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

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2232.—dsaæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] fetksje jkT; ljdkj] lrdZrk foHkkx] vkbZtksy

dh fnukad 13 ekpZ] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la- lh-31018@1@2010&

VIG/Pt. }kjk izkIr lgefr ls flfoy vLirky] vkbZtksy fetksje

ds mUu;u gsrq laLohd`r fuf/ ds nq#i;ksx ds ekeys ds laca/ esa]

fnukad 03&04&2008 ds ih- bZ-la- 3@2008 rFkk mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr

vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa iz;klksa] nq"iszj.kkvksa rFkk "kM;a=kksa rFkk mlh

laO;ogkj esa fd, x, mu rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijk/ ds

iathdj.k@vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds

lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj leLr fetksje

jkT; ds laca/ esa djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 228@27@2013&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2013

S.O. 2232.—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

Government of Mizoram, Vigilance Department, New

Secretariat Building, New Secretariat Complex, Khatla,

Aizawl vide Notification No. C. 31018/1/2010-VIG/Pt. dated

29th July, 2013, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

to the whole State of Mizoram for investigation of offences

punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A

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

with Section 13(2) and 13(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) relating to

suspected misappropriation/diversion of fund amounting

of Rs. 5.74 Crore sanctioned for upgradation of Civil

Hospital, Aizawl, Mizoram.

[F. No. 228/27/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 42]

ubZ fnYyh, vDrwcj 13—vDrwcj 19] 2013] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 21—vkf'ou 27] 1935

No. 42]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 13—OCTOBER 19, 2013, SATURDAY/ASVINA 21—ASVINA 27, 1935

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

4290 GI/2013

(5947)

5948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2233.—dsaæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh

/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] f=kiqjk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] vxjryk dh

fnukad 14 vxLr] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la- ,iQ- 21(2)&ih-

Mh-@2012 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls ek£d¯Vx ,oa l£ol ,DlVsa'ku lsaVj

(,e ,aM ,lbZlh)] oL=k ea=kky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] vxjryk ds yksd

lsodksa }kjk #i, 4]50]000 ds dsaæh; ljdkj fuf/ ds nq#i;ksx

tSlk fd dsaæh; vUos"k.k C;wjks] Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/d 'kk[kk] f'kykax esa

fnukad 31&07&2012 dks iathÑr lhchvkbZ ekeyk la- vkjlh]

,l,pth 2012, 0005 (vkjlh- 5 (,) 2012&,l,pth) esa

vkjksfir gSa] ls lacaf/r ekeys esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 (1860

dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 120&ch] 409 rFkk 471 rFkk

Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/fu;e] 1988 (1988 dk vf/fu;e la- 49)

dh /kjk 13 (2) lifBr 13 (1) (lh) ,oa (Mh) ds rgr naMuh;

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

laO;ogkj esa fd, x, mu rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijk/ ds

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

'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj leLr f=kiqjk jkT; esa djrh gS A

[iQk- la- 228@70@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2013

S.O. 2233.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Tripura, Home Department, Agartala vide

Notification No. F. 21(2)-PD/2012 dated 14th August, 2013,

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members

of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of

the State of Tripura for investigation of offences punishable

under Sections 120-B, 409, and 471 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and 13(2) read with Section

13(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(Act No. 49 of 1988) relating to involvement of Public

Servant of Marketing and Service Extension Centre

(M&SEC), Ministry of Textiles, Government of India,

Agartala for misappropriation of Central Government funds

amounting to total Rs. 4,50,000 as alleged in the CBI Case

No. RCSHG 2012A0005 (RC.5(A)2012-SHG.) registered at

Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch,

Shillong on 31-07-2012 and attempts, abetments and

conspiracies in relation to the above mentioned offence

and any other offiences committed in course of the same

transaction arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/70/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2234.—dsaæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh

/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] vle jkT; ljdkj] jktuhfrd (,) foHkkx]

fnliqj dh fnukad 30 vizSy] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la- ih,y,-

208@2013@23 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) ds rgr /kjk 34] 302 ,oa 341 ds

v/hu iqfyl LVs'ku] frulqfd;k esa iathÑr ekeyk la- 191@2013

esa Jh xaxk jke dkSy (lhihvkbZ,e,y usrk)] xqV~VhckM+h xkao]

iSuhVksyk Vh LVsV ds vanj] ftyk&frulqfd;k (vle) dh gR;k ls

lacaf/r vijk/ksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izs.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=kksa rFkk

mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, mu rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijk/ ds

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

vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj leLr vle jkT; esa djrh gS A

[iQk- la- 228@39@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2013

S.O. 2234.—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

Government of Assam, Political (A) Department, Dispur

vide Notification No. PLA. 208/2013/23 dated 30th April,

2013, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole of the State of Assam for investigation of Case No.

191/2013 under sections 34, 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station

Tinsukia relating to murder of Shri Gangaram Koul (CPI-

ML-Leader), Gutibari Gaon, inside Panitola Tea Estate of

Tinsukia District (Assam) and attempts, abetments and

conspiracies in relation to the above mentioned offence

and any other offence committed in course of the same

transaction arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/39/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5949

lhek 'kqYd ds vk;qDr dk dk;kZy;] iq.ks

iq.ks] 30 vxLr] 2013

la- 03@2013&lhek 'kqYd (,u Vh)

dk-vk- 2235.—lhek 'kqYd vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962 dk 52) dh /kjk 8 ds v/hu iznÙk vf/dkjksa dks dk;kZfUor djrs gq,

vk;qDr] lhek 'kqYd iq.ks }kjk fnukad 03&12&2009 dks tkjh vf/lwpuk la[;k 2@2009 &lhek 'kqYd (,u Vh) esa mfYyf[kr fuEufyf[kr

LFkkuksa dks fof'k"V vk;kr rFkk fu;kZr fd, tkus okys eky dks [kkyh djus (vuyks¯Mx) rFkk ynku (yks¯Mx) gsrq lhek 'kqYd {ks=k ds :i

esa eatwjh iznku dh xbZ Fkh A

cUnjxkg dk uke

eky mrkjus dk LFkku

lhek 'kqYd {ks=k

HkkSxksfyd lhek,¡

ts ,l MCY;w

vf/ekiu

1- (17

o 18-14' mÙkj] 73

o 12-39' iwoZ)

t;x<+

t;x<+ cUnjxkg fyfeVsM

33-77 ,dM+

2- (17

o 18-37' mÙkj 73

o 12-59' iwoZ)

cUnjxkg

(ts ,l MCY;w ts ih ,y) &

3- (17

o 18-25' mÙkj 73

o 12-72' iwoZ)

t;x<+ cUnxkg dh lhekvksa esa vkus

4- (17

o 18-16' mÙkj 73

o 12-73' iwoZ)

okyh /eu[kksy [kkM+h tks Hkkjrh;

5- (17

o 18-06' mÙkj 73

o 12-48' iwoZ)

iksVZ vf/fu;e] 1908 (1908 dk XV)

fof'k"V yS.MekdZ

dh /kjk 5 ds v/hu iznÙk vf/dkjksa ds

iwoZ & t;x<+ xk¡o

dk;kZUo;u esa egkjk"Vª ljdkj dh

nf{k.k & dq.kchokMh

vf/lwpuk la[;k] vkbZih, 1298@lhvkj&

if'pe & djgrs'oj eafnj

107@ihvkjVh&1 fnukad 06&01&2000 ds

mÙkj &vjch leqnz

v/hu vf/lwfpr gS A

2- vc] eSllZ] ts ,l MCY;w t;x<+ cUnjxkg jRukfxjh] us vk;kr rFkk fu;kZr dUVsUkjksa ds lEcU/ esa vuqjks/ fd;k gS fd vfrfjDr

{ks=k dks ^^lhek 'kqYd {ks=k** ds :i esa vf/lwfpr fd;k tk, A

3- rnuqlkj] eSa] oklk 'ks"kfxfj jko] vk;qDr] lhek 'kqYd] iq.ks] lhek 'kqYd vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962 dk 52) dh /kjk 8 ds

v/hu iznÙk vf/dkjh dks dk;kZfUor djrs gq, ,rn}kjk bl vf/lwpuk ds fuEufyf[kr vuqlwph ds LraHk 3 esa fofu£n"V rFkk LraHk 2 esa

mfYyf[kr cUnjxkg esa fLFkr fuEufyf[kr vfrfjDr LFkku dks vk;kfrr eky dks [kkyh djus (vuyks¯Mx) rFkk fu;kZr eky vFkok vU;

fdlh izdkj ds eky ds ynku (yks¯Mx) gsrq lhek 'kqYd {ks=k ds :i esa eatwjh iznku djrk g¡w A

vuqlwph

cUnxkg dk uke

eky mrkjus dk LFkku

lhek 'kqYd {ks=k

HkkSxksfyd lhek,¡

ts ,l MCY;w

ts ,l MCYY;w

vf/ekiu

lhek 'kqYd {ks=k tks fuEufyf[kr v{kka'k

t;x<+

t;x<+ cUnjxkg fyfeVsM

38100

(mÙkj) ,oa js[kka'k (iwoZ) ls f?kjk gqvk

cUnxkg

(ts ,l MCy;w ts ih ,y) &

LDosvj ehVlZ

rFkk lHkh rjiQ ls ?ksjkcUn gS A

t;x<+ cUnxkg dh lhekvksa esa vkus

okyh /eu[kksy [kkM+h tks Hkkjrh;

iksVZ vf/fu;e] 1908 (1908 dk XV)

dh /kjk 5 ds v/hu iznÙk vf/dkjksa ds

dk;kZUo;u esa egkjk"Vª ljdkj dh

5950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/lwpuk la[;k] vkbZih, 1298@lhvkj&

107@ihvkjVh&1 fnukad 06&01&2000 ds

v/hu vf/lwfpr gS A

v{kka'k(mÙkj)

js[kka'k (iwoZ)

, 17

o 18-118 '

o 12-415 '

ch 17

o 18-097 '

o 12-394 '

lh 17

o 17-96 '

o 12-344 '

Mh 17

o17-95 '

o 12-349 '

bZ 17

o18-031 '

o 12-473 '

5 17

o18-06 '

o 12-48 '

fof'k"V yS.MekdZ

iwoZ & t;x<+ xk¡o

nf{k.k & dq.kchokMh

if'pe & djgrs'oj eafnj

mÙkj &vjch leqnz@cFkZ 1 rFkk 2

mi;qZDr eatwjh lhek 'kqYd vf/fu;e] 1962 ds lacaf/r mica/ksa dk dM+kbZ ls ikyu rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh

vuqns'kksa dk vuqlj.k fd, tkus dh 'krks± ij nh tk jgh gS A

¹iQk- la- VIII @lh-'kq-@rduhdh@48&30@ts,lMCY;w&t;x<+@2012º

oklk 'ks"kfxfj jko] vk;qDr

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE

Pune, the 30th August, 2013

No. 03/2013-Customs (NT)

S.O. 2235 .—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the Customs Act 1962 (52 of 1962), the

Notification No. 2/2009-CUS (NT) dated 03-12-2009 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune approving the

below mentioned place as the Customs Area of unloading and loading of specified import and Export goods.

Name of the Port

Landing place

Customs Area

Limits with Geographical Boundaries

JSW Jaigarh Port

Measuring 33.77

1. (17 ^o18.14' N, 73^o12.39' E)

Ltd. (JSWJPL)

acres

2. (17 ^o18.37' N, 73^o12.59' E)

Dhamankhol Bay within

3. (17 ^o18.25' N, 73^o12.72' E)

the limits of Jaigarh Port

4. (17 ^o18.16' N, 73^o12.73' E)

notified under Government

5. (17 ^o18.06' N, 73^o12.48' E)

of Maharashtra Notification

Prominent Land Marks East-

No. IPA1298/CR/107/PRTI

Jaigad Village

dated 6-1-2000 in exercise of the

South-Kunbiwadi

powers conferred by Section 5

West-Karhateshwar Temple

of the Indian Ports Act, 1908

North-Arbian Sea

(XV of 1908)

2. Now, M/s. JSW Jaigarh Port in Ratnagiri has requested for additional area to be notified as ‘Customs area’ in

order to handle Import and Export containers.

3. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); I, Vasa

Seshagiri Rao, Commissioner of Customs, Pune hereby approve the following additional Area specified in column (3) of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5951

the below Schedule to this notification, located in the port mentioned at column (2) of the said Schedule, to be the Customs

Area for unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods or any class of goods.

SCHEDULE

Name of the Port

Landing place

Customs Area

Limits with Geographical Boundaries

JSW Jaigarh Port

JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. (JSWJPL)-

Measuring

The Customs area encompassed by

Dhamankhol Bay within the limits

38100 Sq. Mtr.

following Latitude (N) & Longitude (E)

of Jaigard Port notified under

fenced on all sides.

Government of Maharashtra

Notification No.

IPA 1298/CR/107/PRT I dated

6-1-2000 in exercise of the powers

confirmed by Section 5 of the

Indian Ports Act, 1908 (XV of 1908)

Latitude (N)

Longitude (E)

A 17^o 18.118'

o 12.415'

B 17

o 18.097'

o 12.394'

C 17

o 17.96'

o 12.344'

D 17

o 17.95'

o 12.349'

E 17

o 18.031'

o 12.473'

5 17

o 18.06'

o 12.48'

Prominent Land marks-

East-Jaigad Village

South-Kunbiwad.

West-Karhateshwar Temple

North-Arabian Sea/Berth 1 & 2

4. The above approval is subject to strict observance of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the

instructions issued by the Government of India form time to time in pursuance thereof.

[ F. No. VIII/Cus/Tech/48-30/JSW-Jaigarh/2012]

VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, Commissioner

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2236.—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/) Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds

mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds

[kaM(d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds egkizca/d Jh xkSjh 'kadj (tUe frfFk%

25&03&1956) dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls 31&03&2016 rd vFkkZr~ muds }kjk vf/o£"krk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh

rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] iatkc us'kuy cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 4@5@2012&chvks&Iº

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

5952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2013

S.O. 2236.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-clause

(1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central

Government, hereby appoints Shri Gauri Shankar (DoB: 25-03-1956), General Manager, Bank of India as Executive Director,

Punjab National Bank, with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post and upto 31-03-2016, i.e, the date of his

attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2237.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vf/fu;e] 1955 (1955 dk 23) dh /kjk 20 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk (19) ds [k.M

(d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh v#a/fr HkV~Vkpk;Z (tUe frfFk 18&03&1956)] izca/

funs'kd] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad dks muds inHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys

gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad dk vè;{k fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 2@5@2013&chvks&Iº

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2013

S.O. 2237.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section (19) and sub-section (1) of Section 20 of

the State of Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Arundhati Bhattacharya

(DoB: 18-03-1956), Managing Director, State Bank of India as Chairman, State Bank of India, for a period of three years from

the date of her taking over the charge of the post or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[ F. No. 2/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2238.—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/) Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr

cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3 ds [kaM([k) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye 2 esa fofu£n"V O;fDr;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds dkye 3 esa fofu£n"V

O;fDr;ksa ds LFkku ij dkye (1) esa fofu£n"V cSadksa esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ds :i esa rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus

rd] ukfer djrh gS %&

lkj.kh

(1)

(2)

(3)

vkU/zk cSad

Jh vkuanjko fo".kq ikfVy] funs'kd] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

Jh eksgEen eqLriQk

nsuk cSad

Jh jtr lPpj] vk£Fkd lykgdkj] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

Jh ,l- ds- ftUny

;wfu;u cSad vkiQ bafM;k

Jh eksgEen eqLriQk] funs'kd] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

MkW- v¯pru HkV~Vkpk;Z

;qukbVsM cSad vkiQ bafM;k

Jh fefgj dqekj] funs'kd] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

Jh lanhi dqekj

LVsV cSad vkiQ chdkusj ,aM t;iqj

Jh xqykc ¯lg*] mi lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

Jh fefgj dqekj

LVsV cSad vkiQ gSnjkckn

Jh ,- ds- Mksxjk] mi lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

Jh vkuanjko fo".kq ikfVy

*01&10&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn muds inHkkj xzg.k djus ij A

¹iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks& Iº

Js;k xqgk] funs'kd

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5953

New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013

S.O. 2238.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub-Section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquistion & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised

Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominate the

persons specified in column (2) of the table below as Government Nominee Director of the Banks specified in column (1)

thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders:—

TABLE

(1)

(2)

(3)

Andhra Bank

Sh. Anandrao Vishnu Patil Director,

Sh. Mohammad Mustafa

Department of Financial Services

Dena Bank

Sh. Rajat Sachar

Sh. S.K. Jindal

Economic Adviser,

Department of Financial Services

Union Bank of India

Sh. Mohammad Mustafa

Dr. Achintan Bhatacharya

Director,

Department of Financial Services

United Bank of India

Sh. Mihir Kumar

Sh. Sandeep Kumar

Director,

Department of Financial Services

State Bank of Bikaner &

Sh. Gulab Singh*

Sh. Mihir Kumar

Jaipur

Deputy Secretary,

Department of Financial Services

State Bank of Hyderabad

Sh. A.K. Dogra

Sh. Anandrao Vishnu Patil

Deputy Secretary,

Department of Financial Services

* Upon his joining on or after 01-10-2013.

[ F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

SREYA GUHA, Director

fons'k ea=kky;

(lhihoh izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 2239.—jktuf;d vkSj dkalyh; vkWfiQlj ('kiFk vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh lquhy dqekj HkV~VkpkthZ] lgk;d dks 4th vDrwcj] 2013 Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] eLdV esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vf/dkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh- 4330@01@2006º

vkj- ds- isfjufM;k] mi lfpo (dkaslqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFF AIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013

S.O. 2239.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and

fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjee Assistant in Embassy

of India, Muscat, to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 4th October, 2013.

[ No. T. 4330/01/2006]

R. K. PERINDIA, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

5954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2240.—jktuf;d vkSj dksalyh; vkWfiQlj ('kiFk vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa dasnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh mesn ¯lg lgk;d dks 10 vDrwcj] 2013 Hkkjr ds dkalqykokl fc£e?ke esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vf/dkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh- 4330@01@2006º

vkj- ds- isfjufM;k] mi lfpo (dkaslqyj)

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2013

S.O. 2240.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and

fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Umed Singh, Assistant in Consulate General of

India, Birmingham to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 10th October, 2013.

[ No. T. 4330/01/2006]

R. K. PERINDIA, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2241.—bl ea=kky; dh fnukad 19&01&2012] 16&01&2013 vkSj 22&2&2013 dh vf/lwpukvksa Øe'k% la-

809@2@2011&,iQ(lh)] 809@3@2011&,iQ(lh)] 809@5@2011&,iQ(lh) vkSj 809@7@2011&,iQ (lh) ds vuqØe esa rFkk pyfp=k (izek.ku)

fu;e] 1983 ds fu;e 7 vkSj 8 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp=k vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 37) dh /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1)}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj fuEufyf[kr O;fDr;ksa dks rRdky izHkko ls nks o"kks± dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

igys gks] dsaæh; fiQYe izek.ku cksMZ ds {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa] tSlk fd izR;sd lnL; ds uke ds lkeus fofu£n"V gS] esa lykgdkj iSuyksa ds lnL;

ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS %&

Øe la-

lnL; dk uke

lykgdkj iSuy

Jherh lqykspuk lEHkkth dlwjns

eqacbZ

Jherh jbZlk fxy ujsUæiky ¯lg

&ogh&

Jherh chuk (fczuYys) iQjukfMl

&ogh&

Jherh js'kek ds- 'ksokys

&ogh&

Jherh euhrk efyd

&ogh&

Jh lat; vxzoky

fnYyh

Jh dSyk'k panj dSe

&ogh&

Jh deythr ¯lg pkoyk

&ogh&

Jh nhid uanjk

&ogh&

10-

Jh vfer dqekj

&ogh&

11-

Jh lq'khy dqekj eYgks=kk

&ogh&

12-

lqJh FkkjkgbZ dqFkcVZ vucqvkge

psUuS

13-

MkW- oMkiYyk Ñ".kk

gSnjkckn

¹iQk- la- 809@3@2011&,iQ(lh)º

fu#iek dksr:] funs'kd (fiQYe)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5955

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2013

S.O. 2241.—In continuation of Ministry’s Notifications No. 809/2/2011-F(C), 809/3/2011-F(C), 809/5/2011-

F(C) and 809/7/2011-F(C) dated 19-01-2012, 16-01-2013 and 22-02-2013 respectively and in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph

(Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the

Advisory panels at the Regional Offices as specified against each member, of the Central Board of Film Certification with

immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier :—

S. No.

Name of Member

Advisory Panel

Mrs. Sulochana Sambhaji Kasurde

Mumbai

Mrs. Raeesa Gill Narendrapal Singh

-do-

Mrs. Beena (Brinelle) Fernades

-do-

Mrs. Reshma K. Shewale

-do-

Mrs. Manita Malik

-do-

Shri Sanjay Aggarwal

Delhi

Shri Kailash Chander Kaim

-do-

Shri Kamaljit Singh Chawla

-do-

Shri Deepak Nandra

-do-

10.

Shri Amit Kumar

-do-

11.

Shri Sushil Kumar Malhotra

-do-

12.

Ms. Tharahai Cuthbert Anbuaham

Chennai

13.

Dr. Vadapalli Krishna

Hyderabad

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

NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films)

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

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 2242.—bl foHkkx ds fnukad 12&10&2012 dh vf/lwpuk la- oh- 12017@44@2003&MhbZ ([kaM VIII) ds vf/Øe.k esa

vkSj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz

ljdkj] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gSa vFkkZr %&

jek MsaVy dkyst vLirky ,aM vuqla/ku dsUnz] dkuiqj ds fy, MkW- Hkhejko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk }kjk iznÙk nar

fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 58 ds

lkeus dkye 2 ,ao 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

^^ifCyd gsYFk MsafVLVªh

,e Mh ,l (ifCyd gsYFk MsafVLVªh)]

(;fn 10&6&2011 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

MkW- Hkhejko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk

vksjy iSFkksyksth ,aM ekbZØksck;ksyksth

,e Mh ,l (vksjy iSFkksyksth)

(;fn 10&6&2011 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

MkW- Hkhejko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk

ihMksMksaVksDl ,aM fizosafVo MsafVLVªh

,e Mh ,l (ihMksMkasVkDl)

(;fn 10&6&2011 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

MkW- Hkhejko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk

vksjy esfMflu ,aM jsfM;ksyksth

,e Mh ,l (vksjy esfMflu)]

(;fn 10&6&2011 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

MkW- Hkhejko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk**

¹iQk- la- oh-12017@44@2003&Mh bZ([kaM VIII)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

5956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2013

S.O. 2242.—In supersession to this Department’s Notification No. V. 12017/44/2003-DE (Vol. VIII) dated 12-10-

2012 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the

Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-

I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 58, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degress awarded by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra, the

following entries in respect of Rama Dental College Hospital & Research Centre, Kanpur, shall be inserted thereunder:—

‘‘Public Health Dentistry

MDS (Pub. Health.) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra

(if granted on or after 10-6-2011)

Oral Pathology & Microbiology

MDS (Oral Path.) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra

(if granted on or after 10-6-2011)

Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry

MDS (Pedo), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra

(if granted on or after 10-6-2011)

Oral Medicine & Radiology

MDS (Oral Med.), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra”

(if granted on or after 10-6-2011)

[F. No. V. 12017/44/2003-DE (Vol.VIII)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 2243.—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gSa vFkkZr~%&

dkyhdV fo'ofo|ky;] dsjy }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1esa] Øe la[;k 30 ds le{k dkWye 2 vkSj 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh

tk;saxh%&

^^III. ,tqds;j nar fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku, eyIiqje~

(i) cSpyj vkWiQ MasVy ltZjh

ch-Mh-,l- dkyhdV fo'ofo|ky;] dsjy**

(;fn 14&07&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@77@2005&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2013

S. O. 2243.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 30, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degress awarded by University of Calicut, Kerala, the following entries shall

be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘III. Educare Institue of Dental Sciences, Malappuram

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, University of Calicut, Kerala”

(if granted on or after 14-7-2012)

[ F. No.V. 12017/77/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5957

ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 2244-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

Hkkjrh fon~;kihB fo'ofo|ky;] iq.ks }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 54 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa Hkkjrh fon~;kihB] nar fpfdRlk

dkWyst ,oa vLirky] lkaxyh ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

¶cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

ch-Mh-,l-] Hkkjrh fon~;kihB fo'ofo|ky;] iq.ks¸

(;fn 19&7&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@63@2006&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2013

S.O. 2244.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 54 in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Bharti Vidyapeeth University, Pune against Bharati

Vidyapeeth Dental College and Hospital, Sangli, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :

‘‘ Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune”

(if granted on or after 19-7-2012)

[F. No. V. 12017/63/2006-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2013

dk-vk- 2245-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 110 ds ckn fuEufyf[kr Øe la[;k vkSj

izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

¶ 111rhFkZdj egkohj fo'ofo|ky;] eqjknkckn

rhFkZdj egkchj nar fpfdRlk dkWyst ,oa vuqla/ku dsUæ] eqjknkckn

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

ch-Mh-,l-] rhFkZdj egkohj fo'ofo|ky;] eqjknkckn A¸

(;fn 25&08&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@27@2004&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2013

S.O. 2245.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) after Serial No. 110, the following Serial number and

entries shall be inserted, namely :—

‘‘111 Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad.

Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College & Research

Centre, Moradabad.

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad.”

(If granted on or after 25-8-2012)

[F. No. V. 12017/27/2004-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

5958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 iQjojh] 2013

dk-vk- 2246-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 84 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr

izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

¶& Mh,oh lsaVsuZjh MsaVy dkWyst] ekWMy Vkmu] ;equk uxj (gfj;k.kk)

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(;fn 23&8&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

chMh,l] ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd

& nar fpfdRlk foKku LukrdksÙkj laLFkku] jksgrd

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(;fn 7&8&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

chMh,l] ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd

& tuuk;d pkS- nsohyky MsaVy dkWyst] fljlk

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(;fn 18&8&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

chMh,l] ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd

& ekuo jpuk MsaVy dkWyst] iQjhnkckn

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(;fn 17&8&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

chMh,l] ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd

& ihMh,e MsaVy dkWyst ,oa vuqla/ku laLFkku] cgknqjx<+

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(;fn 18&8&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

chMh,l] ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd

& Jh xks¯on VªkbZlsaVsuZjh MsaVy dkWyst] vLirky ,oa

vuqla/ku laLFkku] cq<sjk

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(;fn 14&8&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

chMh,l] ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd

& lq/k jLrksxh nar fpfdRlk foKku dkWyst ,oa vuqla/ku

dsaæ] iQjhnkckn

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(;fn 17&8&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

chMh,l] ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd

& Lokeh nsoh n;ky vLirky ,oa MsaVy dkWyst] iapdqyk

cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(;fn 17&8&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

chMh,l] ia- ch-Mh-'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd¸

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@1@2013&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5959

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2013

S.O. 2246.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in

Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 84, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak,

the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘- DAV Centernary Dental College, Model Town, Yamuna

Nagar (Haryana)

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 23-8-2012)

Rohtak.

- Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Rohtak

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 7-8-2012)

Rohtak.

- Jan Nayak Ch. Devi Lal Dental College, Sirsa

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 18-8-2012)

Rohtak.

- Manav Rachna Dental College, Faridabad

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 17-8-2012)

Rohtak.

- PDM Dental College, Research Institute, Bahadurgarh.

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 18-8-2012)

Rohtak.

- Sri Govind Tricentenary Dental College, Hospital and

Research Institute, Budhera.

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 14-8-2012)

Rohtak.

- Sudha Rustagi College of Dental Sciences and

Research, Faridabad.

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 17-8-2012)

Rohtak.

- Swami Devi Dyal Hospital and Dental College,

Panchkula.

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 17-8-2012)

Rohtak.”

[F. No. V. 12017/1/2013-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2013

dk-vk- 2247-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

jQyj MsaVy dkWyst] yksuh ds fy, izojk vk;q£oKku laLFkku (ekfur fo'ofo|ky;)] yksuh] egkjk"Vª }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa

dh ekU;rk ds lEcU/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 70 ds lkeus dkye 2 ,oa

3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

5960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¶ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

vksjy esfMflu ,aM jsfM;ksyksth

,e Mh ,l (vksjy esfMflu)] izojk vk;q£oKku laLFkku

(;fn 5&6&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

(ekfur fo'ofo|ky;)] yksuh

ihMksMksaVksDl ,aM fizosafVo MsafVLVªh

,e Mh ,l (ihMks)] izojk vk;q£oKku laLFkku

(;fn dsoy 'kSf{kd l=k 2009&10 ds nkSjku izos'k

(ekfur fo'ofo|ky;)] yksuh

ysus okys Nk=kksa dks iznku dh xbZ)

vksjy iSFkksyksth ,aM ekbZØksck;ksyksth

(;fn dsoy 'kSf{kd l=k 2009&10 ds nkSjku izos'k

,e Mh ,l (vksjy iSFkksyksth)] izojk vk;q£oKku laLFkku

ysus okys Nk=kksa dks iznku dh xbZ)

(ekfur fo'ofo|ky;)] yksuh¸

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@30@2007&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2013

S.O. 2247.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 70, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed

University), Loni, Maharashtra against Rural Dental College, Loni, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘ Master of Dental Surgery

Oral Medicine and Radiology

MDS, (Oral Med.) Pravara Institute of Medical

(if granted on or after 5-6-2012)

Sciences (Deemed University), Loni.

Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry

MDS, (Paedo.) Pravara Institute of Medical

(if granted to the students admitted

Sciences (Deemed University), Loni.

during the academic session 2009-10 only)

Oral Pathology and Microbiology

MDS, (Oral Path.) Pravara Institute of Medical

(if granted to the students admitted

Sciences (Deemed University), Loni.”

during the academic session 2009-10 only)

[F. No. V. 12017/30/2007-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2248-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (4) [kaM ([k) }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] vkSj fnukad 3&05&2010 ds ea=kky; dh lEla[;d

vf/lwpuk ds vf/Øe.k esa ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&III esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&III esa] Øe la[;k 98 ds le{k dkWye 1] 2 ,oa 3 dh

ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %—

¶ 99 yksok fo'ofo|ky;]

Hkkjrh; fo'ofo|ky;ksa }kjk nh tkus okyh

LukrdksÙkj fMxzh (,e ,l)] yksok

;w-,l- ,

,e-Mh-,l (ifCyd gsYFk MsaVhLVªh) ds

fo'ofo|ky;] ;w-,l- ,-”

led{k Lukrdksrj fMxzh (,e ,l)

(;fn 19&12&1997 dks ;k mlds

ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12018@02@2007&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5961

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2013

S.O. 2248.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) Sub-section(4) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India and in supersession of this

Ministry’s Notification of even no. dated, 3-5-2010, hereby, makes the following further amendments in Part-III of the

Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

Under the existing entries of column 1, 2 & 3 after Serial No. 98 in Part-III of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) the following entries shall be added, namely :—

“99. University of lowa, USA

Master Degree (MS) equivalent to

Master Degree (MS), University

MDS (Public Health Dentistry)

of lowa, USA.”

awarded by Indian Universities.

(If granted on or after 19-12-1997)

[F. No. V. 12018/02/2007-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2249-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

pkS- pj.k ¯lg fo'ofo|ky;] esjB }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 56 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka

var%LFkkfir dh tk,xh %&

¶ V Ñ".kk MsaVy dkWyst] xkft;kckn (mÙkj izns'k)

(i) cSpyj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

ch-Mh-,l-] pkS- pj.k ¯lg fo'ofo|ky;] esjB A¸

(;fn dsoy 'kS{kf.kd l=k 2008&09 ds nkSjku izos'k

ysus okys ch-Mh- ,l- Nk=kksa dks iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@22@2004&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2013

S.O. 2249.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 56, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut, the following

entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

“ V Krishna Dental College, Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh)

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut”

(if granted to the BDS students admitted during the

academic session 2008-09 only)

[F. No. V. 12017/22/2004-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

5962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2250-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj LokLF; foKku] fot;okM+k] vkU/z izns'k }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Jh osadsVk lkbZ baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ MsaVy lkbal] egcwcuxj] vka/z izns'k ds lEca/

esa Øe la[;k 50 ds XII(d) ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh* 'kh"kZd ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr

izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

¶dUlsosZVho MsafVLVªh ,aM ,aMksMksafVDl

,e Mh ,l (dUlsosZVho MsafVLVªh)] MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj

(;fn 26&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

LokLF; foKku] fot;okM+k

isfj;ksMksaVksyksth

,e Mh ,l(isfj;ks)] MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj LokLF; foKku]

(;fn 26&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

fot;okM+k”

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@29@2008&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2013

S.O. 2250.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against XII (a) of Serial No. 50, in respect of Sri Venkata Sai Institute of Dental

Sciences, Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Dr. NTR University of Health Scinces, Vijayawada,

Andhra Pradesh, the following entries under the heading “Master of Dental Surgery” inserted thereunder :—

“ Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics

MDS (Cons. Den.), Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 26th April 2013)

Vijayawada

Periodontology

MDS (Perio.), Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 26th April 2013)

Vijayawada”

[F. No. V. 12017/29/2008-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2251-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] csaxykSj dukZVd n~okjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar

fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] ds-oh-th-MsaVy dkWyst ,aM gkWfLiVy] lqfy;k] dukZVd ds lEca/

esa Øe la[;k 49 ds VIII ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh* 'kh"kZd ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr

izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,xh %&

isfj;ksMksaVksyksth

;fn ,e Mh ,l (isfj;ks)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku

(;fn 25&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

fo'ofon~;ky;] csaxykSj dukZVd

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@15@2008&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5963

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2013

S.O. 2251.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against VIII of Serial No. 49, in respect of K.V.G. Dental College & Hospital,

Sullia, Karnataka, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees

awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, the following entries under the heading

“Master of Dental Surgery”shall be inserted thereunder :—

Periodontology

MDS (Perio.), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 25-5-2013)

Bangalore, Karnataka”

[F. No. V. 12017/15/2008-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2252-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- Jh gluack nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa vLirky] glu] dukZVd ds fy, jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] csaxyq:]

dukZVd }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1

esa] Øe la[;k 49 ds XXIII ds lkeus dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh* 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr

izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,xh %&

izksLFkksMkWfUVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,e Mh ,l (izksLFkks)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] csaxyq:]

(;fn 25&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

vksjy iSFkksyksth ,aM ekbØksckW;ksyksth

,e Mh ,l(vksjy iSFk-)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

(;fn 25&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

csaxyq:]

vksjy esfMflu ,aM jsfM;ksykWth

,e Mh ,l(vksjy esfM-)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

(;fn 25&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

csaxyq:]

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@117@2005&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2013

S.O. 2252.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against XXIII of Serial No. 49, in respect of Sri Hasanamba Dental College

& Hospital, Hassan, Karnataka, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of

dental degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, the following entries under

the heading “Master of Dental Surgery” shall be inserted thereunder :—

“ Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS (Prostho), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, (if

granted on or after 25th May 2013)

Bangalore,

Oral Pathology & Microbiology

MDS (Oral Path), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

(if granted on or after 25th May 2013)

Bangalore,

Oral Medicine & Radiology

MDS (Oral Med.), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

(if granted on or after 25th May 2013)

Bangalore,

[F. No. V. 12017/117/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

5964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2253-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

lq/k jLrksxh dkWyst vkWiQ MsaVy lkb±fll ,aM fjlpZ] iQjhnkckn ds le{k iafMr ch-Mh 'kEkkZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofon;ky;] jksgrd

n~okjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe

la[;k 84 ds le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var% LFkkfir dh tk,xh %&

¶ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

,e Mh ,l (iSMks)-] iafMr ch-Mh- 'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd¸

iSMksaVhDl ,aM izhosaVho MsaVhlVªh

(;fn 11&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@27@2008&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 2253.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 84, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences Rohtak,

against Sudha Rustagi College of Dental Sciences & Research Faridabad, the following entries shall be inserted

thereunder :—

“ Master of Dental Surgery

Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry

MDS (Paedo), Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health

(if granted on or after 11th May 2013)

Sciences Rohtak”

[F. No. V.12017/27/2008-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy..

