 1(a), for each and every act of the Party No. 1(b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and as such, the Party No. 1(a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice, Party No. 1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it has entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sendimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar Project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it (Party No. 1(a)) was related to Party No. 1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1(a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5395 whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract and the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006 (2) Scale 115) and many others, the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murpar Colliery by Party No. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 11.07.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a Loader and that he was again engaged by Party No. 1 (b), another contractor from 05.01.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1 (a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No. 1 (a) had sent him for vocational training and he had under gone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No. 1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an estblishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No. 1(a), and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No. 1(a), was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was laso the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their5396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workmen) have held that:—

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by subsituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B (1) and (2) — Continuous Service-Scope of sub- sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases- Continuous Service).

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S.25-F, 10 — Retrenchment compensation —Termination of services without payment of — Dispute referred to Tribunal — Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim denied by management- Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-in absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termiantion."

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

ORDER

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "continuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2038.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एफ सी आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 268/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5397 हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/180/2003-आईआर (सीएम-II] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2038.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 268/2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/180/2003-IR (CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Ravindra Ramesharan Yadav, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/268/2003 Date: 02.04.2013.

Party No. 1(a) : The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Ajani, Nagpur, Nagpur - 440015.

Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020.

Party No. 2 : The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.) The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 02.09.1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

AWARD

(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, Shri Ravindra Ramesharan Yadav, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/180/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the services of Shri Ravindra Ramesharan Yadav, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?

The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years, but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually, he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract5398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 02.09.1993 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of the workman.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as Torch, Lathi, Whistle and Uniform, etc to the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled. to any relief.

4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence.

The workman in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5399 statement of claim. This witness has also proved some documents to show that duties were allotted to him and other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance was being taken by Party No. 1.

5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling application and they had not applied to the FCI for service and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were appointed through contractor by the management and they were brought by Singh Security Services and they were handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he does not know the name of the contractor through whom they were appointed and he has not filed any document to show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.

6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the workman was appointed on 02.09.1993. He has also admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross- examination that contract for supply of security guards was given to Singh Security Services for two years and subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and the contract for supply of security guards was also given to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from 01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/S Chaitanya Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January 1992 to May, 1992, to M/S Security services Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/S Industrial Security and Fire Services from16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked continuously in FCI from 02.09.1993 till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was given to M/S Industrial security and Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing necessary directions to the petitioner and other security guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the union representative for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 02.09.1993 at Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously without any interruption till 14th March,1999 and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.

It was further submitted by the union representative for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and he was never a contract labour and such action of the Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman.

It was further submitted by the union representative that on 03 05.2007, an application was filed by the workman for production of nine documents relating to him, from which, it could have been held without any doubt that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.

In support of such contentions, reliance was placed by the union representative on the decisions reported in 2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).

It was also submitted by the union representative that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators and not contractors and even though there was legal ban on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged the workman and some others as security guards and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the5400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and servant relationsthip between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the so called contract given to the contractor expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without any contractor, the workman continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who terminated the services of the workman without compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25- F of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).

It was also submitted by the union representative for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement, the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Honble High Court operates as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State" as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and as such, there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303- 6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/ 2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).

9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhnim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd.' and others Vs. National Union water front workers and others[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5401 (reported in 2001 (7) SCC1), the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

XX XX XX

In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1.

10. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.

In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food Corporation of India as a security guard through a contractor.

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross-examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor, it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.

11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others).

In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

2. With the industrial growth, the relation between the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn. At one time the establishment being the employer all persons working therein was the employees of such employer. But slowly the employer including Central and State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who has no direct relationship with the establishment in which they were employed. Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged by them in various manners including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith.

3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as contract labour in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section5402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized contract labour and they have never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards the payment of wages by the principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives that all appropriate Government may after consultation with the central board or the state board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour in such process, operation or the work into consideration.

5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is discernible that after having work for some years, they make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal employer and be treated as employees of the principal employer especially when the principal employer is the Central Government or the State Government or an authority which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become the employees of the principal employer. This court in the case of Gammon India limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object and scope of the act as follows:—

"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of contract labour and also to introduce better condition of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and practicable and where it cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working conditions of the contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of work and contemplates progressive abolition to the extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act." 10, of the appropriate Government may after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an establishments, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken into consideration is whether the work performed by the contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a license issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment, is not provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor "either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be responsible for the payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it requires every principal employer to nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the contact labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which punishment can be imposed.

In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs. Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5403 not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them."

12. In the decision reported in 1985-11 LLOJ-4 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

abolished the contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question and to decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the Government after considering the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its employment saying that, the contract labourers have not been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other works in any establishment by the appropriate Government, under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the central Government or by any appropriate Government provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer.

6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and on whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need "Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor, the labour force employed by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do........................". 'The expression' employed has at least two known connotations, but as used in the definition, the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience. The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be, in other words, an employment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a "workman" within the definition of the term as contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union."

13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 36565404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator• will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/-12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/-9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/-17- 4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/- 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under."

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered.

14. So far the contention raised by the union representative regarding drawing of adverse inference against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform different duties as a security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5405 him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non- production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application of this case.

15. So far the contention raised by the union representative regarding the non-registration of the Party No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-examination that contract for supply of security guards was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the contractors with Party No. 1.

months to the workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions, on which reliance is placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application to the present case in hand.

17. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976, then the persons responsible for such violation are liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.

16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2039.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एफ सी आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्ि ाकरण/श्रम न्यायालयए नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 269/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/181/2003-आई आर (सी एम-II)] बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 20135406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] S.O. 2039.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 269/20030 of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/181/2003-IR(CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/269/2003 Date 02.04.2013.

Party No. 1 (a) : The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Ajani, Nagpur, Nagpur-440015.

Party No. 1 (b) :The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

Party No. 2 : The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.) The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 06.01.1991 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's notice nor one months' wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

AWARD

(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, Shri Raju Tukaram Badage, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/181/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule :—

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the services of Shri Raju Tukaram Badage, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Raju Tukaram Badage, ('the workman' in short), filed the statement of claim and the management of Food The further case of the workman is that in 1991, he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years, but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually, he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5407 the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by he contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 06.01.1991 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/ 99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of the workman.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminated any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the, workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence.

The workman in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. This witness has also proved some documents to show that duties were allotted to him and other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance was being taken by Party No. 1.

5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that FCI had not isued any advertisement calling application and they had not applied to the FCI for service and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were5408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] appointed through contractor by the management and they were brought by Singh Security Services and they were handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he does not know the name of the contractor through whom they were appointed and he has not filed any document to show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.

6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the workman was appointed on 06.01.1991. He has also admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross- examination that contract for supply of security guards was given to Singh Security Services for two years and subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and the contract for supply of security guards was also given to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from 01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January 1992 to May, 1992, to M/s. Security Services Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s. Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked continuously in FCI from 06.01.1991 till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was given to M/s. Industrial security and Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing necessary directions to the petitioner and other security guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the union representative for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 06.01.1991 at Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and after termination of the services of workman, fresh hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.

It was further submitted by the union representative for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and he was never a contract labour and such action of the Party No. 1 was sham and only a comouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman.

It was further submitted by the union representative that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman for production of nine documents relating to him, from which, it could have been held without any doubt that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the Part No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.

In support of such contentions, reliance was placed by the union representative on the decisions reported in 2005-I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).

It was also submitted by the union representative that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators and not contractors and even though there was legal ban on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged the workman and some others as security guards and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the so called contract given to the contractor expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without any contractor, the workman continued the work[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5409 with Party No. . 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who terminated the services of the workman without compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25- F of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011(128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).

It was also submitted by the union representative for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatment in service with continuity and full back wages.

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement, the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs soughts in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State" as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and as such, there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).

9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union water front workers and others [reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

** ** **5410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1.

10. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper. The case of the workman is that after every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.

In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food Corporation of India as a security guard through a contractor.

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross-examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor, it is clear that the workman engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.

11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others).

In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

2. With the industrial growth, the relation between the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn. At one time the establishment being the employer all persons working therein was the employees of such employer. But slowly the employer including Central and State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who has no direct relationship with the establishment in which they were employed. Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged by them in various manners including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith.

3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as contract labour in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been defined to mean, (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section 10 of the appropriate Government may after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an establishments, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5411 benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken into consideration is whether the work performed by the contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a license issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment, is not provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor "either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be responsible for the payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it requires every principal employer to nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the contact labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention of the provisions aforesaid has, been made penal for which punishment can be imposed.

4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized contract labour and they have never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards the payment of wages by the principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives that all appropriate government may after consultation with the central board or the state board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour in such process, operation or the work into consideration.

5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is discernible that after having work for some years, they make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal employer and be treated as employees of the principal employer especially when the principal employer is the central government or the state government or an authority which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become the employees of the principal employer. This court in the case of Gammon India limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object and scope of the act as follows:—

"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of contract labour and also to introduce better condition of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and practicable and where it cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working conditions of the contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of work and contemplates progressive abolition to the extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."

In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question and to decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the government after considering the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the5412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them."

12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its employment saying that, the contract labourers have not been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other works in any establishment by the appropriate government, under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the central government or by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer.

"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor, the labour force employed by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do........." 'The expression' employed has at least two known connotations, but as used in the definition, the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience. The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be, in other words, an employment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a "workman" within the definition of the term as contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union."