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2254-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- MkW- Hkhejko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 58 ds le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ckcw cukjlh

nkl nar fpfdRlk foKku egkfo|ky; y[kuÅ ds lkeus fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,xh %&

ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(i) vksjy esfMflu ,aM jsfM;ksykWth

,e Mh ,l (vksjy esfM-)] MkW- ch- vkj- vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;]vkxjk

(;fn 30&08&2011 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

(ii)ihMksMkWfUVDl ,aM fizosfUVo MsafVLVªh

,e Mh ,l (ihMks-)] MkW- ch- vkj- vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;]vkxjk

(;fn 1&09&2011 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

(iii)ifCyd gSYFk MsafVLVªh

,e Mh ,l (tu- LokLF;)] MkW- ch- vkj- vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;]vkxjk

(;fn 30&08&2011 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

(iv)vksjy iSFkksykWth ,aM ekbØksck;ksyksth

,e Mh ,l (vksjy iSFkks)] MkW- ch- vkj- vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;]vkxjk**

(;fn 30&08&2011 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@75@2005&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5965

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 2254.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 58, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, againt Babu

Banarsi Das College of Dental Sciences Lucknow the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

“Master of Dental Surgery

(i) Oral Medicine & Radiology

MDS (Oral Med.), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Agra

(if granted on or after 30th August, 2011)

(ii) Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry

MDS (Paedo), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Agra

(if granted on or after 1st Sep. 2011)

(iii) Public Health Dentistry

MDS (Pub Health), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Agra

(if granted on or after 30th August, 2011)

(iv) Oral Pathology & Microbiology

MDS (Oral Path), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University Agra”

(if granted on or after 30th August, 2011)

[F. No. V. 12017/75/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2255-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 52 ds le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa Hkksft;k nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;

,oa vLirky] lksyu ds lkeus fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,xh %&

¶ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

,e Mh ,l (dat- MsafVfLVªh)-] fgekpu izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk¸

datosZfVo MsafVLVªh ,aM ,aMksMksfUVDl

(;fn 28&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@126@2005&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 2255.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 52, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Himachal Pradesh Universty. Shimla, against Bhojia Dental

College & Hospital, Sloan, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

5966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Master of Dental Surgery

Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics

MDS (Cons. Dentistry), Himachal Pradesh University Shimla”

(if granted on or after 28-5- 2013)

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

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2256-—dsanz ljdkj nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

dukZorh Ldwy vkWiQ MsaVhLVªh xka/huxj ds lEca/ esa xqtjkr fo'ofo|ky;] xqtjkr }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds

fy, nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 19 ds le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk

izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,xh %&

¶ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

isfj;ksMkWVksyksth

,e Mh ,l (isfj;ks)] xqtjkr fo'ofo|ky;] vgenkckn

(;fn 18&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

izksLFkksMksafVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,e Mh ,l (izksLFkks)] xqtjkr fo'ofo|ky;] vgenkckn

(;fn 23&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

vksjy esfMflu ,aM jsfM;ksyksth

,e Mh ,l (vksjy esfMflu)] xqtjkr fo'ofo|ky;] vgenkckn**

(;fn 20&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@28@2009&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 2256.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in

Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 19, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Gujarat University. Gujarat, against Karnavati School of

Dentistry, Gandhinagar, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

“Master of Dental Surgery

- Periodontology

MDS (Perio.), Gujarat University, Ahmedabad

(if granted on or after 18-4- 2013)

- Prosthodontics and Crown & Birdge

MDS (Prostho.), Gujarat University, Ahmedabad

(if granted on or after 23-4- 2013)

- Oral Medicine & Radiology

MDS (Oral Med.), Gujarat University, Ahmedabad”

(if granted on or after 20-4- 2013)

[F. No. V. 12017/28/2009-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5967

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2257-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- rhFkZUdj egkohj MsaVy dkWyst ,aM fjlpZ dsaæ] eqjknkckn ds fy, rhFkZUdj egkohj fo'ofo|ky;] eqjknkckn n~okjk iznÙk nar

fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 111 ds

le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,xh %&

¶ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

datjosfVo MsafVLVªh ,aM ,aMksMksafVDl

,e Mh ,l (datjosfVo MsafVLVªh)] rhFkZUdj egkohj fo'ofo|ky;] eqjknkckn

(;fn 22&02&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

vksjy esfDlyksiQsf'k;y ltZjh

,e Mh ,l (vksjy esfDlyksiQsf'k;y ltZjh)] rhFkZUdj egkohj fo'ofo|ky;]

(;fn 22&02&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

eqjknkckn

vksjy esfMflu ,aM jsfM;ksyksth

,e Mh ,l (vksjy esfMflu)] rhFkZUdj egkohj fo'ofo|ky;] eqjknkckn**

(;fn 22&02&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@36@2009&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013

S.O. 2257.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 111, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Teerthanker Mahaveer University Moradabad, against

Teerthanker Mahabaeer Dental College & Research Centre, Moradabad, the following entries shall be inserted

thereunder :—

“Master of Dental Surgery

Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics

MDS (Cons. Dentistry), Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad

(if granted on or after 22-2- 2012)

Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery

MDS (Oral & Max. Sur.), Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad

(if granted on or after 22-2- 2012)

Oral Medicine & Radiology

MDS (Oral Med.), Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad”

(if granted on or after 22-2- 2012)

[F. No. V. 12017/36/2009-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2258-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

5968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2- MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj- LokLF; foKku] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRlk

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] lSaV tksliQ MsaVy dkWyst nqfxjkyk] ,yq#] vka/z izns'k ds lEca/ esa Øe la[;k

50 ds IX ds le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^ekLVj vkiQ MsaVy ltZjh* 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir

dh tk,xh %&

datjoZsfVo MsafVLVªh ,aM ,aMksMksasfVDl

,e Mh ,l (datjosfVo MsafVLVªh)] MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj LokLF; foKku] fot;okM+k

(;fn 26&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@15@2007&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 2258.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against IX Serial No. 50, in respect of St. Joseph Dental College, Duggirala,

Eluru, Andhra Pradesh, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental

degrees awarded by Dr. N.T. R. University of Health Sciencies, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, The following entries under

the heading ‘‘Master of Dental Surgery” shall be inserted thereunder :—

Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics

MDS (Cons. Dent.), Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada

(if granted on or after 26-04- 2013)

[ F. No. V. 12017/15/2007-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2259-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- MkW- Mh-ok;- ikfVy fon~;kihB] ¯iijh] iq.ks] egkjk"Vª n~okjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRlk

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] MkW- Mh-ok;- ikfVy MsaVy dkWyst ,aM gkWfLiVy] ¯iijh] iq.ks] egkjk"Vª ds lEca/

esa Øe la[;k 91 ds le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh* 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka

var%LFkkfir dh tk;sxh %&

isfj;ksMksaVksyksth

,e Mh ,l (isfj;ks)] MkW- Mh- ok;] ikfVy fon~;kihB] ¯iijh] iq.ks] egkjk"Vª

(;fn 26&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@30@2008&MhbZ(ikVZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 2259.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 91, in respect of Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital,

Pimpri, Pune, Maharshtra, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental

degrees awarded by Dr.D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, Maharshtra, the following entries under the heading ‘‘Master

of Denial Surgery” shall be inserted thereunder :—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5969

Periodontology

MDS (Perio.), Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra

(if granted on or after 26-04- 2013)

[F. No. V.12017/30/2008-DE(Pt.)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2260-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] csaxywj dukZVd n~okjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;kas dh ekU;rk ds fy, nar fpfdRld

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1esa] ,-ts- nar foKku laLFkku] eSaxyksj] dukZVd ds lEca/ ds Øe la[;k 49 ds

XXXIX ds le{k dkye 2 o 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk;saxh %&

^^LUkkRdksÙkj fMIyksek**

vksFkksZMksafVDl ,aM MsaVksiQsf'k;y vksFkksZisfMDl

ih th fMIyksek(vksFkksZ)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] cSaxyksj

(;fn 28&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

izksLFkksMksafVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

ih-th- fMIyksek (izksLFkks)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;]

(;fn 28&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

cSaxyksj

datjosfVo MsafVLVªh ,aM ,aMksMksafVDl

ih-th- fMIyksek (datjosfVo MsafVLVªh)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku

(;fn 28&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

fo'ofon~;ky;] cSaxyksj

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@20@2010&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 2260.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against XXXIX of Serial No. 49, in respect of A.J. Institute of Dental

Sciences, Mangalore, Kanrataka, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition

of dental degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, the following entries shall

be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘Postgradutate Diploma”

Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics

PG Diploma (Ortho.), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 28-05-2013)

Bangalore

Prosthodotics and Crown and Bridge

PG Diploma (Prostho.), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

(if granted on or after 28-05- 2013)

Bangalore

Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics

PG Diploma (Cons. Dent.), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

(if granted on or after 28-05- 2013)

Sciences,Bangalore

[F. No. V. 12017/20/2010-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

5970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2261-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

(2) Jh jkeÑ".k MsaVy dkWyst ,aM vLirky] dks;EcVwj ds fy, fn rfeyukMq MkW- ,e-th-vkj- fpfdRlk fo'ofo|ky;] psUuSs

n~okjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe

la[;k 34 ds lkeus dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^^ekLVj vkWiQ MsUVy ltZjh** 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var% LFkkfir

dh tk,axh %&

vksFkksZMksafVDl ,aM MsaVksiQs'ky vksFkksZisfMDl

,e-Mh-,l-] (vksFkksZ)] fn rfeyukMq MkW- ,e-th-vkj- fpfdRlk

(;fn 26&10&2012 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

fo'ofo|ky;] psUuS

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@7@2006&MhbZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 2261.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against of Serial No. 34 in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai,

the following entries in respect of Sri Ramakrishna dental College & Hospital, Coimbatore under the heading “Master of

Dental Surgery” shall be inserted :—

‘‘Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics

MDS, (Ortho), The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. R.

(if granted on or after 26-10-2012)

Medical University, Chennai

[F. No. V. 12017/7/2006-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2262-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa

fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

2- eerk MsaVy dkWyst] [kEeke] vka/z izns'k ds fy, MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj- LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vka/zk izns'k n~okjk

iznRr nar fpfdRld fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k

50 ds VI ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

¶LukrdksRrj fMIyksek**

LukrdksRrj fMIyksek (vksjy iSFkksyksth)]

vksjy iSFkksyksth ,aM ekbØksck;ksyksth

MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj- LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;]

(;fn 26&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

fot;okMk]

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@51@2006&MhbZ(ikVZ)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 2262.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5971

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against VI of Serial No. 50, in repect of Mamata Dental College, Khammam,

Andhra Pradesh, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees

awarded by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, the following entries shall be inserted

thereunder :-

‘‘Postgraduate Diploma”

Oral Pathology & Microbiology

PG Diploma (Oral Path.), Dr. N.T.R.

(If granted on or after 26-04-2013)

University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada”

[F. No. V. 12017/51/2006-DE(Pt.)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 2263-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

ds- ,y- bZ- baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ MsaVy lkb±lst] csaxywj ds fy, jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] dukZVd n~okjk iznRr MsaVy

fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k 49 ds XVII ds

lkeus dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^^ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh** 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh %&

ihMksMksafVDl ,aM fizosafVo MsafVLVªh

,e Mh ,l (ihMks)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;]

(;fn 22&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

(vkj th ;w vks ,p ,l)] csaxywj

isfj;ksMksaVksyksth

,e Mh ,l (isfj;ks)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;]

(;fn 22&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

(vkj th ;w vks ,p ,l)] csaxywj

datjosfVo MsafVLVªh ,aM ,aMksMksafVDl

,e Mh ,l (datjosfVo MsafVLVªh)]jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku

(;fn 22&05&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

fo'ofon~;ky;] (vkj th ;w vks ,p ,l)] csaxywj

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@52@2006&MhbZ(ikVZ)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013

S.O. 2263.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against XVII of Serial No. 49, in respect of K.L.E.’s Institute of Dental

Sciences, Bangalore, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental

degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, the following entries under the heading

‘‘Master of Dental Surgery’’ shall be inserted thereunder :-

Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry

MDS (Peado), Rajiv Gandhi University of

(If granted on or after 22-05-2013)

Health Sciences (RGUOHS), Bangalore

Periodontology

MDS (Perio), Rajiv Gandhi University of

(If granted on or after 22-05-2013)

Health Sciences (RGUOHS), Bangalore

Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics

MDS (Cons. Dent), Rajiv Gandhi University of

(If granted on or after 22-05-2013)

Health Sciences (RGUOHS), Bangalore

[F. No. V. 12017/52/2006-DE(Pt.)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

5972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2013

dk-vk- 2264-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj bl ea=kky; dh fnukad 31&7&2013 dh lela[;d vf/lwpuk ds vf/Øe.k esa] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk

ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&

eerk MsaVy dkWyst] [kEeke] vka/z izns'k ds fy, MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj- LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vka/z izns'k n~okjk

iznRr nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/ esa nar fpfdRld vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa] Øe la[;k

50 ds VI ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^^ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh** 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir

dh tk,axh %&

vksjy iSFkksyksth ,aM ekbØksck;ksyksth

,e-Mh-,l- (vksjy iSFkksyksth)] MkW- ,u-Vh-vkj- LokLF; foKku

(;fn 26&04&2013 dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ)

fo'ofon~;ky;] fot;okMk] vka/z izns'k

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@51@2006&MhbZ(ikVZ)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2013

S.O. 2264.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India and in supersession to this Ministry’s

Notification of even No. dated 31-07-2013, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said

Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against VI of Serial No. 50, in respect of Mamata Dental College, Khammam,

Andhra Pradesh, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees

awarded by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, the following entries under the heading

‘‘Master of Dental Surgery’’ shall be inserted :-

Oral Pathology & Microbiology

MDS (Oral Path.), Dr. N.T.R. University of

(If granted on or after 26-04-2013)

Health Sciences, Vijayawada

[F. No. V. 12017/51/2006-DE(Pt.)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

Ñf"k ea=kky;

(Ñf"k vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2265-— dsUnzh; ljdkj d`f"k ea=kky;] d`f"k vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy,

iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ekfRL;dh f'k{kk laLFkku] eqEcbZ (Hkk-Ñ-v-i-) ds

fuEufyf[kr dsUnzksa dks ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%

(1) dsUnzh; ekfRL;dh f'k{kk laLFkku dk iokj[ksM+k dsUnz] ftyk&gkS'kaxkckn] eè; izns'k

(2) dsUnzh; ekfRL;dh f'k{kk laLFkku dk dksydkrk dsUnz] lkYV ysd flVh] dksydkrk] i- caxky A

¹iQk- la- 13&10@2009&¯gnh@271&05º

js[kk vkuUn] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agriculture Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 1st October, 2013

S.O. 2265.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union)

Rules, 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research and Education hereby

notifies the following Centre of Central Institute of Fisheries Education (ICAR) Mumbai where more than 80% of staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

(1) CIFE Powarkhera Centre, Distt. Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh

(2) CIFE Kolkata Centre, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, W.B.

[F. No.13-10/2009-Hindi/271-05]

REKHA ANAND, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5973

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; ,oa lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2266-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkkx vuq-

o"kZ

la-

ua-

dh frfFk

uke ,oa irk

ekud dk

ekud la-

o"kZ@ekg

'kh"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5691280

2&07&2013

xksnkojh baMLVªht]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

dkyqaxk] jkmjdsyk]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk &lqanjx<+

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 770031

vykok)

5693082

15&07&2013

egkohj Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

IykWV ua- 1427] txUukFk uxj]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ththih dkWyksuh] jlqyx<+

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

Hkqous'oj]

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

ftyk &[kqnkZ

vksfM'kk & 751025

5694185

16&07&2013

uhykpy bLikr fuxe fyfeVsM lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

dfyaxk uxj baMfLVª;y

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

dkWEIysDl] Mqcqjh]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr fcysV

ftyk & tktiqj]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

vksfM'kk & 755026

LySc& fof'kf"V

5694286

18&07&2013

,sVyl ihohlh ikbZIl (izk-)fy- is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

4985

2000

ikriqj] iksLV& czkge.khxkWo]

vIykfLVd`r ihohlh

ih-,l-& ckjax]

ikbi&fof'kf"V

ftyk & dVd]

vksfMlk& 754005

5695288

23&07&2013

dksydkrk os;j baMLVªht fy-]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

xzke&xksjxksfj;k] iksLV&vkxfj;k] (iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ih-,l-&cSflaxk]

fefujy ty ds

ftyk &e;wjHkat]

vykok)

vksfM'kk & 757025

5695389

24&07&2013

o"kkZ Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

'kkWi ua- 14 ,oa 15 (mQijh eaftyk)] feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

E;wfuliyVh ekdsZV] lh Cykd]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

iksLV& esfMdy LDok;j]

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

ih-,l-&xzSaM jksM] iqjh]

vksfM'kk

5974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5695490

24&07&2013

llferk Tosyjh oDlZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

IykWV ua- 433] y{ehlkxj]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

Hkqous'oj]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk &[kqnkZ

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 751006

5695591

24&07&2013

U;w egky{eh vyadkj

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

ih-,l-& [kqurk]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ftyk & e;wjHkat

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk & 757019

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

5695187

24&07&2013

lwn'kZu clarh cSofjTl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

vkyh'kh 'kklu] ckyhikVuk]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk & [kqnkZ]

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 752102

vykok)

10-

5695692

26&07&2013

Jh lkbZjke fMªaDl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

iq:"kksRreiqj] iksLV&ek'kkZ?kkbZ

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk &dsUnzkiM+k]

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 754213

vykok)

11-

5696189

26&07&2013

ftany LVhy ,.M ikWoj fy-]

nkc ik=k ,oa ckW;yj ds

2002

2009

xzke& fu'kk] ,l ,p & 63]

fy, eè;orhZ vkSj mPp

psafMink jksM]

rkieku lsokvksa gsrq

ftyk & vkaxqy]

bLikr dh IysV

vksfM'kk & 759111

12-

5696694

26&07&2013

ctjax LVhy ,.M ,ykSb”k fy-

lajpuk bLikr (lk/kj.k 2831

2012

IykWV ua- 31] xksbHkaxk]

xq.krk) ds iquosZYyu gsrq

iksLV& dkyqaxk] jkmjdsyk]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr baxV]

ftyk & lqanjx<+]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LyScµ

vksfM'kk & 770031

fof'kf"V

13-

5696795

26&07&2013

jsDlkWu fLVªIl fyfeVsM

lajpuk bLikr (lk/kj.k 2831

2012

dqekdsyk]

xq.krk) ds iquosZYyu gsrq

iksLV& ykfBdVk] jktxaxiqj]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr baxV]

ftyk & lqanjx<+]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LyScµ

vksfM'kk & 770037

fof'kf"V

14-

5696896

26&07&2013

fo'kky iQsjks ,ykSb”k fy-

lajpuk bLikr (lk/kj.k 2831

2012

IykWV ua- 1562@2565] ckyaMk]

xq.krk) ds iquosZYyu gsrq

iksLV& dkyqaxk] jkmjdsyk]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr baxV]

ftyk & lqanjx<+]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LyScµ

vksfM'kk & 770031

fof'kf"V

15-

5696997

26&07&2013

Jh jk/k d`".kk bLikr izk- fy-

lajpuk bLikr (lk/kj.k 2831

2012

IykWV ua- 19] xzke&xksbHkaxk]

xq.krk) ds iquosZYyu gsrq

iksLV& dkyqaxk] jkmjdsyk]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr baxV]

ftyk & lqanjx<+]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LyScµ

vksfM'kk & 770031

fof'kf"V

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5975

16-

5700457

31&07&2013

uhykpy bLikr fuxe fyfeVsM lajpuk bLikr (lk/kj.k 2831

2012

dfyaxk uxj baMfLVª;y

xq.krk) ds iquosZYyu gsrq

dkWEIysDl] Mqcqjh]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr baxV]

ftyk & tktiqj]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc

vksfM'kk & 755026

& fof'kf"V

17-

5701358

31&07&2013

vks lh ,y vkbju ,.M LVhy fy- lajpuk bLikr (lk/kj.k 2831

2012

IykWV ua- 40@1139] 34@968]

xq.krk) ds iquosZYyu gsrq

ykeyksbZ] jktxaxiqj]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr baxV]

ftyk & lqanjx<+]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc

vksfM'kk & 770017

& fof'kf"V

18-

5698395

2&08&2013

e`.kky cSofjTl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

lsjsUMk] Hknzk'kkgh] cjfcy

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk &fd;ksa>kj]

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 758035

vykok)

19-

5699094

6&08&2013

ikoZrh TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

rhuheqgkuh] dsUnzijk]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

vksfM'kk & 754211

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

20-

5699195

6&08&2013

iznhi vaydkj

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

tseknsbZiqj]iksLV& uqvkikVuk]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ih-,l-&rhxhfj;k]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk &dVd

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 754035

21-

5699296

6&08&2013

Jh txUukFk Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

mÙkkjs'oj]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

iQsLV ih-,l-&lksjks]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk &ckys'oj]

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 756045

22-

5699397

6&08&2013

ds Mh ,e TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

oh ,l ,l uxj] cnkokM+h Nkd]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

IykWV ua- th & 43

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

iksLV&ih-,l-&'kghn uxj]

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

Hkqous'oj]

ftyk &[kqnkZ]

vksfM'kk & 751007

23-

5702158

7&08&2013

iVuk;d LVhYl ,.M ,ykWt fy- lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

xzke&iq:ukikuh (u;kx<+)]

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

iksLV& Mqcuk]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

ftyk & fd;ksa>kj]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

vksfM'kk & 758034

LySc& fof'kf"V

24-

5705063

7&08&2013

d`".kk IykLV ikbZIl izk-fy-

flapkbZ miLdj&fLizadyj 14151

2008

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]

ikbi&fof'kf"V Hkkx 2

jsyos LVs'ku jksM] ckjx<+]

lgt la;ksth ikyh,fFkyhu

vksfM'kk & 768028

ikbi rFkk fiQfVaXl

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25-

5704061

12&08&2013

fcuk;d ,Y;qfefu;e (izk-) fy- fiVok ,Y;qfefu;e ds

1660

2009

,u ,p&5] caMkyks] dksVk'kkgh] crZu dh fof'kf"V

ftyk & dVd

vksfM'kk & 754022

26-

5702259

13&08&2013

jk.kk Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

lgnso [kqark] okMZ&ch ,&lh]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ckys'oj]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk & 756001

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

27-

5703867

13&08&2013

th ,l ,iQ ikbi

[kks[kys bLikr ds [kaM

4923

1997

IykWV ua- 934] rarhVksyk] >kjrjax lappukRed iz;ksx ds

dkyqaxk] jkmjdsyk]

fy;s & fof'kf"V

ftyk & lqanjx<+]

vksfM'kk

28-

5703968

13&08&2013

th ,l ,iQ ikbi

iVVk duos;j ds fy,

9295

1983

IykWV ua- 934] rarhVksyk] >kjrjax vkbMyj gsrq bLikr dh

dkyqaxk] jkmjdsyk]

V~;wc dh fof'kf"V

ftyk & lqanjx<+]

vksfM'kk

29-

5707774

13&08&2013

';ke esVkfyDl ,.M buftZ fy- [kks[kys bLikr ds [kaM

4923

1997

xzke&ikaMksyh] iksLV&ykiaxk]

lappukRed iz;ksx ds

rglhy &jsaxkyh]

fy;s & fof'kf"V

ftyk & lacyiqj]

vksfM'kk&768212

30-

5704162

14&08&2013

m¡Q TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

'kekZ Nkd] rkypj]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ftyk&vkWxqy

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

31-

5704263

14&08&2013

ekW TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

vkSxykiMk] IykWV ua- 597@1361] feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

iksLV&tkuyk] ih-,l-&tVuh]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk &[kqnkZ

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 752054

32-

5704364

14&08&2013

nso feujy okVj]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

>qeikuk] ok;k% nkuxnh] Mqcqjh]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk &tktiqj

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 755026

vykok)

33-

5706671

19&08&2013

nk Tosyl

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

chlh&1] ch,elh ds'kjh ekWy]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ekdsZV fcfYMax ds lehi] ;wfuV&2] f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ih-,l-&dSfiVy iksfyl LVs'ku] eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

Hkqous'oj]

ftyk &[kqnkZ

vksfM'kk & 751001

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5977

34-

5706772

19&08&2013

u{k=k Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

tseknsbZiqj] iksLV&uqvkikVuk]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ih-,l-& rhfxfj;k]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk & dVd

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 754035

35-

5706873

19&08&2013

Jh TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

U;q ekdsZV] xka/h Nkd ds lehi] feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

,u-,p-& 215] iksLV&fd;ksa>kjx<+ f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk & fd;ksa>kj]

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 758001

36-

5706570

20&08&2013

Jh gfj mQ¡ TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

esu jksM ckjx<+]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

okMZ ua- ch,vkjth&lh

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

iksLV@ih-,l-&ckjx<+

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

ftyk & ckjx<+

vksfM'kk & 768028

37-

5708069

27&08&2013

t;ukj;.k TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

iksLV&pkanksy]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ftyk & dsUnziM+k]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk & 754208

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

38-

5708170

27&08&2013

'kfDr TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

iksLV&ckyhpanziqj] ckyhpanziqj]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ftyk & tktiqj

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk & 754205

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

39-

5709374

27&08&2013

xksnkojh feujYl]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

xqaphrkjk] iksLV&rhfrykx<+

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk &ckykaxhj

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 767033

vykok)fof'kf"V

40-

5709475

28&08&2013

ljyk Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

okMZ ua- ts,lih&lh]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

iksLV&ih-,l-&,lZek]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk & txrflagiqj

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 754139

41-

5709576

28&08&2013

jf'e vyadkj

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

IykWV ua- 602] nsox<+ VkWmu]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

E;wfuliyVh lkgh] okMZ ua-&MhbZvks&lh] f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

iksLV@ih-,l-&nsox<+]

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

ftyk &nsox<+

vksfM'kk & 768108

42-

5710157

28&08&2013

ds-ds-Liu ikbi izk-fy-

iwoZ<fyr daØhV ikbi

458

2003

IykWV ua- 5]6]8] ls 13] 44] 47] (izcyu lfgr vkSj

ikFk iQkeZ]

jfgr)

fo/k/jiqj] iksLV% lh vkjvkjvkbZ]

ftyk & dVd

vksfM'kk & 753006

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

43-

5710965

30&08&2013

ohtk LVhy fy-

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

dfyaxkuxj baMfLVª;y dkWEIysDl]

mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

t[kiqjk] tktiqj jksM]

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

ftyk & tktiqj]

fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 755026

44-

5711159

30&08&2013

lkSjo ,ykW; ,s.M LVhy izk- fy- lajpuk bLikr (lk/kj.k 2831

2012

xzke% ckgunsbZ]

xq.krk) ds iquosZYyu gsrq

iksLV% xquknsbZ]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr baxV]

ftyk & <sudkuy]

fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc

vksfM'kk & 759013

& fof'kf"V

45-

5711664

30&08&2013

lkbZ jke ¯Mª¯dx okVj]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

ve`rhnsbZiqj] rkypsj

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk &vkaxqy

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 759100

vykok)

46-

5711765

30&08&2013

Jh baMLVªht]

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

>udkjiYyh] ,u ,p&6

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk &lEcyiqj

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 768005

vykok)

47-

5711260

2&09&2013

xnk/j Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

iksLV&gfjiqjgkV] tktiqj]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ftyk & tktiqj

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk & 755009

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

48-

5713668

2&09&2013

lrxq: esVYl ,s.M ikWoj izk-fy- lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

IykWV ua- 401@577] xfj;key]

gsrq iquosZYyu ds fy,

cjxkWo]

dkcZu <yokW bLikr

ftyk & lqanjx<+]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa

vksfM'kk & 770016

LySc& fof'kf"V

49-

5712464

5&09&2013

lquhfr ,aVjizkbtst

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

IykWV ua- 3574@5830] iyklquh

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

Hkqous'oj

fefujy ty ds

ftyk &[kqnkZ]

vykok) fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 751025

50-

5712767

9&09&2013

iQkbZuy LVkWi ,s.M ,e-ch-TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

esu jksM] jkmjdsyk&1]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ftyk & lqanjx<+

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk & 769001

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

51-

5712868

9&09&2013

lh- ,l- Tosyjh

[kks[kys bLikr ds [kaM

1417

1999

flusek gkWy ds lehi] esu jksM] lajpukRed iz;ksx ds

jk;jkaxiqj] ftyk & e;wjHkat

fy;s &fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 757043

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5979

52-

5712969

9&09&2013

jkty{eh Tosy gkml

iSdstcan is; ty

1417

1999

,e-th-jksM]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

iksLV@ih-,l-&vldk

fefujy ty ds

ftyk &xatke]

vykok)&fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 761110

53-

5713062

9&09&2013

fc'odekZ Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

gkWLihVy jksM] cSflaxk]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

e;wjHkat]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk & 757028

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

54-

5713264

9&09&2013

,l lh ,e IykfLVd bUthfu;fjax

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

4985

2000

izk- fy-]

vIykfLVd`r ihohlh

dkfy;kxzke] t;iqj CykWd]

ikbi & fof'kf"V

[kkrk la- 144@99]

IykWV ua- 62@568

ekStk&dkfy;kxkWo] ih,l&t;iqj

ftyk&dksjkiqV

vksfMlk & 764001

55-

5713567

12&09&2013

nsfodkar TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

okMZ&5] ,e-th-jksM] vkldk

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ftyk&xatke]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vksfM'kk & 761110

eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

56-

5718072

12&09&2013

';ke esVkfyDl ,s.M buftZ fy- ;kaf=kd vkSj lkekU;

3601

2006

xzke&iksaMksyh] iksLV&ykikax

bathfu;fjax iz;kstuksa ds

rglhy &jsaxkyh]

fy, bLikr dh ufy;ka

ftyk &lacyiqj]

vksfM'kk & 768212

57-

5714973

16&09&2013

jk.kk vkbju ,s.M ikWoj fyfeVsM

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

xzke&iksLV&dqysbZ] ih,l&ijtax mPp 'kfDr fo:fir

ftyk & <sudkuy]

bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

vksfM'kk & 759145

fof'kf"V

58-

5714872

17&09&2013

fo'odekZ Tosyjh

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

cjnkaxqvk] okMZ ua- ,e,&lh]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

([kqark gkbZ Ldwy ds lkeus)

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

thih- VkWmu] la[kaqrk] ih,l-&[kqark eqgkjkadu& fof'kf"V

ftyk & e;wjHkat]

vksfM'kk & 757019

59-

5718173

23&09&2013

egkohj ,aVjizkbtst

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

2004

lkexksyk] iksLV&dqtax]

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

ftyk & txrflag iqj

fefujy ty ds

vksfM'kk & 754141

vykok)& fof'kf"V

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

60-

5718779

27&09&2013

lqrkj iQkekZ dsfedYl (izk)fy- Cyhfpax ikmMj] LVscy& 1065

1989

IykWV ua-&3] tkuyk baMfLVª;y

fof'kf"V

,LVsV] Hkqous'oj

ftyk & [kqnkZ

vksfM'kk

61-

5719579

27&09&2013

ftany LVhy ,s.M ikWoj fy-

eè; vkSj vYi rki

2041

2009

xzke& fu'kk] ,l ,p&63]

mi;ksx ds nkc ik=kksa ds

psafMink jksM]

fy, bLikr IysVsa&

ftyk & vkaxqy]

fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk & 759111

¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

,l- pkS/qjh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013

S.O. 2266.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

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

in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

Address of

Standard

the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5691280

2-7-2013

Godavari Industries

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Kalunga, Rourkela

water (other than

District-Sundargarh

packaged natural

Odisha - 770031

mineral water)

5693082

15-7-2013

Mahavir Jewellery,

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Plot No. 1427, Jagannatha

alloys, Jewellery/

Nagar

Artefacts—Fineness

GGP Colony, Rasulgarh

and Marking-

Bhubaneswar,

District- Khurda,

Odisha - 751025

5694185

16-7-2013

Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd.

Carbon steel cast

2830

0 0

2012

Kalinga Nagar Indust. Complex, billet ingots, billets,

Duburi,

blooms and slabs

District : Jajpur

for re-rolling into

Odisha - 755026

steel for general

structural purposes

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5981

5694286

18-7-2013

Atlas PVC Pipes (Pvt.) Ltd.

Unplasticized Pvc

4985

0 0

2000

AT - Patapur,

pipes for potable

PO: Nrahmanigaon

water supplies

PS: Baramga

- Specification

District : Cuttack,

Odisha - 754005

5695288

23-7-2013

Kolkata Weir Industries Ltd. Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Vill.- Gorgoria,

water (other than

PO.- Agria,

packaged natural

PS.- Baisinga

mineral water)

District - Mayurbhanj,

Odisha - 757025

5695389

24-7-2013

Varsha Jewellery,

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Shop No. 14 and 15 (Upstair),

alloys, Jewellery/

Municipality Market, C-Block Artefacts—Fineness

PO. Medical Square,

and Marking-

PS. Grand Road,

District- Puri,

Odisha

5695490

24-7-2013

Sasmita Jewellery Works,

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Plot No. 433, Laxmisagar,

alloys, Jewellery/

District- Khurda,

Artefacts—Fineness

Bhubaneswar,

and Marking-

Odisha - 751006

5695591

24-7-2013

New Mahalaxmi Alankar

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT/PS Khunta,

alloys, Jewellery/

District-Mayurbhanj

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha - 757019

and Marking-

5695187

24-7-2013

Sudarsan Basanti Beverages Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Alishi Sasan, Balipatna,

water (other than

District-Khurda,

packaged natural

Odisha - 752102

mineral water)

10.

5695692

26-7-2013

Sri Sairam Drinks

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

AT :- Purusottampur

water (other than

PO :- Marsaghai,

packaged natural

District: - Kendrapara,

mineral water)

Odisha :- 754213

11.

5696189

26-7-2013

Jindal Steel and Power Limited Steel plates for

2002

0 0

2009

Vill.- Nisha, SH-63,

pressure vessels for

Chendipada Road,

intermediate & high

District - Angul,

temperature service

Odisha - 759111

including boilers

12.

5696694

26-7-2013

Bajrang Steel & Alloys Ltd.

Carbon steel cast

2831

0 0

2012

Plot No. 31, Goibhanga,

billet ingots, billets,

PO- Kalunga, Rourkela,

blooms and slabs

District : Sundargarh

for re-rolling into

Odisha - 770031

low tensile structural

steel

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

13.

5696795

26-7-2013

Rexon Strips Limited

Carbon steel cast

2831

0 0

2012

AT- Kumakela,

billet ingots, billets,

PO- Lathikata, Rajgangpur,

blooms and slabs

District : Sundargarh

for re-rolling into

Odisha - 770037

low tensile structural

steel

14.

5696896

26-7-2013

Vishal Ferro Alloys Ltd.

Carbon steel cast

2831

0 0

2012

Plot No. 1562/2565, Balanda, billet ingots, billets,

PO- Kalunga, Rourkela,

blooms and slabs

District : Sundargarh

for re-rolling into

Odisha - 770031

low tensile structural

steel

15.

5696997

26-7-2013

Shri Radha Krishna Ispat

Carbon steel cast

2831

0 0

2012

Pvt. Ltd.

billet ingots, billets,

Plot No. 19, Vill-Goibhanga

blooms and slabs

PO- Kalunga, Rourkela,

for re-rolling into

District : Sundargarh

low tensile structural

Odisha - 770031

steel

16.

5700457

31-7-2013

Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd.

Carbon steel cast

2831

0 0

2012

Kalinga Nagar Industrial

billet ingots, billets,

Complex, Duburi,

blooms and slabs

District : Jajpur

for re-rolling into

Odisha - 755026

low tensile structural

steel

17.

5701358

31-7-2013

OCL Iron and Steel Limited

Carbon steel cast

2831

0 0

2012

Plot No.40/1139, 34/968,

billet ingots, billets,

Lamloi, Rajgangpur,

blooms and slabs

District : Sundargarh

for re-rolling into

Odisha - 770017

low tensile structural

steel

18.

5698395

2-8-2013

Mrinal Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Serenda, Bhadrasahi, Barbil

water (other than

District- Keonjhar

packaged natural

Odisha - 758035

mineral water)

19.

5699094

6-8-2013

Parbati Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Tinimuhani, Kendrapara,

alloys, Jewellery/

Odisha - 754211

Artefacts—Fineness

and Marking-

20.

5699195

6-8-2013

Pradeep Alankar

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. Jemadeipur

alloys, Jewellery/

PO. Nuapatna,

Artefacts—Fineness

PS. Tigiria, District-Cuttack

and Marking-

Odisha- 754035

21.

5699296

6-8-2013

Shree Jagannath Jewellery

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. Uttareswar,

alloys, Jewellery/

PO/PS. Soro,

Artefacts—Fineness

District - Balasore,

and Marking-

Odisha- 756045

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5983

22.

5699397

6-8-2013

KDM Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. VSS Nagar, Badambadi

alloys, Jewellery/

Chhak, Plot No. G-43,

Artefacts—Fineness

PO/PS. Sahid Nagar,

and Marking-

Bhubaneswar,

District - Khurda,

Odisha- 751007

23.

5702158

7-8-2013

Patnaik Steels and Alloys Ltd. Carbon steel cast

2830

0 0

2012

Vill: Purunapani (Nayagarh),

billet ingots, billets,

PO: Dubna

blooms and slabs

District : Keonjhar,

for re-rolling into

Odisha - 758034

steel for general

structural purposes

24.

5705063

7-8-2013

Krishna Plast Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Irrigation equipment 14151

2 0

2008

Industrial Estate,

sprinkler pipes-

Railway station Road,

Part 2 : quick coupled

District : Bargarh,

polyethylene pipes

Odisha - 768028

25.

5704061

12-8-2013

Binayak Aluminium (P) Ltd.

Wrought aluminium 1660

0 0

2009

NH-5, Bandalo, Kotasahi,

utensils

District : Cuttack

Odisha - 754022

26.

5702259

13-8-2013

Rana Jewellery

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Sahadev Khunta,

alloys, Jewellery/

Ward BA-C,

Artefacts—Fineness

District - Balasore,

and Marking-

Odisha- 756001

27.

5703867

13-8-2013

GSF Pipe

Hollow steel sections 4923

0 0

1997

Plot No. 934, Tantitola,

for structural use

Jhartarang, Kalunga,

Rourkela,

District : Sundargarh,

Odisha

28.

5703968

13-8-2013

GSF Pipe

Steel tubes for idlers 9295

0 0

1983

Plot No. 934, Tantitola,

for belt conveyors

Jhartarang, Kalunga,

Rourkela,

District : Sundargarh,

Odisha

29.

5707774

13-8-2013

Shyam Metalics & Energy Ltd.

Hollow steel sections 4923

0 0

1997

Village-Pandloi,

for structural use

Tahsil-Rengali,

Post- Lapanga,

District : Sambalpur,

Odisha-768212

30.

5704162

14-8-2013

Omm Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Sharmachhak, Talcher

alloys, Jewellery/

District - Angul,

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha

and Marking

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

31.

5704263

14-8-2013

Maa Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. Ougalapada

alloys, Jewellery/

Plot No. 597/1361, PO :

Artefacts—Fineness

Janla, PS. Jatni,

and Marking

District - Khurda,

Odisha-752054

32 .

5704364

14-8-2013

Deo Mineral Water

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Jhumpana, Via: Danagadi

water (other than

Duburi,

packaged natural

District - Jajpur,

mineral water)

Odisha-755026

33.

5706671

19-8-2013

The Jewels

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. BC-1, BMC Keshari Mall

alloys, Jewellery/

Near Market Building, Unit-2

Artefacts—Fineness

PS. Capital Police Station,

and Marking

Bhubaneswar,

District - Khurda,

Odisha- 751001

34.

5706772

19-8-2013

Nakshyatra Jewellery

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. Jemadeipur,

alloys, Jewellery/

PO. Nuapatna,

Artefacts—Fineness

PS. Tigiria,

and Marking

District - Cuttack,

Odisha- 754035

35.

5706873

19-8-2013

Shree Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. New market, Near Gandhi

alloys, Jewellery/

Chhak, NH. 215,

Artefacts—Fineness

PO. Keonjhargarh

and Marking

District - Keonjhar,

Odisha- 758001

36.

5706570

20-8-2013

Shree Hari Om Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. Main Road Bargarh,

alloys, Jewellery/

Ward No. Barg-C

Artefacts—Fineness

PO/PS Bargarh,

and Marking

District -Bargarh,

Odisha- 768028

37.

5708069

27-8-2013

Jayanarayan Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT/PO Chandol,

alloys, Jewellery/

District - Kendrapara,

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha-754208

and Marking

38.

5708170

27-8-2013

Shakti Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT/PO Balichandrapur,

alloys, Jewellery/

District - Jajpur,

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha-754205

and Marking

39.

5709374

27-8-2013

Godavri Minerals

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT:- Gunchitara,

alloys, Jewellery/

PO:- Titilagarh,

Artefacts—Fineness

District - Bolangir,

and Marking

Odisha-767033

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5985

40.

5709475

28-8-2013

Sarala Jewellary

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Ward No. JSP-C,

alloys, Jewellery/

PO/PS Ersama,

Artefacts—Fineness

District - Jagatsinghpur,

and Marking-

Odisha-754139

41.

5709576

28-8-2013

Rashmi Alankar

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Plot No. 602, Deogarh Town,

alloys, Jewellery/

Muncipalti Sahi,

Artefacts—Fineness

Ward No. Deo- C,

and Marking

PO/PS Deogarh,

District - Deogarh,

Odisha- 768108

42.

5710157

28-8-2013

K. K. Spun Pipe Pvt. Ltd.

Precast concree

458

0 0

2003

Plot No. 5,6,8, to 13,44,47,

pipes (with and

Patha Farm, Bidyadharpur

without re-

PO: Crri,

inforcement)

District - Cuttack,

Odisha- 753006

43.

5710965

30-8-2013

Visa Steel Ltd.

High strength

1786

0 0

2008

Kalinganagar Industrial

deformed steel

Complex,

bars and wires

Jakhapura, Jajpur Road,

for concrete

District - Jajpur

reinforcement

Odisha- 755026

44.

5711159

30-8-2013

Sourav Alloy & Steel Pvt Ltd.

Carbon steel cast

2831

0 0

2012

Vill : Bahandei,

billet ingots, billets,

PO- Gunadei,

blooms and slabs

District : Dhenkanal,

for re-rolling into

Odisha - 759013

low tensile structural

steel

45 .

5711664

30-8-2013

Sai Ram Drinking Water

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Amrutideipur, Talchar

water (other than

District - Angul,

packaged natural

Odisha-759100

mineral water)

46 .

5711765

30-8-2013

Shree Industries

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Jhankarpali, NH-6,

water (other than

District - Sambalpur,

packaged natural

Odisha-768005

mineral water)

47.

5711260

2-9-2013

Gadadhar Jewellery

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT/PO. Haripurhat,

alloys, Jewellery/

District - Jajpur

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha-755009

and Marking-

48.

5713668

2-9-2013

Satguru Metals & Power

Carbon steel cast

2830

0 0

2012

Pvt. Ltd.

billet ingots, billets,

Plot No. 401/577, Gariamal

blooms and slabs

Bargaon,

for re-rolling into

District - Sundargarh

steel for general

Odisha-770016

structural purposes

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

49 .

5712464

5-9-2013

Suniti Enterprises

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

Plot No; 3574/5830, Palasuni

water (other than

Bhubaneswar,

packaged natural

Odisha-751025

mineral water)

50.

5712767

9-9-2013

Final Stop & M. B. Jewellery Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Main Road, Rourkela-1

alloys, Jewellery/

District - Sundargarh

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha-769001

and Marking

51.

5712868

9-9-2013

C. S. Jewellery

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Near Cinema Hall, Main

alloys, Jewellery/

Road, Rairangpur,

Artefacts—Fineness

District - Mayurbhanj

and Marking-

Odisha-757043

52.

5712969

9-9-2013

Rajlaxmi Jewel House

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

M.G. Road, PO/PS Aska,

alloys, Jewellery/

District - Ganjam,

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha-761110

and Marking

53.

5713062

9-9-2013

Biswakarma Jewellery Works

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. Hospital Road, Baisinga

alloys, Jewellery/

District - Mayurbhanj

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha-757028

and Marking

54.

5713264

9-9-2013

SCM Plastic Engineering

Unplasticized pvc

4985

0 0

2000

Pvt. Ltd.

pipes for potable

Kaliagram in Jeypore Block,

water supplies

Khata No. 144/99,

- Specification

Plot No.62/568,

Mouza-Kaliagaon, PS-Jeypore,

District - Koraput,

Odisha- 764001

55.

5713567

12-9-2013

Devikant Jewellers

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

Ward-5, MG Road, Aska,

alloys, Jewellery/

District - Ganjam,

Artefacts—Fineness

Odisha-761110

and Marking

56.

5718072

12-9-2013

Shyam Metalics & Energy Ltd. Steel tubes for

3601

0 0

2006

Village- Pondoli,

mechanical and

Tahsil - Rengali,

general engineering

PO- Rengali

purposes

District - Sambalpur,

Odisha-768212

57.

5714973

16-9-2013

Rana Iron and Power Limited

High strength

1786

0 0

2008

Vill. & PO- Kulei,

deformed steel

PS- Parjang,

bars and wires

District - Dhenkanal

for concrete

Odisha- 759145

reinforcement

58.

5714872

17-9-2013

Biswakarma Jewellery

Gold and gold

1417

0 0

1999

AT. Baradangua, Ward No.

alloys, Jewellery/

MA-C (Infront of Khunta

Artefacts—Fineness

High School)

and Marking

GP. Town. Sankhunta,

PS. Khunta.

District -Mayurbhanj,

Odisha- 757019

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5987

59.

5718173

23-9-2013

Mahaveer Enterprises

Packaged drinking

14543

0 0

2004

AT :- Samagola,

water (other than

PO :- Kujanga

packaged natural

District - Jagatsinghpur,

mineral water)

Odisha- 754141

60.

5718779

27-9-2013

Sutar Pharma Chemicals

Bleaching powder,

1065

0 0

1989

(P) Ltd.

stable

Plot No. 03, Janla Industrial

Estate, Bhubaneswar,

District - Khurda,

Odisha

61.

5719579

27-9-2013

Jindal Steel and Power Limited

Steel plates for

2041

0 0

1995

Village :- Nisha, SH-63,

pressure vessels

Chendipada Road,

used at moderate

District - Angul,

and low temperature

Orissa

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHOWDHURY, Scientist ‘F’& Head

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2267-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x, gaS] os ykblsal jí dj fn, x, gaS %—

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal ua-

ykblsal/kjh dk uke

ykblsal ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe

jí @LFkfxr djus

la-

,oa irk

lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

5452060

ft;ksu LVhy fy-

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr gsrq

27&07&2013

xksfcjk] IykWV ua- 1262@1751]

iquosZYyu ds fy, dkcZu <yokW

iksLV&dqvkjeqaMk] jkmjdsyk]

bLikr fcysV baxV] fcysV] Cywe

ftyk&lqanjx<+]

,oa LySc& fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk& 770039

vkb,l 2830% 2012

5568988

usylu baMLVªht]

daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp 'kfDr

1&08&2013

nksfyrk] iksLV& tft;k]

fo:fir bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

ftyk&fd;ksa>kj]

fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk& 758047

vkb,l 1786% 2008

5407257

LdSu LVYl fy- (;qfuV&IV)

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

16&08&2013

ck;&ck;] iksLV& Vqnyxk] ckjxkWo]

izkÑfrd fefujy ty ds

jktxaxiqj

vykok)

ftyk&lqanjx<+

vkb,l 14543% 2004

vksfM'kk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

5988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5660976

Xykscy fjcklZ izk- fy-]

daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp 'kfDr

31&08&2013

ikuhN=k ekyhink]

fo:fir bLikr lfj, ,oa rkj&

ftyk&[kqnkZ]

fof'kf"V

vksfM'kk

vkb,l 1786% 2008

¹la- dsanzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

,l- pkS/jh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013

S.O. 2267.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences

Name and Address of the

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

Licensee

Standards covered by the Licence

Cancellation

CM/L

cancelled/suspension

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

5452060

Zion Steel Limited

High strength deformed steel

27-7-2013

Gobira, Plot No. 1262/1751,

bars and wires for concrete

PO-Kuarmunda, Rourkela,

IS 1786 : 2008

District : Sundargarh,

Odisha-70039

5568988

Nelson Industries

Packaged drinking water

1-8-2013

At :- Dolita

(other than packaged natural

PO :- Rajia

mineral water ) -

District : Keonjhar,

IS 14543 : 2004

Odisha-758047

5407257

Scan Steels Ltd (Unit-IV)

Carbon steel cast billet ingots,

16-8-2013

At -Bai-Bai, PO :- Tudalaga,

billets, blooms and slabs for

Bargaon, Rajgangpur,

re-rolling into steel for general

District : Sundargarh,

structural purposes

Odisha

IS 2830 : 2012

5660976

Global Rebars Pvt. Ltd.

High strength deformed steel

31-8-2013

Panichhatra Malipada,

bars and wires for concrete

District : Khurda,

reinforcement

Odisha

IS 1786 : 2008

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. CHOWDHURY, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2268-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa %

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5989

vuqlwph

Øe la- LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk

LFkkfir frfFk

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

vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud

vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 15976 % 2013

3&10& 2013

vuko`r pkyd ds fy, bLikr jhy vkSj

Mªe & fof'kf"V

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg t+iQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;

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

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ bZVh 37@Vh&35º

vkj- lh- eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (fo|qr rduhdh)

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2013

S.O. 2268.—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 indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the

Date of Establishment

Indian Standard

Indian Standards, if

any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 15976 : 2013 Steel reels and

—

3-10-2013

drums for baee conductors -

Specification

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

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. ET 37/T-35]

R. C. MATHEW, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Electrotechnical)

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2269-—Hkkjrh; ekud aC;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gaS os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa %

5990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe la- LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk

LFkkfir frfFk

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

vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud

vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 7252 % 2013@

vkbZ ,l 7252 % 1974

31vxLr] 2013

vkbZ ,l vks 2169 % 1981

iQy ,oa lfCt;k¡ & 'khr x`gksa esa HkkSfrd

voLFkk,¡ & ifjHkk"kk,¡ ,oa ekiu (igyk

iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 16118 % 2013@

31vxLr] 2013

vkbZ ,l vks 6665 % 1983

LVªkWcsjht & 'khr HkaMkj.k dh ekxZn£'kdk

bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg t+iQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;

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

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ ,iQ,Mh@th&128º

dqekj vfuy] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k ([kk| ,oa Ñf"k foHkkx)

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2013

S.O. 2269.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules,

1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against these:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the Indian

No. and Year of

Date of Establishment

Standard(s) Established

Indian Standards, if

any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 7252 : 2013/ISO 2169 : 1981

IS 7252 : 1974

31 August, 2013

Fruits and Vegetables - Physical

conditions in cold stores-

Definitions and measurement

(first Revision)

IS 16118 : 2013/ISO 6665 : 1983

—

31 August, 2013

Strawberries - Guide to cold storage

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5991

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

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

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

Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Kochi.

[Ref. FAD/G-128]

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2270-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud(dkas) esas la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa %

vuqlwph

Øe la- la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh

la'kks/u dh la[;k

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkSj frfFk

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 1883%1983

la'kks/u la[;k 1] flrEcj 2013

30 flrEcj] 2013

vkbZ ,l 2180%1998

la'kks/u la[;k 1] flrEcj 2013

30 flrEcj] 2013

vkbZ ,l 2222%1991

la'kks/u la[;k 2] flrEcj 2013

30 flrEcj] 2013

bu la'kks/uksa dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg t+iQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;

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

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=kº

t- jkW; pkS/jh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (flfoy bathfu;jh)

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2013

S.O. 2270.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

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

in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and year of the

Date from which

Indian Standards

amendment

the amendment

shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 1883:1983

Amendment No. 1

30 September, 2013

September 2013

IS 2180:1988

Amendment No. 1

30 September, 2013

September 2013

IS 2222:1991

Amendment No. 2

30 September, 2013

September 2013

5992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and

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

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Civil Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2271-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud ds la'kks/u dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS] og LFkkfir gks x;k gS %µ

vuqlwph

Øe la- la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh

la'kks/u la[;k

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

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

vkSj o"kZ

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 8222 % 1976

la'kks/u la[;k 1]

30 flrEcj] 2013

[kk| iÙkk izksVhu lkj ds fy,

o"kZ 2013

fof'k"V

bl la'kks/u dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg t+iQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ

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

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

¹lanHkZ ,iQ,Mh@th&128º

dqekj vfuy] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k ([kk| ,oa Ñf"k foHkkx)

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2013

S.O. 2271.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are

given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against it :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and year of the

Date from which

Indian Standards

Amendment

the Amendment

shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 8222 : 1976 Specification for

Amendment No. 1

30th September, 2013

edible leaf protein concentrate

Year, 2013

Copy of this Standards 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 and Kochi.

[Ref. FAD/G-128]

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5993

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2272-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj] bykgkckn

cSad ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj] vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

10@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

06&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@06@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013

S.O. 2272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

06-09-2013.

[No. L- 12011/06/2008-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding , Officer

I.D. NO. 10/2008

Shri Daulat Ram,

C/o The President,

All India Allahabad Bank

Employees Association,

115, Yadav Park,

Najafgarh Road, Nangloi,

New Delhi-110041

….Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Allahabad Bank,

17, Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide Notification No. L-12011/6/2008-IR(B-II) dated 02/04/

2008, referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for the adjudication :—

“ Whether Shri Daulat Ram in entitled for both the

benefit of gratuity and pensions? Whether the action

of the Management of Allahabad Bank in not paying

the gratuity as per Gratuity Act, 1972 and pensionary

benefit as per Pension rules to Shri Daulat Ram is just

fair and legal? If not to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to and from which date ?”

On 17/04/2008 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was registered as I.D. No. 10/2008, and workman

was called upon on to file claim statement within fifteen

days.from date of service of notice. Which was required

to be an companied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman appeared and filed

statement of claim on 30/9/2008. Through which he claimed

release of his pension with effect from March 2001.When

he was released on V.R.S.

On 06/06/2009 W.S. Filed by Management. Wherein

allegations of statement of claim were denied. Relationship

of employer and employee was also denied. It was prayed

that statement of claim be dismissed along with rejection

of present reference. On 09/10/2009 workman filed

replication wherein he clarified his case. On the basis of

pleading of parties following issues have been framed on

09/04/2013 :-

(1)

Whether the claimant is entitled for pension

under the old scheme, without return of

gratuity?

(2)

As in terms of reference ?

Thereafter date 23/05/2013 and 31/07/2013 were fixed

for evidence of parties. Today A/R of decreased workman

moved an application for with-drawal of case on the

following grounds:-

(1)

That the Dispute regarding pension has been

resolved as the bank has released his pension.

(2)

That since his pension has been released by

Bank, there remains no dispute between the

workman and the management.

On application Ld. counsel for Management

endorsed no objection. In this Background there is no

need to proceed further for adjudication. In the interest of

justice application for withdrawal is allowed. Case is

decided as withdrawn.

Accordingly No Dispute Award is being passed.

Dated : 31-07-2013

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2273-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj] ;wdks cSad ds

çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

5994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj] vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 258@2000)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 12&8&2013 dks

çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@66@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013

S.O. 2273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 258/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of the UCO

Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12-08-2013.

[No. L- 12012/66/2000-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947.

Ref. No. 258 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank,

Ranchi

AND

Their workmen

Present :

SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri H. K. Das, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking

Dated 22/07/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/66/2000-IR (B-II), dt.

11/09/2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

“ Whether the dismissal of Shree Pradeep Kumar from

service vide order dated 14-01-1999 by the

management of UCO Bank is proper, justified and

legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 25.09.2000. After notice both parties appeared, the

Sponsoring Union/workman files their respective written

statement on 03.12.2001, and rejoinder. The management

examined witnesses on preliminary point. This Tribunal

vide a detailed order held the preliminary point that, the

departmental enquiry conducted by the bank management

was not fair and proper. The said order of this Tribunal

has not been challenged by the management.

3. After the order declaring the departmental

enquiry is improper and unfair , the management examined

another witness. The said Officer was the presenting officer

in the departmental enquiry, who only stated that he

presented the case before the enquiry officer fairly. But he

has not stated, actually what was the charges and how it

has been proved even before this Tribunal, regarding the

alleged defalcation by the workman.

4. On perusing of the charge it is found that there

was defalcation by the workman of Rs. 3000 and some

other amount. But the workman has not been given a

chance to explain his conduct.

5. The charges neither have been proved in the

departmental enquiry nor before this Tribunal. Therefore,

the workman be reinstated, without any back wages what-

soever.

6. Considering the facts and circumstance, I hold

that the dismissal of the workman Sri Pradeep Kumar w.e.f.

14.01.99 by UCO Bank management is not legal and

justified,

7. It is learnt that the workman has died in the

meantime. Hence the legal dues of the workman be given

to his legal representative as per norms . His date of death

be treated as his date of premature retirement and the legal

representative of the workman be given his retirement

benefits only.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2274-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj] cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj] vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

105@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

13&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@395@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5995

New Delhi, the 17th September, 2013

S.O. 2274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 105/

1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad 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 13-09-2013.

[No. L-12012/395/96-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

Present : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 105 OF 1997

Parties :

Sri Dilip Kr. Saw (Workman)

Vs.

Regional Manager, Bank of India, Dhanbad

Appearances

On behalf of the

Mr. D. Mukhrjee, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

Management .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th May, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

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

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/

395/96-IR(B-II) dt. 17.9.97.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India, Dhanbad in dismissing the services of

Shri Dilip Kumar Saw Cashier/Accountant is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman

is entitled ?”

2. The case of the workman Dilip Kumar Saw as

pleaded in his written statement is that he had been

unblameshedly working as a permanent Cashier-cum-

Accounts Clerk at Bank of India, Dhanbad, since long. He

was falsely and frivolously chargesheeted for receiving

the alleged amount from three different persons, not

depositing the same in the Bank, for forging the initials of

B.D.Upadhyay, the Staff Officer. Though the chargesheet

was vague and premature, he submitted his reply to it,

emphatically denying the charges. His reply was very

satisfactory, yet the management got the enquiry

perfunctorily held by the biased Enquiry Officer who

illegally conducted it in utter violation of the principles of

natural justice, as the workman was not given full

opportunity to fully cross the management witness and to

present his case for defence.

3. Further alleged that the management failed to

produce any document or chit of paper to prove the

allegation levelled him. Nor any hand writing expert was

examined to establish the alleged initials of

Shri Upadhyay.The findings of the Enquiry Officer based

on the circumstantial evidence on conjecture and suspicion

were perverse, yet a show cause to it, stating the entire

facts, even then, the anti labour management without

supply of daily proceeding, illegally dismissed him from

service despite being unproved charges against the

workman as stated by the Enquiry officer in his finding as

such‘…there has been no financial loss to the Bank so

far. An attempt to defraud the Bank has been made which

however could not prove successfully’. The enquiry on

the ground of non-supply of the proceeding papers

vitiated. Even after several time representations, when the

management arbitrarily dismissed him, he raised the

Industrial Dispute, which in failure of its reconciliation

before the ALC ©, Dhanbad, resulted in the reference for

adjudication. The action of the management in dismissing

the workman from service was illegal, arbitrary and

unjustified, so it has been urged for his reinstatement in

service with full back wages, as his dismissal based on

perverse finding of the Enquiry Officer was too harsh and

disproportionate to his alleged misconduct.

4. The workman in his rejoinder with specific denials

has alleged that all the allegations of the O.P./Management

against the workman are false, frivolous and motivitated.

The management illegally, arbitrarily and in violation of

the natural justice has suspended him by the Order dt.

29.7.1993. Despite his satisfactory explanation,the

management initiated the departmental enquiry which was

conducted against the principles of natural justice, as the

evidence of the management was not adduced not in

presence of the workman; moreover, the biased Enquiry

Officer did not take cognizance of the many objections

raised by the workman. Though the charges against the

workman remained unproved, he was held guilty of the

charges. The show cause along with the copies of the

enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report was not

supplied to him thereby he got prejudiced. The Disciplinary

Authority without application of mind mechanically passed

an order of his dismissal, which was issued against him on

31.3.1995.Thus,the action of the management was illegal,

arbitrarily and unjustified.

5996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./

Management with categorical denials is that workman Dilip

Kumar Saw was working as Cashier -cum-Accounts Clerk

at Dhanbad Branch of Bank of India in the year 1993. But

he was issued the chargesheet dt. 22.11.1993 for the

allegations of his serious misconduct of dishonesty

regarding the various transactions of money in course of

his duty. After receiving the amount of Rs. 3000 and

Rs.50,000 from the depositors Mrs. Jayshree Devi and

Vijay Poddar presented as per their own Pay-in-slips on

the counter of the Branch of the Bank on 28.6.93 and 7.7.93

for depositing the amounts against their S.B.A/c No.3362

and 8359 respectively, the workman neither put it on scroll

nor accounted for their receipts on the respective dates,

rather he kept the cash and deposit vouchers with himself,

though he had shown the said amounts credited in their

said account on the said dates respectively, and he failed

to produce the amount in cash or any Cheque against

their entries in the S.B. Ledger of the Branch. There was

neither clearance nor transfer transactions regarding the

said amounts. At initiation of necessary enquiry on its

coming to light, he returned the amounts to the aforesaid

persons and managed to influence them to say that they

had not deposited the said amount.

6. On further examination, it was found that though

the workman had credited Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 6,000 against

the S.B. A/c Nos. 9115 and 6546 of Mr. Sukumar Banerjee

and Mr. Hari Saw on 2.6.1993 and 12.03.1993 respectively,

there was no cash deposit or clearance or transfer

transactions concerning the said amounts as credit to said

persons. In order to cover the fraudulent credits, the

workman jotted the balance of Mr. Ahmad Khan, the

Holder of the account No. 9114 as Rs. 25,630 and 40 paisa

only in place of Rs. 27,630=40 only just to make the balance

of Rs. 2,000 in the S.B. Ledger Book No. 42 the Balance

Ledger which was allotted to Shri H.B. Srivastava, another

Cash cum Accounts Clerk, by prevailing upon him for his

fraudulent act. The workman forged the initials of Mr. B.

D. Upadhyay, Staff Officer, Dhanbad Branch against the

entries of the aforesaid relevant dates, namely, 28.6.93,

7.7.93 and 2.6.93 concerning the transactions of the said

dates. The acts of the workman amounted not only

dishonesty but also to fraud against the Bank and gain to

the said person. For all these acts of the workman, he was

charged as per the chargesheet dt. 22.11.1993, and was

suspended from his duties by the Order dt. 29.7.1993 during

the pendency of the Departmental enquiry, as all his acts

were highly prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, and

amounting to his gross misconduct.

7. Further alleged that the workman replied to the

charges, denying the allegations levelled against him. The

Regional Manager, Bank of India, Dhanbad Region, the

Disciplinary Authority, as per his order dt. 8.12.1993

appointed Mr. B.K. Jairath, Dy. Chief Manager, Bhaga

Branch of the Bank as the Enquiry Oficer to hold

departmental enquiry into the charges as in the charge

sheet against the workman, and Shri N.N. Tripathy as the

Presenting Officer to present the case of the management

before the Enquiry Officer; Shri K.D. Sarkar, the Zonal

Secretary, Bank of India Employees Union was engaged

as the Defence Representatives (D.R.) by the workman for

his defence. The departmental enquiry was fairly and

properly in accordance with the principle of natural justice

held in the presence of the workman and his Defence

Representative, who were given full opportunity to cross

examine the management witnesses and its documents,

and also to give his won statement, and to produce his

documents for his defence. But neither the workman nor

his Defence Representative raised any objection against

the Enquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer, or the procedure

of the enquiry. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted

his enquiry Report dt. 23.8.94, holding the workman guilty

of the charges levelled against him.

8. On perusal and consideration of the enquiry

report, enquiry proceeding, all relevant papers, the

Disciplinary Authority considered the misconduct

committed by the workman as very serious in nature, so

he issued Show Cause Punishment Notice dt. 26.6.95

enclosing therewith a copy of the enquiry report, advising

him for his appearance on 1.7.1995 at 11 a.m. and

submission in regard to imposition of dismissal penalty

without notice as proposed under clause 19.6.(a) of the

First Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.66 of his misconduct.

But on account of non-availability of the Defence

Representative on the said date, the workman with his

Defence Representative on the said date, the workman

with his Defence Representative appeared on 10.7.95 and

submitted the points in his defence challenging the

correctness of the finding of the Enquiry Officer in his

Enquiry Report. After considering all the matters and

hearing the Defence Representative, the workman was

dismissed as per the Dismissal Order dt. 31.7.95 passed by

the Disciplinary Authority. As such, the action of the

management in dismissing the workman from his service

is alleged to be bonafide, legal and justified, and he is not

entitled to any relief.

9. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder

categorically denied the allegations of the workman as

false, baseless and imaginary, and stated that the workman

was a permanent staff of the management, that in the Face

of the examination of the very person, namely Updhaya,

whose signatures in question, were denied by himself and

established as forged signature, there was no need to

examine any handwriting expert for proving his

signature.The finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on

documentary as well as oral evidence and the charges

have been conclusively proved undoubtedly. The

workman was supplied all the copies of the proceeding

and the report as he applied for.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5997

FINDING WITH REASONS

10. In the instant reference,on the examinations of

MW1 Mr. N. N. Tripathi, the then Dy. Manager for the

O.P./Management and MW1 Dilip Kumar Saw, the

workman for himself at the preliminary point about the

fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Tribunal as per Order

No.28 dt.1.8.2001 had held the domestic enquiry as in

contravention of the principle of natural justice; so the

domestic enquiry stood vitiated.

Thereafter the O.P./Management was given an

opportunity to prove the charges against the workman

just the workman as well his case. In result, MW1

Banshidhar Upadhayaya,the staff Officer, MW2 Hari

Bhusan Srivastava,the Manager, and MW 3 Gautam Kumar

Sinha,the Dy. General Manager for the O.P./Management

and WWI Dilip Kumar Saw, the workman for himself all on

merits have been examined respectively.

It is an acknowledged fact and settled principle of

law that once the domestic enquiry was vitiated by the

Tribunal, it has not to look into it, rather the legal obligation

of the Tribunal stands for consideration of the afresh

materials available on the case record for an adjudication.

11. In the instant reference, MW1 Banshidhar

Upadhyaya known as B.D.Upadhayay is the Officer

working in the Bank of India. He has stated the workman

to have been charge sheeted for the allegation of making

some false entries in the following saving bank ledgers,

and for putting his forged initial of him as the Checking

Officer.

Ledger No. 38 of Bijay Poddar having his S.B. A/c

No. 2359, Ledger Folio No. 312 (Folio-Ext.M.1) bears the

entry of Rs. 50,000 on 7.7.1993 (Ext.M.1/1),

Ledger No.10-Folio No.292 and S.B. A/c No. 3362 of

Jaishree Devi (Folio Ext. M.2) bering the entry dt. 28.6.93

showing the deposit of Rs. 3,000 (Ext.M.2/1),

Ledger No. 42 Folio No. 29, S/B A/c No. 9115 bearing

‘No name of the person’(the Folio-Ext. M.3)bearing the

entry dt. 2.6.93 of Rs. 2,000 deposited (Ext. M.3/1), and

Ledger No. 29, Folio No. 43, S/B A/c No. 6546 of Shri

Hari Sao (Folio –Ext.M. 4) bearing the entry dt.12.3.1993 of

Rs. 6,000 deposited (Ext.M.4/1)—all the false entries with

the initials were made by the workman by forging the

initials of the witness (MW1) as Checking Officer, who

claims not to have endorsed any of them,as none of the

said amounts was factually deposited.

In addition to it, in all following Cash Receipt

Registers, i.e., Cash receipt register concerning Folio

No. 9 of the Bank (Ext. M.5), the Cash receipt Register,

Folio No.10 of dt.12.3.1993 prepared by the workman as

the Cash Clerk in course of day transaction – (Ext.M.6),

signature of the workman appearing on Folio No.11 in

continuation to aforesaid Folio No.10 prepared under the

signature of the workman (Ext.M.6/1).

The cash receipt register- Folio No.131 and 132

prepared and signed by the workman on 28.6.93 (Extt.M.7

and M.7/1) respectively.

The Cash receipt register-Folio No.134 dt. 30.6.93,

No. 135 dt. 2.7.93, No.140 dt. 6.7.93 and No. 141 dt. 7.7.93,

but wrongly put as7.6.93 below his initial (Extt. M.8 to 11

& 11/1 respectively).

All these were prepared and signed by the workman

as the Cash Clerk in course of discharge of his duties.

All these documents –Extt. M.1 to 11 along with the

two Leave Applications of the workman (Extt. M.13 &

13/1) were sent to the Hand Writing Expert for examination

as per the letter of Sri Gautam Kumar Sinha,the Manager,

Bank of India, Dhanbad (Ext. M.12).

12. Further statement of MW1 Banshidhar

Upadhyay (B.D. Upadhyay) transpires the indisputable

fact that the Bank has the system to balance month wise

for ascertaining the correctness of particular ledger and in

course of which, they detected the differences of same

amounts entered in the different Ledgers, accordingly the

aforesaid particular entries as false and fictitious were

detected. The Manager as per his chart in his pen and

signature (dt. 26.7.95-Ext. M.14 with objection) had

entrusted the different staff including the workman inder

its Sl. No.15 with the work of jotting the balances (from the

Ledgers). Undoubtedly, the jotted balance of the S.B.

Ledger No.42 dt. 26.7.93,which was allotted to Sri H.P.

Srivastava, the Cash cum accounts Clerk, was yet suo

moto prepared by the workman, who had unauthorisedly

made two wrong entries of the figures – Rs.25,630.40 p

and Rs. 22,780.30p (Ext. M.15/1) instead of the actual

figures Rs. 27,630.40 and Rs. 20,780.30 p.in order to adjust

the fictitious entry of Rs.2,000 in S.B. Ledger No. 42

(Ext.M.3) as a result Mr. Srivastava had submitted his

report (dt.21.9.93 –Ext.M.17)(on merit) under his signature

to the Branch Manager. It is remarkable to note that the

Slip(the rough plain paper)(Ext.16 with objection),which

was written by the workman, was handed over by himself

specifically refers to as under:

“8359 – 7.7.93 = 50,000

3362 - 28.6.93= 3,000

9115- 2.7.93 = 2,000"

With cross mark X,X2 (frontly) & X respectively

which signify the S/B A/c Nos. of customers Vijay

Poddar,Jaishree Devi and unnamed one related to their

alleged transactions dt. 7.7.93, 28.6.93 and 2.7.93 in place

of 2.6.93 of their relevant Ledger Nos. 38,10 & 42, their

Folio Nos. 312,292 and 291 (Extt. M.1 to 3) respectively.

5998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, the MW1 has asserted the framing of the

charges as justified against the workman for his

misconduct.

13. The cross examination statement of MW1

Banshidhar Upadhyay reveals the procedure how money

is deposited by the customer through his Pay-in-slip under

his signature or LTI in the Bank; after scrolling the money,

it is accepted by the Bank; thereafter the person-in-charge

affixes the Bank’s stamp on the counter part of Pay-in-slip

being with the Bank, the money deposited is recorded in

the Ledger concerned; and as per the procedure ,one

officer of the Bank will check all the entries in the ledger

day to day, and put his initials therein. Whether the

depositors concerned appeared before the Enquiry Officer

for their claim to have been deposited appears to be

beyond his personal knowledge of MW1 and he has firmly

stated the of MW1 and he has firmly stated the inability of

the management to produce the Pay-in-Slips ,then as the

same to have been destroyed by the workman which was

beyond the his personal knowledge. According to the

Management witness (MW1),the Ledger Folios (Extt. M.1

to M.4) and the Cash Receipt Register – Ext.M.6 to M.11

bear his initials and signatures (Ext. M.5 to M.6/1) in Red

Circles respectively, but in fact the petition (one leave

application) marked as Ext. M.13 was written by the

workman but the documents marked as Ext. 13 & 13/1 (both

leave applications on merits) were written by the workman;

on the relevant date as per the chrgesheet,the workman

was not in charge of scroll Register. He (MW1) has further

stated in cross examination that the record has no pay-in

–slip of the customer/officials; the Ledgers had no

signature of the officer concerned over the period dated

28.6.93, 7.7.93, 2.6.93 and 12.3.1993, rather all these were

under the forged signatures, but he (MW1) could not say

whether the aforesaid initials over the said dates were

done by the workman or by whom.

14. MW2, Hari Bhushan Srivastava, (also known

as Hari Bhushan Pd. Srivastava) as the then Cashier-cum-

Accounts Clerk, has stated to have known Dilip Kumar

Sao (the workman) posted as the Cashier at Dhanbad

Branch of Bank of India. It is indisputable truth that as per

the order dt. 26.7.93 of the Branch Manager concerned

(Ext. M.14), the Ledger No’s 42 and 43 were to be written /

jotted down by himself on separate sheets regarding its

balances of accounts related to the date 26.7.1993,but the

Ledger No.42 is in the pen of the workman ,who was

allowed to jot down at whose request and due to his

(MW2) being under pressure of work for that date, but it

turned out to him after enquiry that the workman jotted

down lesser amount Rs. 25,630.40 than the amount of

Rs. 27,000 and odds (already marked Ext. M.15/1). His

alleged letter dt. 21.9.1993(already marked as Ext. M.17) in

their pen and signature of the witness (MW2) was given

to the vigilance ,but it appears to be his voluntary written

statement evidently in presence of Sri Gautam Sinha,

Manager, Dhanbad Branch and Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya,the

Staff Officer (MW1 on merit), and Mr. B.N. Bhatia,the

Vigilance Officer. It accounts for allotment of the Ledger

No. 42 & 43 by the Manager for jotting down on 26.7.1993,

but on that date while he was working in the clearance

deprtment, workman Dilip Kumar Saw approached in the

evening, and requested him to give him the Ledger No. 42

for jotting it which was unjotted till then; he gave it to him

at his re-request by earlier asserting it to be jotted by

himself on getting time; after some time at the end of his

work, he (MW2) took back his Ledger and completed his

jotting after page of 300 of the Ledger No. 42 jotted by the

workman.

15. The cross examination of the Management

witness (MW2 Hari Bhushan Srivastava)also affirms that

posting of account in the Ledger is jotting down on the

basis of Pay-in-slip. It is verified on the basis of Pay-in-

slip thereof by the Higher Authority on the same day, and

by the Authority under his signature. The jotting of Ledger

No. 42 bears no initials of Higher Authority .The witness

(MW2) in cross pare 9 has also affirmed his aforesaid

statement about letting the workman jot in the balance in

the Ledger No.42 at his repeated request for it, and that in

July and August,1993,he had not submitted any written

report to the Manager or any Authority about the jotting

down of the balance by the workman, not by him, in the

said disputed ledger, nor about less entry of jotting balance

by the workman; and that he (MW2)had given his

statement after two months of the occurrence.

16. MW3 Gautam,Kr.Sinha,the Dy.G.M.,Bank of

India,posted Northern Zonal Audit Office,delhi was the

then Branch Manager of the Bank at Dhanbad. His entire

statement on merit appears to be corroborative to those of

Sri Banshidhar Upadhyaya (B.D.Upadhayay) and Hari

Bhushan Srivastava (Hari Bhushan Prasad Srivastava as

H.P.Srivastava as the MW1 and MW2 on the merits

respectively).According to him (MW3), during his tenure

as per his order dt. 26.7.93 (Ext.M.15) be read as Ext.

M.14,as the former is Account Balance Sheet dt. 26.7.93 of

the Ledger (42), the Ledger Nos. 44 and 45 to workman

Dilip Kumar Saw and the Ledger Nos. 42 and 43 to Shri

H.B. Srivastava, both Cashier-cum-Accounts clerk, were

allotted for the jotting down the balance of individual

accounts, but the four entries of the credit amount

Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 6,000

were falsely made by the workman in the Ledger Folio

Nos of the Account Nos. 8351, 3362, 9115 (carried over

from the different page) and Rs. 6546 of S/Shri Vijay Poddar,

Smt. Jayasri Devi, unnamed person and Hari Saw on 7.7.93,

28.6.93, 2.6.93 and 12.3.93 (Ext. M.1 to 4 respectively) which

were detected during the balancing process by the

Balancing team as per Cash Receipt Books (Ext. M.5 to

M.11 into which daily cash deposit is recorded, but all the

aforesaid false entries of the Account have not been made

which were sent as per his letter no 207 dt. 9.10.93

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

5999

(Ext. M.12), in response to which he got the report of the

Hand writing Expert as per his letter No. 0181 (G) dtd.19.10.93

(Ext. M.17) corrected as Ext.M. 18, as the statement dtd.

21.9.93 of Sri H.P.Srivastava,Staff cum Accounts Clerk

(MW2 on merit) already marked as (Ext. M.17). In result,

the workman was charge sheeted as per the charge sheet

(Ext. M.2) along with Memorandum dtd. 22.11.1993 (Ext.

M.1), and the domestic enquiry was held in accordance

with the chargesheet, and he (MW3) was examined as a

witness for the management.

17. The statement of Mr.Gautam Kr. Sinha,the then

Branch Manager of the Bank at Dhanbad (MW3) reflects

neither written report of aforesaid customer Vijay Poddar

and others concerned about the deposit and return of

their respective amount, nor their demand for their false

credited amount. It indicates the duty of the Officer-in-

charge of the Cash Department along with Chief Cashier

Sri Ram Naresh Roy to verify the cash receipt Books daily,

none of them being unaware of it informed of the detection

of the fraudulent entries of credit amount nor any written

information of Mr.Srivastava about the Ledger being jotted

by the workman concerned, though the witness (MW3)

asserted to have jotted down the Ledger No. 42 by the

workman on account of Mr. Srivastava being overpresed

with the work of clearance in the clearance section, the

Manager does not put his signature in every book. His

assertion vividly indicates that monthly jotting of balance

occurs last week of each month, and the balancing process

takes time almost one and half month around due to backlog

and volume of the labour involved; and after balancing

the Balancing Incharge puts his signature just as that

Balancing Officer as well as the allottee put his signature

after balancing the credit /debit amount on the balancing-

book on the particular date and that the jotting of Ledger

No. 42 bears no signature of the Balancing Officer; and

the aforesaid Hand writing Expert, though licensed one,

was a private one. The witness (MW3) denies the

allegation about the writing of Ledger No. 42 by him, and

making the workman a scape-goat for his negligence in

order to save himself.

18. Whereas the statement of Mr. Dilip Kumar Saw,

the workman has absolute denial to have posted any

account of the said Account Holders on the relevant dates

by forging the signatures of Sri B.D. Upadhayay, the Staff

Officer in the S.B. Ledger No. 42 after forcibly snatching it

from Shri H.P. Srivastava, who was the In charge of it. He

has also denied to have jotted the balance in Ledger

No. 42 in order to justify or cover up the forgery done by

him. To him, the allegations about the crediting the amount

of Jayshree Devi and other concerned on the relevant

dates and keeping their amount with himself without

scrolling their Accounts were false, as he was not on scroll

duty on the aforesaid relevant dates ; Ledger Nos. 42 & 43

were maintained by Shri H.P. Srivastava and the Manager,

himself respectively; moreover, none of the aforesaid

Account Holders complained about it against him (WWI)

rather he (WWI), had put in writing in course of the enquiry

that none of them had given him any amount for crediting

on the relevant dates as specified in the chrgesheet, so

his dismissal by the management was wrong, and his

demand for reinstatement in his service is quite justified.

19. The workman as per his written argument has

submitted that there is no evidence, oral or documentary

adduced by the management to prove the allegation of

forging initials of Shri B.D.Upadhayay by the workman,

as Mr. Upadhyay (MWI) in his cross Para expressed his

inability to say whether the initials over the relevant dates

were done by the workman; the alleged Pay-in-slip and

the Ledger have not been filed to prove the charge; the

workman neither gained anything nor caused any loss to

the management and that not Hand Writing Expert has

been examined to prove the fact, as such the charges

levelled against the workman have not been proved. But

the plea of the workman about his forcibly snatching of

the Ledger No.42 from Mr P.S.Srivastava to whom it was

allotted for jotting ,as stated in his evidence, appears to

be baseless, rather it was alleged to have been taken

through persuasion.

20. Just contrary to it, Mr. D.K. Verma has to contend

that at the de novo enquiry, all the witnesses (of the MW1

to 3 on merits) of the O.P./Management have properly

and irrefutably established how the workman as Cashier

cum Accounts clerk fictitiously made the credits in the

Accounts of Mrs. Jayshree Devi and Mr. Vijay Poddar on

the relevant dates without factual cash, clearance or

transfer transactions, and how he tried to adjust one of

the fraudulent credits in the Account No. of Sukumar

Banerjee by adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,000 in the

Account of Mr.S.Ahmed Khan in course of the jotting in

the balance sheet of S/B Ledger No. 42 unauthorizedly

by forging the initials of the Mr. B.D. Upadhayay, Staff

Officer against the entries on the relevant three dates

with intent to authenticate the fraudulent credits; thus all

the charges levelled against him stood proved as his

gross misconduct, and that preponderance is sufficient to

prove the charges against the workman in the proceeding.

Further, Mr.Verma,the Learned Counsel for the O.P./

Management submits that in the Bank, which is the Bankar

of the Public, highest degree of integrity of its employee is

required, so its any employee of doubtful integrity is not

liable to remain in the service of the Bank, as such, his

dismissal for his aforesaid gross misconduct is quite

proportionate to the nature of intentional fraudulent

activities; he deserves no mercy at all.