13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been Insisting that the contractor or the new contractor•retains the old employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and on whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need not to be Pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5413 D/ -9-5-1997(Ca1): W.A. Nos. 345- 354 of 1997m D/ - 17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ - 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ - 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as a such clearly impermissible.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under."

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.

14. So far the contention raised by the union representative regarding drawing of adverse inference against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform different duties as a security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to him was made by the contractors. Hence-, for non- production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996,5414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of this case.

15. So far the contention raised by the union representative regarding the non-registration of the Party No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross- examination that contract for supply of security guards was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the contractors with Party No. 1.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts and the circumstances of the cases referred in the dicisions on which reliance is placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application to the present case in hand.

17. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976, then the persons responsible for such violation are liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2040.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एफ सी आई के प्र्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 270/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/182/2003-आई आर (सीएम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2040.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby published the Award Ref. 270/2003 of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR as shown in the annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/182/2003-IR (CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/270/2003 Date: 02.04.2013.

Party No. 1(a) : The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Ajani, Nagpur, Nagpur-440015.

Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgatye, Mumbai-400020.

Party No. 2 : The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.) month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

AWARD

(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, Shri Washudeo Namdeo Sarkate, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/182/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the services of Shri Washudeo Namdeo Sarkate, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Washudeo Namdeo Sarkate, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 06.01.1991 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one The further case of the workman is that in 1991, he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years, but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually, he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch , lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of5416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 06.01.1991 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home Guards and Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/ 99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of the workman.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor and made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle ad uniform etc to the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence.

The workman in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. This witness has also proved some documents to show that duties were allotted to him and other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance was being taken by Party No. 1.

5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling application and they had not applied to the FCI for service and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were appointed through contractor by the management and they were brought by Singh Security Services and they were handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he does not know the name of the contractor through whom they were appointed and he has not filed any document to show that he worked for 240 days every year.

6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the workman was appointed on 06.01.1991. He has also admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross- examination that contract for supply for security guards was given to Singh Security Services for two years and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5417 subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and the contract for supply of security guards was also given to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd, from 01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/S Chitanya Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January 1992 to May, 1992 to M/S Security service Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/S Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked continuously in FCI from 06.01.1991 till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was given to M/S Industrial security and Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerend officers of F.C.I. were issuing necessary directions to the petitioner and other security guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the union representative for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 06.01.1991 at Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman, as requried under section 25-F of the Act and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.

It was further submitted by the union representative for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and he was never a contract labour and such action of the Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish the cotnract labour system and to give employment to the workman.

It was further submitted by the union representative that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman for production of none documents relating to him, from which, it could have been held without any doubt that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.

In support of such contentions, reliance was placed by the union representative on the decisions reported in 2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial Tribunal West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).

It was also submitted by the union representative that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators and not contractors and even though there was legal ban on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged the workman and some others as security guards and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the so called contract given to the contractor expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without any contractor, the workman continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it though Party No. 1 unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without any contractor, the workman continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who terminated the services of the workman without compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).

It was also submitted by the union representative for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement, the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State" as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and as such, there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25- H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303- 6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/ 2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).

9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman along-with 78 others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibliim' had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others [reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

XX XX XX XX

In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1.

10. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5419 contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.

In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food Corporation of India as a security guard through a contractor.

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross-examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor, it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.

11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-11 LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others).

In the decision reported in 1994-11 CLR-402 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as contract labour in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the appropriate Government may after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an establishments, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken into consideration is whether the work performed by the contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a license issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment, is not provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor "either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall 2. With the industrial growth, the relation between the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn. At one time the establishment being the employer all persons working therein was the employees of such employer. But slowly the employer including Central and State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who has no direct relationship with the establishment in which they were employed. Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged by them in various manners including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith.

be responsible for the payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it requires every principal employer to nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the contact labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which punishment can be imposed.

4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized contract labour and they have never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards the payment of wages by the principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives that all appropriate government may after consultation with the central board or the state board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour in such process, operation or the work into consideration.

5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is discernible that after having work for some years, they make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal employer and be treated as employees of the principal employer especially when the principal employer is the central government or the state government or an authority which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become the employees of the principal employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object and scope of the act as follows:—

"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of contract labour and also to introduce better condition of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and practicable and where it cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working conditions of the contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of work and contemplates progressive abolition to the extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."

In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question and to decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the government after considering the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its employment saying that, the contract labourers have not been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other works in any establishment by the appropriate government, under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the central government or by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer.

6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5421 labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and on whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them."

12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had noting to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor, the labour force employed by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do.........". 'The expression' employed has at least two known connotations, but as used in the definition, the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience. The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be, in other words, an employment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a "workman" within the definition of the term as contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union."

13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called5422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/ -12.08.1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/- 9.5.1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m, D/- 17.4.1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2.8.2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/-23.12.1999 (Bom.), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virture of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract Labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contempalate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under."

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered.

14. So far the contention raised by the Union representative regarding drawing of adverse inference against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform different duties as a security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non- production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application of this case.

15. So far the contention raised by the union representative regarding the non-registration of the Party No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross- examination that contract for supply of security guards was given by party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the contractors with Party No. 1.

Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976, then the persons responsible for such violation are liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.

16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW dated 28.05.92, Government of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5423 Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 271/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.09.2013.

[No. L-22012/183/2003-IR(CM-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, NAGPUR

legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time. Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions on which reliance is placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application to the present case in hand.

17. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

Case No. CGIT/NGP/271/2003 Dated: 02.04.2013

Part No. 1(a) : The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Ajani, Nagpur, Nagpur-440015.

Part No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchagatye, Mumbai-400020.

Part No. 2 : The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar, Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:—

(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)

ORDER

The Reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2041.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एफसीआई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 271/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02.09.2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/183/2003-आईआर (सीएम-II) बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2041.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, Shri Gautam Ramdas Meshram, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/183/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the services of Shri Gautam Ramdas Meshram, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Gautam Ramdas Meshram ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Part No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of5424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] guards in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years, but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually, he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him, and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleded the contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 01.08.1993 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman has to right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of the workman.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5425 01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendence of the the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence.

The workman in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. This witness has also proved some documents to show that duties were allotted to him and other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance was being taken by Party No. l.

5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling application and they had not applied to the FCI for service and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were appointed through contractor by the management and they were brought by Singh Security Services and they were handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he does not know the name of the contractor through whom they were appointed and he has not filed any document to show that he worked for 240 days every year.

6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party No.l. This witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the workman was appointed on 0l.08.1993. He has also admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-examination that contract for supply of security guards was given to Singh Security Services for two years and subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and the contract for supply of security guards was also given to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from 01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s Chaitanya Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January 1992 to May, 1992, to M/s Security Services Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked continuously in FCI from 01.08.1993 till14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was given to M/s Industrial security and Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing necessary directions to the petitioner and other security guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the union representative for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the workman, neither one months notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duitres of security guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.

It was further submitted by the union representative for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and he was never a contract labour such action of the Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman.

It was further submitted by the union representative that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman for production of nine documents relating to him from which, it could have been held without any doubt that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed to5426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] produce the documents and as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.

In support of such contentions, reliance was placed by the union representative on the decisions reported in 2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).

It was also submitted by the union representative that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators and not contractors and even though there was legal ban on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged the workman and some others as security guards and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the so called contract given to the contractor expired on 31.02.1998 and thought Party No. 1 unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without any contractor, the workman continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it though Party No. 1 unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without any contractor, the workman continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who terminated the services of the workman without compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In support of the submission, the union representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).

It was also submitted by the union representative for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement, the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the party no 1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some other had approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State" as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and as such, there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5427 Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).

9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78 others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union water front workers and others (reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1), the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

XX XX XX XX

In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate quthority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1.

10. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the Party No.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every two years, the Party No.1 on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 •to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and Party No.1 implemented such• direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.

In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food Corporation of India as a security guard through a contractor.

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross-examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor, it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.

11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994- II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is •placed by the union representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others).

In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

2. With the industrial growth, the relation between the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn. At one time the establishment being the employer all persons working therein was the employees of such employer. But slowly the employer including Central and State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who has no direct relationship with the establishment in which they were employed. Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged by them in various manners including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,5428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith.

providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor "either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be responsible for the payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it requires every principal employer to nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the contact labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which punishment can be imposed.

4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized contract labour and they have never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there should not be any exploitation of the •contract labourers by the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards the payment of wages by the principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives that all appropriate government may after consultation with the central board or the state board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour in such process, operation or the work into consideration.

5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is discernible that after having work for some years, they make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal employer and be treated as employees of the principal employer especially when the principal employer is the central government or the state government or an authority which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become the employees of the principal 3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as contract labour in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the appropriate Government may after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an establishments, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken into consideration is whether the work performed by the contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a license issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment, is not provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred by the principal employer in[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5429 employer. This court in the case of Gammon India limited Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object and scope of the act as follows:—

"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of contract labour and also to introduce better condition of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and practicable and where it cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working conditions of the contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of work and contemplates progressive abolition to the extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."

have been insisting that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and on whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point, of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them."

12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs. Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question and to decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the government after considering the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its employment saying that, the contract labourers have not been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other works in any establishment by the appropriate government, under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the central government or by any appropriate Government provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer.

6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts

"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor, the labour force employed by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do..........." The expression employed has at least two known connotations, but as used in the definition, the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience. The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that5430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] industry and that there should be, in other words, an employment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a "workman" within the definition of the term as contained in the Act.

Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union."