21. On perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case record, I find the facts as under:

(i)

It is indisputable that the workman was

working as the Cashier-cum-Accounts Clerk

in the Bank of India in the year 1993,and he

6000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was allotted the Ledger Nos. 44 & 45 just as

his colleague Mr. H.B. Srivastava,then Cashier

cum Accountant (MW2) was allottated the

Ledger Nos. 42 & 43 for jotting down their own

balances as per order dtd. 26.6.93 (Ext.M.14)

of Gautama Kumar Sinha,the Manager of the

Bank (MW3);

(ii)

There is no dispute that the balancing team is

organized mostly by the Bank for jotting of the

balances individual accounts of the customers

of the Bank; and the jobs of the jotting of the

balances are allotted to all the staff members of

the Bank;

(iii)

The workman has denied to the discharge of

his duty on the relevant on four dates, i.e.,

28^th June, 7^th July, 2^nd June & 12^th March in the

same year 1993 while working as a Cashier-

cum-Accounts Clerk in the Bank of India,

Dhanbad, as per the charge sheet (Ext. M.2 on

merit);

(iv)

Irrespective of the examination of the Hand

Writing Expert as contended by the

workman,his failure to positively rebut the

solemn assertive statements of Mr.Banshidhar

Upadhayay also known as B.D.Upadhaya,the

Checking Officer and Mr Hari Bhushan

Srivastava,the

Cashier-cum-Accounts

Clerk(MW1 &MW2 on merit respectively)as

to proof of the forgery of their respective

initials and endorsements made by the workman

over the relevant documents of the Ledgers,

their Folios of certain customers: Bijay

Poddar,Jaishree Devi,one unnamed and Hari

Saw against their Account Nos. on the said

relevant dates (Extt.M.1 to M.4 and their Series

1/1 to 4/1 respectively) and false entry of

Rs. 2,000 as adjustment by him (Ext. M.15/1) in

the Ledger No.42 on 26.7.93 (Ext. M.15)

manifests the workman has nothing except

denial.

(v)

All the three charges as stated in the charge

sheet (Ext.M.2) stood evidently proved against

the workman as evident from the Report of

findings of the Enquiry Officer.

22. Irrespective of any loss to the Bank, the

fraudulent activities of the workman in discharge of his

duties on the relevant four dates constitute dead sure

gross misconducts under clause 19. 5 (J) of the First

Bipartite Settlement dtd.19.10.66 –which were highly

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.

Under these circumstances, the workman deserves

no relief under Sec.11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947,

so his dismissal after second Show Cause for his

intentional misconduct is quite just, legal and

proportionate to his grave misconduct.Hence,it is ,hereby,

in the terms of the reference :

ORDERED

That the Award be and the same is passed that the

action of the Management of Bank of India, Dhanbad in

dismissing the services of Shri Dilip Kumar Saw, Cashier/

Accountant is quite legal and justified. If the Banker has

lost confidence in him in course of Banking transaction

highly sensitive to public services, the workman is not at

all entitled to any relief, as such intentional grave

misconduct of such Cashier/Accountant is highly

intolerable for the Banker in view of Public Service. Let the

copies – one Soft and one hard of the Award be sent to

the Hon’ble Ministry, Labour & employment, Government

of India for information and needful publication in the

Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2275-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@2011) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 11&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@83@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th September, 2013

S.O. 2275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 11-09-2013.

[No. L- 12011/83/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 4^th September, 2013

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 53/2011

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6001

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

the Management of M/s Indian Bank and their workman)

Between :

The General Secretary

: ....Petitioner/1^st Party

Indian Bank Employees

Association, No. 17,

Ameerjan Street,

Choolaimedum

Chennai-600001

And

The General Manager

: ....Respondent/2^nd Party

Indian Bank, Head Office

Rajaji Salai,

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/

: Sri G. Gopal, Gen. Secy.,

Petitioner

Authorized Representative

For the 2^nd Party/

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

Management

Advocates

A WARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/83/2010-(IR(B-II)

dated 27.05.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Indian

Bank, Vellore in imposing the punishment of

compulsory retirement from service upon Sri M.

Ramachandran, an ex-sub-staff (Peon) vide order

dated 09.12.2006 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

2. After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID 53/2011 and issued notice

to both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through

their counsel and have filed their claim and counter

statement respectively.

3. The facts of the case leading to the raising of the

Industrial Dispute and the reference by the Government

are these :

One Mrs. Amsa, W/o Sri G. Dhanakotti approached

the Manager of Odugathur Branch of Indian Bank

on 14.08.2004 to withdraw the amount in the Savings

Bank Account of her husband Dhanakotti in the

branch. Dhanakotti who was holding SB A/c No.

12989 in the Bank had died on 17.04.2004. Amsa had

approached the Bank under the impression that there

is a balance of amount 45,000 in the account of her

husband. To her horror she was informed that

Rs. 22,000 had been withdrawn out of the balance

amount in the account on 17.05.2004 and another

Rs. 22,000/- on 18.05.2004, both using withdrawals

slips. Apparently both this withdrawals were made

after the death of her husband Dhanakotti. Mrs.

Amsa, just a rural woman, approached the President

of the Panchayat and poured out her grievances to

him. He seems to have made some enquiry based on

suspicion and approached Ramachandran, a Sub-

Staff of Odukathur branch of the bank who is the

one referred to in the schedule in the present

Industrial Dispute and also another Sub-Staff,

Chakravarthy. Both of them admitted to the President

of the Panchayat that they in unison, with the help

of Ramesh, a relative had withdrawn the amount.

Ramesh seems to have been made to pose as

Dhanakotti made to pose as Dhanakotti to get

withdrawal slips and claim the amounts from the

Bank. Ramachandran and Chakravarthy, gave

confession statement stating that they have

withdrawn the amounts. Later they remitted the

amounts to the bank also, Chakravarthy Rs. 31,000

and Ramachandran whose case is under

consideration here Rs. 13,000/-. The bank had

proceeded against the employees who allegedly

erred, separately. Domestic enquiry was conducted

against Chakravarthy first and against

Ramachandran subsequently. The Enquiry Officer

found that the two employees have withdrawn the

amounts with the help of Ramesh with the knowledge

that Dhanakotti is not alive. It is found that they

have manipulated a Pass Book in the name of

Dhanakotti and used Ramesh and who described

himself as Dhanakotti had approached the Bank and

withdrawn amounts from the Bank for the benefit of

Ramachandran and Chakravarthy. The Disciplinary

Authority, after issuing proper notice to the erring

employees imposed the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement under Clause-6(C) of the Bipartite

Settlement. This was confirmed in appeal also.

4. After punishment was imposed on the employee

Ramachandran, the Indian Bank Employees Association

raised an Industrial Dispute with the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner to direct the management of the Indian Bank

to quash the punishment imposed on Ramachandran who

is a member of the Association. Since the conciliation effort

failed, conciliation report was submitted to the Ministry

of Labour and Employment and it is accordingly the

reference was made.

5. In the claim Statement it is stated by the first

party that the management of Indian Bank had failed to

prove the charges against Ramachandran in the domestic

enquiry and still he was imposed a very severe punishment

of Compulsory Retirement from service. After the

Disciplinary Authority had imposed this punishment

Ramachandran had appealed to the Appellate Authority

6002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

but the Appellate Authority had mechanically upheld the

punishment the Compulsory Retirement without going into

the merits of the case of Ramachandran. According to the

first party Ramachandran was not at all involved in the

alleged misappropriation. According to him the only

mistake committed by Ramachandran was that he issued

token to the presenter of the instrument in the SB A/c No.

12989 and also debited the account. According to him it

was the practice of the branch to employ such members

also to do clerical work in times of exigency with the

knowledge of the Manager of the Branch and it was in this

manner, on 17.05.2004 when the Ledger Clerk came late,

Ramachandran had issued token to the presenter of the

instrument in the SB A/c No. 12989. The instrument was

sent for passing and it was duly passed by the concerned

authority. According to the first party, when it was found

that Ramesh, a relative of Chakravarthy who is the other

Sub-Staff of the Odagathur branch was the impersonator,

they had hatched a conspiracy to implicate Ramacnahdran

also in the issue. Again, it is also stated in the Claim

Statement that it was only because of the threat of the

Branch Management coupled with that of local Panchayat

President, Ramachandran had to share a portion of the

alleged misappropriated amount, even though he was

innocent. The first party submits that the punishment of

compulsory retirement from service is severe and unjust

and it is to be quashed and Ramachandran is to be

reinstated into service with full backwages.

6. In answer to the claim Statement filed by the first

party, the second party, the General Manager of the Indian

Bank had submitted a counter statement. In the counter

statement it is stated that on 17.04.2004 on which date

Dhanakotti died, SB A/c No. 12989 in his name had a credit

balance of Rs. 44,457/-. Amsa W/o Dhanakotti had

approached the Bank with a death claim application for

this amount. On verification of the SB ledger it was found

that Rs. 22,000/- was withdrawn from the account on

17.05.2004 and another Rs. 22,000/- was withdrawn on

18.05.2004, the next date itself through withdrawal slips.

So at the time when Amsa approached the Bank there was

a balance of Rs. 257/- only in the account in the name of

Dhanakotti. Amsa had reported the matter to the President

of Serpadi Village Panchayat, her own village. On 14.08.2004

Panchayat President and an School Teacher of the area

had enquired the matter with Ramachandran and

Chakravarthy and they had admitted that they have

withdrawn Rs. 44,000/- and had promised to make good

the amount. They also gave a joint statement to this effect

on 16.08.2004. On 20.08.2004 Ramachandran remitted Rs.

13,000/- and Chakravarthy remitted the balance amount of

Rs. 31,000/- to make good the loss. When investigation

was done by an Officer of the Bank it was revealed that

the two employees had approached Ramesh, and had given

him a duplicate Pass Book of the SB A/c in the name of

Dhanakotti alongwith a duly filled withdrawal slip and made

him approach the bank and present it. On 17.05.2004 the

Manager as well as the Asstt. Manager of the Bank were

on leave and the Manager of the another branch was acting

as Manager. It is alleged that Ramachandran

unauthorisedly made entry for withdrawal in the ledger

and issued token to Ramesh. He also persuaded the

Manager-in-Charge to pass the withdrawal slip. In the same

manner Rs. 22,000/- more was withdrawn on the next day.

According to the second party the disputed documents

were referred for the opinion of the forensic experts and

opinion has been obtained that the entries in the ledger

sheet and the figures filled up in the requisition slip were

written by Ramachandran. According to the second party,

the concerned workman, Ramachandran and Chakravarthy

had got a duplicate Pass Book made and had handed it

over to Ramesh and had persuaded him to submit it at the

Bank alongwith the withdrawal slip. It is stated by the

second party that proper enquiry was conducted against

Ramachandran and it was on the basis of the findings in

the enquiry the punishment of Compulsory Retirement

was imposed on Ramachandran. It is further stated that

on his cessation of employment Ramachandran had

received the amount due towards gratuity and also his

provident fund dues. He is said to be getting a monthly

pension of Rs. 2,718/- also. According to the second party

no interference is required on the imposition of compulsory

retirement on the employee concerned. According to him

the claim of the first party is to be rejected.

7. The first party has submitted a rejoinder in answer

to the counter statement. It is mostly a repetition of what

is stated in the claim statement. According to the first

party Ramachandran had paid Rs. 13,000/- to the Bank

due to coercion by the local panchayat leader and also

pressure from the officials from the Bank. It is also stated

that he was forced to bear part of the amount only because

he gave the token and debited the instrument. Confession

letter was also obtained in this manner, it is stated.

8. The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether there is any justification for the

management of Indian bank in imposing the

punishment of Compulsory retirement from

service upon Ramachandran?

(ii)

If not what is the relief the workman is entitled

to?

9. Evidence in the case consists of documents

marked as Ex.W1 to Ex.W6 on the petitioner’s side and

Ex.M1 to Ex.M29 on the Management’s side. No oral

evidence has been adduced by either side.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6003

Points (i) & (ii)

10.It is a case where domestic enquiry has been

conducted by the allegedly erring employee and

punishment of compulsory retirement from service has

been imposed on him. During the argument advanced by

the First Party it has been made clear that there is no case

for the First Party that the domestic enquiry has not been

conducted in a proper manner, that enquiry has been

proceeded against principles of natural justice. The enquiry

report and the entire enquiry proceedings is available on

the file. On going through this I do not find any reason to

find fault with the manner in which the enquiry has been

conducted also.

11. The fact to be considered initially is whether

the findings arrived at on enquiry was a perverse one.

Then, even if the findings is proper, there is the question

whether the punishment imposed is harsh and is not

commensurate with the gravity of the act allegedly done.

12. The Claim Statement and the Counter Statement

in the case make clear under what circumstances

Ramachandran has been sent out of service by way of

Compulsory Retirement. As already stated, the case is that

he alongwith another Sub-Staff managed to get the help

of one who is related to both of them and withdrew amount

from the account of a person who has already expired.

What is stated is that they manipulated a Pass Book,

handed it over to this relative and issued withdrawal slips

to his relative who approached the Bank with this Pass

Book thus enabling him to withdraw the amount. The

withdrawal is said to have been made for the benefit of

Ramachandran and also Chakravarthy, the other Sub-Staff.

This relative has been examined during the domestic

enquiry also.

13. It is very much clear from the Claim Statement

given by the First Party itself that certain facts are very

much admitted by Ramachandran. The case of the Second

Party all along is that when the malpractice of the erring

employees has been found out the Panchayat President

of the area in which the wife of the account holder is

residing had been given a confession statement from them

to the effect that they were instrumental for withdrawing

amounts from the account of deceased Dhanakotti. It is

stated in the Claim Statement that the only mistake

Ramachandran has committed is that he issued token to

the presenter of the instrument in the concerned SB

Account and also debited the account. Thus the fact that

the token was issued by Ramachandran himself is there in

the claim statement as an admission. It is also stated in the

Claim Statement that the so-called confession letter was

obtained from him through coercive tactics. There is also

the statement that only because of the threat of the bank

management, coupled with that of Local Panchayat

President, Ramachandran had to share a portion of

the alleged misappropriated amount even though he was

innocent, alongwith Chakaravarthy who was the real culprit

in the whole affair.

14.What is to be deciphered from the Claim Statement

is that Ramachandran is the one who had issued the token

on 17.05.2004, He had given a confessional letter regarding

his involvement in the affair and also had remitted a part

of the amount, while the other part was remitted by

Chakravarthy, the other Sub-Staff. The argument advanced

by the petitioner is that it was only on account of coercion,

a confessional letter has been given by Ramachandran

and a part of the amount has been remitted also; It could

also be seen from the nature of the argument advanced by

the petitioner that the attempt has been to put the entire

blame on Chakravarthy, the other Sub-Staff. Chakravarathy

has also been proceeded by the Bank and he too has

challenged the findings of the domestic enquiry by raising

industrial dispute which has been referred to this Court

and has been numbered as ID 75/2009 and disposed by

my predecessor. The copy of the order in ID 75/2009 has

been produced by the Second Party and marked as Ex. M29.

I have referred to this at this stage itself only to point out

that in that ID the attempt has been to put the entire blame

on Ramachandran on whose behalf the first party has raised

the dispute. At this juncture I must also add that my

predecessor has found that the punishment of compulsory

retirement imposed on Chakravarthy is commensurate to

the gravity of the offence and therefore he is not entitled

to any relief. This award seems to have become final

also.

15. Is there any basis for the argument advanced

by the petitioner that Ramachandran has nothing to do

with withdrawal of the amount and that he was made to

confess using force and coercion? On going through the

enquiry file itself it could be seen that the argument

advanced is without any basis. It could be seen that such

a case has been advanced as an afterthought. It could be

seen from the enquiry file that initially a preliminary enquiry

has been conducted by the Vellore Circle Office of the

Bank. The report of the enquiry is seen marked as Ex.M17.

At this stage there was no case at all for Ramachandran

that he was forced to make a confessional statement by

the Bank or the Panchayat President. At that time the case

of Ramachandran was that because of his financial

difficulties and at the instigation of Chakravarthy he had

debited the account as the presenter gave the Pay Order

with the Pass Book. Ex. M17 report is on 21.08.2004.

This has come soon after the alleged act. What is to be

deciphered is that at this time there was no case of forcing

to a confession for Ramachandran.

16. The enquiry report reveals that there was no

question of Ramachandran debiting the account without

the knowledge that Ramesh is not the actual account

6004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

holder. The enquiry report reveals that this Ramesh is a

relative of Chakaravarthy as well as Ramachandran. So

necessarily Ramachandran must have knowledge that the

one who approached him for withdrawing the amount is

not Dhanakkotti, the account holder. There is no case for

the petitioner at all that any force or coercion was exercised

by any authorities of the Bank. The case is that when wife

of Dhanakotti realized that there is only a very small

amount left in the account of her husband she had

approached the Panchayat President of the area and had

poured out her grievance on him and the Panchayat

President and one school teacher had come to the Bank

and verified and on suspicion approached Ramachaneran

and Chakaravarthy. The Panchayat President was

concerned not about misappropriation conducted by

Ramachandran or his colleague Chakravarthy but was

concerned that wife of Dhanakotti was denied the amount

that was actually due to her. It was only to see that she

gets the amount, he had approached Ramachandran and

Chakaravarthy. The two had admitted that they together

had withdrawn the amount and had given a confessional

letter to the President agreeing to make good the amount.

It was on the basis of this confessional letter they had

subsequently remitted the amount also.

17. During the enquiry against Ramachandran the

relevant documents containing the signature and writings

of Ramachandran were sent to Forensic Science

Department. The copy of the report obtained is marked as

Ex.M7. The report shows that the withdrawal slip and the

relevant ledger entry contained the handwriting of

Ramachandran. It was based on all the above aspects, it

was found by the Enquiry Officer that Ramachandran has

with fraudulent intention, in collusion with others

withdrawn amount.

18. It has been argued by the petitioner that Ramesh

who has given evidence in the enquiry proceedings is the

actual culprit and that the Management, rather than

proceeding against Ramesh has made him a witness to the

case to book Ramachandran who is innocent in the whole

affair. In this respect it is to be stated that Ramesh is not a

employee of the Second Party Bank and the Bank would

not be concerned whether he is convicted in Criminal Case

or not. The Bank was concerned about fraud by its own

employees. The Enquiry Officer has referred to the evidence

of Ramesh who has stated under what circumstances he

has helped Ramachandran and Chakravarthy. He seems to

have been giving a helping hand to these two employees

unaware of the gravity of his own act. The Enquiry Officer

had no reason not to find that Ramachandran has

deliberately committed the act. It was with sufficient basis

the finding has been given by the Enquiry Officer. I do not

find anything perverse in it.

19. Now the question to be considered is whether

punishment imposed happened to be disproportionate to

the nature and gravity of the offence committed. I should

say initially itself that it is not. The situation under which

the act has been committed by Ramachandran along with

his colleague is to be noticed. Dhanakotti, the account

holder had died only a few months ago. Probably they

had noticed that his wife who is entitled to the amount is

a rustic, rural woman and would not be in a position to

question them. Taking advantage of the situation they

have managed to manipulate a Pass Book in the name of

Dhanakotti and presented it in the bank fully ware that

Dhanakotti is not alive. There is no doubt that the offence

committed by Ramachandran and his colleague is a very

grievous one. It was only proper on the part of the

Management to see that these two are not continuing in

service. At the same time, to the benefit of Ramachandran

and also his colleague, they were not removed from service

in which case they would have been denied other benefits,

but only given the punishment of Compulsory Retirement

entitling them to draw pension. It is clear from the Counter

Statement submitted by the Second Party that

Ramachandran had already received his gratuity and also

Provident Fund dues and that he is now drawing pension

of almost Rs. 3,000/- p.m. So the argument that the

punishment imposed is not in proportion to the offence

committed also is without any basis. I find that the

petitioner is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement in

service as claimed. He is not entitled to any other relief

also.

20. The reference is answered against the 1^st Party.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 4^th September, 2013)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

17.06.2008

Charge Sheet CO/VLR/VIG/F280/

101/2005 dated 17.06.2005 issued to

Sri M. Ramachandran by Indian

Bank Circle Office, Vellore

Ex.W2

05.10.2008

Letter from Sri M. Ramachandran to

in reply to letter CO.VLR.VIG. F. 280.

246/2006 dated 16.09.2006 from Circle

Office, Vellore

Ex.W3

06.02.2008

Orders of Appellate Authority/

General Manager

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6005

Ex.W4

06.12.2008

Letter to ALC (Central) by the

Petitioner Union IBEA/GEN/49/

2008-10 dated 06.12.2008 raising an

Industrial Dispute

Ex.W5

04.05.2010

Letter CO/VLR/VIG/F280/171/2010

dated 04.05.2010 to ALC (Central) by

Indian Bank, Circle Office, Vellore

Ex.W6

30.07.2010

Reply by the Petitioner Union to the

above letter by Indian Bank, Circle

Office, Vellore

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

22.08.2005

08.09.2005

24.11.2005

Proceedings of Enquiry

07.12.2005

13.12.2005

Ex.M2

17.05.2004

Withdrawal slip no. 862185 for Rs.

22,000/- in the SB A/c No. 12989

Ex.M3

18.05.2004

Withdrawal slip no. 862062 with SB

A/c No. 12989

Ex.M4

19.08.2004

Letter of Mrs. Amsa

Ex.M5

Specimen signature card related to

SB A/c No. 12989 of Late

G. Dhanakotti

Ex.M6

17.11.2007

SB Sheet No. 141147 pertaining to

SB A/c No. 12989 from 17.11.1997 to

16.04.2005

Ex.M7

07.07.2004

Death Certificate of G. Dhanakotti

Ex.M8

18.01.2005

Report of Forensic Sciences

Department, Chennai (Annexure

containing MEX-7/1 to 7/20)

Ex.M9

SB A/c Pass Book No. 12989 of Late

G. Dhanakotti

Ex.M10 20.05.2005

Letter from K. Ramesh

Ex.M11 11.08.2005

Letter from K. Ramesh

Ex.M12 11.08.2005

Letter from Mrs. Amsa

Ex.M13 16.08.2004

Letter received from M/s.

Ramachandran

and

Chakravarthy

Ex.M14 20.08.2004

Letter given by Mrs. Amsa

addressed to B.M. Circle Office

Ex.M15 20.08.2004

Letter from P. Dhanakotti, the Village

Panchayat Presiding, Eriyur

Village

Ex.M16 29.11.2004

Branch forwarding covering letter

dated 29.11.2004 addressed to the

Director of Forensic Sciences

Department

Ex.M17 21.08.2004

Investigation

Report

S. Bagyanathan, Manager – C.O.,

Vellore

Ex.M18 23.09.2004

Investigation Report of S.

Bagyanathan, Manager, C.O.,

Vellore

Ex.M19 20.08.2004

Copy of the letter dated 20.08.2004

given by the CSE addressed to the

DGM, C.O., Vellore

Ex.M20 20.08.2004

Pay-in-Slip dated 20.08.2004 for Rs.

13,000/- remitted by the CSE

Ex.M21 -

Summing up of the Presenting

Officer in respect of charge sheet

no. CO/VLR/CIG/F280/101/05 dated

17.06.2005 issued to the CSE

M. Ramachandran

Ex.M22 22.03.2005

Defence brief in respect of enquiry

against M. Ramachandran

Ex.M23 01.07.2006

Findings of Enquiry Officer in

respect of dated 17.06.2005 issued

to M. Ramachandran

Ex.M24 15.07.2006

Comments on the findings of the

Enquiry Officer in respect of the

enquiry

conducted

against

M. Ramachandran

Ex.M25 16.09.2006

Second Show Cause Notice of

disciplinary authority issued to

M. Ramachandran proposing

punishment

compulsory

retirement and offering personal

hearing and postal acknowle-

dgement

Ex.M26 03.11.2006

Letter from Respondent offering P.H.

on 14.11.2006

Ex.M27 14.11.2006

Proceedings of personal hearing

Ex.M28 09.12.2006

Order of Disciplinary Authority

awarding

punishment

“Compulsory Retirement”

Ex.M29 20.01.2011

Award of C.G.I.T. in ID No. 75

of 2009

6006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2276-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSd

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@

2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&09&2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@50@2010&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)]

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th September , 2013

S.O. 2276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/ 2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Union Bank of India and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

16-09-2013.

[No. L-12011/50/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

ASSAM.

PRESENT : Sri L.C.Dey, M.A. LLB. Presiding Officer

CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI.

In the matter of an industrial dispute between

The Management of Union Bank of India, Central Office

Mumbai.

Vrs.

Workman Sri K.K. Das, represented by the General

Secretary, North Eastern Region Union Bank Employees

Association.

Ref. Case No. 09 of 2011

APPEARACES.

For the Management: Mr. B. Bhattacharjee. Manager (HR)

For the Workman : Mr. S. Chakrabarty, General

Secretary, NERUBEA

AWARD

1. This Reference is initiated on an Industrial Dispute

existed between the employers in relation to the

Management of Union Bank of India, Central Office and

their workman Sri Kishore Kumar Das, which was referred

to by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government

of India, New Delhi vide their Order No.L-12011/50/2010-

IR(B-II) Dated: 09-05-2011. The Schedule of the Reference

as under :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management in relation

to the Union Bank of India, Kolkata, in awarding punishment

of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits from

services of the Bank to Shri Kishore Kumar Des, Head

Cashier vide order No. FGMO.HRM:DA: 2627 dated 6th

October, 2009, is just and proper? What relief the workman

is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the order of Reference this Reference

Case has been registered and notices were served upon

both the parties who appeared and contested the

proceeding by filing their claim statement/written statement

and adducing evidence along with documents.

3. The case of the Union as it appears from Claim

Statement submitted by the Association, inter-alia, is that

the workman Sri Kishore Kumar Das was working as Head

Cashier at Pathsala Branch of Union Bank of India, and

was discharging his duities jointly with one of the

responsible officers of the Branch as per the instruction of

the Branch Manager in the same cash cage. On 19-7-2008,

shortage of a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- was found while tallying

cash balance at the close of business for the day. There

was no less receipt or excess payment made by Sri Das

while carrying out day's transaction, confirmed by the

Investigating Officials on 19-7-2008 in the Branch. Then

Sri K. K. Das immediately brought the matter to the notice

of the Branch Manager and requested for necessary

verification but the Branch Manager instead of paying any

heed to the request pressed upon him to arrange for the

short amount immediately. While Shri Das being alone as

an award staff cadre in the Branch at that moment, without

raising any doubt or allegation on other officer, who worked

with him jointly from the same cash cage/counter requested

to record the said shortage for the day and assured to

arrange the money in case of failure to trace out the amount

by the Branch within 7 days. Ultimately without getting

any response from the Branch, Sri Das refunded and

deposited the entire money on 26-07-2008 by availing loan

from the Provident Fund Account. On 2l- 7-2008 two

officials from Regional Office, Guwahati reached Pathsala

Branch for investigating the case of shortage that occurred

at the Branch on 19-7-2008, who submitted their report,

which became a prime document in the departmental

enquiry. In their report they mentioned that :—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6007

(i)

The cash at Pathsala Branch is under dual control

of Mr. T.Nighthe, Asstt. Manager and Mr. Kishore

Kumar Das, the Head Cashier of the Branch.

(ii)

It was established that shortage of cash was in

the cash vault of the Branch which is under dual

control as per laid down norms of the Bank.

(iii)

It was established that no shortage of cash

occurred while carrying out day's transaction by

Sri Kishore Kumar Das.

(iv)

It was established that all books related to

handling of the vault are jointly signed by the

authorized Asstt. Manager and Head Cashier of

the Branch each and every time cash was

withdrawn or deposited in the vault, as per norms

of the Bank.

(v)

It was established that on the date of shortage

of cash at the Branch, other responsible official

of the Branch also carried out cash transaction

sitting in said cage/desk.

Thereafter on 9th August, 2008 the Management

initiated disciplinary proceeding against Sri Das and

subsequently imposed punishment of compulsory

retirement vide their order No. FGMO:HRM:DA:2627 dated

6th October, 2009 on the following charges.

Gross Misconduct.

(l). Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the

Bank involving or likely to involve the Bank in monetary

loss.

(2). Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to

the property of the Bank.

Minor Misconduct.

l. Breach of rule of business of the Bank or

instruction for running of any department.

The Association has stated that the Management

though imposed capital punishment on Sri K. K. Das neither

inquired into the role of other two officials of the Branch,

one whom was one of the joint custodian of cash vault

from where shortage of cash was established, and the other

who also carried out day's transaction from the same cage/

desk from where Sri K. K. Das carried out transaction on

that day. Thus the act of the Management in conducting

the disciplinary proceeding is bad in law right from the

beginning of the preliminary proceeding. It is also found

clear that the discrepancy was with respect to the entries

made in the safe-in-safe out register in as much as the cash

in vault and the cash shown in the register did not tally;

and there was no discrepancy whatsoever in the

transactions which took place in the cash counter on

19-07-2008. The said cash vault and cash register were

maintained jointly by Sri K. K. Das, Head Cashier and Sri

T.Ngithe, Asstt. Manager when the discrepancy/shortage

of Rs.1,34,000/- took place. So the whole process is biased

and prejudicious thereby causing irreparable losses to Sri

K. K. Das and his family.

It is also pointed out by the Association that the

Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were not

capable enough to discharge their duties and misfit for the

job assigned to them or acted with some ill motive in

drawing conclusion in imposing punishment. Sri KKDas

hails from a Schedule Caste family, with little education,

promoted from the post of Peon to the post of Head Cashier

was compelled to refund the entire cash short of

Rs.1,34,000/-. It is also mentioned by the Association

that by holding Sri K. K. Das as guilty does not hold any

good as the same Management either maintained

conspicuous silence or took lenient view on various

acts, prejudicial to the interest of the Bank causing loss

and inviting damage to the bank by the acts of

responsible officials of the Bank; thus the action of the

Management is discriminatory and biased. Therefore the

Association prayed for award to :—

(i)

direct the bank to quash the order of compulsory

retirement and any other order served on Sri

Kishore Kumar Das.

(ii)

Pay actual wages, dues and benefits as entitled

as regular and permanent employee of the Bank

and to regularize the services of Sri KKDas.

(iii)

Pay full compensation for the sufferings to

Sri K.K. Das and family for the period.

(iv)

To fix responsibility and accountability to the

erring officials to stop recurrence of similar lapses.

(v)

Pay other relief/reliefs to which the workman may

be entitled to under law and equity may also be

given and pass any other order your Honour deem

fit and proper.

4. The Management, on the other hand pleaded that

the Reference is not maintainable in as much as Sri Kishore

Kumar Das is not a workman within the meaning of

Industrial Dispute Act and as such, the Reference is not

maintainable and the same is liable to be referred back to

the appropriate Government as the purported Industrial

Dispute was referred without considering the provision of

the Industrial Dispute Act and the relevant issue is not an

Industrial Dispute as such, the Notification dated 9-5-2011

is illegal and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate

the issues which are not industrial disputes within the

meaning of law. The Management stated that the Bank

being. a Nationalised Bank has to follow the Rules, policy

and procedure governing the service conditions for their

service condition of the workman of the Bank. Further plea

of the Management is that the Association has not been

able to show that it is a registered Trade Union under the

6008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Provision of Trade Union Act, 1926 and whether the

Association is entitled to organize/espouse any Industrial

Dispute on behalf of the workman as well as whether the

workman Sri Kishore Kumar Das is the member of the

Association at the time of raising their demand. Further

plea of the Management is that the Association has already

been filed a Title Suit demanding re- instatement of Sri

Kishore Kumar Das before Munsiff Magistrate-2 at

Guwahati being No.T.S.500 of 2009 which is pending at

evidence stage and during the pendency of Civil Suit on

the same subject the present Reference is barred under law

as well as this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the

Reference. Hence, the Management submitted that the

preliminary objection raised by them strike at the root of

the matter affecting the maintainability and the jurisdiction

of this Tribunal as such, the preliminary issue on the

maintainability of this Reference is required to be decided

first. The Management averred that the allegations made

by the Association are illegal, false, frivolous, fabricated,

unjustified, perverse and without any basis of law as well

as on fact and hence, the Association is not entitled to any

relief as claimed. The Management contended that save

and except the statements which are not been specifically

admitted by the Management are hereby deemed to have

been denied by them and also denying the statements

which are contrary and inconsistent with the record. The

fact of the case of the Management in short is that the

workman Sri Kishore Kumar Das was asked for explanation

as serious acts of commission and omission on his part

came to the notice of the Management and show cause

notice was also issued on 9-8-2008 to which the workman

replied and on being dissatisfied with his explanation the

Management issued a formal charge sheet on 9-l-09 while

the workman submitted his reply on 5-2-09 denying the

charges but the Management was not satisfied with his

replies dated 28.8.2008. The Management Bank appointed

Sri A. K. Banerjee, Manager F.G.M.O. Kolkata as an Enquiry

Officer to conduct inquiry into the charges levelled against

Sri KKDas; and Sri D.Behera, Manager, Human Resource

Development, Regional Office, Siliguri was appointed as

Presenting Officer. The workman participated in the inquiry

taking the help of Sri Subrata Chakrabarty, General Secretary

of the Association to defend his case. The Management as

well as the workman examined their respective witnesses

and who were also cross-examined by their adverse party.

On closure of the hearing the Enquiry Officer submitted

his report and findings which was forwarded to the

workman who also submitted his reply to the report of the

Enquiry Officer. The Management not being satisfied with

the reply and after considering of the relevant documents,

including the proceeding etc. the Disciplinary Authority of

the Management imposed punishment on the workman by

imposing compulsory retirement with supernumerary

benefits from services of the Bank to the workman vide

order dated 6-10-2009.

The Management averred that the workman was

allowed sufficient opportunity during the enquiry

proceeding which was conducted in strict compliance in

the principle of Natural Justice, and contended that it is

not correct that there was joint responsibility as alleged by

the Union, since the workman was working as Head Cashier

of the Pathasala Branch of the Management Bank and on

19.7.2008 on physical verification of the cash the Branch

Manager found shortage of Rs.1,34,0001- while tallying'

with the cash balance at the time of closing of the bank

balance. While the workman informed the Branch Manager

that he withdrew cash from the safe in the morning of

19.7.2008 and at that time of the balancing physical cash at

5.15 P.M. on 19.7.2008 he found that there was a shortage

of Rs.1,34,0001- which he informed the Branch Manager

and other officers about the shortage and all of them

checked the cash transaction and vouchers of the day and

did not find any clue how the shortage occurred. Thus, if

any shortage is found in the cash the Cashier of the Bank

is fully responsible and as such, the other officers were not

responsible. When the workman caused loss to the Bank

he was asked to deposit the amount into the Bank otherwise

the reputation of the Bank can be hampered and as the

amount was misappropriated by the workman he deposited

the amount on 26.7.2008. It is further mentioned by the

Management that the alleged joint responsibility to maintain

the cash vault and cash Register by the workman, the Head

Cashier and Shri Ngithe the Asstt. Manager as alleged by

the Association are not correct; and also the contention

that there caused damage on the part of the Management

to conduct Disciplinary Proceeding both the workman and

the Branch Manager Shri Ngithe. The Management stated

that the Schedule Caste employee has no right to

misappropriate the money of the Bank as the Bank employee

should be trustworthy and they should maintain the dignity,

image, prestige and reputation of the Bank which is a

nationalized business concerned. Since the workman was

found guilty of the misconduct as per charge levelled against

him the Management took action against the workman after

giving him all reasonable opportunities to defend his case.

The Management also categorically denied that they have

never victimized the workman nor adopted any unfair labour

practices as alleged, hence, the Management prayed to

frame a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the

Reference, more particularly when a Title Suit bearing

No.500 of 2009 is pending in the Court of Munsiff No.2 at

Guwahati on the same subject and if the preliminary issues

are decided against the Management, the Management

may be allowed to adduce evidence on merit and pass

appropriate order.

5. The Workman by filing Addl. Claim Statement took

the plea that the workman immediately after receiving the

order of compulsory retirement from the service on

6-10-2009 raised a dispute with the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C) Guwahati on 13-10-2009, and the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6009

workman vide his letter dated 28-10-2009 requested for

compliance of Section 33 (i) (a) under Industrial Dispute

Act to restrain the Management from disbarring the service

conditions of the workman during the pendency of the

dispute, while the Management vide their Written

submission dated 10-1l-2009 before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C), Guwahati denied any relief and settlement

of the dispute. The workman in order to protect him from

the vindictive action of the Management who even without

bringing any charges against the official of the Branch

namely custodian of the cash vault along with the workman,

ultimately moved an injunction petition before the Hon’ble

Court on 25-11-2009 as the disciplinary proceedings drawn

against the workman is an abuse of power by the

Management and as such, the whole proceeding is liable

to be set aside by way of declaration and not to give effect

of the order of compulsory retirement issued by the

Management. Then the Hori'ble Court on hearing the

petition fixed the date on 4-12-2009 for objection/show

cause on the plea made by the workman for a mandatory

injunction until a fresh proceeding is drawn up making the

other custodian of cash vault as a party to it. It is also

pointed out by the workman that after receiving the order

of Reference from the Ministry of Labour dated 25-5-2011

written submission was made before the Presiding Officer

of the Tribunal on 2l-6-2011 with an intimation to the

Advocate for the workman for not proceeding further in

the Title Suit. The workman also mentioned that since the

dispute was referred for adjudication before this Tribunal

he would not proceed further in any Title Suit pending

disposal of this Reference. It is also alleged by the workman

that the averments made by the Management in their W.S.

is nothing but an admission on the Management to cover

up all illegalities, unethical and biased practices against

the workman in gross violation of Principle of Natural

Justice, rules and policies framed by the Management for

smooth running of the Institution, Thus the workman

prayed for ensuring justice in his favour.

6. The Management again by filing Addl. W.S., took

the plea that as there is a Central Government Industrial

Tribunal at Kolkata and the Reference made between the

Association of Union Bank of India -vs- Management and

the Head Office of the Management is at Kolkata, as such,

this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this

Reference. Management also denied all the allegations made

by the workman in his Addl. Claim Statement; and mentioned

that the action against the workman was taken after holding

regular domestic enquiry in which the workman was given

full opportunity to defend himself and in fact which he

availed. As the whole affair and free and fair domestic

inquiry the Management shall rely on the enquiry and they

may be allowed to adduce their evidence on the enquiry

first and after inquiry if it goes against the Management,

the Management may be allowed to adduce evidence on

merit.

7. Both the workman and the Management examined

one witness each of their own. After closing of hearing of

both the sides I have heard the argument from both the

sides who also submitted their respective arguments in

writing.

8. According to the workman witness No.1, Sri

Subrata Chakrabarty, the General Secretary, North Eastern

Region Union Bank. Employee Association, gross injustice

caused to the workman while working as Head Cashier at

Pathsala Branch by imposing punishment of compulsory

retirement by the Management based on suspicion, and to

Cover up real culprit causing irreparable loss to the family

of the workman, who was discharging duties jointly with

one responsible officer of the Branch from the same cash

cabin and he found a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- less while tallying

cash with vault at the close of business on 19-7-2008,

while they found that there was no less receipt or excess

payment made by the workman while discharging duties

on that day. But the shortage was at cash vault of the Bank

which is under joint custody of the Bank and the same was

confirmed by the Investigating Officer in their report,

marked as Exhibit-1. He has also proved the copy of the

Departmental Proceeding against the workman vide Exhibit-

2 and the report submitted by Mr. Badal Mukherjee, Sr.

Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Guwahati,

on the preliminary investigation conducted against the

workman vide Exhibit-3. He stated that the statement of the

management witness made in course of cross-examination

recorded under serial No.1 to 17 in the Enquiry Proceeding

would show how the workman was made victim unilaterally

by the Management. He also said that the Management

initiated the Disciplinary Proceeding against the workman

with mala fide and out and out exceeded their jurisdiction

without bringing any charge against the official who is one

of the joint custodian of the cash vault for extraneous

consideration, which is an abuse of power by the

Management and aiming to victimize the workman for

protecting other erring officers. Further contention of the

W. W.1 is that the workman hailed from poor Schedule

Cast family with little education promoted from the post of

Peon to the Post of Head Cashier was initially compelled to

refund an amount of Rs.l,34,000/- at the Branch which

occurred at the Cash vault under the joint custody of

another responsible officer. But the Management imposed

with capital punishment of compulsory retirement to cover

up the lapse of others and hence, Mr. Chakrabarty submitted

that the workman is deliberately victimized and the Bank

has initially unjustly deprived him in getting rightful dues

and benefits and dismissed him from the service of the

Bank for which the workman is suffering mentally and

financially and as such, the workman witness No.l prayed

for passing order to direct the Bank to quash the order of

compulsory retirement and any other order served upon

the workman; pay actual wages, dues and benefits as

entitled as regular and permanent employees of the Bank

6010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and to regularize his service; to pay full compensation for

the sufferings to the workman and his family and to fix

responsibility and accountability to the erring officials to

stop recurrence of similar situation along with other relieves

which are workman is entitled to.

During his cross examination the workman witness

No.l said that they have not submitted any document to

show that the workman was discharging his duty with a

responsible officer of Pathsala Branch on 19-7-08 and vide

his letter proved as Exhibit-A that the workman has informed

the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Pathsala Branch

that he found a shortage in cash at the time of closure and

that he was allowed for further investigation and

verification but could not find out the mistake and that he

submitted undertaking for adjustment of the loss amount

of Rs.l,34,000/- from his own source with prayer for allowing

the workman to deposit the same amount. He has proved

the show cause memorandum dated 9.8.08 and the charge

sheet issued by the Management against the workman

vide Exhibit- B & C. He admitted the fact that he participated

in the enquiry proceeding on behalf of the workman as

counsel/representative and proved the departmental

proceeding against the workman marked as Exhibit-E(10

pages), and also the findings of the departmental

proceeding vide Exhibit-F. 12 pages) which he received. He

also admitted that all the reasonable opportunities were

provided to the workman to defend his case in course of

enquiry proceeding; and that he had cross-examined the

Management witness. The W.W.l again mentioned that

the workman was communicated with the findings of the

departmental proceeding imposing punishment vide

Exhibit-G and on receipt of the findings as well as the

proposed punishment the workman submitted his reply

vide Exhibit- H; and that personal hearing on the proposed

punishment to be imposed by the Management was held

and in that hearing the W.W.1 along with workman were

present. He has proved the proceeding of the personal

hearing vide Exhibit-l and the same was communicated to

the workman who acknowledged the receipt of the same.

He has also proved the letter imposing punishment issued

by the Management vide Exhibit- J. The witness concerned

has admitted that all the formalities as well as procedure in

the departmental proceeding was followed. The workman

witness Mr. Chakrabarty added that in the bank cash is

maintained by the Cashier/Cash Clerk and the Cash Register

is also prepared by the workman and Officer-in-Charge/

Officer concerned signed in the cash Register as

Supervisory Authority. On the other hand, he denied the

suggestion tendered by the Management that the

allegations made in para-8,9 of his evidence on affidavit

are totally false, baseless and concocted. He also admitted

that there is no special provision of law/rule in the

Management Bank for not charging the Schedule Caste

and Schedule Tribes of the Bank in case of commission of

any offence.

9. The Management witness No.I, Sri Bidit

Bhattacharjee , the Senior Manager, Union Bank of India,

Regional Office, Chandmari, Guwahati has constituted

Attorney to the Union Bank of India deposed that the

workman was Head Cashier of Pathsala Branch and on

being not satisfied with the replies to the show cause issued

against the workman by the Management vide Exhibit-B

formal charge sheet was issued on 9-1-09 vide Exhibit-C to

which the workman submitted his replies. But the

Management not being satisfied appointed Sri Amit

Banerjee, Manager, Field General Manager Office, Kolkata

as Enquiry Officer, who duly issued notice of enquiry to

the charges and both the parties appeared before the

Enquiry Officer. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report along with his findings on

23-5-2009 vide Exhibit-F & Exhibit-E copy of which were

furnished to the workman informing that the workman was

found guilty and hence, the Management proposed the

punish the workman and allowed the workman an

opportunity of personal hearing asking him to submit his

replies against the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer

also. The workman was heard in person by the Disciplinary

Authority along with the W.W.1 on 23-9-2009 vide Exhibit-

H. After considering the relevant record the Disciplinary

Authority imposed punishment of Compulsory Retirement

from the services of the Bank vide Exhibit- I. The M.W.l

also mentioned that the workman in his letter dated 26-7-08

marked as Exhibit-A admitted that due to mistake a sum of

Rs.l,34,000 was missing and he undertook to deposit the

amount to the Bank and the amount of Rs.l,34,000/- was

deposited by the workman. Therefore the workman has

committed gross misconduct and he was punished as per

Exhibit- I after giving him all reasonable opportunities which

he duly availed.

During his cross-examination Mr. Bhattacharjee has

stated that both the Head Cashier and the Officer concerned

who was In-charge of cash are the custodian of the cash of

the Branch and both of them are equally responsible for

cash of the Branch; and at the relevant time the workman

was Head Cashier and Mr. T. Nighte was Officer-in- Charge

of the cash of the Branch. He also said that the cash

shortage of the Branch was on 19-7-08 and it was detected

in the evening of the same day. In this connection the

MW.l has proved the report (marked as Exhibit-3) of the

Inspecting Officer i.e. the Chief Manager, Badal Mukherjee

vide Exhibit-3 wherein it was mentioned that the Mr. T.

Nighte confirmed that he used to check cash balance daily

and on 18-7-08 he checked the cash balance and late

receipts of Rs.2,40,000 and it was found in order. In the said

report (Exhibit-B) it was mentioned that the cash of the

Branch is under dual control of Mr. T. Nighte, Asstt.

Manager and Mr. K.K.Das, Head Cashier, & that Mr. Badal

Mukherjee examined the denomination of the opening

balance and that day's denominations and found agreed

with final cash balance of 19-7-2008 except Rs.l,000

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6011

denomination and that the workman confirmed that there

is no excess payment on that day. He also said that in the

findings of the Enquiry Officer proved as Exhibit-I (page

11) it is mentioned that the negligence of Head Cashier is

well proved and it is also beyond doubt that shortage of

cash was unadjusted for 7 days i.e. shortage noticed on

19-7-08 and adjusted on 26.7.08. He added that in Exhibit-C

the memorandum dated 9-l-09 it was observed that the

workman did not maintain the safe-in-safe-out Register of

the Branch and caused shortage of Rs.l,34,000/-. Mr.

Bhattacharjee (MW.1) added that the exact position of the

Bank showing the actual amount in the vault of the day.

He admitted that in Exhibit-2 the proceeding of the

Departmental Proceeding dated 28-4-2009 (on page-7) the

Management Witness No.l confirmed that the safe-in-safe-

out register was jointly undertaken and the same witness

had also confirmed that on 18-7-08 and 19-7-08 Cash

Balance Book was signed by both the Head Cashier and

Officer of the branch after incorporating shortage of cash

amounting to Rs.1,34,000. The Management witness also

stated that in Exhibit-2 at page 6 (serial No.17) Management

Witness confirmed that he had already deposited in terms

of Management Exhibit (MEX -10) that Sri K.K.Das, Head

Cashier had reported about the cash shortage to the Branch

Manager, and in course of cross-examination the MW.l (in

the enquiry proceeding) admitted that he had not come

across anything about the integrity and honesty of the

workman during his tenure of working at Pathsala Branch

or since his joining in the Branch. MW.l has denied the

suggestion that on 19-7-08 shortage was found in the cash

vault in the bank concerned and not in the cash and that

shortage of money was not in the vault on that day i.e.

19-7-2008; and that the workman is not in any way

responsible for the shortage on 19-7-2008; and that due to

arbitrariness and illegal action of the Management the

workman was dismissed from service and as the workman

was sincere he is entitled to all the relief he claimed.

10. On perusal of the pleadings of the Management

it appears that the Management has took the plea in their

W.S. for framing preliminary issue on maintainability of the

proceeding at the initial stage on the ground that it is not

an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Section 2(k)

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as the workman is not a

workman under Section 2(s) of the said Act. In their Addl.

W.S. the Management also raised the plea that this Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this

Reference as the same was made between the Union Bank

of India, Kolkata and their workman and in as much as in

Kolkata there is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

and as such, this Tribunal is to decide the jurisdictional

issue first before entering into the merit of the case. The

workman was working as Head Cashier. Union Bank of

India as the relevant time and as per provision of first

schedule to the Industrial Dispute Act the Banking Service

has been declared to be an Utility Service under sub-Clause -VI

of Clause-N of Section 2, and as the Cashier of a Bank

is not concerned with any administrative work. the workman

being the cashier falls within the meaning of Section 2(s).

The dispute is between the Management and the workman

connected with the employment of non-employment and

hence, it is Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section

2(k) of the said Act. Further this Tribunal/Court was

constituted by the Appropriate Government u/s 7 of

Industrial Dispute Act by the Notification of the

Government of Indian, Ministry of Labour's filed No.

A-l1016/4/2008-CLS II dated 15-12-2003 for adjudications

of any dispute in relation to workman employ in any Industry

located in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Meghalaya,

Tripura, Nagaland and Manipur: and as the cause of action

of the present dispute arose at Pathsala in the District of

Barpeta. Assam and the workman is also residing in the

State of Assam, this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to

adjudicate this reference Therefore it is clear that the

pleading raised by the Management for deciding preliminary

issue on maintainability of the reference is rejected.

1l. From the evidence as well as the documents relied

upon both the parties on record it appears that the workman

Sri K.K.Das was discharging his duties as Head Cashier in

Union Bank of India, Pathsala Branch on 19-7-2008 and on

that day after close of the Bank business in the afternoon

shortage in cash amounting to Rs.1,34,000 was detected

while tallying cash with the vault and the workman Sri

K.K.Das inspite of availing opportunity to enquiry and

verify the cash along with the records such as Cash Book

and vouchers etc. failed to detect the error although there

was no less receipt or excess payment made by him while

discharging his duties on the day. As a result, shortage of

Rs.1,34,000 in cash was remained ell Pathasala Branch on

19-7-2008. In this connection a preliminary enquiry was held

by Mr. Badal Mukherjee, Chief Manager, NRO, Guwahati

who submitted his report vide Exhibit-3 wherein it is

mentioned that Mr. Mukherjee found a shortage of Rs.1000

(denomination)x134 =Rs.1,34,000 after examining all

denominations of opening balance and the denominations

of that day i.e. 19-7-2008 with the final cash balance.

The Management in connection with the shortage

of Rs.1,34,000 in the cash occurred on 19-7- 2008 asked for

explanation from the workman vide Exhibit-B upon which

the workman submitted his replies on 28-8-2008 but the

Management on being not satisfied with the replies

submitted by the workman, framed formal charge sheet

against the workman vide Exhibit-C. Then the workman

submitted his reply to the charge sheet and the

Management finding the reply not acceptable appointed

Sri Amit Banerjee, Manager, Field General Manager Office,

Kolkata as Enquiry Officer, vide Exhibit-D. Accordingly

the workman participated in the enquiry assisted by Sri

Subrata Chakrabarty, General Secretary of the NERUBEA,

in which Sri D. Behara, Manager (HR) was appointed as

Presenting Officer. On completion of enquiry. the Enquiry

6012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Officer submitted his report and findings. A copy of the

said report was also forwarded to the workman. The

proceeding of the Departmental Enquiry marked as Exhibit -F

shows that the charges levelled against the workman vide

Exhibit-C found proved in the enquiry and the Disciplinary

Authority vide Exhibit-G concurred the findings/views of

the Enquiry Officer and held guilty of the charges of gross

and minor misconduct and accordingly proposed

punishment against the workman vide Exhibit-G which was

forwarded to the workman. The Management also found

to have heard the workman in person of his defence

represented by Sri Subrata Chakrabarty with regard to the

proposed punishment vide Exhibit-I and thereafter the

Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of

compulsory retirement from the service of the Bank with

supernumerary benefits and without disqualification from

future employment against the charge of Gross Misconduct

i.e. doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or

likely to involve the Bank in monetory loss; and stoppage

of one increment for the period of 6 months for Minor

Misconduct i.e. breach of rule of business of the Bank and

instruction of running any department; and both the

punishment would run concurrently.

12.The vital and material question before this

Tribunal is to whether the action of the Management in

awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement with

supernumerary benefit in service of the Union Bank of

India to the workman is just and proper. During argument

Mr. S. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the workman

submitted that in the proceeding of Departmental Enquiry

(Exhibit-E) in page-9 under serial No.14 the Management

witness has confirmed that the safe-in and safe-out Register

maintained by the Branch is signed jointly by the Cashier

and the Officer-in-Charge of Cash and hence, both the

workman and the Branch Manager were jointly responsible

to the cash of the Branch, but the Managernen illegally

framed the charge against the workman and the

departmental enquiry was held and punishment was

imposed on the workman is illegal and without any basis.

Mr. Chakrabarty also added that the proceeding of the

Enquiry shows that the Management witness under Serial

No. 8 in page-4, serial No.16 in page-5, serial No. 1 & 4 in

page-7. serial No.7 in page-8 and serial Nos.14 & 15 in

page-9 and the report of the Investigating Officer confirmed

that the workman alone was not responsible in maintaining

security measures in regard to the cash and as such, the

charge drawn against the workman is illegal and not

maintainable. Mr. Chakrbarty also pointed out that the letter

dated 26-7-2008 ( Exhibit-A) issued by the workman

admitting the shortage in cash amounting to Rs.1,34,000

and also to allow the workman to deposit the amount from

his own source and to adjust the outstanding held in

suspense account shortage in cash is not admissible since

in the analysis of the evidence the Enquiry Officer has not

recorded such statement of the workman. While the Enquiry

Officer in page No.ll (Exhibit-E) in last sentence mentioned

that the negligence of the Head Cashier is well proved and

it is also beyond doubt that shortage Rs.1.34,000/- was

unadjusted for 7 days i.e. shortage noticed on 19-7-2008

and adjusted on 28-7-2008. Thus the Enquiry Officer in the

Departmental Enquiry only established the negligence of

the workman and hence, Mr. Chakrabarty prayed for

rejecting the Enquiry Proceeding. In support of his

contention Mr. Chakrabarty relied upon the case in New

Marine Coal Co.- Vs-Union of India AIR 1964 SC 152

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

negligence in popular language and in circumstances means

failure to exercise with care and diligence which the

circumstances requires; naturally what amounts to

negligence would always depend upon the circumstances

and facts in any particular case.

On scrutiny of the evidence of the workman witness

No.l, it appears that in course of his cross-examination the

workman witness No.l has categorically admitted the letter

dated 26-7-2008 written by the workman marked as Exhibit-

A addressed to the Branch Manager. Union Bank of India,

wherein the workman informed that he found a shortage of

cash at the time of closing and that he was allowed for

further investigation/verification but could not find out

the mistake, and that he submitted undertaking for

adjustment to the loss amount of Rs.1.34,000 from his own

source with prayer for allowing the workman to deposit the

same amount. He also admitted that all reasonable

opportunities were provided to the workman to defend his

case in course of enquiry proceeding and the workman

was also communicated by the findings of the enquiry

proceeding along with the findings and proposed

punishment vide Exhibit-G. The workman witness No.l also

admitted the holding of personal hearing on proposed

punishment to be imposed by the Management and in that

hearing he along with the workman were present and that

all the formalities as well as the procedure in departmental

enquiry was followed. The W. W.1 also admitted in course

of his cross- examination that in the bank cash is maintained

by the Cashier/cash clerk and Cash Register is also

prepared by him and the Officer-in-Charge/Officer

concerned signed in the Cash Register as Supervisory

Authority. Thus it is clear that the contents of the Exhibit-

A the letter dated 26-7-2008 is admitted by the

representative of the workman and the shortage of

Rs.1,34,000 in cash as well as the failure of the workman to

find out the mistake, the prayer of the workman to the

Branch Manager for allowing him to deposit the amount to

the Bank from his own source as well as to adjust the

suspense account in the cash of the Bank is found to be

admitted. It is also found on record that the workman

deposited the amount on 26-7-2008 and the shortage in

cash remained unadjusted from 19-7-2008 to 26-7-2008. In

the proceeding of the departmental enquiry page-9 at Serial

No.14 the Management witness No.1 has confirmed that

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6013

on 19-7-2008 cash transaction entry carried out in cash

safe-in-safe-out Register were signed jointly by the Head

Cashier and Officer-in-Charge, and in Exhibit-3, the report

of the Investigating Office, Regional Officer, Guwahati

shows that the cash was under dual control of the workman

and the Assistant Manager, Mr. T. Nighte and that the

shortage of 134 nos. of 1000 rupee denomination was found

on 19-7-08. Thus it clears that the lapse and negligence on

the part of the workman in discharging his duties on

19-7-08 cannot be ruled out.

13. Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned representative of

the Management, on the other hand, submitted that the

representative of the workman has categorically admitted

all the documents produced by the Management and also

admitted that all the formalities as well as the procedure in

departmental enquiry were followed by the Enquiry Officer,

and that the cash is maintained by Cashier or Cash Clerk

and the Cash Register is also prepared by the Cashier, and

that the letter dared 26-7-2008 issued by the workman to

the Management (Exhibit-A) admitting his guilt are the

grounds which are sufficient to hold that the workman has

admitted his guilt and there is no illegality done in arriving

at the findings of the enquiry as well as imposing

punishment on the workman. On scrutiny of the evidence

on record along with the documents relied upon by both

the parties it is found that the workman vide Exhibit-A

admitted his guilt and accordingly he deposited shortage

amount of Rs.1,34,000 to the Bank with prayer for

adjustment of the suspense account in the case of the

Bank. In the Enquiry Proceeding the Enquiry Officer has

given opportunity to adduce evidence by both the sides

and the workman was also given ample opportunities to

cross-examine the Management witness. Also the workman

was given sufficient opportunities to be heard and all the

formalities were observed in the departmental proceeding

which is an admitted fact. In course of hearing the workman

witness admitted the documents marked as Exhibit-A. It is

also found that the Enquiry Officer after examining the

evidence adduced by both the sides as well as scrutinizing

all the documents including the report of the Preliminary

Enquiry marked as Exhibit-3, found the charge framed

against the workman established. Thus it is clear that there

is no violation of principle of natural justice, nor any

illegality or irregularity in holding the departmental enquiry

by the Management.

In this connection I am inclined to rely upon the case

of Central Bank of India - vs-Karunamoy Banerjee , reported

in AIR 1968 SC 266, wherein it was held that the rules of

natural justice will have to be observed, in the conduct of

a domestic enquiry against a workman as laid down by this

Court. I am also inclined to relied upon the case of Hemanta

Saharia-vs-State Bank of India, Guwahati and Ors. reported

in 2013 LAB IC 2962 (Guwahati High Court), wherein it was

observed that it is needless to say that the job involved in

respect of an employee of financial institution like Bank i.e.

of confidence; it is an admitted position that the amounts

were not deposited; and returning the amount to the account

holder subsequent to complaint could not absolve him

from the charge levelled ; and as such, penalty of compulsory

retirement not improper.

14. From the evidence on record as well as the

proceeding of enquiry it is found well established that the

workman himself was responsible for maintaining the cash

and the cash safe-in-safe-out Register on 19.7.2008 which

was countersigned by the Officer-in-Charge of the Cash

i.e. Assistant Manager, Mr. T. Nighte and the shortage of

Rs. l,34,000 in cash was detected on the same day, which

was deposited by the workman on 26-7-2008 from his own

source and accordingly the suspense account was

adjusted. There is also nothing on record to show that the

workman was influenced in any manner for depositing the

shortage amounting to Rs.1,34,000 to the Bank. The

workman witness No.1 also categorically mentioned that

on 19-7-2008 the workman inspite of enquiry and

verification could not detect the shortage although there

were no excess payment or less deposit on that day and

this position is found to be admitted vide Exhibit-A which

was proved without any objection. Thus it is crystal clear

that the charges framed against the workman alleging gross

misconduct i.e. doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the

Bank involving or likely to involve the Bank in monetory

loss; and the minor misconduct i.e. breach of rules of

business of the Bank and instruction for running of a

department are found to be well established. It is also found

that the departmental enquiry was held without violating

the procedure as well as the provision of the Constitution

of India and the Natural Justice.

15. In view of the discussion and the ratio of the

Hon’ble High Court and SC as aforesaid and having regard

to my findings arrived at as above I find no reason to

entertain the argument raised by the learned representative

of the workman. Accordingly it is held that the Disciplinary

Authority i.e. the Union Bank of India has not committed

any illegality or irregularity in arriving at the findings of the

departmental enquiry and also in imposing punishment of

compulsory retirement with supernumerary benefits and

without disqualification from future employment along with

stoppage of one increment for the period of six months is

proportionate and justified. As such, I find no reason to

interfere with the action of the Management and to grant

any relief to the workman as prayed for.

16. In the result, this Reference is awarded without

any relief.

Send the Award to the Ministry as per procedure

immediately.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

29th day of August, 2013 at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

6014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2277-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSd vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@

2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&09&2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@76@2008&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)]

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2013

S.O. 2277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/ 2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow 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

18-09-2013.

[No. L-12011/76/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 53/2008

Ref. No. L-12011/76/2008-IR (B-II) dated 22-10-2008

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

Bank of India Staff Association U.P.

Mohini Mension, 1 Naval Kishore Road

Lucknow

(Espousing case of Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav)

AND

The Chief Manager

Bank of India

Gorakpur Shaka, Zonal Manager, Varanasi Zone

B-20/44, A-7 Shopping Plaza, Bhelupura

Varanasi (UP)

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/76/2008-IR(B-II) dated

22.10.2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the General Secretary, Bank of

India Staff Association, U.P, Mohini Mension, 1 Naval

Kishore Road, Lucknow and the Chief Manager, Bank of

India, Gorakpur Shaka, Zonal Manager, Varanasi Zone, B-

20/44, A-7, Shopping Plaza, Bhelupura, Varanasi for

adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Bank

of India in reducing an amount of Rs. 783 p.m.

from the pay of Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav while

transferring him to Basti Branch and not paying

Head Cashier allowance in that Branch is legal and

justified. What relief the workman is entitled

to?”

3.The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that

the workman, Subhash Chandra Yadav while working at

Gorakhpur branch of the Bank had been deployed to the

Basti Branch of the Bank in violation to the provision

contained in the guideline for deployment; and on

correspondence, protesting said deployment the

management informed vide letter dated 26.11.2007 of the

management that the workman has not been deployed but

transferred, therefore, he could be considered to transferred

back to Gorakhpur. The workman's union has submitted

that the action of the management in deployment the

workman was unfair labour practice under 5th schedule of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman's union has

further submitted that the management on transfer illegally

reduced the pay of the workman by Rs. 783 per month in

the month of February, 2008 and also declined to pay Head

Cashier Allowance @ Rs. 1310 although he was entitled for

the same being Head Cashier. Accordingly, the workman's

union has prayed that the workman be transferred back

from Basti to Gorakhpur and his pay be enhanced by

Rs. 783 as well as he be paid Head Cashier Allowance.

4. The management of the Bank of India has filed its

written statement denying the claim of the workman's union;

wherein it was submitted that the workman's transfer from

Gorakhpur to Basti has not been referred by the

Government, therefore, it would be out of this Tribunal's

jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of transfer in respect of

the workman. However, it has been submitted by the

management that the workman was not deployed; instead

he was transferred in routine manner. As regard reducing

of pay the management has submitted that same has

occurred due to non-admissibility of certain allowance to

the workman at Basti. Further it has been submitted that

the workman is being paid Head Cashier Allowance at Basti

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6015

Branch as per his entitlement since 24.12.2008. Accordingly,

the management has prayed that the workman's union claim

is devoid of merit and hence liable to be rejected out rightly.

5. The workman's union received the copy of written

statement on 24.03.2009; but did not file any rejoinder, instead

it moved an application dated 17.07.2009, paper No. W-8,

stating therein that it has sought amendment in the schedule

of reference, vide application dated 02.05.2009. Keeping in

view the long pendency of the application, seeking amendment,

this Tribunal vide its order dated 17.07.2009 ordered to write

to the Ministry that if any such representation is pending

then it should disposed of expeditiously.

6. The Ministry in response to this office's letter dated

28.07.2009 and its subsequent reminders dated 01.06.2010

and 18.07.2012 informed vide their letter dated 16.10.2012,

paper No. C-13 that as per their record, no representation

dated 02.05.2009 of the workman, Shri Subhash Chandra

Yadav regarding amendment in the reference order dated

22.10.2008 has been received in IR(B-II) Desk.

7. The workman's union is not turning up

since15.11.2010. No rejoinder is on the record. The

workman's union has filed photocopy of certain documents.

No evidence from the either side is there on the file.

Although the management is being represented by

Shri S.K. Shukla, Advocate, the case is not pursued by the

workman's union. On the dates fixed for workman's

evidence i.e. on 06.05.2013 and 05.07.2013 when none turned

up from the workman's union the case was reserved for

award, keeping in view the reluctance of the workman's

union to pursue their case and long pendency of the

industrial dispute.

8. I have scanned entire material available on the file.

9. The workman's union come forward with the case

that the workman had malafiedly been transferred from

Gorakhpur to Basti and thereafter not only his pay was

reduced by 783 per month; but also he was not paid Head

Cashier Allowance. The management has denied its

allegations stating that his transfer was a routine transfer

and reduction in the pay was due to non-admissibility of

certain allowances and new place of posting. Moreover, it

also submitted that the workman is being paid Head Cashier

Allowance as per entitlement of the workman. Although

the workman's union filed photocopy of certain documents

but he did not turn up to prove its pleading through oral

evidence by entering into the witness box.

10. It is settled position of law that a party

challenging the legality of an order, the burden lies upon it

to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is

produced by the party, invoking jurisdiction of the court,

must fail. In the present case burden was on the workman's

union to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of

the action of the management in transferring the workman

and in reducing his pay as well as not paying him Head

Cashier Allowance. This claim has been denied by the

management; therefore, it was for the workman's union to

lead evidence to show that the alleged injustice was done

to the workman, by the management of the Bank; but the

workman's union failed to prove the same as it has not

turned up to corroborate the allegations by proper evidence.

11. In 2008 (118) FLR 1164 M/s. Uptron Powertronics

Employees' Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others,

Hon'ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex

Court in 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) Sanker Chakravarti vs.

Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) V.K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court and others, 1984 (49) FLR 38

Airtech Private Limited v. State of UP. and others and 1996

(74) FLR 2004 (Alld.) Meritech India Ltd. v. State of UP. and

others; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:

“that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf

of the workman the reference is bound to be answered

by the Court against the workman. In such a situation

it is not necessary for the employers to lead any

evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to

establish an allegation made by a party is on the party

making the allegation. The test would be, who would

fail if no evidence is led. ”

12. In the present case the workman's union has not

turned to substantiate his case by way of filing any

evidence. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It

was obligatory on the part of workman's union to come

forward with the case that the workman had been transferred

malafiedly and his pay was reduced or he was not paid

Head Cashier Allowance, in contravention to the rules; but

the workman's union failed to forward any evidence in

support of its claim, as it did not turn up for filing its evidence

before this Tribunal. There is no reliable material for

recording findings that the alleged injustice was done to

the workman or the action of the management of Bank of

India was illegal and unjustified.

13. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against

the workman's union; and as such, I come to the conclusion

that the workman, Subhash Chandra Yadav is not entitled

to any of the relief(s) claimed.

14. Award as above.

Lucknow. Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

30th July, 2013.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2278-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVuZ

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 43@2011&12) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19&09&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@187@2011&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

6016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2011-

12) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the

industrial dispute between the management of Central

Workshop Tadali, WCL, and their workman, received by

the Central Government on 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/187/2011-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/43/2011-12

Date: 26-08-2013.

Party No. 1:

The General Manager,

Central Workshop Tadali, WCL,

PO: Urjagram Tadali,

District: Chandrapur.

Party No. 2 :

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

(BMS), Central Workshop Tadali, WCL,

PO-Urjagram, Tadali,

District:- Chanrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 26th August, 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 Soman

Pillay, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/ 187 /2011-

IR (CM-II) dated 09-02-2012, with the following

schedule:-

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Central

Workshop, Tadali, WCL, Chandrapur (MS) in

denying promotion to Shri Soman Pillay, Asstt.

Supervisor (Transportation) in the post of Supervisor

(Auto), T & S Grade ‘B’ against the sanctioned

vacancy for the year 2009-10 is legal and justified?

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, ‘‘Bhartiya Koyala

Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, (BMS)’’, (‘‘the union’’ in short)

filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman,

Shri Soman Pillay, ('the workman" in short) and the

management of WCL, (‘‘Party No. 1’’ in short) filed their

written statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that the workman was promoted

as Auto Supervisor, Grade-C w.e.f. 15-11-2003 and he was

due for promotion as Auto Supervisor, Grade-B w.e.f.

15-11-2006 and in the Manpower Budget of 2009-10, the

post of Auto Supervisor, Grade-B was sanctioned and

the workman was entitled for promotion as per cadre

scheme-72 dated 01-01-1987, meant for drivers and on

14-10-2006, four employees were promoted as Supervisor

(Auto Transportation) Grade-B in Wani Area, but inspite

of sanction of the post for the Central Workshop, Tadali

Area in the Manpower Budget, the workman was not given

promotion intentionally.

The union has prayed for a direction to the party

no. 1 to give promotion to the workman.

3. The party no. 1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that as per the implementation Instruction

no. 72 dated 01-01-1987, issued by the promotion policy

committee of JBCCI, in respect of cadre scheme for drivers,

the workman is claiming for promotion to the post of Auto

Transportation in Grade-B and as per clause 3(c) of the

said instruction, the said promotional post comes within

the purview of promotion zone of company viz. Western

Coalfields Limited, Head quarters, Nagpur and in absence

of the WCL (HQ), Nagpur as a party to the reference, the

reference is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and is

liable to be rejected and further more, the workman has

also challenged the promotion of four persons of Wani

Area and those four persons are also necessary parties to

the reference and they have not been made parties in this

reference, so far the said reason also, the reference is liable

to be rejected.

The further case of the party no. 1 is that though

there was one vacant post of Auto Supervisor Grade-B in

the Manpower Budget of 2009-10, the Area office could

not fill in the vacancy of Auto Supervisor, Grade-B, as the

same comes within the purview of Headquarters

(company) and the workman would not have been

promoted, as he was at serial no. 3 in the seniority list and

it is not aware about the promotions given in Wani Area,

due to want of knowledge about the same and as

promotions of the employees were not effected for 7/8

years, a service linked promotion policy was framed on

01-12-2011 and the same was made effective from

01-01-2012 and accordingly, the benefit of the same has

been given to the workman and the workman accepted the

same without any protest and as such, the reference is

liable to be answered in the negative.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6017

4. Both the parties did not adduce any oral evidence

in support of their respective claims. However, reliance

was placed on documents by the parties.

5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

union representative that as the workman is working in

Central Workshop, Tadali, so the dispute in regard to his

service conditions and promotion is to be raised against

the management of Central Workshop, Tadali and there is

no necessity to demand his promotion to the authorities at

the Headquarters and though the workman was entitled

for promotion to grade-B and provision of one post of

grade-B was made in the Manpower Budget of 2009-2010,

the workman was not given promotion, in spite of his raising

the issue orally and the issue being raised by the union in

the meetings held to resolve industrial disputes and there

is also no necessity to make the four employees of Wani

Area, as parties as they were given promotion by the

management of Wani Area by letter no. 4707 dated

14-10-2006 and without any DPC, the party no. 1 has

mentioned that the workman was at no.3 and the

appointment of the two persons alleged to be above the

workman were appointed after the instruction of the cadre

scheme dated 01-10-1987 and they were not drivers at that

time and they were not entitled for consideration for

promotion and the union had not made any demand of

SLP for the workman and the party no. 1 only to save its

skin for not giving promotion to the workman, grant SLP

to the workman and the workman is entitled for promotion

as per the Manpower Budget.

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the Learned

Advocate for the party no. 1 that as the promotion to the

post of Technical-B and A is on the company seniority, the

competent authority of the Headquarters is a necessary

party in this case. It was also submitted by the Learned

Advocate for the party no. 1 that as the union has referred

about giving of promotion to four employees, they are also

necessary parties and as the competent authority of the

headquarters and the four employees of Wani Area have

not been made parties, the reference is bad in law. It was

further submitted by the Learned Advocate for the party

no. 1 that the workman was not due for promotion in the

year 2006 and even though in the Manpower Budget of the

year 2009-2010, there was one vacancy in B-grade, he was

not given promotion as he was at serial no. 3 and the area

office also could not able to fill up the said post, as the

same comes within the purview of the Headquarters and

the workman has already been given service linked

promotion w.e.f. 01-01-2012, as he was working in the same

grade for more than 7/8 years, as per the service linked

promotion scheme, 2011 and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

7. Perused the record including the pleadings of the

parties and the documents filed by them. Admittedly, as

per the cadre scheme for drivers, promotional zone for

filling the vacancy upto category -IV will be colliery/unit

and thereafter upto Technical-C will be Area seniority and

for Technical B & A on the company seniority unless

otherwise specifically provided in the scheme itself.

However, for that it cannot be said that the competent

authority of the headquarters is a necessity party in the

reference. Likewise, the four promoted employees of Wani

Area, about whom, there is mention in the statement of

claim cannot be said to be necessity parties for adjudication

of the present dispute. Hence, the submission made by the

learned advocate for the party no. 1 on that score fails.

8. It is not disputed that on 15.11.2003, the workman

was given promotion as Auto Supervisor, grade'C'. It is

also found that as per the cadre scheme for drivers, one of

the eligibility criteria for promotion to Auto Supervisor

grade-B is three years experience as Asstt. Supervisor

(Transportation) in T & S grade ‘C’. So, it can be said that

on 15-11-2006, the workman acquired one of the criteria for

his promotion to grade-B, but it cannot be said that he was

due for promotion to grade-B by 15-11-2006.

It is not disputed that provision of one post of

Supervisor Auto, T & S grade- B was sanctioned in the

Manpower Budget of 2009-10 for Tadali Central Workshop.

However, it is to be mentioned here that as per the

promotional channels given in the cadre scheme for drivers,

selection/promotion upto Tech. Gr-B is on the basis of

Aptitude-cum-Seniority-cum-Merit and the promotional

zone for consideration is on the company seniority and

the mode of promotion is recommendation of the

departmental promotion committee. In this reference,

though it is pleaded by the union that the workman was

working as an Auto Supervisor, grade-C in Tadali Central

Workshop, there is no pleading that the workman was the

senior most Auto supervisor grade-C in the company basis

at the time of sanction of the post in the Manpower

budget, 2009-10 and there was a DPC for promotion to

grade-B from grade-C and the workman was recommended

by the DPC for promotion to grade-B and in spite of the

same, the party no. 1 did not give him the promotion. The

mere working of the workman at Tadali Central Workshop,

for which the post of Auto Supervisor, Grade-B was

sanctioned in the Manpower Budget of 2009-10 or the

mere acquiring of one of the eligibility criteria of working

as Auto Supervisor, grade- C for three years does not

automatically makes the workman entitled for promotion

to Auto Supervisor grade-B. In view of the facts

mentioned above, the demand of the union for promotion

of the workman as Auto Supervisor grade-B is not

sustainable. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman. The workman is not entitled for any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

6018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2279-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVu

dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 86@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19&09&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@12@2005&vkbZ vkj (lh ,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S. O. 2279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/ 2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Limited, Wani North Area of WCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/12/2005-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 /86/2006

Date: 21-08-2013.

Party No. l :

The Chairman-cum Managing Director,

WCL, Coal Estate,

Civil Lines, Nagpur

The Chief General Manager,

Wani North Area of WCL, Post : Ukni,

Tah. Wani. District : Yavatmal (MS).

Party No. 2 :

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Union

(CITU), Wani North Area Bhalar Township

PO : Bhalar, Taluka-Wani, Yavatmal (MS).

The President,

Lal Zanda Coalmines Mazdoor Union

(CITU), Wani North Area Bhalar Township

PO : Bhalar, Taluka-Wani, Yavatmal (MS).

Shri A. T. Mende, Secretary,

Sanyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC)

Br. Wani North Area, Po : Ukni, Tah. Wani

District : Yavatmal (MS).

The President,

Koyala Shramik Sabha,

Wani North Area, Ward no. 1, Tilak Nagar,

At & Post: Wani, Yavatmal (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 21st August, 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(as per list

enclosed) , for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/12/

2005-IR (CM-II) dated 08-11-2005, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of W.C.L.

in deducting 8 days wages from the salary of the

workmen (list enclosed) of Wani Area is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and the case was fixed to 22-02-2013 for filing of

statement of claim, documents and list of reliance and

witnesses. As on 22-02-2013, both the parties remained

absent, the reference was adjourned to 25-03-2013 for

further order. On 25-03-2013, management of W.C.L. made

appearance through their advocate. However, the

petitioners remained absent in spite of sufficient service

of notices sent by registered post with acknowledgement

due. They did not file any statement of claim. In the interest

of justice, the case was adjourned to 03-06-2013 for filing

of statement of claim. To give further chance to the

petitioners to file the statement of claim, the case was

adjourned from 03-06-2013 to 25-06-2013. To give a last

chance to the petitioners to file the statement of claim, the

case was adjourned to 21-08-2013 from 25-06-2013.

On 21-08-2013 advocate for the management was

present. The petitioners did not appear on repeated calls.

No statement of claim was also filed. As it appeared from

the record that the petitioners were not interested to

proceed with the case, the case was closed and posted for

passing of award.

3. As no statement of claim has been filed by the

petitioner, inspite of giving sufficient scope for the same,

it is necessary to pass a “no dispute” award. Hence, it is

ordered :—

ORDER

The reference be treated as “No dispute” award.

The petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6019

ANNEXURE-1

List of Monthly Rated employees from whose salary of June 2004 penal salary of 8 days deducted.

Sl. No.

Emp. Code

Emp. name

Amount (Rs.)