13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before by and contract in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employers who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular worken he shall given preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable and if necessary by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifiacation other than technical qualifications.

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/-12-8-1999 (Cal): No. 6545 (W) if 1996, D/ -9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A.Nos. 345-354 of 1997 m D/-17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2.8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/-23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It it a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could be correct of contract labour. When the provision of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made their under."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5431 So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered.

14. So far the contention raised by the union representative regarding drawing of adverse inference against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform different duties as a security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non- production of the documents by Party No. 1 there is no need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the dicisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been placed by the Union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application of this case.

15. So far the contention raised by the union representative regarding the non-registration of the Party No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-examination that contract for supply of security guards was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the contractors with Party No. 1.

also found from the materials on record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workiman has not been able to produce any document to show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be held that threre was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, which are quite differenct from the facts and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions, on which reliance is placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application to the present case in hand.

17. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. so the contractor, who had engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above and applying the principles enuniciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the Contract labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976, then the persons responsible for such violation are liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.

16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the prohibiton of employment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2042.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एफ सी आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 299/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/242/2003-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी5432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2042.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 299/ 2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Indusutrial Dispute between the Management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/242/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/299/2003 Date: 02.04.2013.

Party No.1(a) : The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Ajani, Nagpur, Nagpur -440015.

Party No.1(b): The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020.

Party No.2: The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar, Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.) The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment of Party No. 1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and the termination of his services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as required under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

AWARD

(Dated: 2nd April, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman, Shri Uttam Narayan Sawale, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/242/2003- IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the services of Shri Uttam Narayan Sawale, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Uttam Narayan Sawale, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for a period of two years, but the contract was made only on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually, he was working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same and the work performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all places and management of FCI implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5433 at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour system was continued by the management, with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising his work through their officers and he had no relation with the so-called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their employment and the workman has not impleaded the contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of contract given to the contractor for providing Security services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not employed by them, there was no question of following the procedure of termination by them and they were not the employer of the workman and the services of the workman were never utilized by them as employer from 01.08.1993 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant between them and the workman at any point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the workman against them are not true and there was no question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and the work of providing security guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only, services of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of Party No.1 is that for the relief as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/ 99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the appointment of security guards by the security contractor and they had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the security agency and he was never their employee and the security contractor was the employer of the workman.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate government decided to abolish the employment of the contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the workman were terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement and they did not have the power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence.

The workman in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. This witness has also proved some documents to show that duties were allotted to him and other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance was being taken by Party No. 1.

5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling application and they had not applied to the FCI for service and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were appointed through contractor by the management and they were brought by Singh Security Services and they were5434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he does not know the name of the contractor through whom they were appointed and he has not filed any document to show that he worked for 240 days every year.

6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the workman was appointed on 01.08.1993. He has also admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross- examination that contract for supply of security guards was given to Singh Security Services for two years and subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and the contract for supply of security guards was also given to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from 01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s Chaitanya Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January 1992 to May, 1992, to M/s Security services Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked continuously in FCI from 01.08.1993 till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was given to M/s Industrial security and Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerned officers of FCI were issuing necessary directions to the petitioner and other security guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the union representative for the workman that the workman was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without following the due procedure of law and the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and before termination of the services of the workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.

It was further submitted by the union representative for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was made only on papers and the workman was actually working under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and he was never a contract labour and such action of the Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so-called contract between the management and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government by notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract labour and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to give employment to the workman.

It was further submitted by the union representative that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman for production of nine documents relating to him, from which, it could have been held without any doubt that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.

In support of such contentions, reliance was placed by the union representative on the decisions reported in 2005 I CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. Anr. vs. Eight Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).

It was also submitted by the union representative that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so-called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and infact the so-called contractors were mediators and not contractors and even though there was legal ban on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged the workman and some others as security guards and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the so called contract given to the contractor expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No.1 unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without any contractor, the workman continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it though Party No. 1 unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without any contractor, the workman continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that the workman was the employee of Party No.1 and it was Party No. 1, who terminated the services of the workman without compliance[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5435 of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR- 99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).

It was also submitted by the union representative for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the written statement, the workman did not implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due procedure of termination and there was no relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and due to the notification of the Government for abolition of contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the workman and the security contractor was submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards and the security contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition have held that the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State" as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and as such, there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District Panchayat vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam vs. Md. Raffi) and Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar Mills Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan).

9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman along with 78 others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the work on which they were employed is of perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the following order:

"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others vs. National Union water front workers and others [reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition involves disputed question of facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.

xx xx xx xx

In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter5436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] within a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the claim made by the workman and others on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1.

10. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was engaged by the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper". The case of the workman is that after every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed that as the Central Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract labours engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.

In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food Corporation of India as a security guard through a contractor.

From the evidence on record and the own admission of the workman in the cross-examination including the specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor, it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.

11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India vs. M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others).

In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (Supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

2. With the industrial growth, the relation between the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn. At one time the establishment being the employer all persons working therein was the employees of such employer. But slowly the employer including Central and State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who has no direct relationship with the establishment in which they were employed. Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged by them in various manners including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith.

3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as contract labour in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the appropriate Government may after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in any establishment," Sub- section (2) of Section 10 requires that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an establishments, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken into consideration is whether the work performed by the contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5437 that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a license issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment, is not provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by the contractor therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor "either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be responsible for the payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour, but at the same time in order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it requires every principal employer to nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the contact labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which punishment can be imposed.

4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized contract labour and they have never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards the payment of wages by the principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives that all appropriate government may after consultation with the central board or the state board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour in such process, operation or the work into consideration.

5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is discernible that after having work for some years, they make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal employer and be treated as employees of the principal employer especially when the principal employer is the Central Government or the State Government or an authority which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become the employees of the principal employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object and scope of the act as follows:—

"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of contract labour and also to introduce better condition of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and practicable and where it cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working conditions of the contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of work and contemplates progressive abolition to the extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."

In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.

Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630

it was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished

the contract labour as such but has provided for its

abolition by the Central Government in appropriate

cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the

court to enquire into the question and to decide

whether the employment of contract labour in any

process, operation or other work in any establishment

should be abolished or not. That has to be decided

by the government after considering the relevant

aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again

in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh Vs.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court

refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to

absorb the contract labourers in its employment

saying that, the contract labourers have not been5438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:-

found to have direct connection with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Indian Oil Corporation

Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to

provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other works in any establishment by the appropriate government, under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the Central Government or by any appropriate government

provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer.

6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the contractor or the new

contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to

regularization in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and on whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been

urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need "Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling work done by the contractor, the labour force employed by him, payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no privity of contract of employer and workmen between the corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do...........". 'The expression' employed has at least two known connotations, but as used in the definition, the context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command and obedience. The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be, in other words, an employment of his by the employer and that there should be a relationship between the employer and employee or master and servant unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a "workman" within the definition of the term as contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor would not without something more become the workman of that third person. Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to that effect has been made by the union."

13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established

on material produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them." "The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5439 1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ - 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ - 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show that the legal relationship between the person employed in any industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms made there under."

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the present case in hand is to be considered.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.

Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -9- 5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345- 354 of 1997m D/ - 17-4-

14. So far the contention raised by the union representative regarding drawing of adverse inference against the Party No.1 for non-production of documents as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform different duties as a security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non- production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application of this case.

15. So far the contention raised by the union

representative regarding the non-registration of the Party

No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour

Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be

mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the

statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that

regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such

pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,

it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence

on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness

examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-

examination that contract for supply of security guards

was given by Party No.1 to different contractors, the

workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by

the contractors with Party No. 1.

Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is

held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and

others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions

of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act,

1976, then the persons responsible for such violation

are liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of

the provisions of the above said Act, does not confer and the workman. Hence, there was no question of

termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions, on which reliance is placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no clear application to the present case in hand.

17. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference. The said contractor has not been added as a party in this reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

any right on the workman to claim regularisation in

service.

16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW

dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows

that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in

sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings

owned or occupied by the establishments of Food

Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted

by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract

labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is

also found from the materials on record that the appointment

of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security

Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers

as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to

prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.

The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was

not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the

various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman

of the benefits there under. The workman has not been

able to produce any document to show that at any point of

time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is

clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the

last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour

Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As

it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman

was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the

contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no

relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1 The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2043.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 10/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/125/2008-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2043.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 10/2009) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Ballapur Area, Ballarpur Western Coalfields Ltd. WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/125/2008-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5441

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/10/2009 Date: 17.05.2013.

Party No. 1 : Chief General Manager,

Ballarpur Area, Ballarpur Area

Of Western Coalfields Ltd.,

At/P.O. Sasti, Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2 : Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),

At/P.O. Ballarpur, Distt.

Chandrapur (M.S.)

promotional channels have been evolved separately for General Clerical Cadre, Store Personnel, Loading Personnel, Cash Personnel and Secretariat Cadre etc and the present reference is concerned with cadre scheme for Ministerial Staff (General Cadre) and Ministerial Staff (Loading Personnel) and as per Cadre Scheme VIII-1, given in the implementation Instruction No. 34 dated 17.07.1984, the carrier growth for Ministerial Staff (General Clerical Cadre) is Clerk Grade-III,, Clerk Grade-II, Typist, Clerk Grade-I, Special Grade Clerk/Sr. Clerk and finally Office Superintendent in Technical and Supervisory Grade A and as per Cadre Scheme VIII, the carrier growth of Loading Personnel is Asstt. Loading Clerk Grade-III, Loading Clerk Grade-II, Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt. Loading Supdt. (T&S) Grade-C, Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt. Loading Supdt. (T&S) Grade-B and finally Sr. Loading Inspector/Sr. Loading Supdt. (T&S) Grade-A.