Unit

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

44160371

BHASHKAR·U. KHIRATKAR

2096.00

4416

44160411

MAHENDRA RAM

2656.00

4416

44160511

PARASRAM JAGOJ I WAGMARE

3408.00

4416

19382324

SUNDARLAL BATU

2136.00

4605

19599307

RAJU KISTAIYA BOLLAM

2744.00

4605

21000126

AMOD KUMAR

2176.00

4605

25047550

RAMNARA YAN

2136.00

4605

25048149

RAMNARESH PRASAD

2056.00

4605

46051002

DAYAL BANSI BHADHEKAR

2648.00

4605

46051014

DIWAKAR B. RANDIVE

2512.00

4605

46051024

BHOJRAJ K. SAWARKAR

3632.00

4605

46051029

PRAMOD M.MOON

2792.00

4605

46051030

T. D. DHAKATE

3504.00

4605

46051040

SUNIL S. MOHOD

2744.00

4605

46051045

SURESH M. BOBADE

2264.00

4605

46051046

VIJAY KARAN YADAV

3248.00

4605

46051049

DINESH MATTE

2096.00

4605

46051052

VITTHAL N.KHIRATKAR

2648.00

4605

46051054

SANJA Y A. GANJ I WALE

2592.00

4605

46051069

ALLAUDDIN DINMOHAMAD

2440.00

4605

46051080

BABAN K. ZILE

2136.00

4605

46051082

VITHAL D. JUNGHARI

2584.00

4605

46051094

VILAS D NASRE

2512.00

4605

46051111

GULAB G. KUCHANKAR

2008.00

4605

46051119

CHANDRASHEKHAR NAGRALE

2440.00

4605

46051128

VITHAL PIMPALSHENDE

2008.00

4605

46051134

SUDHAKAR S.RAJURKAR

2096.00

4605

46051138

MADHUKAR GAURKAR

3008.00

4605

46051145

GOPAL H. MULE

2224.00

4605

46051155

RAMDAS N. MADAVI

2096.00

4605

46051156

SURESH A. VIDHATE

2392.00

4605

46051159

SANTOSH KUMAR BAG

2176.00

4605

46051165

KAILASH B. NIRAPURE

2096.00

4605

46052069

K. S. PATIL

3544.00

4605

6020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

46052211

S. N. MANDAL

2936,.00

4605

46052225

POCHAM G. RAMTEKE

3080.00

4605

46052569

SHEO PRASAD RAJ

3080.00

4605

46101005

DILIP KURREWAR

2512.00

4605

46101133

BHASKAR V. UPRE

2056.00

4605

4650l137

UDHAO TUKARAM BANDUR KAR

2776.00

4605

16901210

NARENDRA S.WATHE

2520. 00

4610

18430765

MOHANDAS S. SAWARKAR

2288 .00

4610

19631043

MAHADEO GOSAI PAZARE

3408.00

4610

44010423

ISRAIL KHAN PATHAN

2760 .00

4610

44160150

NAMDEO BOBADE

2264 .00

4610

46051101

S. D. WALKE

2264 .00

4610

461051115

DATTATRAYA GANFADE

2240. 00

4610

46051132

VIJAY RAKSHIYA

3248.00

4610

46101004

ASHOK DQNGARKAR

2440.00

4610

46101006

BANDU KHARKAR

2240.00

4610

46101010

RAMESH Y. BHAGAT

2264.00

4610

46101018

BEBI P. IRUTKAR

2216. 00

4610

46101035

GULAB S. UPRE

2520. 00

4610

46101042

SHRIKANT G. ADETWAR

2440. 00

4610

46101050

RAJU P. SUNKE

2592.00

4610

46101051

BHALCHANDRA WATHE

2440.00

4610

46101064

MANOJ SHINDE

2312.00

4610

46101066

KRISHNA DAKHALE

2312.00

4610

46101072

MOTIRAM KHOKLE

2240.00

4610

46101073

MADHAO KONGARE

2312.00

4610

46101075

AVINASH DODKE

2376.00

4610

46101086

SUBHASH TA JANE

2208.00

4610

46101092

S.N. SOOR

2208.00

4610

46101095

G. V. TAJNE

2152.00

4610

46101103

G. V. PIDURKAR

2096.00

4610

46101121

SOOR SINGH

3800.00

4610

46102129

DNYANESHWAR D.KUREKAR

2936.00

4610

46102213

SAINATH MOHURLE

2792.00

4610

461102268

AB. RAFIQ

2792.00

4610

46102351

ANIL LABHE

1992.00

4610

46307647

TULSIRAM WASEKAR

2712.00

4610

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6021

46501006

RAJU ASUTKAR

2312.00

4610

19593524

GUNWANT K. PATIL

2936.00

4640

19594969

DADAJI S. BAWNE

2840.00

4640

19598606

ISRAIL S. MANTRl

2584.00

4640

19598812

VITHOBA M. BODHE

2456.00

4640

19665389

SANTOSH KUMAR SHRIVASTV

2112.00

4640

31400132

GAJANAN BAPURAO SAMARTH

1680.00

4640

44160473

HANUMAN B. AWAR I

2520.00

4640

46101023

PRAMOD LAD

3144.00

4640

46400043

SACHIN WAGHMARE

1752.00

4640

46400123

RAMESH SINGH

2760.00

4640

46400154

MURLI DHAR V. KHOKLE

1752.00

4640

46400166

TATOBA M. SHENDE

1968.00

4640

46400186

NANA J I V. BHOYER

1856.00

4640

46402003

SANJAY THAKRE

2096.00

4640

46402007

VIJAY DURAGE

2376.00

4640

46402010

KISHOR PATIL

2936.00

4640

46402011

DILIP PAYGHAN

2792.00

4640

46402013

CHANDRA BHAN B. DANAO

2096.00

4640

46402014

RAMCHANDRA APTE

3512.00

4640

46402022

PRAKASH C. POTDHUKE

2888.00

4640

46402024

V .K. WAGHMARE

3456.00

4640

46402027

MANIKANDAN KOCHUNAR

2864.00

4640

46402033

M. G. CHANDANKHEDE

3744.00

4640

46402036

PRAUHAKAR R. POLE

2584.00

4640

46402039

RAMESH SUNDERLAL SAHU

2888.00

4640

46409003

YADAO DEULAKAR

1752.00

4640

46409006

DEORAO PECHE

1752.00

4640

100

46409011

HARISH GOKHARE

1752.00

4640

101

46501099

YOGRAJ· SINGH

3880.00

4640

102

19835206

MAROT I M. BADKHAL

2936.00

4650

103

44017032

HUPCHAND KHOBRAGADE

3456.00

4650

104

44160497

VINOD T. BALKI

2656.00

4650

105

46303377

PRASHANT SATI SH BAWSE

1752.00

4650

106

46501008

SUNIL B. MOHITKAR

2328.00

4650

107

46501014

R. D. DOVE

3408.00

4650

108

46501016

BHARAT B. JUNGHARI

2792.00

4650

109

46501017

KRlSHANA SADASHIV BOBDE

2912.00

4650

110

46501129

SAGER J.ZADE

2096.00

4650

111

46501144

VINOD R. NIBRAD

2096.00

4650

Total Amount (Rs.) 282144.00

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

31150187

VIDYASAGAR T. BHARTI

18.24.00

4416

44160002

JONDHRU G. SARVE

2176.00

4416

44160017

M. D. ZADE

2776.00

4416

44160048

VASANT NAGRALE

3392.00

4416

44160057

B. M. KUCHANKAR

3008.00

4416

44160063

ASHOK LOKHANDE

3280.00

4416

44160065

PANDURANG POT ARAJE

3088.00

4416

44160067

SANJAY DUDHGAWALI

3224.00

4416

44160080

RAMKRISHNA ULMALE

2856.00

4416

44160084

SUDHAKAR LEDANGE

1952.00

4416

44160087

N.S.GARGHATE

2776.00

4416

44160090

BALDEO RAMAJI WANKHADE

2760.00

4416

44160109

UTTAM DHOTE

2016.00

4416

44160112

SUBHASH MOHITKAR

2440.00

4416

44160125

MANOJ W.AWARI

3008.00

4416

44160133

JHADOO HORI

3344.00

4416

44160137

BALA.JI DHOTE

2472.00

4416

44160141

NILKANTH PIDURKAR

2232.00

4416

44160147

SUDHAKAR BONDE

2008.00

4416

44160149

ANIL MANDOKAR

2232.00

4416

44160155

HEMRAJ PIDURKAR

2552.00

4416

44160168

UDHAD A.KHAMANKAR

2064.00

4416

44160173

RAMSHREY DUKHAN

3336.00

4416

44160179

SAMBHA D. WANDHARE

3392.00

4416

44160196

SHAKIL AHMAD

3280.00

4416

44160216

AVINASH S.THERE

2624.00

4416

44160221

RAM PAL BADLU

2448.00

4416

44160222

RAMDAS BHATTA

2496.00

4416

44160228

VIJAY KATKAR

2576.00

4416

44160243

RAMESH K. PARSHIVE

2096.00

4416

44160244

BAHAN S. BHOYER

2035.00

4416

44160266

YADUNATH PD. TRIPATHI

2552.00

4416

44160277

PRABHAKAR G DUBEY

3160.00

4416

44160278

ARUN S WABITKAR

2552.00

4416

44160282

BHAURAO B.MADAVI

2382.00

4416

44160286

SATYANARAYAN R. PUTTA

2928.00

4416

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6023

44160319

RAMNATH MOHANLAL RAI

3160.00

4416

44160321

RAMRAJ KALOO

3000.00

4416

44160352

NITYANANDA CHOUDHURY

2552.00

4416

44160373

SANTQSH Y. PAZARE

2072.00

4416

44160401

MILIND L. MATHANKAR

2088.00

4416

44160404

RAMDAS BONDE

2064.00

4416

44160405

MAROTI K.BAHADE

3112.00

4416

44160427

SHEIKH MUKIM

2784.00

4416

44160434

MUTTAIYA RAJIYA

2176.00

4416

44160438

NANDKISHOR K.BAWANE

2272.00

4416

44160440

BAPU NAGO PITTALWAR

2208.00

4416

44160443

MAROTI S. KHADE

2032.00

4416

44160446

BABAN M . JEURKAR

1872.00

4416

44160447

NILKANTH N. CHAWLE

1880.00

4416

44160449

GAJANAN G. MILMILE

1832.00

4416

44160454

SUBHASH K.WANSINGE

1920.00

4416

44160457

VINOD KUMAR J.SAINI

2472.00

4416

44160468

MAHENDRA SINGH

2472.00

4416

44160475

MAROTI W. MALEKAR

2200.00

4416

44160477

GANESH D.PIDURKAR

1992.00

4416

44160480

SUMARLAL UDAYRAM

2056.00

4416

44160483

BHAGWAN C. ATRAM

2552.00

4416

44160485

MAHADEO NIBRAT

2648.00

4416

44160500

IDRIS AHEMAD KHAN

3088.00

4416

44160502

KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH

1784.00

4416

44160513

NANAJI LATARI BONDE

2064.00

4416

44160514

GORELAL BUDHAILAL PAL

1872.00

4416

44160519

GAJANAN L. KAWADE

2232.00

4416

44160523

RANGARAO N. GOHOKAR

2160.00

4416

44160525

RA.JENDRA D. ZADE

3088.00

4416

44160526

GANPAT D. GAIKWAD

2688.00

4416

44160549

BEERSING BABBU

1704.00

4416

44160552

JITENDRA PRASAD

1824.00

4416

46300717

MILIND VITHAL PUSATE

2704.00

4416

46301524

MADHUKAR ZOLBA

2280.00

4416

46302029

BALIRAM MILMILE

2352.00

4416

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19665686

SUBHASH CHANDRA BUDHAI

1752.00

4605

19862838

NIKANTH B. GAEKWAD

3088.00

4605

28002590

MD.ASLAM MD JAFAR

3160.00

4605

31050726

JHANAK FATTU SAHU

1656.00

4506

31050727

ISRAIL .JALIL UDDIN SHAH

1656.00

4605

31050728

DEEPAK D.WARKHADE

1656.00

4605

44010712

LAXMAN SHANKAR

2592.00

4605

46052001

DADAJI SHANKAR JUNGARI

2320.00

4605

46052002

HAGHUNATH G. WANKHEDE

2248.00

4605

46052003

NILKANT N. KHAPNE

2160.00

4605

46052007

MADHUKAR SHANKAR BALKI

2264.00

4605

46052008

SAN.JAY P. DHAWALE

2520.00

4605

46052010

VIJAY B. LAD

2776.00

4605

46052013

SAIBABA KHIRATKAR

2064.00

4605

46052014

DATTIU K. KAMBLE

2112.00

4605

46052015

SHANKAR M. PARKHI

2112.00

4605

46052016

DHYANESHWAR KAMBALE

2392.00

4605

46052017

VILAS KHIRATKAR

2064.00

4605

46052018

VITHAL RAJURKAR

2392.00

4605

46052019

ANANDRAO KHIRTKAR

2064.00

4605

46052022

PANDHARY DORKHANDE

2008.00

4605

46052023

DHYANESHWAR PETKAR

2088.00

4605

46052025

ANIL MATTE

2392.00

4605

46052026

SAD ASH I V GOWARD I PE

2320.00

4605

46052028

GAJANAN KORDE

2704.00

4605

46052029

PRAKASH TAPASE

3056.00

4605

46052030

BADAL GARGELWAR

2704.00

4605

100

46052032

MANGESH AJMIRE

2704.00

4605

101

46052034

ERRALA SANJEEV

2456.00

4605

102

46052039

DAMODHAR KHADE

1952.00

4605

103

46052043

SUEHASH BAPURAO HEPAT

3392.00

5605

104

46052044

A SHOK MAHADEO CHATK I

2552.00

4605

105

46052045

TIKARAM RAMCHANDRA INAME

2552.00

4605

106

46052048

TUKARAM HAR I BALK I

2232.00

4605

107

46052051

GANPAT JAIRAM RASEKAR

2064.00

4605

108

46052052

SHANTARAM BAPU.JI

2392.00

4605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6025

109

46052057

VITHAL BALUJI BORPE

2104.00

4605

110

46052065

ASHOK SHYAMRAO

2096.00

4605

111

46052066

ARJUN K. SARJUWAR

3008.00

4605

112

46052068

PAWLAS R. PONALWAR

3136.00

4605

113

46052072

PURUHOTTAM B. THERE

2064.00

4605

114

46052078

RAJARAM DUDHE

3280.00

4605

115

46052079

MANOHAR LUTE

3144.00

4605

116

46052083

SURESH KALE

2320.00

4605

117

46052090

PRAMDD BELEKAR

2320.00

4605

118

46052091

SUNIL P. MATTE

1952.00

4605

119

46052092

PRABHAKAR Z. AWARI

2320.00

4605

120

46052094

JANARDHAN Z. LIHITE

2888.00

4605

121

46052096

PURUSHOTTAM B. UMRE

3392.00

4605

122

46052097

NATHU H. BHONGLE

2920.00

4605

123

46052099

S.G. KSHIRSAGAR

2776.00

4605

124

46052101

ASHOK B. MADAVI

2704.00

4605

125

46052104

RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV

3144.00

4605

126

46052106

LULSIRAM T. KHARKAR

2072.00

4605

127

46052107

WAMAN L. BOBDE

3392.00

4605

128

46052108

KAWADU B. DHANDE

2032.00

4605

129

46052114

DILIP S. TAJNE

3280.00

4605

130

46052120

ARUN S. JIOTODE

3288.00

4605

131

46052121

DILIP LAKKEWAR

3088.00

4605

132

46052122

VISHWESHWAR WANSING

2176.00

4605

133

46052124

ASHOK VISPUTE

3280.00

4605

134

46052126

BABUSHA MANWAR

3280.00

4605

135

46052131

RAMAO MAHURE

324.00

4605

136

46052132

MANDHAR HADGE

3144.00

4605

137

46052134

UTTAM FUPRE

3280.00

4605

138

46052136

BABAAO G. PUSAM

3280.00

4605

139

46052137

TESAR SINGH

3512.00

4605

140

46052141

HAKIMUDDIN W. AHEMAD

3336.00

4605

141

46052146

YOGESHWAR A. MOHARE

2584.00

4605

142

46052147

VENKATI L. SINDHAMWAR

3088.00

4605

143

46052149

DADAJI M. BADKHAL

2232.00

4605

144

46052152

SANJAY KAKDE

2120.00

4605

145

46052155

KALDAS N. ZADE

2776.00

4605

146

46052160

ASHWINI KUMAR JUMNAKE

2256.00

4605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

147

46052163

BHASKAR ZADE

1920.00

4605

148

46052167

MADHUKAR T. KHIRATKAR

2032.00

4605

149

46052171

GANGADHAR WASE

3088.00

4605

150

46052174

NAMDEO NIKHADE

2928.00

4605

151

46052175

KANKAM RAMLOO

2592.00

4605

152

46052176

SACHITANAND YADAO

2448.00

4605

153

46052178

DEEPAK BHOYAR

3336.00

4605

154

46052179

MADHUKAR BHOYAR

3088.00

4605

155

46052182

GOVIND P. DESAI

3008.00

4605

156

46052183

GANESH R. THAKARE

2096.00

4605

157

46052188

SHRIHARI BODDE

3032.00

4605

158

46052193

ASHOK S. UPRE

2032.00

4605

159

46052194

RISHIKESH MATTE

2176.00

4605

160

46052196

KAWDOO UPASE

2096.00

4605

161

46052198

BABANRAO HIRADEVE

2552.00

4605

162

46052201

GHANSHYAM BELEKAR

2120.00

4605

163

46052204

CHANDRAKANT G. MATTE

1976.00

4605

164

46052205

SHANKAR S. CHANNE

2232.00

4605

165

46052209

PRABHAKAR MAHADEO KHADE

2208.00

4605

166

46052210

TRAYAMBAK M. PINGE

2256.00

4605

167

46052212

SHRIHARI N. KAPSE

2520.00

4605

168

46052214

LAXMAN P. YELMULE

2960.00

4605

169

46052215

VILAS W. KAWARE

2256.00

4605

170

46052220

D.R. WASADE

2752.00

4605

171

46052227

JAGAN P. JAWADE

2760.00

4605

172

46052233

SHANKAR R . INGOLE

2824.00

4605

173

46052235

GANPAT N. SONTAKKE

2688.00

4605

174

46052242

VASANTA S. THERE

2320.00

4605

175

46052243

MAHESH V. THOMBARE

2320.00

4605

176

46052244

ASHOK B. DHAWALE

2232.00

4605

177

46052246

WASUDEO P. KHUSPURE

2336.00

4605

178

46052247

ASHOK C. JULME

3528.00

4605

179

46052248

MAROTI M. ZADE

3344.00

4605

180

46052250

M.B. NANDE

3240.00

4605

181

46052256

VILAS A. DHANDE

2120.00

4605

182

46052259

RAMDAS V. KHADE

1896.00

4605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6027

183

46052260

VIJAY A. BOBDE

2120.00

4605

184

46052263

GHANSHAM L. THOMBRE

1992.00

4605

185

46052265

SHYAM K. KUCHANKAR

1896.00

4605

186

46052267

BHASKAR G. JIOTODE

2176.00

4605

187

46052269

NATHU S. PARSHIVE

1960.00

4605

188

46052270

DEORAO R. AWARI

2200.00

4605

189

46052272

MADHUKAR K. VAIDYA

2304.00

4605

190

46052274

ARJUN D. JAMBULKAR

2304.00

4605

191

46052275

MAROTI R. EKARE

3336.00

4605

192

46052276

PRASHANT KUMAR MOHOD

1992.00

4605

193

46052277

SHYAM R. GANDHARI

2256.00

4605

194

46052278

ASHOK S. KUMARWAR

2120.00

4605

195

46052280

VINAYAK M. SATPUTE

3008.00

4605

196

46052282

VITTHAL P. SHINDE

3280.00

4605

197

46052284

SHYAMRAO U. BHOYAR

3336.00

4605

198

46052285

ASHOK R. AMBADE

2208.00

4605

199

46052286

PUNJARAM L. KAREKAR

1864.00

4605

200

46052287

VITHAL N. DEHARKAR

2232.00

4605

201

46052291

SUBHASH D. JORGEWAR

3216.00

4605

202

46052294

SHRAWAN S. BALKI

2352.00

4605

203

46052301

BHANUDAS A. PATIL

2552.00

4605

204

46052302

BAPUJI G. KUCHANKAR

1992.00

4605

205

46052304

DIVAKAR R AJURKAR

1920.00

4605

206

46052305

HARIBHAU M. NIKHURE

3392.00

4605

207

46052306

SHARAD M. DODAKE

1968.00

4605

208

46052307

CHAMANLAL

3336.00

4605

209

46052308

MANOHAR W. TAJNE

2160.00

4605

210

46052313

BHAIYA BHIWAJI LINGE

2176.00

4605

211

46052315

ANNAJI PARSIVE

2160.00

4605

212

46052316

TATOBA PARSIVE

2064.00

4605

213

46052318

R. G. KENE

3144.00

4605

214

46052319

GAJANAN U. POTRAJE

3144.00

4605

215

46052322

NANAJI DATTOO NANDE

2520.00

4605

216

46052323

VIJAY G. RASEKAR

2128.00

4605

217

46052326

B. S. GHATE

3008.00

4605

218

46052328

JITENDRA N. CHINCHOLKAR

2552.00

4605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

219

46052330

GANPT U. RASEKAR

2064.00

4605

220

46052331

KAILASH K. KUCHANKAR

1992.00

4605

221

46052333

PRABHAKAR D. GHUGUL

2120.00

4605

222

46052336

ROHITASHWA SINGH

2552.00

4605

223

46052337

SUBHASH ODEPELLI

3248.00

4605

224

46052339

YELFUL HANMANTOO

2352.00

4605

225

46052341

PRADHU D. GHOTEKAR

3288.00

4605

226

46052342

SANTHOSH B. CHENDE

1960.00

4605

227

46052343

DADA T. LADE

1960.00

4605

228

46052346

PRABHAKER B. PAIGHAN

2856.00

4605

229

46052347

J. W. PARKHI

2776.00

4605

230

46052349

SUDHKAR NATHU LODE

3160.00

4605

231

46052352

SHATRUGHAN G.. PIMPAL SHENDE

1960.00

4605

232

46052356

SAMBU G. PIMPAL SHENDE

2072.00

4605

233

46052357

ANANTA D. NEET

1952.00

4605

234

46052361

BHASKAR R. BELEKAR

1992.00

4605

235

46052368

PURUSHOTTAM R. BOBDE

1960.00

4605

236

46052371

RAMESH N. ZURMURE

2064.00

4605

237

46052373

PANCHAMPAL KISHANLAL

2928.00

4605

238

46052374

RAVISH D. MATTE

1960.00

4605

239

46052382

SHYAMDED Y. SHARMA

2704.00

4605

240

46052387

BHOLA SINGH KUSHWAHA

2456.00

4605

241

46052392

SHIVANAND

3336.00

4605

242

46052393

RAMAWTAR SINGH

3496.00

4605

243

46052401

PANDHARI K. KUCHANKAR

1960.00

4605

244

46052405

MANTA ROY

2704.00

4605

245

46052407

BHAURAD U. PIDURKAR

1952.00

4605

246

46052410

ASLAM ESAMUDDIN

2456.00

4605

247

46052416

KASHTRAM RAJCHANDRA

2392.00

4605

248

46052418

LAKHPATIYA YADAV

2192.00

4605

249

46052421

GOVINDA P. KAKDE

2072.00

4605

250

46052422

SANTOSH B. DAMBHARE

1992.00

4605

251

46052424

NATHU V. RAJURKAR

1864.00

4605

252

46052430

SATISH G. MANGRULKAR

2280.00

4605

253

46052432

NIRANJAN SINGH CHOUHAN

2624.00

4605

254

46052434

UDAYBHAN N. BABHARE

2552.00

4605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6029

255

46052437

ANANDRAD M. BONDE

1840.00

4605

256

46052447

ARUN BAHIRE

1808.00

4605

257

46052449

ARUM MATTE

2552.00

4605

258

46052450

SUDHAKAR J. POTRAJE

1896.00

4605

259

46052452

DNYANESHWAR N. MADAVI

1952.00

4605

260

46052453

BHASKAR R. LADE

1960.00

4605

261

46052454

DASHRATH Z. BURADKAR

1960.00

4605

262

46052458

MAROTI S. FATALE

1856.00

4605

263

46052462

SUDHAKAR K. TURANKAR

1840.00

4605

264

46052463

DASARI TIRUPATI

2456.00

4605

265

46052467

VILAS J. MATTE

1784.00

4605

266

46052469

SHIV PYARE DHARAM PAL

3240.00

4605

267

46052472

DHANESHWAR BHANU

2456.00

4605

268

46052473

BANDU V. DODHALE

2584.00

4605

269

46052475

VILAS P. DETHE

2064.00

4605

270

46052477

BIGAN PAL

2552.00

4605

271

46052478

RAMJANAM SHARMA

3088.00

4605

272

46052480

UTTAM B. CHOULAMWAR

2016.00

4605

273

46052482

NITIN S. LANJEKAR

1960.00

4605

274

46052483

BHAURAO AWARI

1776.00

4605

275

46052484

AGRASAN NIMSATKAR

1840.00

4605

276

46052486

MAHESH RAMCHARAN

1840.00

4605

277

46052487

SITAL NIMSATKAR

1920.00

4605

278

46052488

DHNYANESHWAR LODE

1808.00

4605

279

46052490

SUBHASH MALEKAR

1840.00

4605

280

46052494

BHASKAR B. NANDEKAR

2072.00

4605

281

46052495

SUDHAKAR M. PARKHI

1960.00

4605

282

46052496

SUNIL N. KSHIRSAGAR

1960.00

4605

283

46052497

SHANKAR B. AWA RI

1920.00

4605

284

46052502

VINOD JHA

2552.00

4605

285

46052512

CHAMPAT L. KAREKAR

1880.00

4605

286

46052516

AVINASH G. ISALKAR

1776.00

4605

287

46052522

JAGDISH S. MOHITKAR

1880.00

4605

288

46052530

SURESH K. PARASHIVE

1808.00

4605

289

46052534

MILIND G. TIPLE

2077.00

4605

290

46052536

MAHESH C. RAIGADE

2072.00

4605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

291

46052537

SAMBASHID N. JENEKAR

2072.00

4605

292

46052538

UMESH N. PATIL

2072.00

4605

293

46052540

CHANDU S. D AHAKE

2072.00

4605

294

46052541

ABDUL SHAFEE

2072.00

4605

295

46052542

SIDHARTH T. NIKHADE

1904.00

4605

296

46052543

SANJAY M. SHELWADE

1952.00

4605

297

46052544

SANJAY FULZELE

1952.00

4605

298

46052546

LEHANDAS T. MANAPURE

2072.00

4605

299

46052550

VINOD G. WAGHMARE

1920.00

4605

300

46052551

SHANKAR NANDLAL

2888.00

4605

301

46052552

SURESH SIDURKAR

1872.00

4605

302

46052554

BALKRISHNA AWARI

1776.00

4605

303

46052556

SURESH MADAVI

1808.00

4605

304

46052558

ISRAIL NABI

2888.00

4605

305

46052559

FAKIRCHAND FULZELE

1920.00

4605

306

46052562

PRABHAKAR B. JAMBULKAR

2256.00

4605

307

46052564

ASHOK KUMAR RAMJI

2320.00

4605

308

46052565

SURESH R. SAWARKAR

2392.00

4605

309

46052567

AJAY KUMAR KANDJIYA

2120.00

4605

310

46052568

D.K. SHARMA

2392.00

4605

311

46052570

SHANTARAM CHAMBHARE

1920.00

4605

312

46052576

BABAN J. DERKAR

2256.00

4605

313

46052586

SHISAGAR SINGH

2256.00

4605

314

46052587

RAMKRUSHNA SAMRUTWAR

2320.00

4605

315

46052588

BASUDEO GHOSH

2320.00

4605

316

46052592

UDAYRAJ SHIVMANGAL

1880.00

4605

317

46052595

SANJAY H. NIBRAD

1880.00

4605

318

46052601

ARUM M. LAKDE

3160.00

4605

319

46052603

SHANKAR N. UPARE

1920.00

4605

320

46052611

MANOJ L. GOHOKAR

1808.00

4605

321

46052623

GAJANAN BHONGLE

2624.00

4605

322

46052624

PREMNATH SAMANTA

2320.00

4605

323

46052625

ANJUMAN PAWAR

1912.00

4605

324

46052630

RAMDHIRAJ YADAV

1872.00

4605

325

46052631

DUBEYLAL BHALAVI

1808.00

4605

326

46052634

GANESH HARIJAN

3704.00

4605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6031

327

46052638

AVIDHESH S. PRASAD

1880.00

4605

328

46052639

NAWAL KISHOR SINGH

3240.00

4605

329

46052641

ARUN CHAKRABARTY

2456.00

4605

330

46052642

SHYAM TAWADE

2456.00

4605

331

46052645

ASHOK A. TURANKAR

3440.00

4605

332

46052646

SANTOSH RAMGIRWAR

2016.00

4605

333

46052652

ANTU B. CHINCHOLKAR

2016.00

4605

334

46052655

DAYASHANKAR R. VARMA

2016.00

4605

335

46052659

SHANKAR A. THENGNE

2456.00

4605

336

46052660

MAROT N. ZADE

2928.00

4605

337

46052661

OILLU S. PARZARE

1808.00

4605

338

46052662

SATISH V. PECHE

1920.00

4605

339

46052664

P. C. BANGADE

3144.00

4605

340

46052665

V. P. UPADHEY

3008.00

4605

341

46052669

MOTILAL MOHAN

1920.00

4605

342

46052671

KISHOR P. GOKHARE

1728.00

4605

343

46052679

NEEBULAL

2856.00

4605

344

46052681

VINAYAK DESHPARNDEY

2120.00

4605

345

46052682

VIJAY KUMAR DEOGADE

1848.00

4605

346

46052684

RAMASWAMI RASNALA

1752.00

4605

347

46052686

RADHESHYAM

2496.00

4605

348

46052693

FULSINGH

2224.00

4605

349

46052694

GUPTA LAXMAN

2640.00

4605

350

46052697

RAMPRASAD PREMLAL

1976.00

4605

351

46052702

GANANAN GATKWAD

2320.00

4605

352

46052709

PRANHAKAR KUTTARMARE

2096.00

4605

353

46052710

SUDHAKAR N. BHOYAR

2176.00

4605

354

46052711

ASHOK S. KINAKE

2400.00

4605

355

46052716

GOUS MOHAMMAD

2176.00

4605

356

46052718

GANPAT BADU INGOLE

1952.00

4605

357

46052719

ARUM R. KHANKE

2256.00

4605

358

46052722

PRABHAKAR B. PIDURKAR

2072.00

4605

359

46052723

JIWAN N. LODE

2624.00

4605

360

46052724

R.G. YENURKAR

3088.00

4605

361

46052725

NANDOO JHIKOO

3008.00

4605

362

46052729

PRASHANT D. LODE

1752.00

4605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

363

46052730

ABRAR JABBAR

3336.00

4605

364

46052731

ASHOK N. TAJNE

2360.00

4605

365

46052732

ASHOK M. HEPAT

3336.00

4605

366

46052737

BHUWANESHWAR K. CHAKOLE

1752.00

4605

367

46052738

BANDU MADKAM

2256.00

4605

368

46052739

SHANKAR DATARKAR

2256.00

4605

369

46052740

MADHUKAR THAMKE

1704.00

4605

370

46052746

PRASHAN M. RAJURKAR

1680.00

4605

371

46052747

SUBHASH G. UIKE

1680.00

4605

372

46052749

RAJENDRA M. YERAWAR

3144.00

4605

373

46052751

GURUPRIT SINGH

1872.00

4605

374

46102023

SURYABHAN WABHITKAR

2064.00

4605

375

46102043

VITHOBA M. MILMILE

2032.00

4605

376

46102049

CATYAJI V. DONGARKAR

2032.00

4605

377

46300435

BHAGWAN DHARANDAS

2856.00

4605

378

46301472

DILIP MAHADEO WANDHARE

2120.00

4605

379

46301529

KASHIM AJIJ

2448.00

4605

380

46302037

NARAYAN CHAUDHARI

2200.00

4605

381

46303221

TULSIRAM KARNOO GOHOKAR

2240.00

4605

382

46303616

SUDHIR CHINDH NETAM

1704.00

4605

383

17011411

KANHAIYALAL K. BAMHNEKAR

1728.00

4610

384

31100244

SHAILESH S. AGRE

1656.00

4610

385

31400149

DINESH R. BOBADE

1632.00

4610

386

31400150

RAJESH KUMAR DHURVE

1632.00

4610

387

31400152

SUJIT KUMAR MOHAN PRASAD

1632.00

4610

388

31400154

RAJU BHIMA SIDAM

1632.00

4610

389

44010325

DUKHI PURVE

12640.00

4610

390

44011518

RAMKUMAR MAHAGU

2344.00

4610

391

44160237

RAMANAND K. MISHRA

2624.00

4610

392

46102003

DURWAS B. PURI

3216.00

4610

393

46102008

WASUDEO NAGPURE

3392.00

4610

394

46102009

V. B. SADAFALE

3224.00

4610

395

46102011

BANDU CHANDEKAR

2760.00

4610

396

46102012

SURESH M. VIDHATE

2456.00

4610

397

46102013

RAMESH NAGOBA BUCCHE

2776.00

4610

398

46102014

UMESH UPARC

2544.00

4610

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6033

399

46102016

A. B. NARULF

2160.00

4610

400

46102020

RAJU BONDE

2624.00

4610

401

46102022

M. J. DONGARKAR

2064.00

4610

402

46102024

BANDU SIDHURKAR

2160.00

4610

403

46102026

VITHAL GOVERDIPE

2176.00

4610

404

46102027

NANAJI BADKHAL

1952.00

4610

405

46102028

HARIDAS S. BAWANE

1952.00

4610

406

46102030

YASHVANT N. BADKHAL

1992.00

4610

407

46102031

DIWAKAR Z. KAREKAR

2120.00

4610

408

46102034

D.G. BURADKAR

2112.00

4610

409

46102035

KAWDU UTHANE

2256.00

4610

410

46102036

NAGU BADHAKHAL

2120.00

4610

411

46102037

DUSANT T. DONGARKAR

1992.00

4610

412

46102039

PAWAN S. KHOKLE

2256.00

4610

413

46102041

SHANKAR U. BONDE

2120.00

4610

414

46102042

VITTHAL A. RAJURKAR

2256.00

4610

415

46102044

SAMBHA P. KHARKAR

1952.00

4610

416

46102045

PUNDLIK J. GOKHARE

1952.00

4610

417

46102046

RAGHO V. NANDEKAR

1952.00

4610

418

46102047

ANANDRAO K. KONGARE

2176.00

4610

419

46102053

MAROTI G. MILMILE

2032.00

4610

420

46102054

PANDURUNG J. WABHITKAR

2120.00

4610

421

46102055

NAGU M. KHADE

1952.00

4610

422

46102058

PRAKASH B. KHADE

2032.00

4610

423

46102066

VITHAL KAKDE

2176.00

4610

424

46102067

RAMESH NAGRALE

2120.00

4610

425

46102069

P. RAJAYA

2544.00

4610

426

46102070

RAVINDRA KAWRE

2032.00

4610

427

46102071

ASHOK GOWARDIPE

2032.00

4610

428

46102073

ASHOK NAGRALE

2072.00

4610

429

46102075

SUDHAKAR T. THERE

2704.00

4610

430

46102076

RAM S . KEDARPAWAR

2160.00

4610

431

46102078

VINOD D. ZADE

2176.00

4610

432

46102079

MAROTI D. POTRAJE

2176.00

4610

433

46102081

SHATRUGHN W. ASWALE

2552.00

4610

434

46102084

VIJAY S. WAGHMARE

1952.00

4610

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

435

46102085

BABAN S. WAGHMARE

1992.00

4610

436

46102087

GOVINDA N. GOHANE

2072.00

4610

437

46102088

UDDAG NAMDEO GAIKWAD

3336.00

4610

438

46102090

WATHU GOVINDA DAMBHARE

1992.00

4610

439

46102091

BALAJI SADHUJI KAKDE

3336.00

4610

440

46102093

SHARAD KRUSHNA BODDE

1992.00

4610

441

46102096

SHESHRAO D. ZILATE

2064.00

4610

442

46102097

MAROTI N. KHADE

2256.00

4610

443

46102098

M. D. KONGRE

2032.00

4610

444

46102099

SUDHAKAR J. KHADE

2552.00

4610

445

46102100

ARVIND S. WABHITKAR

2472.00

4610

446

46102101

BHASKAR G. KHARKAR

2032.00

4610

447

46102102

VITTHAL R. KAPSE

3056.00

4610

448

46102105

SAHERRAO A. KOMPELLIWAR

3280.00

4610

449

46102106

VITTAL KISAN GOPEWAD

3144.00

4610

450

46102116

PURUSHOTTAM D. DHOTE

2120.00

4610

451

46102119

RAJENDRA G. CHOUDHARI

2704.00

4610

452

46102122

SANJAY N. GADADHANE

3224.00

4610

453

46102124

MUKUND A. SHIRALKAR

2624.00

4610

454

46102127

SHANKAR RAJANNA YEDLAWAR

3336.00

4610

455

46102128

SURESH M. KHANGAR

2456.00

4610

456

46102133

DADA JI S. DHOYAR

2928.00

4610

457

46102136

PRASHANT M. PATTURKAR

2584.00

4610

458

46102141

VILAS T. KSHIRSAGAR

3056.00

4610

459

46102145

PRALHAD J. CHANDEKAR

3336.00

4610

460

46102146

MOHD. SHERFUZAMA

2584.00

4610

461

46102148

RAMKRISHNA V. UPRE

2624.00

4610

462

46102150

RUSHI B. CHANDEKAR

2240.00

4610

463

46102153

BANDU M. BADKHAL

2392.00

4610

464

46102154

BHUDHODHAN L. WANKHEDE

2320.00

4610

465

46102156

RAVINDRA N. BHONGLE

2208.00

4610

466

46102159

SHAJI K. SAMUL

2704.00

4610

467

46102163

VIVEK V. KHADATKAR

2704.00

4610

468

46102165

PRABHAKAR M. BODHANE

1960.00

4610

469

46102168

SHAIKANT SINGH

2520.00

4610

470

46102171

SHALIKRAO T. DIDMISE

2552.00

4610

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6035

471

46102172

SHATRUGHAN S. KHADE

2120.00

4610

472

46102175

BABARAO S . KAURASE

2120.00

4610

473

46102176

UTTAM G. BALKI

2176.00

4610

474

46102180

CHARANDAS V. GADGE

1864.00

4610

475

46102182

SOBEN K. SHAHU

3432.00

4610

476

46102186

RAJBHAN PATEL

2456.00

4610

477

46102187

WALTER ORAON

2704.00

4610

478

46102190

BHOJRAJ HATWAR

1920.00

4610

479

46102194

PRAVESH SHIVDHAN SINGH

3432.00

4610

480

46102200

SANJAY G. ASUTKAR

2160.00

4610

481

46102202

GIRIDHARILAL PAL

2552.00

4610

482

46102203

RAMDHAR YADAV

2552.00

4610

483

46102204

GULAB S. SONEKAR

2352.00

4610

484

46102207

WAMAN N. NAGPURE

2760.00

4610

485

46102210

NANA JI G. PADOLE

2448.00

4610

486

46102212

MANDHAR G. TURANKAR

2568.00

4610

487

46102215

VASANT JUNGHARI

1920.00

4610

488

46102216

JAYANT GOWARDIPE

1880.00

4610

489

46102219

RAMCHANDRA T. KOLHE

2256.00

4610

490

46102220

TIKARAM BALAJI KHADE

2240.00

4610

491

46102222

GAJANAN S . BALKI

2392.00

4610

492

46102225

ANIL TUKARAM KALE

2784.00

4610

493

46102229

R. A. HATHOD

3336.00

4610

494

46102230

RAMESH R. DHANDRAKAR

2720.00

4610

495

46102233

WAMAN M. MESHRAM

3008.00

4610

496

46102235

SUBHASH DHONDU JI YEWALE

3280.00

4610

497

46102236

ARUN A. DHUMANE

2624.00

4610

498

46102237

BALA VAIDYA

2640.00

4610

499

46102239

N. K. SHAN

3392.00

4610

500

46102241

SHIVAJI M. DANGE

1992.00

4610

501

46102246

KISHAN BADKHAL

2544.00

4610

502

46102248

MOH’D SHABIR

3072.00

4610

503

46102250

ASHOK KUMAR BOKADE

2456.00

4610

504

46102253

NATHU TIRANKAR

1840.00

4610

505

46102254

SANJAY TONGE

1840.00

4610

506

46102257

GAJANAN ZADE

1840.00

4610

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

507

46102261

DEORAO KHARKAR

2392.00

4610

508

46102265

MADAN LAD

3008.00

4610

509

46102266

SUDARSHAN BODHE

1840.00

4610

510

46102269

VIKAS WARARKAR

1920.00

4610

511

46102275

MUSTAKH SHEIKH

3240.00

4610

512

46102276

BHAURAO KHARKAR

1920.00

4610

513

46102278

MAHADEO DAKHARE

1872.00

4610

514

46102279

ANANTA GADGE

1912.00

4610

515

46102289

KHANDOO WARARKAR

2280.00

4610

516

46102290

DAYNESHWAR BARDE

2064.00

4610

517

46102291

BAJIRAO BELEKAR

1960.00

4610

518

46102293

SHIKRISHNA BADKHAL

1960.00

4610

519

46102299

SUDHAKAR K. DHAWALE

2400.00

4610

520

46102302

VITTHAL BONDE

2072.00

4610

521

46102312

HANUMAN SHIONATH

3240.00

4610

522

46102313

MOHAN M. SHENMARE

2016.00

4610

523

46102315

MORECHWAR RASEKAR

2016.00

4610

524

46102319

SHRIRAM NINDEKAR

2256.00

4610

525

46102322

ARUN M. KAMRLE

2016.00

4610

526

46102323

RASBIHARI SAHU

2464.00

4610

527

46102330

ASHOK K. MESHRAM

2920.00

4610

528

46102331

SURYANATH YADAV

2336.00

4610

529

46102341

BHIMRAO NAGRALE

2016.00

4610

530

46102344

GAJANAN M. PIMPALKAR

2176.00

4610

531

46102346

SURESH S . PACHBHAI

1888.00

4610

532

46102348

MOHAN YADAV

3224.00

4610

533

46102353

RAMESH GIRADKAR

2016.00

4610

534

46102354

ATUAL PAIKRAO

2016.00

4610

535

46102355

NARAYAN UDANTIWAR

2192.00

4610

536

46102358

ASHRAF M. JAWED

2016.00

4610

537

46102359

SUJIT GOVINDWAR

2016.00

4610

538

46102360

WILLIAM D. PETER

2192.00

4610

539

46102362

MAROT RAJURKAR

1840.00

4610

540

46102364

JAYANT BALKI

1880.00

4610

541

46102368

BABURAO CHOUKIKAR

3072.00

4610

542

46102371

SACHIN KHARAKAR

1776.00

4610

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6037

543

46102372

ASHOK J. BADAVE

3008.00

4610

544

46102373

SURESH D. BURADKAR

2120.00

4610

545

46102374

SHEKHAR ISARAP

2032.00

4610

546

46102375

RAMESH GOHANE

3008.00

4610

547

46102377

SEVANAND DHOTE

1880.00

4610

548

46102381

VIDYANAND PATIL

2472.00

4610

549

46102382

SANJAY DUKRE

1856.00

4610

550

46102383

RAMESH CHIDDARWAR

2392.00

4610

551

46102387

RAJU DHOTE

1784.00

4610

552

46102391

NETAJI ZADE

1784.00

4610

553

46102392

SANTYA RANGUWAR

2640.00

4610

554

46102395

SANJAY KUCHANKAR

1784.00

4610

555

46102400

PRAKASH WABHITKAR

1992.00

4610

556

46102401

VIJAY GOURKAR

2232.00

4610

557

46102402

MAROTI BADKHAL

3008.00

4610

558

46102416

PURUSHOTTAM VAIDYA

1752.00

4610

559

46102419

GHANSHYAM KHOKLE

1808.00

4610

560

46102423

SUNIL NANDE

1784.00

4610

561

46102427

RAJENDRA GOWARDIPE

1808.00

4610

562

46102428

VITTAL KARADBHUJE

1784.00

4610

563

46102440

DINANATH KARADE

1880.00

4610

564

46102444

ANIL KADUKAR

1808.00

4610

565

46102451

SANTRAM

2584.00

4610

566

46102453

SANJAY GAURKAR

3144.00

4610

567

46102454

SHANKAR LONGADAGE

3144.00

4610

568

46102460

PUSHKAR PACHBHAI

2232.00

4610

569

46102462

ANIL J. SOOR

2776.00

4610

570

46102474

UDAYBHAN SURKUT

2488.00

4610

571

46102476

JUMMADIN BABUJAN

2544.00

4610

572

46102481

GULAM MD. JAKRIYA KHAN

3008.00

4610

573

46102483

SANTOSH K. CHAUHAN

1912.00

4610

574

46102486

KASHINATH B. KAMATWAR

2040.00

4610

575

46102488

DEEPAK D. KUMARE

1920.00

4610

576

46300547

MALLAKI GAURIYA

2736.00

4610

577

46303453

MADHUKAR BALAJI KALE

2064.00

4610

578

46303582

DEORAO MAHADEO VAIRAGADE

1974.00

4610

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

579

46502107

VINOD B. ZADE

1872.00

4610

580

16151490

S. CHAKRABORTY

3336.00

4640

581

19520972

VITTHAL R. KHADE

1976.00

4640

582

19665674

JAYANANDRA S. PAIGHAN

1808.00

4640

583

19665736

RAKESH KUMAR BEHARIYA

1808.00

4640

584

28002248

MOH’ D. GAUSUDDIN MOD’ D. BAHUDDIN

2776.00

4640

585

28002993

GOPAL MAHADEO DHAWLE

2072.00

4640

586

31400135

SHIVSHANKAR SHYAMLAL

1656.00

4640

587

31400138

VILAS M. LASUTE

1656.00

4640

588

31400139

DURYODHAN R. ROBIDAS

1632.00

4640

589

31400140

TIKARAM M. KHADE

1656.00

4640

590

31400141

SHANKAR M. KONGE

1632.00

4640

591

31400147

MEKAL MOGILI KANKAIYA

1632.00

4640

592

31400148

NARESH KUMAR RAMSAKHA

1632.00

4640

593

31400151

VIKAS PANDHARE

1632.00

4640

594

31400156

SHASHIBHUSHAN SINGH

1632.00

4640

595

44010318

MD. RAFIK JAN MOHAMMAD

2760.00

4640

596

44010442

GANPAT ANDRASKAR

2160.00

4640

597

44010759

RAMDAS PAIKA

2360.00

4640

598

44010883

HANUMAN SINGH

2944.00

4640

599

44010911

NANAJEE RAGHUNATH

2520.00

4640

600

44010912

PUNDLIK MAHADEO

2480.00

4640

601

44011299

MANGAL CHARANDAS TELTUMBDE

2400.00

4640

602

44011631

SUMERI RAM

2688.00

4640

603

44012078

SHESHRAO KISAN BADKAL

2120.00

4640

604

44013345

RAJARAM AMOL

2840.00

4640

605

46052309

PRASHANT K. DERKAR

1920.00

4640

606

46102183

CHARANDAS S. BANSOD

3088.00

4640

607

46102272

LAWRENCE RAJAN

2624.00

4640

608

46300985

MUJIBAR RAHEMAN

2496.00

4640

609

46301885

VIJAY PRASAD

2256.00

4640

610

46301941

DILIP NINDEKAR

2320.00

4640

611

46303278

RAMSHANKAR PARDESI

3000.00

4640

612

46303518

RAMPRASAD BABULAL

1976.00

4640

613

46303581

PRANGOPAL DENGAR TAPADAR

2072.00

4640

614

46400014

SUNIL R. KHOKLE

1752.00

4640

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6039

615

46400015

PANDURANG KARDBHUJE

1848.00

4640

616

46400019

SHANKAR THAKRE

2304.00

4640

617

46400020

NILKANTH URUDE

2472.00

4640

618

46400024

PRAKASH GUNDUKAWAR

3336.00

4640

619

46400025

SHESHRAO GOWARDIPE

1920.00

4640

620

46400026

BABARAO G. DAMBHARE

1920.00

4640

621

46400027

BHASKAR AWARI

2088.00

4640

622

46400029

KRISHNA KURREWAR

1912.00

4640

623

46400033

SUNIL MATE

1880.00

4640

624

46400035

VILAS CHENDE

1856.00

4640

625

46400036

GULABCHAND DUBEY

3624.00

4640

626

46400038

DURGA SINGH

3392.00

4640

627

46400040

DILIP KAMRLE

2104.00

4640

628

46400047

JANAKLAL SONARE

1912.00

4640

629

46400048

GANESH ANDRASKAR

2928.00

4640

630

46400049

HEMRAJ SHARMA

1912.00

4640

631

46400050

DINESH KUMAR MOHABE

1912.00

4640

632

46400052

MAGATI BEHRA

2776.00

4640

633

46400059

ANATA WASADE

1880.00

4640

634

46400060

ANIL KONGARE

2192.00

4640

635

46400061

SHANKAR DAMBHARE

1920.00

4640

636

46400062

RAJENDRA ASUTKAR

2192.00

4640

637

46400064

SURYDAS WAGHMARE

1808.00

4640

638

46400066

MADHUKAR DHOKNE

3440.00

4640

639

46400067

SURESH BONDE

2552.00

4640

640

46400068

SUMARLAL YADAV

3288.00

4640

641

46400069

RAJSHWAR SINGH

2552.00

4640

642

46400074

ARUN KELWATKAR

2472.00

4640

643

46400075

ARJUN DURGA

1832.00

4640

644

46400076

MAHADEO DAMRHARE

1848.00

4640

645

46400079

NARAYAN SHARMA

3496.00

4640

646

46400083

TAKIYODDIN KAZI

2776.00

4640

647

46400084

D. B. MUKKAWAR

3144.00

4640

648

46400086

PRABHAKAR THAWARI

2176.00

4640

649

46400087

KISHOR KUMR BHAWARKAR

1920.00

4640

650

46400089

KISHORI HARDDE

2400.00

4640

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

651

46400090

DWARKA PRASAD MISHRA

1880.00

4640

652

46400093

PREMA YADAV

2520.00

4640

653

46400094

SANTOSH VIDHATE

1872.00

4640

654

46400095

YADAO P. JOGI

2848.00

4640

655

46400096

JAGANNATH WADHAI

2320.00

4640

656

46400098

MADHUKAR DHEPEKAR

2280.00

4640

657

46400099

SUNIL GULHANE