AWARD

(Dated: 17th May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workman, Shri M.S. Bhasarkar for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 22012/125/2008-IR (CM-II) dated 06.03.2009, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur Area of WCL in denying promotion to Shri M.S. Bhasarkar, ignoring his merit and seniority is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled and from which date?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union, "Koyla Shramik Sabha" ('the union" in short), filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman and the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., ("Party No. 1" in short), filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim by the union is that it (union) is a registered trade union, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Party No. 1 is a Government Company and is a "state" within Article-12 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the National Coal Wages Agreements ("NCWA" in short) are mandatory and binding on all the Coal Companies including the Party No. 1 and the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry, ("JBCCI" in short) vide different implementation instructions issued through the Director (P&IR) Coal India Ltd.-cum-Secretary to JBCCI has evolved different promotional cadres of different trades and in ministerial cadre scheme itself, The further case of the workman as presented by the union is that the workman belongs to Schedule Caste community and he passed the SSC examination in 1981 and he was appointed as a trainee, vide letter dated 12.04.1989 at Sasti Open Cast Project and he was placed in Category- II w.e.f. 15.05.1990, vide letter No. 1877 dated 07.11.1990 and soon after his regular appointment, due to acute exigencies of job, Party No. 1 placed him to supervise one of the shifts of loading of coal in Pander Pawani Railway siding of Sasti Open Cast Project and the letter dated 27/ 28.10.1990 of the Sub-Area Manager addressed to Pander Pawani Railway siding in-charge confirms such claim and the workman was performing the job of Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt. Loading Supdt. as per the cadre scheme of Loading Personnel and was thus entitled to be put in technical and supervisory grade 'C' and to be paid the remuneration accordingly, from the date he was placed as such, but the Party No. 1 adopted unfair labour practice and did not pay him wages of Technical and Supervisory Grade 'C' and the Dy. Personnel Manager, Sasti Sub-Area issued office order No. 277 dated 13.01.1992/01.02.1992, allowing officiating allowance of clerical grade-III to him w.e.f. 15.02.1992 and vide order dated 07/11.08.1993 of the Dy. Personnel Manager, the workman was promoted/ regularized as Clerk-Grade-III w.e.f. 15.05.1993 and he was put on probation, without mentioning any time limit, against the terms and conditions of the Certified Standing Order and as per letter No. 495 of 1993 of the Sub-Area Manager, Sasti Sub-Area, the workman was designated as Asstt. Loading/Weigh Bridge Clerk and though the workman was senior, his basic wages were so fixed that his juniors used to get more, but the mistake was rectified vide office order No. 3013 dated 07/09.12.1993 and though the workman had been representing for his promotion and regularization in higher grade, according to the job performed by him, his appeal remained unheard and unattended and the workman was promoted as Loading Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 10.07.1997.

3. The Party No.1 in the written statement has pleaded inter alia that the reference is vague, due to non- mention of the designation of the workman, the post to which his right and seniority was ignored in the matter of promotion, the date from which the benefit was deemed to accrue etc. and as the essential ingredients of the reference are absent, the reference is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the reference is highly belated, as retrospective promotion is being claimed from the year 1992, starting from the post of Assistant loading clerk (grade III ) on wards to different higher posts and the union has raised the industrial dispute after sixteen years of the alleged cause of action and as such, the reference is not maintainable. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1 that it is settled principles of law that giving promotion to the employees is a managerial function, which depends upon availability of sanctioned post, need of the management to fill up the post, eligibility of the employees and determination of their competence through the process of Departmental Promotion Committee and promotion cannot be claimed in general terms and more over, the subject matter of promotion is not within the second or third schedule of the Act and therefore, the reference is not maintainable.

It is also pleaded by the union on behalf of the workman that, two clerks of general clerical cadre, too junior to the workman and not belonging to the Loading Personnel Cadre, namely, Shri M. Prabhudas and Shri Venu Gopal Kusuma were transferred from Gauri Sub Area to Sasti Open Cast Sub Area in 1996 and though Shri M. Prabhudas and Shri Venu Gopal Kusuma were not in Loading Personnel Cadre, they were promoted as Asstt. Loading Inspector, Grade-C, w.e.f. 01.01.1998, vide office order No. 4025 dated 06/08.06.1998 of Personnel Manager, Sasti Sub Area and there had been manipulation and their categorization is irregular, illegal and without adhering to procedure laid down to change of cadre and ignoring the seniority and merit of the workman, Party No. 1 again promoted Shri M. Prabhudas as Loading Supdt./Inspector (T&S) Grade-B from Grade-C vide order No. 6726 dated 14.10.2005 of Area Personnel Manager, Ballarpur Area and similarly, Shri Venugopal was also promoted as Supdt./Inspector (T&S) Grade-B from Grade-C w.e.f. 14.10.2005 and the workman was promoted from Loading Clerk Grade-II to Asstt. Loading Inspector (T&S) Grade-C w.e.f. 25.03.2002 vide letter No. 1017 dated 25.03.2002 and the workman had been representing against the injustice meted out towards him by submitting the comparative chart containing his service details alongwith that of Shri Prabhudas, Shri Venugopal and one Shri Atul G. Deolkar, but no action was taken by the Party No. 1 on his representations and Shri M. Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal Kusuma were appointed as General Mazdoors daily rated category-I w.e.f. 09.12.1992 and 21.12.1992 respectively and were regularized as General Clerk in Clerical Grade III from 01.01.1994 and just after one year, they were further regularized as Clerk Grade II w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and on the same analogy, the workman is entitled to be regularized as Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt. Loading Supdt. In Grade-C, after his completing of 240 days of attendance, i.e. with effect from 01.01.1992 and he should have been treated as such for all purposes and he is entitled for the differential salary from 27/28.10.1990 to 31.12.1991 and he is entitled to Grade B w.e.f. 01.01.1997. The union has further pleaded that one Shri Atul Dewalkar of Dhoptala open cast mine was categorized as loading clerk from other cadre without following the due procedure and he was regularized as loading clerk grade II w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and though Shri Dewalkar was junior to the workman, he was promoted to the post of Asstt. loading Inspector/Asst. loading Supdt. (T&S) grade C w.e.f. 01.07.1998, where as the workman was promoted to grade C (T&S) w.e.f. 25.03.2002.

The further case of the Party No.1 is that it is evident from the statement of claim that at different stages, promotions had been taken place in the cadre of Ministerial staff ( Loading Personnel ) on and from the year 1992 and if any disturbance is caused in the cadre, after such a long time, it will lead to serious repercussion and disturbance of industrial peace and harmony, as number of disputes are likely to emerge on behalf of the other employees in the cadre and as the purpose of industrial adjudication is to minimize emergence of industrial disputes and not to fructify them, the reference is not to be entertained. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that in the cadre scheme for the loading personnel, there are five stages of growth, starting from Assistant Loading Clerk Grade III to Senior Loading Inspector/Senior Loading Supervisor Grade A and there is no provision of time bound promotion in the cadre scheme and as the ministerial staff (General ) and Loading Personnel belong to ministerial staff, sometimes inter- changeability takes place and for promotion from one post to another, minimum qualification (educational/technical), eligibility norms and modes of promotions have been provided, by the JBCCI and the relevant cadre scheme, Annexure - 1 filed by the union is not disputed and the consideration zone for promotion to the posts upto Grade 'B' is area wise and for Grade 'A' is company wise and within the area, posts upto Supdt. Grade 'C' are considered on unit/sub area level and the posts in Grade 'B' are considered at area level and such promotions are examined and considered by the Promotion Committee constituted for the purpose and when a employee is transferred from one establishment/consideration zone to another establishment/consideration zone on administrative The union has prayed to direct the Party No. 1 to give promotion to the workman with retrospective effect with wages and all consequential benefits and compound interest @ 18% per annum on the dues and to place the workman in the seniority list in the proper place.

candidates including the workman were recommended for promotion, but since there were only five sanctioned posts, the employees, who were at serial numbers 1,2,3,4 and 6 were promoted and as the name of the workman was at serial no. 13, the question of his promotion at that stage did not arise and in the DPC held on 15.11.2008, the name of the workman was at a much lower position in the panel and as there was only one sanctioned post, Shri R.D. Nishad, who was no. 1 amongst the 13 recommended candidates was given the promotion and the workman was not promoted and as the workman was given promotions at relevant stages,by considering his merit and seniority, the reference is to be answered against the workman, holding that no industrial dispute exists.

It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the letter dated 27/28.10.1998 is misinterpreted by the union and the endorsement of the said office order to the workman was as a clerk alongwith three others and the workman was never called as Shift In-charge and he was never asked to do the jobs of the Shift In-charge and no unfair labour practice was adopted by the management and the workman when was promoted to Grade - 'C', he did not claim any retrospective benefit and as the workman was never authorized/deputed to work as Asstt. Loading Inspector, the question of paying wages of the said post does not arise and in any case, if there was any of truth in the statement, then why the grievance was not ventilated by the workman for red-ressal and raising of such a claim, after a gap of nearly 10 years is highly belated and untenable and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, the union has pleaded that as the reference has been made by the Central Govt. to this Tribunal for adjudication, after considering the merit of the dispute, the Tribunal is competent to adjudicate the same and the Act is a social welfare legislation and the same should be interpreted as such and the provisions of limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and relief under the Act cannot be denied to workman merely on the ground of delay and there is no delay in this case.