3144.00

4640

658

46400100

SAMBHAJI KUBDE

2928.00

4640

659

46400101

MAHADEO GOWARDIPE

1920.00

4640

660

46400103

SANJAY BOBADE

2192.00

4640

661

46400104

SARNATH SONTAKKE

2656.00

4640

662

46400105

RAMJIRAM WASUDEO

2320.00

4640

663

46400107

MAHADEO CHIKANKAR

2392.00

4640

664

46400108

P. W. KHEDULKAR

2656.00

4640

665

46400113

SHIV KUMAR MISHRA

2192.00

4640

666

46400114

WAMAN KURJEKAR

2192.00

4640

667

46400116

BHASHKAR

2192.00

4640

668

46400117

NAGORAO HARAN

3280.00

4640

669

46400119

SHRIHARI MOHITKAR

2456.00

4640

670

46400120

MAHADEO PECHE

1880.00

4640

671

46400121

KAILASH GAJBHIYE

2192.00

4640

672

46400122

ANANDRAO URKUDE

2456.00

4640

673

46400125

DILIP JOG

2928.00

4640

674

46400126

MANGRU KHADSANG

2320.00

4640

675

46400127

JITENDRA NARAD

1968.00

4640

676

46400129

EKNATH N. DOOKEY

2520.00

4640

677

46400130

A. S. TAYDE

2656.00

4640

678

46400132

BALKRISHNA M. ZADE

1920.00

4640

679

46400134

GOWARDHAN R. TELTUMBADE

2848.00

4640

680

46400135

ASHOK P. BODEKAR

2112.00

4640

681

46400136

GAJANAN G. PAZARE

2256.00

4640

682

46400138

KHUSHAL S. DAWARE

2256.00

4640

683

46400139

RAJENDRA D. BUCCHE

2256.00

4640

684

46400140

RAMCHANDRA K. THOMBRE

2256.00

4640

685

46400141

RAJU D. LOHAKARE

2192.00

4640

686

46400142

SHAKEEL AB. GAFFAR

2400.00

4640

687

46400144

VINOD R. KHANDALKAR

2464.00

4640

688

46400145

NATHU K. DETHE

2304.00

4640

689

46400152

RAMESH K. KATKAR

2392.00

4640

690

46400153

RAJU N. MATTE

1848.00

4640

691

46400155

RAMESH NAWLE

2784.00

4640

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6041

692

46400156

KAWADU C. ATRAM

2256.00

4640

693

46400158

RUSHI U. KHUTEMATE

2120.00

4640

694

46400161

UTTAM P. DORKHANDE

2256.00

4640

695

46400162

RAMESH KUMAR SUKKA

3440.00

4640

696

46400163

GANESH CHHOTEYLAL

3496.00

4640

697

46400164

RASHTRAPAL G. BULKUNDE

2192.00

4640

698

46400167

SANTOSH R. MADDESHWAR

3008.00

4640

699

46400168

MOHAN S. HEPAT

3088.00

4640

700

46400169

RAMPRASAD S. YEREKAR

1784.00

4640

701

46400170

BHASKAR M. PARKHI

2192.00

4640

702

46400171

SURESH N. RAJURKAR

2304.00

4640

703

46400172

LAXMAN L. MANTHANWAR

2576.00

4640

704

46400173

DEVAJI R. LABHANE

2200.00

4640

705

46400176

WAMAN R. MAHARTALE

2640.00

4640

706

46400179

RAJESH KUMAR THAKUR

2016.00

4640

707

46400180

SHIVPAL MORI

1752.00

4640

708

46400181

VISHNU M. BHOSKAR

1912.00

4640

709

46400182

BALARAM SHIORAM

2320.00

4640

710

46400184

BATENDRA A. MISTRI

2888.00

4640

711

46400188

NARESH SARODE

1912.00

4640

712

46400191

A. M. DAFALE

3568.00

4640

713

46400192

PATRU S. DHONGALE

3456.00

4640

714

46400193

SURESH P. BUNE

3224.00

4640

715

46400194

PRABHAKAR S. KHADE

2112.00

4640

716

46400198

BABRULAL SARVAN

2160.00

4640

717

46400202

ANAD DOMA JI GAJBHIYE

2320.00

4640

718

46400203

MAHADEO S. RAUT

2704.00

4640

719

46400206

MOHAN PURUSHOTTAM PARKHI

2232.00

4640

720

46400208

SHANKAR GULAB LODE

1840.00

4640

721

46400209

GAJANAN JENEKAR

2200.00

4640

722

46400211

ASHOK M. BHAGAT

3280.00

4640

723

46400212

NARAYAN N. THOMBRE

2016.00

4640

724

46409001

VITTHAL KAREKAR

1880.00

4640

725

46409004

MANGAL KHOKALE

1880.00

4640

726

46409007

PADMAKAR KAREKAR

1920.00

4640

727

46409008

SANTOSH BURADKAR

1920.00

4640

728

46409009

BAJIRAO KAREKAR

1840.00

4640

729

46409013

RAJU DAVE

1784.00

4640

730

46502071

ANNA N. BELEKAR

1776.00

4640

TOTAL AMOUNT (RS.)

1732383.00

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrECkj] 2013

dk-vk- 2280-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVªu

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 126@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19&09&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@257@2001&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.126/2002 )

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of WCL,

Walni Mines, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/257/2001-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/126/2002 Date: 07-08-2013

Party No. 1

The Sub Area Manager,

WCL, Walni Mines,

Teh. Saoner,

Distt. Nagpur

Party No. 2

Shri Manik Govinda Kewat

R/o Saoli, Tal. Parseoni,

Distt. Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 7th August, 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 Manik

Kewat, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/257/

2001-IR (CM-II) dated 25-07-2002, with the following

schedule :—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

WCL,Walni Mines, Saoner, Distt. Nagpur in

dismissing Shri Manik S/o Govinda Kewat, R/o Sanli,

Teh. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur vide their order dated

27-02-2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to

what relief is the workman is 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 Manik

Kewat, (‘‘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 he was appointed in the post of

loader w.e.f. 1975 on permanent basis and a show cause

notice dated 26-07-1999 was issued against him by the

party no. 1 on the allegations of his remaining absent from

duty for the entire month in April 1999, 10 days in May

1999 and 6 days in June, 1999 and during the above said

periods, he was suffering from illness and had submitted

leave application to the M.T.K. Walni colliery and he had

taken medical treatment from Walni Hospital and the party

no. 1 issued a charge sheet dated 21/22-08-1999 (wrongly

mentioned as 21/12-08-1999 in the statement of claim)

against him levelling false charges against him, which was

received by him on 23-08-1999 and on 24-08-1999, he

submitted his reply to the said charge sheet stating therein

of levelling baseless, fake and false charges against him,

but party no. 1 appointed the enquiry officer to enquire

into the charges levelled against him and he participated

in the enquiry on the dates fixed by the enquiry officer,

but on 24-09-1999, he was marked absent by the enquiry

officer, though, he had sent an application for adjournment

of the enquiry on the ground of the absence of his coworder

and the enquiry was fixed to 01-11-1999, but as he was

sick from 30-10-1999 to 11-11-1999, he could not able to

attend the enquiry on 01-11-1999 and the enquiry was

adjourned to 20-11-1999 and he again fell ill on 20-11-1999

and the doctor of Meyo Hospital, Nagpur advised him for

bed rest from 20-11-1999 to 20-02-2000 and he did not

remain absent deliberately on the dates fixed for the

enquiry and the enquiry officer did not consider the

genuine reason of his absence and without giving him

proper opportunity to defend his case, illegally proceeded

with the enquiry exparte and the copy of the enquiry report

or findings of the enquiry officer were not given to him

and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, in his

absence are false and incorrect and as such, the order of

dismissal passed against him on 27-02-2000, basing on

such findings is also illegal and unjustified and is liable to

be set aside. The further case of the workman is that he had

applied for his transfer from Walni Mine to A.B. Mine on

02-09-1998 and 12-07-1999 on the ground of his ill heath

(weakness) and on the ground of long distance from his

residence, but his applications were not considered.

The workman has prayed to reinstate him in service

with continuity and full back wages.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6043

3. The party no. 1 in their written statement have

pleaded inter-alia that the workman has made baseless

and false allegations and he did not have a clean record

and he was in habit of remaining unauthorized abesnt

without there being any reason and in the statement of

claim, the workman has misquoted the facts and law,

which appears to have arisen due to the misconception

and misconstruction of the facts and law involved in the

case and he was also suppressed material facts and he

remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for 270 days in

1996, 240 days in 1997, 225 days in 1998 and 214 days in

1999, for which warning letters were issued against him

and the same were received and acknowledged by the

workman and the workman has admitted such facts in his

statement of claim and before imposing the punishment, a

second show cause notice was issued to the workman

vide letter dated 20-02-2000, but the workman failed to

make any representation and as such, he was rightly

dismissed from the services vide letter dated 27-02-2000

and the workman was given every opportunity to defend

himself in the enquiry and he had also engaged a coworker

to assist hin in the enquiry and the show cause notice was

issued on 23-07-1999 and not on 26-07-1999 as claimed in

paragraph 2 of the statement of claim by the workman and

the workman was not suffering from any illness as alleged

and no application was submitted by him before the enquiry

officer and he was also not treated at Walni Hospital as

claimed by him and the charges levelled against the

workman were neither false nor baseless and the workman

procured the certificate from Nagpur, without being

examined and there was no genuine reason for remaining

absent from the enquiry and the copy of the enquiry report

was supplied to the workman alongwith the 2nd show

cause notice and the findings recorded by the enquiry

officer are neither baseless nor false and the action taken

by them is quite legal and justified and the request of the

workman for transfer was not considered due to

administrative exigencies and the same has nothing to do

with the enquiry or dismissal of the workman and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

services, after holding of a departmental enquiry

against him, the fairness of the departmental enquiry

was taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and

as per order dated 09-11-2012, the departmental enquiry

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 findings recorded

by the Enquiry Officer, in absence of the workman are false

and in correct and therefore, the severe action taken by

party no. 1 is totally illegal and unjustified and the order of

dismissal needs to be set aside. It was further submitted

by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman

did not remain absent deliberately and he was not in habit

of remaining absent and the illness of the workman

compelled him to remain absent on medical ground and

such illness certificate had been submitted by the workman

before the parrty no. 1 and as such, the order of punishment

is prima facie uncalled for, illegal, baseless and untenable

and is liable to be set aside and the workman is entitled to

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in 2009 III CLR-645

(Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Limited Vs. Mukul Kumar

Choudhary and Others).

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no. 1 that vide order dated 09-11-2012, it was

already been held by theTribunal that the departmental

enquiry conducted against the workman is valid, proper

and in accordance with the principles of natural justice

and no case of perversity has been demonstrated by the

workman and the evidence recorded is quite eloquent to

demonstrate that findings of the enquiry officer are just

and the same are not perverse and the workman has not

cited specific instances to show that the findings of the

enquiry officer are perverse and the findings of the

enquiry officer are based on the records of the enquiry,

documents filed and evidence led before him and the

enquiry officer has given a rational and objective report

and he has not relied on any extraneous material and his

report is also not contrary or opposed to the evidence

and the report is also not as such, which no reasonable

person could have arrived at and the quantum of

punishment is also justified, in view of the misconduct

committed by the workman and the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the party no. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 2001 LAB IC-7367 (Syed Rahemuddin Vs. Director

General CSIR), AIR 1972-2182 (M/s. The Benarus Electric

and Light Power Company Ltd.Vs.Labour Court-II

Lucknow) and AIR 1970 SC-1334 (M/s. Perry and Co. Ltd.

Vs. P.C. Pal).

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported

in AIR 1970 SC-1334 (Supra) have held that :—

‘‘Where the Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide

a question comes to a findings of a fact, such a finding is

not open to question under article 226 unless it could be

shown to be wholly unwarranted by the evidence. Where

the Tribunal has disabled itself from reaching a fair decision

by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and

the merits of the case or where its conclusion on the very

face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no

reasonable person can ever have arrived at that conclusion

interference under Article 226 would be justified.”

6044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. In the decision reported in AIR 1972 SC-2182

(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :—

‘‘A finding recorded in a domestic enquiry cannot be

characterized as perverse by the labour court unless it can

be shown that such a finding is not supported by any

evidence, or is entirely opposed to the whole body of the

evidence adduced. In a domestic enquiry once a conclusion

is deducted from the evidence, it is not permissible to that

conclusion even though it is possible for some authority

to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence.”

9. In the decision reported in 2009 III CLR-645

(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :—

‘‘Proportionality of punishment-Charge proved

againt respondent no. 1 is unauthorized absence for

6 months-For that punishment of removal is imposed-

Question is whether it is harsh-The charge is admitted

by respondent no. 1—It is held that punishment of

removal is unduly harsh and demand of justice would

be met if he is reinstated but denied back wages

from the date of his removal until reinstatement by

way of punishment for proved misconduct.”

10. It is clear from the principles settled by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the 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

an 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

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.

11. So far the proportionality of the punishment is

concerned, in this case grave misconduct of not only

unauthorized absence, but also habitual absenteeism

without sufficient cause have been proved against the

workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry.

As the different facts and circumstances of the case in

hand are quite different of the facts and circumstances of

the case referred in the decision reported in 2009 III CLR-

645 (Supra), with respect, I am of the view that the said

decision has no clear application to this case. As the

punishment imposed against the workman is not shockingly

disproportionate to the grave misconducts proved against

him in a properly conducted departmental enquiry, there is

no scope to interfere with the same. Hence, it is

ordered :—

ORDER

The action of the management of WCL, Walni

Mines, Saoner, Distt. Nagpur in dismissing Shri Manik

S/o Govinda Kewat, R/o Saoli, Teh. Parseoni, Distt.

Nagpur, vide their order dated 27-02-2000 is legal,

proper and justified. The workman is not entitled to

any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrECkj] 2013

dk-vk- 2281-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVuZ

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 154@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

19&09&2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@379@2002&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.154/

2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Nagpur

Area of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/379/2002-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6045

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/154/2003 Date: 04-09-2013

Party No. 1

The Chief General Manager,

Nagpur Area of WCL, Jaripatka,

Nagpur

Party No. 2

The President,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

(BMS), WCL Pipla Colliery, Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 4th September, 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 Mumtaz

Ahmed, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/379/

2002-IR (CM-II) dated 11-07-2003, with the following

schedule :—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Nagpur in reducing the pay scale and pay of Sh.

Mumtaz Ahmed (U.G. Loader) to the grade of Cat. I

Mazdoor i.e. Tub Checker is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief he is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Mumtaz

Ahmed, (‘‘the workman” in short), filed the statement of

claim and the management of WCL, (‘‘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 working as a causal loader

in Pipla colliery w.e.f. 28-02-1972 and he was regularized as

a permanent underground loader on 30-04-1974 and he

continued to work as such till 23-05-1980 and he met with

an accident in the underground, while on duty, in the

month of May, 1980 and during the period of injury on

duty, he was paid all the benefits as per rules and he was

declared medically fit for duty after the period of I.O.D.

and was engaged by the party no. l as underground Tub-

Checker and worked as a Tub-checker till 30-08-1984 and

the job of Tub checker is monthly paid staff equal to the

post of underground Munshi/Clerk grade III and during

the relevant period though his designation continued to

be underground loader, he was neither paid the wages of

the underground loader nor the wages of Tub checker/

Munshi, but he was paid wages of Category-I Mazdoor,

which was highly illegal and he was also not paid the

differential wages of underground loader and Mazdoor

Category-I, even though other loaders, who were engaged

on time rated or monthly paid jobs were given the

differential wages and the said act of party no. 1 was

highly discriminatory, arbitrary and malafide and though

he requested frequently either to give him the salary of

underground Munshi or the difference of wages of

Category-I mazdoor and underground Munshi, or the wages

of underground permanent loader, the party no.1 did not

pay any attention to his such requests.

The further case of the workman is that on the

recommendation of the departmental promotion committee

constituted for regularisation of the post, he was regularized

as underground Munshi vide office order dated

20-08-1984 in the pay scale of Rs. 625-23-947 as

recommended by the National Coal Wages Agreements-

III and even though, in the office order dated 20-08-1984,

his designation was clearly mentioned as ‘‘Loader”, his

pay as underground Munshi was wrongly fixed and the

pay fixation was made taking his pay as a Category-I

Mazdoor, which was much less than the basic of an

underground Loader as per NCWA-III and the basic pay

of category-I Mazdoor was Rs. 15 per day, while the basic

pay of underground Loader was Rs. 36.20 +special piece

rated allowance + other allowances and some loader of

Silewara and Pipla Collieries of Nagpur Area were promoted

as Mining Sirdar, i.e. monthly paid staff just like him vide

office order dated 2/3-09-1982 and their pay fixation was

done from groun VA wages of a loader and the wages of

group VA loader were much higher than the Category-I

Mazdoor, where as his pay fixation was done from Category-I

wages, which was much less than the group VA wages of a

loader and to rectify the injustice, he approached the

recognized union for help and the union discussed about

his case in several industrial relation meetings with the

party no. 1 and he also submitted representations dated

27-03-1995 and 28-06-1995, but party no. 1 failed to consider

his representations and the union representative kept him

waiting for such a long period with the assurance of

correction of his pay fixation by party no. 1, but party

no. 1 did not consider his case and as his pay fixation was

not done as per law, he sustained heavy financial loss

during the period of service and so also his retirement in

respect of Coal Mines Provident Fund, gratuity and pension.

The workman has prayed for a direction to the party

no. 1 for re-fixation of his pay on his promotion as under -

ground Munshi from loader as on 20-08-1984 and to pay

the differential wages from 20-08-1984 till final payment of

the differential of wages and interest thereon.

3. Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the present dispute is not maintainable in

the eyes of law and the same is basically filed with a view

to gain unlawful gains and the workman was initially

appointed on casual basis and worked as casual mazdoor

and he was regularized on 30-04-1974 and the work of loader

6046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is a very tough and hazardous work and he is paid as per

the work done and his salary depends upon the output

and if the output of the loader is more than minimum

prescribed by the management, he is entitled to more pay

and though the workman was working as a loader, he was

discontinued from the said post, due to his physical fitness

and since 1985, he worked as underground Munshi and

was being paid the salary prescribed by the management,

which was accepted by the workman without any demur

or complaint whatsoever and the work of underground

Munshi is in supervisory category and can be termed as

light work and the workman was given the duty of

underground Munshi on his own request and not otherwise

and the workman is not entitled to claim more salary for

less work, as the principles of equal pay for equal work

are applicable in the industry and the appointment on the

post of underground Munshi is not done by promotion or

otherwise, but the same is a selected post and employee

has to apply for the same and the workman was appointed

on the said post on his request on temporary basis initially

and subsequently, he was regularized vide office order

dated 06-08-1984 and the workman did not challenge the

said order and joined his duties on 31-08-1984 and the

workman was granted one increment alongwith the said

order, which was also accepted by him without any demur.

The further case of party no. 1 is that the workman

has raised a stale claim and he raised the claim for the

first time before the ALC sometime in the year 2002 i.e.

after a period of over 16 years, which is not permissible

and such claim cannot be entertained and there was a fire

in Pipla Mine in the year 1994 and in that fire, all records

were destroyed and the service register in respect of the

workman, which is available with the management w.e.f.

1984 only, speaks only of his selection to the post of

underground Munshi and subsequent increment and from

the said record, it is crystal clear that it was the workman

who opted for the post and a settlement was arrived

between the management and the workman on

02-11-1992, which was consented by the R.L.C. and the

workman is not entitled to any relief in terms of clause 1.3

of the said settlement and the said settlement is a

settlement within the meaning of section 2 (P) and section

18 (1) of the Act and Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957 and the same is binding on the parties

and subsequently the workman was re-designated as clerk

grade-III and there was no accident and the workman did

not sustain any injury as alleged and he also did not work

as underground Tub-checker and Tub-checker and

underground Munshi are more so equivalent posts and

the workman worked as Category-I Mazdoor and as such,

he was paid for the said work only and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has pleaded that the

wrong fixation of his pay at the initial stage of his promotion

is a continuing wrong and therefore, the question of

limitation does not arise and the settlement mentioned by

party no. 1 does not apply to his case, as his case is not a

case of conversion of piece rated loader to time rated job,

but is a case of wrong fixation of pay on promotion and on

the date of his promotion, his designation was ‘‘Permanent

Loader” and he is entitled for the reliefs.

5. In order to prove his case, the workman has

examined himself as a witness, besides placing reliance on

the documentary evidence. It is to be mentioned that no

oral evidence has been adduced by party no. 1 in support

of its claim. The party no. 1 has also not filed any other

document, except the copy of the settlement dated

02-11-1992 and the copy of the order dated 05-08-2010

passed by the Hon’ble High Court Nagpur Bench in writ

petition no. 4682 of 2006, even though party no. 1 has

mentioned in the written statement about filing of

documents as annexures R-I to R-III. The examination-in-

chief of the workman is on the affidavit. The workman has

reiterated the facts mentiond in the statement of claim and

rejonder in his evidence. The workman has also proved

the order of his selection as underground Munshi dated

06-08-1984, the pay fixation order, copies of his two

representation dated 27-03-1995 and 28-06-1995 and office

order dated 02-09-1982 as Exts. W-6 to W-10. In his cross-

examination, the workman has stated that he was

appointed as underground Munshi from 1984.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that from the documents,

Exts. W-6 to W-9 and the oral evidence of the workman,

which has not been discredited in any manner in the cross-

examination, it is clear that the workman was promoted

as underground Munshi w.e.f. 06-08-1984 and at the time

of his such promotion, his designation was underground

loader and at the relevant time, the workman was working

as underground tub checker, but at the time of fixation of

his pay in the higher post, patent wrong was committed by

party no. 1 as the said pay fixation was done by taking the

daily wages of Category-I Mazdoor and not the wages of a

loader or underground Tub-checker and even though, the

workman made requests to the party no. 1 for correction

of the mistake in his pay fixation, time and again, party no. 1

did not take any action in that regard. It was also submitted

that there was no delay in raising the dispute, as wrong

fixation of pay and payment of salary on each month on

the basis of such wrong fixation is a continuing wrong

and the settlement dated 02-11-1992 is not at all applicable

to the case of the workman, as the same is a settlement in

regard to protection of wages on conversion of piece rated

loader to time rated category and in the present case, it is

wrong fixation of pay of the workman in the higher post

and workman is entitled for the reliefs as claimed by him

in the statement of claim.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1 that the appointment of the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6047

workman on the post of underground Munshi was not done

by promotion, but such appointment was done by way of

selection, on the request of the workman and he was being

paid the salary prescribed by the management, which was

accepted by him without any demur or complaint and the

workman had also been granted one increment alogwith the

order dated 06-08-1984 and said order was accepted by the

workman without any objection and the workman raised

the stale claim for the first time before the ALC, sometime in

the year 2002, after a period of over 16 years and it is well

settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of decisions

that though law of limitation is not applicable to industrial

disputes, stale claim should not be incouraged and the

workman should not be granted any relief and as in this

case, the workman has raised the alleged dispute after a

very long period of time, he is not entitled for any relief.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party no. 1 that the workman is a member of the

recognized union and there was a settlement between the

management and the recognized union on 02-11-1992,

which was consented by the RLC and the said settlement

is a settlement within the meaning of section 2(P) and

section 18 (1) of the Act and Rule 58 of the Industrial

Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and the same is binding on

the parties and in terms of clause 1.3 of the said settlement,

which prohibits the re-opening of old cases prior to

14-11-1990, the workman is not entitled to any relief and

the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench have been pleased

to take such a view in the case of Rajaram and others Vs.

Mine Manager, Inder Mines WCL, and others in writ

petition no. 4662/2006 and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

8. In this case, it is admitted by the party no. 1 that the

workman was regularized as loader on 30-04-1974 and he

was selected as underground Munshi vide office order

dated 06-08-1984. Though the workman has pleaded that

in course of his employment as a loader and while on duty,

in the month of May, 1980, he sustained injuries and

remained on I.O.D. and after he was declared medically fit for

duty, he was engaged to work as Tub-checker upto

30-08-1984, and even though his designation was

underground loader during the said period, party no. 1

illegally paid the wages of category-I Mazdoor to him. Party

No. 1 in the written statement while giving para wise reply

to the statement of claim has denied such pleadings and has

only pleaded that the workman worked as category-I

mazdoor and as such, he was paid for the said work only.

Party No. 1 nowhere pleaded as to why and from when the

workman , who was already regularized as underground

loader w.e.f. 30-04-1974 worked as a category-I Mazdoor.

9. Perused the evidence on record, both oral and

documentary. On perusal of the document, Ext. W-6 it is

found that on the recommendation of the committee

constituted for regularisation to the post of clerk Gr. III or

UG Munshi, the workman was selected for his regularization

as underground Munshi by office order no. 84/1645 dated

6/1-08-1984 in the pay scale of Rs. 625-23-947 of NCWA-

III. It is also found that in Ext. W-6, the designation of the

workman was mentioned as Loader and not as Mazdoor

category-I. It is to be mentioned here that Ext. W-6 is an

order passed by the party no. 1 for regularisation of the

workman and 41 others, either as clerk Gr. III or

underground Munshi, which clearly indicates that those

employers were working either as clerk Gr. III or

underground Munshi, as mentioned against their respective

name prior to such order and as the workman was

regularized as underground Munshi by the said order, it is

clear that he was working as underground Munshi prior

to the order dated 6/11-08-1984, Ext. W-6, as claimed by him

and not as mazdoor category-I as claimed by party no. 1.

Ext. W-7 is the pay fixation statement of the workman

and three others. In the pay fixation statement also, the

designation of the workman has been mentioned as

loader and not mazdoor category-I. It is found from Ext.

W-7 that the date of promotion of workman was

20-08-1984. However, for fixation of the pay of the workman

as underground Munshi, basic pay of Cat.-I was taken

into consideration by party no. 1. In Ext. W-7, nothing has

been mentioned as to why the basic pay of Cat. I mazdoor

was taken into consideration, even though the

designation of the workman was mentioned as loader. So,

it is obvious that the fixation of pay of the workman as

underground Munshi as per Ext. W-7, by taking the basic

pay of Cat. I Mazdoor and not that of an underground

loader is quite wrong.

10. The first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1 is regarding the delay in raising

the dispute. It was submitted that the pay fixation was

made in the year 1984 and the workman accepted such pay

fixation and received the pay without raising any objection

and only in 1995, for the first time, he raised the objection

in regard to wrong fixation of his pay and after a long

delay of about 16 to 17 years, he raised the dispute before

the A.L.C. and there was inordinate delay in raising the

dispute and there is no explanation for such long delay

from the side of the workman and it is well settled in a

number of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and

Hon’ble High Courts that stale claim must not be

entertained by the appropriate Government while making

a reference and in a case where such reference is made, the

workman would not be entitled to the relief at the hands of

the labour court and due to the latches of the workman in

raising the dispute in time, he is not entitled for any relief.

It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a

number of decisions that although, the court cannot import

a period of limitation when the statute does not prescribe

the same, it does not mean that irrespective a facts and

circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be

6048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

entertained by the appropriate Government while making

a reference or in a case where such reference is made, the

workman would be entitled to the relief at the hands of the

labour court.

So, keeping in view the principles as mentioned

above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention about

the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR

1996-SC-669 (M.R.Gupta Vs. Union of India). The party no.

1 has referred about the said decision in paragraph 29 of its

written statement. The Hon’ble Apex Court have held

that :—

‘‘5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that

the Tribunal has missed the real point and

overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant’s

grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance

with the rules, was the assertion of a counting wrong

against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of

action each time he was paid a salary which was not

computed in accordance with the rules. So long as

the appellant is no service, a fresh cause of action

arises every month when he is paid his monthly

salary on the basis of a wrong computation made

contrary to rules.”

The principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the decision mentioned above are squarely applicable

to the present case in hand. In this case also, the grievance

of the workman is that his pay fixation was wrongly made.

It is also found from the documents that the workman

raised the dispute regarding the wrong fixation of pay by

submitting applications in regard to the same and Exts.

W-8 and W-9 are two of such applications. Ext. W-8 , is an

application submitted to party no. 1 by the workman on

27-03-1995. In the said application, the workman has

mentioned about his submission of earlier application for

correction of his fixation of pay. The claim of the workman

about his raising the dispute regarding wrong fixation of

pay has not been seriously challenged in his cross-

examination. So taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the claim

of the workman is a stale claim and that there was inordinate

delay in raising the industrial dispute and therefore the

workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, the submission

made by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 on this

score fails.

11. The next contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1 is that in view of clause 1.3 of

the settlement dated 02-11-1992 between the recognized

union and the management of WCL, the workman is not

entitled to any relief, as because the said clause 1.3,

prohibits the re-opening of the old cases prior to

14-11-1990 and as the case of pay fixation of the workman

relates to the year 1984, his case cannot be re-opened.

Perused the settlement dated 02-11-1992 filed by

the party no. 1. The same was a settlement between the

union, RKKMS, (INTUC), Nagpur and the management of

WCL. Clause 1.3 of the said settlement reads as follows :—

‘‘Demand No. 1 (iii)

That the management shall on conversion from PR

to TR/MR will fully protect the group wages

including SPRA wherever applicable. The basic pay

so fixed in the TR/MR category/grade if exceeds the

maximum of the category/grade, the balance will be

treated as personal pay to the person concerned

which shall be adjusted in the subsequent revision

of pay/promotion. This decision shall be effective

from 01-01-92. It is also agreed that the cases already

converted between 14-11-90 to 31-12-91 shall be

considered for notional fixation only and earlier cases

will not be considered.”