5. In order to prove their respective stands, the parties have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on the documentary evidence. The workman has examined himself as a witness in support of his case, where as, one Shri V.S. Ramanujam, the Manager (Personnel) of Ballarpur Area Office has been examined as a witness by the Party No. 1.

In this examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder. However, in the cross- examination, the workman has admitted that after completion of his training, he was appointed in category - II on 15.05.1990 and on 15.05.1993, he was regularized as Asstt. Loading Clerk w.e.f. 05.05.1990 and as per office order dated grounds/ needs of necessity of the management, he carries his seniority of post to the new place of posting and if the employee is transferred on his own request, he looses his seniority at the new place of posting and his seniority at the new place of posting in the relevant post is being count from the date of his joining and the workman was appointed as a trainee in category - I, w.e.f. 12.04.1989 at Sasti Open Cast project and after completion of his training, he was appointed as a regular employee in category - II w.e.f. 15.05.1990 and while the workman was in category - II, he was allowed to officiate in the post of clerical grade - III (Asstt. loading clerk) w.e.f. 15.05.1992 alongwith 15 others and subsequently, he was promoted/regularized alongwith three others to the post of clerk grade - III w.e.f. 15.05.1993 and the workman did not have any grievance against the management at that stage and he did not lodge any protest and according to his job performance in the loading cadre, he alongwith some others was recategorized/redesignated as Asstt. Loading! Weighbridge clerk corresponding to clerk grade - III in general clerical cadre and the same was also not protested or objected by the workman as he found the said arrangement in his interest and on the ground of anomaly, his pay was stepped up by one increment w.e.f. 01.06.1993 and the workman was again promoted as loading clerk grade - II w.e.f. 01.07.1997, vide office order dated 25.10.1997 and he was further promoted to the post of Asstt. Loading Inspector (T&S) Grade - 'C' vide order dated 25.03.2002 and all the promotions were given to the workman between the years 1990 to 2002, i.e. within a period of 12 years and the cadre norms were followed and his merit and seniority were duly considered and therefore, the grievance contemplated in the terms of the reference had stood complied and there is no ground for holding adjudication on this issue and the office order dated 06/08.06.1998, which has been filed by the union as document No. W-8 shows that Shri Venugopal Kusuma and Shri M. Prabhudas were shown as Loading Clerk Grade - II and as such, they were rightly promoted as Asstt. Loading Inspector, Grade - 'C' and the workman did not lodge any protest against the promotion of Shri Kusuma and Shri Prabhudas at the relevant time and to say that the workman was superseded, after a gap of 10 years is merely an afterthought and Shri Kusuma and Shri Prabhudas had come on transfer to Sasti Sub Area from Gauri Sub Area, vide office order dated 07.11.1996 and vide corrigendum dated 14.03.1997, issued by the Sub Area Manager, Gauri Sub Area, those two persons had been performing loading jobs alongwith five others and in the year 2005, a DPC was held at the area level for promotion to Technical Supervisory, Grade- 'B' post and as the workman had not put in the requisite experience in the lower post i.e. Grade-'C', he could not be considered for promotion and therefore, the question of considering him for Grade -`B' post did not arise at that time and another DPC was held in the year 2007, for promotion to Technical Supervisory, Grade - 'B' post and in the said DPC, 165444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 25.10.1997, he was promoted to Clerk Grade - II w.e.f. 01.07.1997 and by office order dated 25.03.2002, he was promoted as Asstt. Loading Inspector (T&S), Grade - 'C' w.e.f 25.03.2002 and in document no. W-II, his designation has been mentioned as a clerk. The workman has further admitted that in 1996, Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal Kusuma were transferred from Gauri Sub Area to Sasti Sub Area and at that time, they were in Clerical Grade-II and he did not lodge any protest against the transfer of those two employees. The workman has further admitted in his cross- examination that in 1998, a DPC was held at Sasti Sub Area for promotion to the post of Technical Grade-'C' and the DPC recommended the promotion of Shri Venugopal and Shri Prabhudas for promotion to Technical Grade-'C' and did not recommend his name for promotion and he did not protest in writing regarding the promotion of Shri Venugopal and Shri Prabhudas and in the year 2008, the union for the first time raised the dispute.

6. The witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party No. 1, in his evidence on affidavit. In his cross-examination, the witness for the Party No. 1 has stated that the initial date of appointment of Venugopal Kusuma is 21.12.1992 and Prabhudas is 09.12.1992 and as per document W-XIII, Kusuma and Prabhudas were regularized as Clerk Grade-III, vide order dated 16/17.03.1994 from the post of General Mazdoor and as per office order No. 1379, Kusuma and Prabhudas were regularized as Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 01.01.1995.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was appointed on 12.04.1989, as operator trainee and after the training was completed, he was placed in Cat. II, w.e.f. 15.05.1990 and he was deployed to work as Loading In- charge of Pandhar Rly. Siding and such fact is proved by the document, W-II and the workman was duly appointed by the Sub Area Manager as Loading In-charge, but the workman was kept in Cat-II and he was allowed officiating allowance of Asstt. Loading Clerk, Grade-III from 15.05.1992 and he was promoted/regularized as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 15.05.1993 and the workman was entitled for promotion, above Venugopal Kusuma and M. Prabhudas, in view of the seniority list, Ext. M-IV (Annexure-F) filed by management, in which the name of the workman is at serial No. 8, whereas, names of Kusuma and Prabhudas are at serial No. 9 and 10 respectively and Kusuma, Prabhudas and so also other workers, who had been given promotion earlier to the workman were not eligible for entry into Loading Clerk Grade-III and the workman has been victimized and Party No. 1 has adopted unfair labour practice and the workman is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that when the reference has been made by the appropriate Government the Tribunal is required to adjudicate the same and the law of limitation does not apply to the proceedings under the Act and the Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and is bound to adjudicate the dispute limited to the points of reference.

In support of the contentions, the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2001 AIR SCW-2685 (Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board), AIR 1994 SC 853 (S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu Vs. Jagannath), AIR 1968 SC 1413 (Gopal K. Ketkar Vs. Md. Haji Latif), AIR 1986 SC 132 (H.D. Singh Vs. RBI), 2007 (115) FLR 427 (Mehan Mahato Vs. M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd.) and AIR 2000 SC 469 (National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).

8. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 in his argument, reiterated the stands taken by the Party No. 1 in the written statement, including the validity and maintainability of the reference on the grounds that the reference is vague and the claim raise by the union on behalf of the workman is a state claim and no industrial dispute was in existence at the time of making the reference.

9. Keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the workman, the present case in hand is to be considered. However, at this juncture, I think it appropriate to mention that out of the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the workman, the decisions reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 (Supra), AIR 1968 SC 1418 (Supra) and AIR 1986 132 (Supra) and regarding production of documents and withholding of vital documents relevant to litigation, by a party. As in this case there is no material to show that the Party No. 1 has not produced any relevant document or withheld any vital document relevant to the litigation, with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no direct application to the case in hand.

10. So far the first contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 regarding the non- maintainability of the reference due to vagueness of the schedule of reference is concerned, admittedly the designation of the employee, the post of which right to seniority and merit was ignored and the date from which the benefit deemed to be accrued are not mentioned in the schedule of reference. However, in the statement of claim such facts have been given by the union. Hence, it is found that there is no force in the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1.

11. The next contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 is in regard to raising of the dispute belatedly by the union, without any explanation. In this regard, I think it proper to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2685 (Supra), which has been[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5445 cited by the learned advocate for the workman. The Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"There are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute alive during the long interval it is reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanized by the workman or the union on account of other justified reasons it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In this case when the Government have chosen to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U.P. Act the High Court should not have quashed the reference merely on the ground of delay. Of course, for making the adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authorities, while moulding its reliefs. That is a different matter altogether. The High Court has obviously gone wrong in axing down the order of reference made by the Government for adjudication. Let the adjudicatory process reach its legal culmination."

As in the case in hand, the Government has made the reference, it can be presumed that in the opinion of the Government, there existed the industrial dispute on the date of reference. However, it is found from the materials on record that there is inordinate delay of about sixteen years in raising the dispute and such delay has not been explained either by the union or the workman. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2685 (Supra), the delay in raising this industrial dispute will be taken into consideration, in case of grant of reliefs to the workman on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case.

12. The first claim made by the union on behalf of the workman is that soon after the completion of the training by the workman he was placed in Category-II w.e.f. 15.05.1990 and due to acute exigencies of job, Party No. 1 placed him to supervise one of the shifts of loading of coal at Pander Pawani Railway Siding and the document W-II, the letter No. WCL/BA/SAM/SSA/1752 dated 27/ 28.10.1998, Sasti Sub Area amply proves the said fact and as the workman performed the duty of Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt. Loading Superintendent as per cadre scheme for Loading Personnel, he was entitled to be put in Technical and Supervisory Grade 'C' and paid accordingly from the date he was placed on such duty, but Party No. 1 by adopting unfair labour practice and did not pay him wages of T&S Grade 'C' and allowed officiating allowance of Clerical Grade-III w.e.f. 15.02.1992.

It is well settled and so also the stand taken by the union in the rejoinder that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental thereto and the Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference.

On perusal of the terms of reference of the case in hand, it is found that the first claim raised by the union as mentioned above has not been referred for adjudication and on that score, the same cannot be considered or adjudicated.

However, on perusal of the materials on record including the evidence produced by the parties, it is found that the union and so also the workman has failed to prove that the workman worked as an Asstt. Loading Inspector/ Astt. Loading supdtt., Grade 'C' w.e.f. 27/28.10.1990. The document, W-II filed by the union instead of supporting the claim raised by the union falsifies the same. On perusal of the letter, W-II, it is found that the same is a letter addressed by the Sub Area Manager, Sasti Sub Area dated 27/28.10.1990 to Shri Narayan Agnu, the In-charge of Pander Pawani Siding for loading of the wagons as per the decision of the committee constituted for the same. The said letter was not addressed to the workman as the Siding- in-charge or Shift-In-charge. Rather, copy of the said letter was given to the workman and three others, who were working as clerks to ensure correct loading. The workman in his cross-examination has also admitted that the copy of the said letter was given to him as a clerk. Hence, it is found that the first claim made by the union is not tenable.

13. The next claim made by the union on behalf of the workman is that Shri M. Prabhudas, Shri Venugopal Kusuma and Shri Atul Dewalkar, who belonged to Ministerial Staff (General Cadre) and much juniors to him were brought to Loading Personnel Cadre illegally and were given promotion as Asstt. Loading Inspector in Grade w.e.f. 01.01.1998, 01.01.1998 and 01.07.1998 respectively, whereas, the workman was promoted to the said post w.e.f 25-03- 2002 and Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal were again promoted to Grade - 'B' from Grade 'C' vide order dated 14.10.2005 ignoring the seniority of the workman and Sarbeshree B.W. Ghomase, M.D. Bhagat, David Kampelli, A.G. Dewalkar and B.S. Pade were promoted to Grade - 'B' from Grade 'C' w.e.f. 15.10.2007, even though the name of the workman was recommended for promotion by the DPC and as such, the workman is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

The Party No. 1's case is that the workman was given promotions as per rules by taking into consideration about his merit & seniority and the workman did not raise any objection to the transfer of Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal and their categorization and promotion, at any point of time and so also the promotion of others and as an afterthought, the dispute was raised in 2008 by the union and as there was no illegality in the promotion of Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal or the other workers, the workman is not entitled of any relief.

14. The workman has claimed the document, Ext. M.IV (annedure-F) as a seniority list and according to him, his name was at serial no. 8 in the said list, where as the names of Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal were below him. However, on perusal of Ext. M-IV, it is found that the same is not a seniority list, but the same is an office order regarding the redesignation of the workman and eleven others and in the said list, names of Prabhudas and Venugopal are not there. So, the claim of the workman in that regard is found to be not correct.

promotions on the due dates by Party No. 1 by taking into consideration his merits and seniority and he was not superseded by his juniors and he is not entitled for the reliefs claimed.

15. It is necessary to mention here that at the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the name of the workman was recommended by the DPC for promotion to (T&S), Grade - 'B', but Party No. 1 did not give promotion to him on the ground of pending of the case before this Tribunal, which is illegal.

On perusal of the documents, it is found that the name of the workman has been recommended by the DPC for promotion to the post of (T&S) Grade - 'B' and on the recommendation of the DPC, two other employee Shri M.G. More and Shri Haridas Dhale have been promoted to (T&S), Grade - 'B' on 28.02.2012. So, in the interest of justice, the Party No. 1 is directed to give promotion to the workman to (T&S) Grade - 'B' from the date Shri M.G. More and Shri Haridas Dhale have been promoted. Hence, it is orderd:

ORDER

On perusal of the documents, including Ext. M-III, M-VI, M-VII, M-XI, M-XII and MXIII, it is found that the workman became eligible for job rate clerical grade III on 15.05.1992 and he was re-designated as Asst. loading/weight bridge clerk as per the order, Ext. M-IV and he was regularized as clerk grade III w.e.f 15.05.1993 and he was promoted to loading clerk grade II w.e.f 01.07.1997 and as Asst. Inspector grade C w.e.f. 25.03.2002, whereas, Shri M. Prabhudas and Shir Venugopal Kusuma were transferred to Sasti Sub-Area from Gouri sub-Area as clerk grade II, vide office order dated 07.12.1996 and they were designated as clerk grade II performing the job of loading clerk, as per order dated 14/ 15.03.1997. The workman did not raise any objection or protest either to the transfer of the said two employee or their designation or even their promotions. The workman did not protest about the promotion of the other employees, whose names have been mentioned in the statement of claim. Though, the union has mentioned in the statement of claim. Though, the union has mentioned in the statement of claim that the workman was all-along was protesting the denial of promotion to him, not a single document has been filed in support of such claim. Hence, it can be held that there was never any protest from the side of the workman prior to 23.10.2007. It is also found from the record that the workman accepted all his promotion without any objection. It is also found from the record that the made of promotion to the post of clerical grade II onwards in the cadre of loading personnel is on the recommendation of the D.P.C. It is also clear from the materials on record that the workman was not recommended for promotion, when Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal were promoted as Asst. Loading Inspector grade C on the recommendation of the D.P.C. The said two employees were already in clerical grade II, doing loading work, prior to the promotion of the workman as loading clerk grade II. It was the same case in respect of Shri Atul Dewalkar, as according to the own pleading of the union, Shri Dewalkar was promoted as Loading Clerk Grade - II on 01.01.1995. In absence of the particulars of the other employees named in the statement of claim, it cannot be said that they were juniors to the workman or that their promotion was illegal. It is clear from the materials on record that the workman was given The reference is answered in the negative and against the workman. The workman in not entitled to any other relief except the relief mentioned in paragraph 15 of the award.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2044.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 कर 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्ि ाकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 24/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार के 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-22012/85/2003-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2044.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 24/2006 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cun-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL and their workman, received by the Central Governmenet on 02.09.2013

[No. L-22012/85/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Deck Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5447

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/24/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No. 1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of

WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tab-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b): M/s. Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)

Versus

Party No. 2: Shri Bhaurao S/o Purushottam Bawane

R/o. Minzhari, Post: Khadsangi, Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur,

Maharashtra.

AWARD

(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Bhaurao Purushottam Bawane, for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 22012/85/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh and Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Bhaurao S/o Purushottam Bawane is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Bhaurao Purushottam Bawane ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1 (b), M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party No. 1 (b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as a General Mazdoor on 10.06.1993 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No. 1 (b) w.e.f. 01.01.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No.1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No. 1(a) and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No. 1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties no. 1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with parties no. 1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the parties no. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1(b) was the contractor of Party No. 1 (a), for each and every act of the Party No. 1 (b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and as such, the Party No. 1(a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice, Party No. 1(b) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open excavation work was to be completed within a period of5448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No. 1 (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it (Party No. 1(a)) was related to Party No. 1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 (a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract and the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006 (2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murpar Colliery by Party No. 1(a) and BGML engaged him from 10.06.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party No. 1(b), another contractor from 01.01.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for vocational training and he had under gone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No. 1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5449 stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Honble Apex Court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that:—

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B (1) and (2)-Continuous service-Scope of sub- sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases- Continuous Service).

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "continuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S. 25-F, 10- Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal- Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim denied by management-Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

dkñvkñ 2045.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 25/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/86/2003-आईआर(सीएम-II)]

बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2045.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 25/2006) of the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-22012/86/2003- IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Manik Bisan Dodake, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/86/2003- IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/s. Singh as Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Manik S/o Bisan Dodake is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Manik Bisan Dodake, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/25/2006 Date: 03.05.2013

Party No.1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b): M/s. Singh & Sons,

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur(MS)

Versus

Party No. 2: Shri Manik S/o Bisan Dodake

R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsangi, Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur Maharashtra.

AWARD

(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No. 1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka, ("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the Party No.1(a) also engaged Party No. 1 (b), M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party No.1 (b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a Surface Tramer on 16.03.1994 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No. 1 (b) w.e.f. 03.02.1998 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No. 1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No. 1 (a) and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party No. 1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties no. 1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were working with parties no. 1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5451 of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various demand to the Parties No. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December, 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1(b) was the contractor of Party No.1 (a), for each and every act of the Party No. 1(b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and as such, the Party No. 1(a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice, Party No. 1(b) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim.

In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party No.1 (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it (Party No. 1(a)) was related to Party No. 1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1(a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by the principal employer and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no document has been produced by the workman to show that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed the workman till the completion of the contract and the documents filed by the workman show that he was appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006 (2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman.

The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been entering into various contracts with various persons and each and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different legal entities—and if they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works, the workman did not become permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and he was never in its employment and as such, there was no question of compliance of the principles of Section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed for award.

5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murpar Colliery by Party No. 1(a) and BGML engaged him from 16.03.1994 to 02.07.1996 as a Surface Tramer and that he was again engaged by Party No. 1(b), another contractor from 03.02.1998 to 28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim of the workman is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for vocational training and he had under gone the training successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such5452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No. 1(a).

7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms "contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does not show that a legal relationship between a person employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms "establishment" and workman shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand taken by workman that he had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

8. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the Party No. 1 (b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that:—

"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" has removed a discordance between the unamended section 25-B and the unamended Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made. The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B (1) and (2)- Continuous service—Scope of sub- sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases- Continuous Service).

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the expression "continuous". Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:—

"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947-S.25-F, 10- Retrenchment compensation—Termination of services without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal—Case of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination—Claim denied by management—Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year—In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5453

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had worked for 240 days.

11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman has not produced any other evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section 25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

PRESENT

K.B. Katake

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/38 of 2007

Employers in relation to the management of

M/S. BNP PARIBAS, Mumbai

The Chief Executive Officer & Country Manager/Secretary General M/s.BNP Paribas French Bank Building 62, Homji Street Fort Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

The President Shramik Mahasangh 180-C, 1st floor Dharavi Koliwada J.J. Keni Lane Dharavi Road Mumbai 400 1017

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer : Mr. R.N. Shah,

Advocate.

For the workmen : Ms. Ketki Rege,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 11th March, 2013.

AWARD

dkñvkñ 2046.—औद्‌योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ¼1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बी एन पी परीबस के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्व नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्‌योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्‌योगिक अधिकरण, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 38/2007) को प्रकाश्ति करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-12012/135/2006-आई आर (बी-I)]

सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2046.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 38/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial disputes between the management of M/s. BNP Paribas, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No.L-12012/135/2006-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-12012/135/2006-IR (B-I), dated 16.08.2007 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 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

''Whether the demand of the union Shramik Mahasangh for reinstatement of Shri Uday Gajanan Mhatre in service of M/s BNP Paribas, Mumbai, with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 07/12/2001 is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief Shri Uday Gajanan Mhatre is entitled and from which date?''

2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice the second5454 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] party union filed their statement of claim at Ex-4. According to them, the workman Mr. Mhatre was employed by the first party management since October, 1996. He was orally appointed by the first party. To conceal the employer- emplyee relationship he was initially shown on paper as a smoke-screen as employed through so called courier agency namely mail order, marketing service. Since June, 1999 he was shown as employee of another courier, i.e. M/s. Tawde couriers. All his wages were paid against vouchers. From 13/6/2000 till 7/12/2001 his wages were paid in cash against vouchers directly by the Bank. All the vouchers are lying with the Bank. He was empolyed by Bank and doing the work of the Bank. He used to sign on behalf of the Bank.

reference is bad for want of necessary party. They have denied all the contents in the statement of claim and contended that, as the second party workman was not their employee, the reference is not tenable and submitted that he is not entitled to any relief. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected with cost.

4. The workman has filed his rejoinder at Ex-8. He denied the contents raised in the written statement and reiterated the points raised in his statement of claim.

5. Following are the issues re-casted for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. Issues Findings

His services were illegally terminated from 7/12/2001. He made various representations to the Higher Authority and management. However they did not give any response. Therefore the workman through union approached the ALC © who called the management and made at attempt of conciliation. As conciliation failed on the report of ALC, © the Union Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal. The union therefore prays that, he be reinstated in the service with full back wages with interest thereon at commercial rate w.e.f. 7/12/2001 and continuity service.

No.

1. Does second party prove his

relation with first party as employee Yes.

2. Does first party prove that

Government cannot make reference on the subject matter? No.

3. Does it further prove that second

party union has no locus standi to raise dispute? No.

4. Does it prove that second party is a

contract worker and not its employee? No.

5. Whether non-impleading M/s. Tawde

Courier effects on claim of second party? No.

6. Does he prove that contract is sham

and bogus? Yes.

7. Is second party entitled for relief Partly in the affirmative.

sought?

REASONS

Issues nos. 1, 4 & 6

3. The first party resisted the statement of claim of the union vide its written statement at Ex-7. According to them the reference is not tenable. It is mis-conceived and malafied and not maintainable in the eye of law. They contended that, the reference is made at a belated stage after a delay of 5 years. Therefore it suffers by principles of delay and laches. The second party workman was never employed or recruited by the management. On the other hand he was employee of a courier service agency. Initially he was working for Mail Order Marketing Services during the period from Oct, 1996 to June, 1999 and used to visit the establishment of first party either for delivery or receiving the communication from the first party. Since June, 1999 first party discontinued the services of Mail Order Marketing Services and entered into courier service contract with M/s. Tawde Courier Services. The workman concerned thereafter joint M/s. Tawde Courier Services and was doing the work of Tawde Courier Services. As he was not employee of the first party, the industrial dispute is not tenable. There was no vacant post and the workman was never recruited by the Bank. He was working with the Bank till December, 2001. Since December, 2001 M/s Tawde Courier Services informed the Bank that it has decided to change the work of place of the workman and their three other employees who were doing the courier work of the first party. Since then workman did not report the office of the first party or to M/s. Tawde Courier. He falsely wrote letters alleging that he was performing duty for the first party and requested for regularisation of his services. The first party immediately informed him that he was employee of courier services and at no point of time he was employed by the first party and there is no post in the establishment. According to them the courier service agency M/s. Tawde Courier is necessary party to the reference. Therefore 6. These issues are interlinked, therefore in order to avoid repetition of discussion they are discussed and decided simultaneously. It is the case of the second party that he is employee of first party and was performing the work of the first party whereas it is the case of the first party that second party is not their employee. On the other hand he is employee of independent contractor. Therefore no industrial dispute arises. The second party claimed that the so called contract is sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive the workman from getting the benefits of permanent employee. From these pleadings my Id. predecessor has framed the aforesaid three issues.

7. In this respect the first party Bank has examined their witness Mr. George Rodrigues who has deposed at Ex-19. According to him the second party is employee of M/s. Tawde Courier Services. There was service contract entered into with M/s. Tawde Courier Services. According to him initially the second party was employee of Mail[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5455 Order Marketing Services from October, 1996 to June, 1999 with whom Bank had entered into service contract. According to the first party the second party was working with them as employee of the contractor Mail Order Marketing Services from 1996 to June, 1999. According to them since June 1999 they have entered into service contract with M/s. Tawde Courier Services. According to them workman left his job with Mail Order Marketing Services and joined M/s. Tawde Courier Services and working with the Bank. According to them in December 2001 M/s. Tawde Courier Services decided to change the workplace of the workman concerned and their three other employees. Thereafter the second party stopped attending the duty and approached the first party and claimed that, he is their employee. The first party replied to his letter and explained that he has no concern with the first party. In support of their contention the first party has examined one more witness Shri Surendra Jagannath Tawde (Ex-33) who was proprietor of M/s. Tawde Courier Services till 2004. In his affidavit he says that, there was courier agreement between Tawde Courier Services and the first party Bank w.e.f. 24/ 06/1999 to June 2000 and subsequently it was renewed from time to time. In his chief he has supported the case of the first party. In his cross examination this witness says that, appointment letters were not given to these employees. He further says that they used to maintain attendance registers of these employees and used to pay salary by cash and used to obtain signature on the salary register. However neither the attendance register nor the salary register is produced on record. They have produced on record the courier agreement at Ex-20. They have produced on record the o/c of the letter correspondence with Tawde Courier at Ex-24, 25 & 27 to 29. However these documents are not sufficient to show that the second party was the employee of Tawde Courier Services.

8. In this respect the Id. adv for the second party submitted that the contracts between the courier service agencies are sham, bogus, and mere camouflage to deprive the workman from his legitimate rights. She further pointed out that it is not disputed that the workman was working for the first party Bank from 1996 up to December, 2001 continously. According to the Id. Adv. initially Mail Order Marketing Services Agency was shown as contractor till June, 1999. Thereafter the Bank has shown M/s. Tawde Courier Services as the contractor. However the workman is the same person who was working for the Bank. The version of the Bank is thus unacceptable that, Mr. Mhatre left the Job of Mail Order Marketing Services and joined the services of Tawade Couriers. It indicates that the first party had changed the contractor however the same workman continued to work for them. It shows the contract was a mere papar work. In support of his contention the Ld Adv. for the second party further pointed out that, the Bank had issued letters to RBI and State Bank of India and other banks that, second party Mr. Uday Mhatre is their representative and they should hand over the cheques and other correspondence of the Bank to him. Fact is not disputed that at the instance of the first party RBI had issued pass to the first party. The second party has produced copies of number of letters correspondence issued by the first party to various Banks to handover their correspondence to the workman Mr. Uday Mhatre. They have also issued letter to Manager RBI to issue quarterly pass to Mr. Uday Mhatre for all Banking transactions. Accordingly RBI had also issued pass in the name of the workman. Copies thereof are on record with list Ex-11. It indicates that the workman was doing the work for the first party of collecting cheques and other correspondence from various banks including RBI and SBI. He also used to carry correspondence and cheques of the first party and used to deliver to the concerned officers. In this respect the Id. adv. pointed out that MW-1 Mr. George Rodrigues had admitted in his cross that, Bank official used to give directions to the second party worker in respect of delivery of the documents he used to collect from the Bank. He has also admitted that the workman used to come daily to their Bank. He used to sit across a table and used to sort out the leters and used to go. The Id. adv. in this respect pointed out that the workman was working continuously since 1996 to December, 2001. Every time contractors were changed and the workman was same. He was under direct control of officials of the Bank. It indicates that he was employee of the Bank and not of the contractor. In support of her argument the Id. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Hindalco Industries Ltd. V/s. Association of Engineering Workers 2008 I CLR 1023. Facts in that case are identical to the case in hand, i.e. the canteen employees therin were continued despite change of canteen contractors. The employees were under the ultimate control of the management. In the circumstances, Hon'ble Court observed that;

"The industrial Court is perfectly right in arriving the conclusion that the evidence coupled with the term of agreement show that the contract is nothing but paper agreement."

9. In this case also the worker is shown as contract worker merely to avoid the responsibility and to deprive him from getting the benefit of permanency. It amount to exploitation of the poor class. In a recent Apex Court ruling Hon'ble Court has condemned such type of exploitation of the poor workmen by showing them as daily wager or contract workers. The Hon'ble Court has also taken into consideration the globalized welfare of the workmen and various labour welfare legislations. In Bhilwara Dugdh Udpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. V/s. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2011 III CLR 386 the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of exploitation in the name of so called contract labourers or daily wagers observed that;

"This appeal reveals the unfortunate state of affairs prevailing in the field of labour relations in our country. In order to avoid their liability under various labour statute employers are every often resorting to subterfuge by trying5456 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] to show that their employees are in-fact the employees of a contractor. It is high time that this subterfuge must come to an end. Labour statutes were meant to protect the employees/ workmen because it was realised that the employer and the employees are not on an equal bargaining position. Hence protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited. However this new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the workmen under various labour statutes by showing that the concerned workmen are not their employees but are the employees/workmen of a contractor or that they are merely daily wage or short term or casual employees when in fact they are doing the work of regular employees."

In this respect Hon'ble Court further observed that;

"This Court cannot countenance such practices anymore. Globalisation/liberalisation in the name of growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers."

10. In the light of the above rulings and fact and circumstances on record I am convinced that the workman was an employee of the first party. He was working continuously though the contractor was changed. Furthermore he was working under the direct control of the officers of the first party. The work of collection of cheques and correspondence from various banks as well sorting out the cheques and correspondence of other banks and giving delivery thereof to the respective banks is perennial type of work. The workman was performing the same work continuously since Oct. 1996 up to Dec. 2001. These facts as discussed above are sufficient to arrive me at the conclusion that the contract was sham and bogus and the workman was not the employee of the contractors. On the other hand he was an employee of the first party Bank and there exists employee-employer relationship between them. Accordingly I decide these issues nos. 1 & 6 in the affirmative, and issue no. 4 in the negative.

or foreign matter. We therefore hold that above administrative order was passed by the State Government after taking into consideration material available on record and it could not be faulted."

In this judgement the Hon'ble Court has referred its earlier decision in Abad Dairy Dudh Vikram Kendre Sanchalak Mandal. V/s Abad Dairy & Ors. 1993 III LLJ (Supplement) 855 wherein the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that;

"This issue requires detailed examination and can be satisfactorily adjudicated upon only by Tribunal."

12. In short the Government is not expected to make detail inquiry while making reference and the administrative order can be passed on the basis of material before the Government concerned. In the case at hand the second party workman has contended that he is employee of the first party and the contract is sham and bogus. That suffices the purpose to make the reference by the Government to adjudicate whether his termination is fair and proper. In this respect the Id. Adv. for the first party also resorted to another Apex Court ruling in M/s. Hochtief Gammon V/s. State or Orissa and Ors. 1975 LAB IC 1608 wherein in respect of the order passed or deicsion taken by executive, the Hon'ble court observed that;

"The executives have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant consideration. They should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor should they taken into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous consideration. They should not misdirect themselves on a point of law."

However this ruling also does not extend any help to the first party as it lays down the limitation of the executive. In the case at hand the order of the Government is well within the limits and guidelines given by the Hon'ble Court.

Issue no. 2

13. Furthermore in this respect I would also like to point out that, the Government had initially refused to make the reference. This reference is made as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court in WP no. 353 of 2007. Furthercome I would also like to point out that is the above discussed issues nos. 1,4,6, it is held that, there in employee-employer relationship between the parties and the contract is found to be sham and bogus. The said point is adjudicated by the Tribunal which is the base of the reference. The Government was not empowered to adjudicate these issues. In this case the employee-employer relation is established. In the circumstances the order of Government making reference cannot be faulted. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 2 in the negative.

Issue no. 3

11. The Id. adv for the first party in this respect submitted that the Government erred in making the reference. According to them as there was no employee- employer relationship between the concerned workman and the first party, therefore no industrial dispute arises. In support of his argument the Id. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Secretary Indian Tea Association V/s. Ajit Kumar Barat and Ors. 2000 I LLJ 809 wherein in para 11of the judgement Hon'ble Court observed that;

"Respondent no. 1 has not been able to show that while passing the above administrative order State Government took into consideration any irrelevant 14. It is the case of the first party that, the second party union is neither a majority union nor there are members from the first party Bank. According to it, there is[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 28, 2013/आश्विन 6, 1935 5457 another union by name French Bank Employees Union functioning for the employees of the first party and the first party had entered into various settlements with the said union. Therefore it is contended on behalf of the first party that Shramik Mahasangh cannot espouse this dispute. In this respect it is rightly pointed by the Ld. Adv. for the second party that in this matter it is case of illegal termination claimed by the second party. In the circumstances u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act 1947 even individual workman without the help of union can raise the industrial dispute. In the circumstances the objection raised on behalf of the first party is found to be devoid of merit. The second party union or even workman can very well espouse the dispute as it is related to termination of services of the workman. Accordingly I decide this issue no 3. in the negative.

Issue no. 5

15. In this respect it is submitted on behalf of the first paty that lastly the workman was the employee of M/s. Tawde Courier Services Agency and he used to work with the first party as employee of M/s. Tawde Courier Services. Therefore accordingly to the first party, M/s. Tawde Courier services is the necesssary party to the reference. In this respect the Id. adv. for the second party pointed out that in the statement of claim, second party has pleaded that he was employee of the first party and contract with M/s. Tawde Courier Agency and other agencies were sham and bogus. In the circumstances according to the second party M/s. Tawde Couriers has no concern to implead as a party. Therefore the said agency need not be a party to the dispute.

17. In resepct of back wages the Id. adv. for the first party submitted that, the second party is not all working with the first party since December, 2001. It is further submitted that the second party has raised the dispute after a period of 5 years and he must be working earning. The Id. adv. further submitted that 'no work no wages' is the settled principle of law. In this back drop he submitted that the second party is not entitled to any back wages. In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the second party that, he is victim of unfair labour practice adopted by the first party. He was illegally terminated from the services. Due to his illegal termination he and his family suffered a lot. He is not employed anywhere since the date of his termination. Therefore, it is submitted that the workman is entitled to full back wages. After giving conscious thought to the submissions of both the parties I am of the opinion that awarding full back wages without performing any work would put necessary financial burden on the first party. At the same time I also take into consideration that the second party is a very poor person serving for about four years at a meagre pay of Rs. 3000/- p.m. He was shown as a contract worker merely be avoid the liability of paying him pay and allowances as like regular employees. Furthermore I would also like to consider the fact that, the workman is not employed anywhere and had suffered a lot due to his illegal termination. I also consider the fact that there is about five years delay in raising the dispute. The workman is not entitled to any back wages for the said period of delay of 5 years. In the circumstances to meet the ends of justice I think to award 25% back wages excluding the period of delay 5 years. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 7 that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service as sub staff with 25% back wages, excluding the period of delay. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

According to the Ld. adv. for the second party the reference can be adjudicated effectively without making the courier agency as a party to the dispute. Furthermore the courier agency has not concerned with the dispute. On the other hand it is submitted that if at all first paty want to rely upon their pleading in the written statement, they may call the concerned person from M/s. Tawde Courier services as their witness. I do agree with the submission of the second party that the reference can be adjudicated effectively without making M/s. Tawde Courier as party to the reference. Therefore it is not necessary party to the reference. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 5 in the negative that the reference is not hit by the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties.

The reference is partly allowed with no order as to cost.

(i) The second party workman is declared to be employee of first party and the service contract is declared to be sham and bogus.

(ii) The termination of services of the workman is

declared as illegal.

(iii) The first party is directed to reinstate the second party workman forthwith with 25% back wages (excluding the period of delay of 5 years in making refer

Issue no. 7

16. In the light of findings on issues no. 1,4, & 6 it is clear that the second party has established that workman is the employee of the first party. It is also held that there exists employee-employer relationship between workman with the first party. The contract is also held to be sham and bogus. In the circumstances the workman is enttitled to be reinstated in the service of the Bank as a sub-staff.

ence) with continuity of service.

(iv) The first party shall pay to the second party workman arrears of back wages arrears and other allowances and benefits at par with the regular employees.

Date: 11.03.2013

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer5458 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

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-20012/16/2007-IR (CM-I) dt. 03.05.2007

SCHEDULE

का॰आ॰ 2047.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 28/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-20012/16/2007-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

एम॰ के॰ सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

S.O. 2047.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2007) 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 M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.

[No. L-20012/16/2007-IR (CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer "Whether the action of the management of Hariajam Colliery of M/s. ECL in not referring Shri Mansha Manjhi, Wagon Loader to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his correct age is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is he concerned workman entitled."

2. Mr. U.P. Sinha, the Ld. Advocate for the Union is present but no workman Mansha Manjhi, the W/Loader appeared nor any witness for the evidence of the workman produced. Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld. advocate for the O.P./ Management is present. Mr. Sinha, the Ld. advocate for the Union/workman has urged for a needful order, as no workman appears to be interested in proceeding with the case, despite his solid steps for proceeding.

ANNEXURE

On going through the case record, I find that the case has been pending for the evidence of the workman since 27.8.2012, for which Regd. Notice dt. 8.3.2013 was issued to the Secretary of the Union concerned. The present reference relates to a matter of not referring the workman to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his correct age. In view of the submission of the Mr. Sinha, the Ld. Counsel for the Union and the present status of the case, the conduct of the workman appears to be his unwillingliness to proceed with the case.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2),

AT DHANBAD

In result the case is closed as no industrial dispute PRESENT :

Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

and accordingly it is passed an order.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 सितम्बर, 2013

REFERENCE NO. 28 OF 2007

Parties : Secretary

Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress, Bishunpur, Dhanbad Vs., General Manager, Mugma area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad

On behalf of the workman : Mr. U.P. Sinha, Ld. advocate

On behalf of the Management : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, Dated the 1st Aug., 2013 का॰आ॰ 2048.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 16/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/09/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं॰ एल-20012/10/2007-आईआर (सीएम-I)] एम॰ के॰ सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013

AWARD