It is clear from the settlement itself and specifically

from clause 1.3 that the same was regarding protection of

pay of loaders on their conversion to time rated or monthly

rated and the restriction imposed for not reopening of the

case prior to 14-11-1990 is also in regard to the old cases

of loaders. As already mentioned, the case of the workman

is not protection of his wages as a loader on his conversion

to time rated or monthly rated, but his case is one of fixation

of pay, on his regularisation as underground Munshi. So,

the settlement dated 02-11-1992 is not at all applicable to

the case of the workman. As it is found that the settlement

dated 02-11-1992 is not applicable to the case of the

workman, with respect, I am of the view that the decision

of the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench passed in writ

petition no.4662/2006 is also not applicable to the present

case. Hence, I find no merit in the contention raised by the

learned advocate for the party no. 1.

12. From the materials on record and the discussions

made above, it is found that the fixation of the pay of the

workman by taking the daily wages of category-I, Mazdoor,

on his regularisation as underground Munshi is quite wrong

and the workman is entitled for re-fixation of his pay as on

20-08-1984 by taking in to consideration the basic wages,

which he was getting as a loader. Hence, it is ordered :—

ORDER

The action of the management of WCL Nagpur in

reducing the pay scale and pay of Sh. Mumtaz Ahmed

(U.G. Loader) to the grade of Cat. I Mazdoor i.e. Tub

Checker is illegal and unjustified. The party no. 1 is directed

to refix the pay of the workman on his regularisation as

underground Munshi as on 20-08-1984, by taking the

basic wages, which he was getting as a loader and to pay

him the differential wages till the date of his retirement.

The party no. 1 is also directed to give effect to the award

within one month of the publication of the award in the

official gazette.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6049

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrECkj] 2013

dk-vk- 2282-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,iQ lh

vkbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 273@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&09&2013 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@193@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.273/2003

) 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 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/193/2003-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/273/2003 Date: 22-08-2013

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.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd August, 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 Vinod Ramdas Pohekar, for adjudication, as

per letter No. L-22012/193/2003-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 Vinod Ramdas Pohekar, 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 Vinod Ramdas

Pohekar, (‘‘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 01-12-1993 and he was initially engaged

through a contractor at Wardha Dopot 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.

The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he

was engaged by the Party No. 1 though 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

6050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 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, 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. 1and 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 01-12-1993 to 14-03-1999, without any break in service

and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a

year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the

Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master

and servant between them and the workman at any point

of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted

by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the

workman against them are not true and there was no

question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act

and the work does not constantly exist and the work of

providing security guards was given to other Government

Agencies like Police Personnel and 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 the therefore, this Tribunal

has no jurisdication 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 ove 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 contract 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, besiders placing reliance on

documentary evidence.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6051

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

25-07-2013, 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.1was

exempted by the Central Government from the ban imposed

for engagement of contract laboures, 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 Saptahi

Jaibhim” filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur,

for their regularisation and the Hon’ble High Court did

not grant 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 workman 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 praper, 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.

6052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 year1993, 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-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 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. ‘‘Workman”

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

employer a workman to do the work which he contracted

with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it

stands, the workman of the contractor would not without

something more become the workman of that third person.

Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor

were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union.”

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656

(supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :—

‘‘The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose

benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the

provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided

whether expressly or by necessary implication, or

substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the

legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is in to

regulate the conditions of service of the contract labour

and to authorise 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6053

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 ironin 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 and 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 comliance 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 regularise 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 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 a

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 conbined 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.”

12. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402

(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :—

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 were 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.

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

6054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by the contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section

12 enjoins that no contactor 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

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

contract labour employed by the contractor and recover

the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention

of the provisions aforesaid had been made penal for which

punishment can be imposed.

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 appers 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

principal 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, employement of contract

labour in any process, operation or other work in any

establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of

employment fo 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 employee 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 contract labourers to the

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 follow :—

‘‘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 Indain 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6055

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 by 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 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 connot 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.

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 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 of 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 :—

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrECkj] 2013

dk-vk- 2283-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,iQ lh

vkbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 278@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&09&2013 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@202@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.278/2003 )

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 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/202/2003-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

6056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/278/2003 Date: 22-08-2013

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

Party No. 2

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar

Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,

Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd August, 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 Gulabchand Ramaji Madavi, for adjudication,

as per letter No. L-22012/202/2003-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 Gulabchand Ramaji Madavi,

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 Gulabchand

Ramaji Madavi, (‘‘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 15-07-1993 and he was initially engaged

through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1, as

a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without

any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services

were terminated orally by Party No.1, without following

the due procedure of law and he had completed more than

240 days of work in each year and the termination of his

services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in

colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party

No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one

month’s notice nor one month’s wages in lieu of notice nor

retrenchment compensation was given to him as required

under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal

termination, fresh hands from the department of home

guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract

the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision

of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was

performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a

perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and

unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

The further case of the workkman is that in 1993, he

was engaged by the Party No. 1 though 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 he 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 comouflage 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 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 Manmed 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, 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6057

Party No. 1and 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 15-07-1993 to 14-03-1999, without any break in service

and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a

year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the

Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master

and servant between them and the workman at any point

of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted

by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the

workman against them are not true and there was no

question 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

W.P. 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 contract 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. The workman in support of his case, though had

filed his evidence of affidavit, he did not appear for his

cross-examination , so his evidence on affidavit cannot

be considered.

5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade, the witness examined on

behalf of the Party No. 1 has 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

25-07-2013, 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

6058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.1was exempted by the Central Government

from the ban imposed for engagement of contract

laboures, 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 Polic 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, Nagpur

Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon’ble

High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the

order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in

the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and

others claimed regularisation on the ground that they

were employed by the contractor for doing regular work

of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the same,

they have became workmen of Food Corporation of India,

since the work on which they were employed is of perennial

nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the

Hon’ble High Court did not consider the main relief and

passed the following order :—

‘‘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 year1993, 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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6059

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-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 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. ‘‘Workman”

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

employ a workman to do the work which he contracted

with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it

stands, the workman of the contractor would not without

something more become the workman of that third person.

Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor

were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union.”

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656

(supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :—

‘‘The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose

benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the

provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided

whether expressly or by necessary implication, or

substituting remedy or benefits for 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 and 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 1997 m D/-17-4-1998 (Kant) :

W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No.

6060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2616 of 1990 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 conbined 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.”

12. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402

(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :—

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 were 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.

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 pernnial 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

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 repesentative

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

contract labour employed by the contractor and recover

the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention

of the provisions aforesaid had been made penal for which

punishment can be imposed.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6061

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

principal 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.

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 Stated 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 follow :—

‘‘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 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 enganed

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 appopriate

Government provide that upon abolition of contract labour,

the labourers would by directly absorbed by the principal

employer.

It is true that with passege 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.

13. In this case. the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW

dated 28-05-92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows

6062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 of the Party No. 1 or compliance

of the provisions of Sections 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

engeged 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 :—

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrECkj] 2013

dk-vk- 2284-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,iQ lh

vkbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 288@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&09&2013 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@231@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.288/2003)

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 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/231/2003-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/288/2003 Date: 22-08-2013

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

Party No. 2

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar

Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,

Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd August, 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 Ashok Vitthalrao Waghmare, for adjudication,

as per letter No. L-22012/231/2003-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 Ashok Vitthalrao Waghmare,

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6063

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Ashok

Vitthalrao Waghmare, (‘‘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 15-07-1993 and he was intially engaged

through a contractor at Wardha Dopot of Party No. 1, as

a Secruity 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

termiantion, 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 perennail 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 though 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 contrctors by Party No. 1 from

time to time was sham and only a comouflage 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 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, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was

suervising 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 contractor 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 15-07-1993 to 14-03-1999, without any break in service

and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a

year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the

Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master

and servant between them and the workman at any point

of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted

by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the

workman against them are not true and there was no

question 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

6064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 the therefore, this Tribunal

has no jurisdication 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

contrctor 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 contract 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. The workman in support of his case, though had

filed his evidence of affidavit, he did not appear for his

cross-examination, so his evidence on affidavit cannot be

considered.

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

25-07-2013, 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.1was exempted by the Central Government

from the ban imposed for engagement of contract laboures,

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 workkman 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-judicate, 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, Nagpur

Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and theHon’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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6065

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 year1993, 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

servcies 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-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 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. ‘‘Workman”

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

6066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employs a workman to do the work which he contracted

with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it

stands, the workman of the contractor would not without

something more become the workman of that third person.

Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor

were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union.”

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656

(supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :—

‘‘The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose

benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the

provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided

whether expressly or by necessary implication, or

substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the

legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is in 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 on the ground

of having undertaken to produce and given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of

the establishment under a genuine contract or is 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 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 1997 m D/-17-4-1998 (Kant) :

W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No.

2616 of 1990 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 a

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 conbined 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 thereunder.”

12. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402

(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :—

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 were 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6067

establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain

circumstances and for matters connecte therewith.

The ‘‘Contract Labour” has been defind 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

established 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 pernnial nature. Section 12 enjoins

that no contactor 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, 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

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 athorized repesentative 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

contract labour employed by the contractor and recover

the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention

of the provisions aforesaid had been made penal for which

punishment can be imposed.

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

principal 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.

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 employee 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 contract labourers to tbe

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 follow :—

‘‘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.”

6068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 Indain 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 aforsaid Act has two

purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service

of the worker employed by the contractor who is enganed

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 appopriate

Government provide that upon abolition of contract labour,

the labourers would by directly absorbed by th principal

employer.

It is true that with passege 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 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 connot 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 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 Tribuanl, 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 principales enunciated by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

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 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 of the Party No. 1 or compliance

of the provisions of Sections 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 :—

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6069

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2285-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,iQ lh vkbZ

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 300@

2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&09&2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@277@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September , 2013

S.O. 2285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 300/

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 workman, received by the

Central Government on 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/277/2003-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/300/2003

Date: 22-08-2013

Party No. l(a) :

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Ajani, Nagpur,

Nagpur - 440015.

Party No. l(b) :

The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha

Road, Churchgatye,

Mumbai - 400020.

Versus

Party No. 2

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar

Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,

Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd August, 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 S.R. Mankar, for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-22012/277/2003-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 S.R. Mankar, 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 S.R. Mankar,

(“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 04-01-1994 and he was initially engaged

through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1, as a

Security Guard and he was in continuous service without

any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services

were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following

the due procedure of law and he had completed more than

240 days of work in each year and the termination of his

services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in

colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party

No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one

month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor

retrenchment compensation was given to him as required

under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal

termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard

and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the

duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of

section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was

performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a

perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and

unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

The further case of the workman is that in 1994, 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

6070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 FCl 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 FCl, 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.

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 FCl

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 04-01-1994 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 godowns are filled with food grains, then only, services

of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the

notification issued by the Central Government abolishing

contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and

Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of party no. 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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6071

4. It is necessary to mention here that though

opportunities were given to the workman to adduce

evidence in support of his claim, the workman did not

adduce any evidence.

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

25-07-2013, 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, Nagpur

Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon’ble

High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the

order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in

the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and

others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were

employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the

Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they

have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since

the work on which they were employed is of perennial

nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the

Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and

passed the following order :

“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.

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

6072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-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 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."

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :—

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or by

necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6073

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."

12. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :—

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 were 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.

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

6074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6075

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.

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 tlie 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.

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 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 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.-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

6076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2286-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,iQ lh

vkbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 304@

2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&09&2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@281@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 304/

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 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/281/2003-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/304/2003

Date: 22-08-2013.

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.

Versus

Party No. 2

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar,

Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,

Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd August, 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 Satish B. Bhandarwar, for adjudication, as

per letter No. L-22012/281/2003-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 Satish B. Bhandarwar, 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 Satish

B. Bhandarwar, (“the workman” in short), filed the statement

of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India

("Party No. I" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he was in the employment of

Party No. 1 from 15-07-1993 and he was initially engaged

through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1, as a

Security Guard and he was in continuous service without

any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services

were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following

the due procedure of law and he had completed more than

240 days of work in each year and the termination of his

services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in

colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party

No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one

month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor

retrenchment compensation was given to him as required

under Section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal

termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard

and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the

duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of

Section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was

performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a

perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and

unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he

was engaged by the Party No. 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6077

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 FCl 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, 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.

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 FCl

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 15-07-1993 to

14-03-1999, without any break in service and the workman

did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and

as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,

there was no relationship of master and servant between

them and the workman at any point of time and under

section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and

Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central

Government, so the allegations made by the workman

against them are not true and there was no question of

violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the

work does not constantly exist and the work of providing

security guards was given to other Government Agencies

like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the

workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the

work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when

their godowns are filled with food grains, then only, services

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.

6078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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

25-07-2013, 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, Nagpur

Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon’ble

High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the

order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in

the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and

others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were

employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the

Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they

have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since

the work on which they were employed is of perennial

nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the

Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and

passed the following order :

“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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6079

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. I.

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-II LLOJ-4 (supra)

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a

contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot,

the corporation had nothing to do with the manner

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."

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :—

"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or by

necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for 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

6080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 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 thereunder."

12. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :—

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 were 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.

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6081

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

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.

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.

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

6082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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 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 thereunder. 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.-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6083

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2287-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,iQ lh vkbZ

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 306@

2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19&09&2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@283@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September , 2013

S.O. 2287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 306/

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 19-09-2013.

[No. L-22012/283/2003-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/306/2003

Date: 22-08-2013.

Party No. l(a) :

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Ajani, Nagpur,

Nagpur - 440015.

Party No. l(b) :

The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha

Road, Churchgatye,

Mumbai - 400020.

Versus

Party No. 2

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar

Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,

Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd August, 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 Manohar M. Vyavhare, for adjudication, as

per letter No. L-22012/283/2003-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 Manohar

M. Vyavhare, 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 Manohar

M. Vyavhare, (“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 15-07-1993 and he was initially engaged

through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1, as a

Security Guard and he was in continuous service without

any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services

were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following

the due procedure of law and he had completed more than

240 days of work in each year and the termination of his

services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in

colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party

No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one

month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor

retrenchment compensation was given to him as required

under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal

termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard

and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the

duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of

section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was

performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a

perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and

unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he

was engaged by the Party No. 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

6084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 FCl 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 FCl, 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.

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 FCl

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 05-07-1993

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 godowns are filled with food grains, then only, services

of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the

notification issued by the Central Government abolishing

contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and

Police personnel as security guards.

The further case of Party No. 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6085

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

the 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.

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

25-07-2013, 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, Nagpur

Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon’ble

High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the

order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in

the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and

others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were

employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the

Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they

have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since

the work on which they were employed is of perennial

nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the

Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and

passed the following order :

“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.

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.”

6086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-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 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 - LW - 477). Now where a

contractor employs a workman to do the work which

he contracted with a third person to accomplish on

the definition as it stands, the workman of the

contractor would not without something more

become the workman of that third person. Therefore,

when the workmen employed by the contractor were

certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union."

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :—

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or by

necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6087

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.”

12. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :—

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 were 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.

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.

6088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"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

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6089

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.

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.

13. 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 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.—

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

6090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2288-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ bf.M;u

bULVhV~;wV vkWiQ iqyl fjlpZ ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@02] 33@02] 24@02] 34@02] vkSj 23@02)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 19&09&2013 dks

çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@39@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

la- ,y&42012@38@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

la- ,y&42012@103@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

la- ,y&42012@102@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

la- ,y&42012@35@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/02,

33/02, 24/02, 34/02 and 23/02, ) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of IIPR, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 19-09-2013.

[No. L- 42012/39/2000-IR(CM-II),

No. L- 42012/38/2000-IR(CM-II),

No. L- 42012/103/2000-IR(CM-II),

No. L- 42012/102/2000-IR(CM-II),

No. L- 42012/35/2000-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LT- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

I.D. Nos. 22/02, 33/02, 24/02, 34/02 and 23/02

Reference Nos -

L-42012/39/2000-IR CM (II) dated 01.04.2002

L-42012/38/2000-IR CM (II) ) dated 27.03.2002

L-42012/103/2001-IR CM (II) dated 31.05.2002

L-42012/102/2001-IR CM (II) dated 31.05.2002

L-42012/35/2000-IR (CM-II) dated 26.03.2002

Industrial Dispute between-

1. Sri Suresh Kumar

2. Sri Saheb tal,

3. Sri Alok Kumar Awasthi

4. Ganesh Shanker.

5. Sri Ajai II

All care of Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Organization

Mantri, Bhariya Gramin Mazdoor Sangh, ( Intuc) 115/193,

A-2, Maswanpur, Kanpur.

And

The Director,

Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kalyanpur, G.T.

Road, Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Govt, Mol, New Delhi vide above reference

no. has referred the following dispute for adjudication to

this tribunal-

6. Whether the action of the Director Indian Institute

of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the

service of the following workers with effect from 31.12.99,

26.08.99, 26.08.99. 26.08.99 and 26.08.99

a. Sri Suresh Kumar

b. Sri Saheb tal,

c. Sri Alok Kumar Awasthi

d. Ganesh Shanker

e. Sri Ajai II

is legal and justified? If not to what relief the

workman is entitled?

2. Brief facts are-

3. These are the Five I.D. Cases being numbered as

22/02, 23/02, 24/02, 33/02 and 34/02 All these five cases

have been consolidated vide order dated 25.05.04 and I.D

No. 22/02 has been made as leading case wherein evidence

has been recorded for all the five cases considering it a

leading case.

4. Because all the cases are based on almost similar

facts and common question of law is involved so in my

view I am reproducing the facts of I.D no. 205/99. All the

five cases belong to termination like termination is legal

justified or not.

5. In the case of Suresh Kumar it has been alleged

that he was employed on 07.09.90 as a casual labor for the

permanent work by the Director of the opposite party . It

is alleged that the work against which the applicant was

engaged was of permanent nature which is there under

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6091

the opposite party. It is also stated that the opposite party

had not paid the claimant the wages of regular employee.

He had worked continuously for more than 240 days

preceding 12 months from the date of his termination. It is

also alleged that the opposite party has taken the services

of the contractor M/s. Anand Enterprises with effect from

30.04.98 and from this period the claimant was attached

with the contractor. It is also alleged that the opposite

party without any reason and without complying with the

mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

like section 25F has terminated the services of the applicant

with effect from 31.12.99 orally. It is also alleged that new

recruits were inducted in the employment by the opposite

party after termination of the services of the workmen. It is

also stated that some juniors to the claimant have been

retained in the services of the opposite party thereby the

opposite party has also committed breach of section 25G

and 25H of the Act.

6. Therefore it has been prayed that the workman is

entitled to be reinstated in the service of the opposite

party with full back wages and all consequential

benefits .

7. Opposite party has filed reply wherein the entire

claim of the workman has been refuted by them on the

ground that there never existed any relationship of

employer and employee between the management and the

workman, these workmen had never been engaged either

temporarily or permanent, therefore, there was no need for

compliance of section 25 F of the Act as the opposite

party had never terminated the services of the applicant.

The work under the opposite party was being taken

through the contractor. The work of the opposite party

against which it is alleged that the applicant was engaged

was seasonal one and the licensed contractor had

provided the services of labour for the work of Nirai,

Guarai etc. It is also claimed by the opposite party that

when these workers were never in their employment

question of termination of their services does not arise.

It is also pleaded by the opposite party that the

contractor who was the necessary party to the dispute

has not been arrayed as a party in the present dispute.

These workers might have been engaged with the

contractor but the opposite party has no concern with

its. Opposite party has also denied the fact that they

had ever breached the provisions of the Act in the case

of these workmen.

8. Therefore, it has been stated by the opposite party

that since the workmen were never in the employment of

the opposite party therefore, they are not entitled for any

relief as claimed by them.

9. The claimant has moved an application for

summoning certain records photocopies which were

enclosed with the application.

10. This application was disposed of on merits by

me vide order dated 28.08.12, where in the prayer of the

claimants were not considered.

11. Opposite party has also filed certain paper vide

list paper no.13/l. These are the photocopies of the license

30.04.98 onwards and photocopies of certain documents.

12. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence.

Claimant has adduced himself as W. W. 1 whereas opposite

party has produced Sri A. K. Saxena as M.W.1 who is an

officer of the establishment.

13. I have examined the oral as well as documentary

evidence of both the parties at length. M.W: 1 Sri Saxena

has specifically stated on oath that regarding these

claimants there had been no relationship of master and

servant. They had never been employed or engaged as a

casual labour temporary or on permanent basis directly

by the opposite party. It is also stated on oath that the

work which was being taken from the contractor like Anand

Enterprise and others who are the registered contractor

was of seasonal nature.

14. The statement of the management witness is un-

rebutted because after giving sufficient opportunity to

cross the witness the claimant has not cross examined

him. Therefore, in such circumstances his statement which

is on oath cannot be discarded.

15. I have examined the statement of w.w.l. His

statement is not supported by any cogent documentary

evidence. He admitted that when he was given employment

he was 14 years old. In my view a person who is below

18 years cannot be granted a govt. job. These workmen

are not having any appointment letter, there is no

termination letter. Some photocopies alleging to be

attendance register have been filed along with the claim

statement but there is no evidence to take the cognizance

of these photocopies. The claimant has not supported

these documents in his evidence also. The claimant has

himself pleaded in the claim statement that he was attached

with the contractor when the contractor joins with the

opposite party. Even in such situation the claimant did

not implead the contractor as a party. Therefore, the

statement of W.W.1 cannot be relied upon particularly in

the context when M.W.1 has not been cross examined and

his statement is uncontroverted.

16. As such there is no cogent documentary or oral

evidence in favour of the claimant from which it can be

inferred that there had been any relationship of employer

and employee between the disputants.

17. Therefore the evidence of the workman does

not inspire confidence and, is liable to be discarded.

18. Therefore the workman has failed to establish

that they have been engaged or employed by the opposite

6092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

party on March 90 or 7.9.90 or any other date as alleged by

the claimants in their respective claim statement and their

services have been terminated on 31.12.99 and 26.08.99 or

any other date as alleged by the claimant. They have also

failed to establish that they had worked for more than 240

days or more before termination of their services. It is also

held that no cause of action has arisen in favor of the

workmen in the facts and circumstances of the case.

19. Accordingly it is held that none of the workman

is entitled to any relief and the references are bound to be

decided against them and in favor of the Opposite party.

Dt. 10-05-2013

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2289-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ egkunh

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 88@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj

dks 20&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@152@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2013

S.O. 2289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Ananta

OCP, Jagannath Area of MCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 20-09-2013.

[No. L- 22012/152/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

I. D. CASE No. 88/2012

Date of Passing Order -11th June, 2013

Between:

The Project Officer, Ananta OCP,

Jagannath Area of MCL, Po. Dera Colliery,

Talcher, Dist. Angul, Orissa.

....1st Party-Management.

(And)

The General Secretary, Talcher Koila Khani

Mazdoor Sangh, At. Jamde Bhavan, Po. South Balanda,

Dist. Angul, Orissa - 759 116.

....2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None.

..... For the 1st Party-

Management.

None.

.... For the 2nd Party-

Union.

ORDER

Case taken up. Both the parties are absent. The 2nd

Party-Union has to file the statement of claim, but no

statement of claim has yet been filed, though a period of

more than six months has elapsed since the receipt of

reference in this Tribunal. Notices to the 2nd Party-Union

were sent on 4.l.20l3 and 6.5.2013 first by ordinary post

and the second by Regd. Post for filing of statement of

claim. But no response has been received from it.

Therefore, there is no use to keep the case pending

indefinitely. It might be that the 2nd Party-Union has either

settled the dispute with the lst Party- Management amicably

out of the court or may not be interested to prosecute its

case further. Hence a no-dispute award is to be passed in

the case and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed

and the reference is answered in the above terms.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2290-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ,iQ lh

vkbZ ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@2012)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 20&09&2013 dks

çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2013

S.O. 2290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2012)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6093

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of FCI and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 20-09-2013.

[No. L- 22013/1/2013-IR(C- II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 61/2012

Date of Passing Order - 2nd August, 2013

Between:

1. The Secretary, Food Corporation of India

Workers Co-operative Credit Society Limited,

At. Surya Vihar, Link Road, Post. A.D. Market,

Cuttack - 12.

2. The Chairman, Food Corporation of India

Workers' C-operative Credit Society Limited,

At. Surya Vihar, Link Road, Post. A.D. Market,

Cuttack - 12.

..... 1st Party-Managements.

(And)

Their workman Shri Subrat Kumar Samal,

Ex-Junior Accountant, the Food Corporation of

India Workers' Co-operative Credit Society

Limited,

.... 2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

Shri D. K. Nayak,

... For the 1st Party

Secretary.

Managements.

Shri Subrat Kumar

... For Himself the 2nd Party

Samal.

Workman

ORDER

On behalf of the Ist Party-Management a preliminary

objection has been orally raised on the point of

jurisdiction and maintainability of the case before this

Tribunal basing, the plea on the order dated 12.9.2012

passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P. (C)

No. 16334/2012 wherein the Hon 'ble High Court has

directed this Tribunal, to pass appropriate order on the

point of jurisdiction after giving opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner and the workman, if such a point is raised by

the petitioner.

2. Accordingly on raising the point of jurisdiction

both the parties were heard. On going through the record

of the case it is made clear that the 2nd Party-workman

was an employee of the 1st Party-Management, namely,

Food Corporation of India Workers Cooperative Credit

Society Limited. It has been contended on behalf of the

Management that the said society is registered under the

Multi State Co-operative Societies Act with the objective

for assisting its members financially and otherwise

particularly the workers of the Food Corporation of India.

The appropriate government so far as said Society is

concerned is not the Central Government. But the 2nd

Party-workman even after getting communication from the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) that F.C.I.

Workers Cooperative Credit Society Limited is not falling

under the purview of the Central. Government by

suppressing the facts has filed the present case under

Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act before this

Tribunal. Hence the notice issued to the Management is

illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

3. The 2nd Party-workman has filed written objection

to the oral submissions of the 1st Party-Management

stating that the Society is functioning under the control

and authority of the Central Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Government of India. Ministry of Agriculture,

Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, New Delhi

and therefore the C.G.I.T. has jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the dispute raised by him. The view expressed by

the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar, is contrary to the statute and the settled

position of law. The Conciliation Officer has no power to

adjudicate as to, who is the appropriate authority under

the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. The point of jurisdiction rests upon the definition

of the word "appropriate government" and then upon the

definition of the term "Industry" for deciding as to whether

the present application under section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act lies within the jurisdiction of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal or not. The defmition of

the term "appropriate government" as per Section 2(a) of

the Industrial Disputes Act has to be taken into

consideration. The crux of the definition lies herein as to

whether the industry in relation to which an industrial

dispute has arisen is being carried on by or under the

authority of the Central Government or such other

authorities as may be specified by the Central Government

in this behalf and in relation to any other industrial dispute

including the state public sector undertaking, subsidiary

companies set up by the principal undertaking and

autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State

6094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government, the State Government shall be the appropriate

government.

5. In the light of the above definition it is made clear

that the F.C.I. Workers Co-operative Credit Society Limited

does not come under the purview of Central Government

being an "Industry" not being run or carried on by or

under the authority of the Central Government. The Central

Government has also not notified it as a controlled industry.

It is registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies

Act, 1984 and works under the control and authority of

Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government

of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture

and Co-operation, New Delhi. All this does not bring it

into the domain of the Central Government as it is not

being run or carried on by or under the authority of the

Central Government nor it has been specified as a

controlled, industry. Therefore it cannot be said under

any stretch of imagination to be a Central Government

industry. As such in the present case the Central

Government is not the appropriate government.

6. Besides that sub-clause (9) of Clause (j) of Section

2 of the Industrial Disputes Act while defying an

"industry" precludes any activity being an activity carried

on by a Co-operative society or a club or any other like

body of individuals, if the number of persons employed

by the Co-operative society, club or other like body of

individuals in relation to such activity is less than ten

from the definition of "industry". It has not been made

clear by the 2nd Party-workman as to how many workers

either less or more than 10 are working in the F.C.I. Workers

Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Cuttack. Therefore it

is very much doubtful as to whether the, activities of the

Ist Party-Management can be described as an "Industry",

and if they do not constitute an "industry", the dispute

arisen between the Management and its employee does

not come within the definition of an industrial disputes.

7. In view of the matter this Tribunal is not

competent to take cognizance of the dispute raised by the

2nd Party-workman being devoid of jurisdiction. Therefore

the application moved by the 2nd Party-workman under

section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not

maintainable in this Tribunal.

8. The said application is accordingly dismissed as

not maintainable.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2291-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy

cSad ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh&02 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

43@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 6&09&2013

dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@79@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013

S.O. 2291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of PunjabNational Bank and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 6-09-2013.

[No. L- 12011/79/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present:- Sri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

I D No. 43/2011

The General Secretary,

PNB Employees Union, 217,

Himgiri Apartment, Outer Ring Road,

Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018

Versus

1 . The General Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Circle Office, Rajendra Bhawan,

Rajendra Place, New Delhi.

2. General Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

7 , Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry or Labour

vide notification No L- 12011/79/2010-IR(B-II) dated

27-05-2011, referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for the adjudication :-

‘‘Whether the action of General Manager. Punjab

National Bank.Bhikaji Cama Place. New Delhi in holding

industrial relation meetings with Punjab National Bank staff

Association instead of Punjab National Bank Employees

Union, is an act. of ‘Unfair Labour Practice’ under Section

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6095

2(r)(a) read with Section 25(1) and item 2 or Industrial

Dispute Act,1947 What relief the Union is entitled to?’’

On 30-6-2011 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No 43/2011, and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date or service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice claimant appeared and filed

statement of claim on 17-08-2011 .Through which he prayed

as follows :-

1. Directing the Management of the Bank to restore

Official Status or PNBEU Delhi (AIBEA), a Majority Union

in the State or Delhi to hold Industrial Relation Machinery

Meetings (IRMs) with Circle Office, Delhi/ Head Office

authorities as heretofore.

2.Directing the Bank to Stop holding IRM with

Minority Union i.e. PNBAS Delhi (neither affiliated to

AIBLA nor recognized by DSBEF), in the State of Delhi.

3. Any other Order or relief which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper be also awarded in favour of PN

BEU, Delhi against the Management.

On 23/11/2011 W.S. Filed by Management. Wherein

allegations of statement of claim were denied. It was prayed

that in view or the submissions made as above, bank has

not committed any Unfair Labour Practice in holding the

IRM Meetings with the majority union as per the

settlements and the same is not violativc of Section 2S(T)

of the Industrial Disputes act.l947. It is, therefore, prayed

that the statement of claim filed by the General Secretary,

PNBEU (Delhi) before the Hon’ble Court may please be

dismissed.

On 06-03-2012 Rejoinder of the Claimant was filed

and prayed as follows:-

The Management has wrongly contended that they

are holding IRM with the Majority Union as per the

settlements whereas the fact is that PNBSA- Delhi is a

Minority Union in the State or Delhi. The Settlement

referred to the Bank no where restricts the Majority Union

to hold IRM/Joint Discussion with PNBEU, Delhi a

Majority Union in the State of Delhi. Thus, it is violative

of Section 25T and Item 2 of Fifth Schedule or the said Act

and forbidden by Law.

We, therefore, request this Hon'ble Court to please

pass an order that the Bank should hold IRM /Joint

Discussion with PNBEU, Delhi (a Majority Organization

in the State of Delhi) and sign the Minutes of the Meeting

on the same pattern as is being done with PNB Sharrnik

Union (not Affiliated to AIPNBEF) in the State of West

Bengal and signing the Minutes of the Meeting.

The Hon’ble Court may also pass any other Order

or relief which this Hon’ble Court Deem fit and proper

under the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the basis of pleadings of parties as well as

argument or Ld. A/R/Ld. Counsel for parties no issue other

than the one mentioned in the schedule or reference needs

to be framed.

Thereafter claimant is support of his case produce

himself as W1, and filed certain documents.

On 08/05/2013 Sri R K Agarwal Senior Manager of

the Bank express his desire not to adduce any evidence

on behalf of Management. Hence evidence of Management

closed and 18/06/2013 was fixed for argument.

I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel/ A/R for

the parties at length and perused the pleadings as well as

evidence of the parties.

I also perused the following provisions :-

1.S 2(ra) Which defines "unfair labour practice" as

follows- means any of the practices specified in the fifth

schedule.

2.S.25-T Prohibition of Unfair Labour Practice

provides that no Employer or Workman or a Trade Union.

Whether registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 or

not, shall commit any Unfair Labour Practice.

3. The fifth Schedule which is in two part as

follows :-

(i) on the part of employees and trade unions of

employees.

(ii) on the part or workmen and trade unions of

workmen.

A/R for claimant union stressed that union Safe

Guard the interest of workman as well as of public even

then Management Bank has not invited the Claimant Union

for discussion on the points put up in meetings. He further

stressed that in Bank situated in State or West Bengal

Claimant Union is invited in meetings of bank for

discussion on the points put up in meetings .Hc pointed

out disparity in procedure followed by Management Bank

in conducting meetings.

Ld. Counsel for the Management Bank replied that

meetings were held for limited purpose i.e. Industrial

Relation Machinery Meetings (9RMS). Hence

Management with Majority Union Bank committed no

Unfair Labour Practice.

In the light contentions and counter contentions I

perused the provisions of S10 (I-B) (a) of Industrial Dispute

Act which been added by West Bengal State Government

Amendment on 08/12/1989, in which widens the scope of

S 10 of Industrial Dispute in state of West Bengal Act. In

6096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

this background Ld. Counsel for Claimant Union cannot

be permitted to participate in the meetings of Management

Bank. Which were held for limited purpose. Hence

Management Bank cannot be held liable for committing

any Unfair Labour Practice.

In case of Workmen Vs. IITI cycles of India. Ltd

1995 Supp(2) S.C.C. 733 their lordship of Hon’ble Supreme

Court laid down following principle :-

"It is not obligatory on the part of the Government

to make a reference in each and every case at the instance

of the Union. It has to weigh the facts keeping in view the

objective of industrial peac and smooth industrial relations

between the parties and if it finds that in the interest or

industrial peace it is not necessary to make a reference."

In case of Workman Vs. Sri RangaVilas Motors (P)

Ltd., A/R 1976 S.C. 1040 their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme

Court explained the following words:-

"Words "interested' and "affected in Section

10( 1A) and 10(5) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The

Union which sponsors the cause or an individual workman

is "interested" in the dispute but the workmen who are

not necessary "affected" by the dispute" In such case

reference for adjudication is not required. Aforesaid

principles applies with full force in the instant case.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of

considered view that Claimant Union is entitled for no

relief. Hence its statement of claim dissmmissed. Reference

is decided against Claimant Union. Award is accordingly

passed.

Dated : 07-08-2013

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2292-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj bf.M;u

,;jykbUl fyfeVsM ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 119@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh;

ljdkj dks 12&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20013@2@2013&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2013

S.O. 2292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indian Airlines Ltd. and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

12-09-2013.

[No. L- 20013/2/2013-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DELHI

I. D.No. 119/2012

Ms.Aarti Parasar & others,

R/o H. No .18/17 A, Azad Nagar,

Bagh Karekhan Kishan Ganj,

Delhi - 110007.

....Applicants

Versus

The Chief Operating Officer,

IAL Airport Services Limited,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi.

...Respondent

AWARD

Indian Airlines Limited-Airport Services Limited

(hereinafter referred to as the management), a wholly

owned subsidiary of Indian Airlines Limited was

incorporated under the Companies. Act, 1956. Ms.Aarti

Parasar and others were working with the management

since October, 2004 as Security Sub-Assistant. Issues

raised by the Security Sub Assistants regarding

enhancement of remuneration and facilities were

considered from time to time. On 28.01.2009, the General

Manager (Personnel), Northern Region of the Indian

Airlines Ltd. held a meeting with the union and thereafter

certain issues, relating to increase in remuneration and

grant of additional benefits were forwarded to the Office

of the Chief Operating Officer of the management for

consideration. In the meanwhile, the Security Sub-

Assistants started threatening the management and in that

process resorted to neglecting their duties, became non-

cooperative and went on illegal strike. Consequently,

services of 22 Sub-Assistants were terminated vide orders

dated 31.05.2009 and 01.06.2009. Aggrieved by that Act, a

dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer. When

conciliation proceedings failed, they present claim

statement for adjudication of the dispute under the

provisions of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). Claimant presents that a period of

45 days stood expired from the date of making an

application before the Conciliation Officer. According to

them, sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empower

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6097

them to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being

referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government.

2. Claim statement was filed by the claimants pleading

that they were working with the management since

11.10.2004 as Security Sub-Assistants, on fixed

remuneration of Rs.5500.00 per month, to be revised to

RS.6500.00 after completion of training. On completion of

training on 17.09.2007, the claimants were given extensions

from time to time. A meeting was held between the claimants

and the management to press their legal demands relating

to provident fund and medical facility through ESIC etc.

But, despite reminders sent to the management, their

grievances remained unredressed. In the meanwhile, the

management issued orders to the effect that no leave

application of any kind from the security staff is to be

entertained. It was also intimated to them that since a

decision on their demands is being taken, hence they are

to refrain from wearing black ribbon. The claimants did

not absent themselves from duty even for a single day.

However, they wore black badges and held peaceful

protest. As a retaliatory measure, the management orally

terminated their services without notice on 02.06.2009, in

violation of the provisions of the Act. Writ petition filed

by them, before the High Court of Delhi, was dismissed

with liberty to approach an Industrial Adjudicator.

Claimants plead that order, terminating their services

orally, may be quashed, and they be reinstated in service

with continuity, full back wages and consequential

benefits:

3. Claim was demurred by the management stating

that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Indian Airlines Ltd.

The Indian Airlines Ltd. was nominated as single agency

at IGI Airport Terminal 11 for seourity handling of all

airlines. Required manpower for security functions and

for airport handling were to be recruited on fixed term

contract on consolidated remuneration. Recruitment of

such persons were done in categories of Sub-Assistants

(Support Service-Security I and Support Services

Commercial) initially in 2004. Since the management had

not commenced operations, the personnel so engaged

were deputed to Airline Allied Services Ltd., another wholly

owned subsidiary Company of erstwhile Indian Airlines

Ltd. The terms and conditions of service were expressly

mentioned in the letter of contract issued to each Sub-

Assistant, who accepted those terms. However, issues

raised by the Sub-Assistants, from time to. time regarding

enhancement of remuneration and facilities, were

considered. The General Manager (Personnel), Northern

Region of the Indian Airlines Ltd. held a meeting with the

union where certain local issues were discussed. Issues

relating to increase in remuneration and grant of additional

benefits etc. were forwarded to the office-of Chief

Operating Officer for consideration. However, the said

Sub-Assistants started threatening the management,

started neglecting work and threatened to go on a march

near the departure area of IGI Airport. Vide office order

dated 21.05.2009, it was circulated that no leave was to be

entertained from any of the Security Staff. On the same

day, it was observed that some of them were wearing black

badges on the front line and were instigating their other

colleagues to do so, thus hampering peaceful working

environment and tarnishing the image of the National

Carrier. On 31.05.2009, they resorted to illegal strike in

complete disregard to instructions, issued on 29.05.2009.

Consequently, services of 22 Sub-Assistants were

terminated on 31.05.2009 and 01.06.2009. The remaining

Sub-Assistants continued to "be on strike. Matter was

seized in conciliation. On 03.06.2009, the Conciliation

Officer directed them to call of the strike. However, despite

the direction, they continued with their illegal strike. Vide

order dated 05.06.2009 it was declared that 20 of such Sub-

Assistants - had voluntarily abandoned their duties and

accordingly their names stood deleted. The conciliation

proceedings with regard to the demand of Sub- Assistants,

relating to increased remuneration and benefits, alongwith

the issues of termination of their services ended in a failure

on 27.07.2009, but no reference was made by the

appropriate Government. Hence, claim may be dismissed,

being devoid of merits, pleads the management.

On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(1)Whether claimants fulfil pre-condition laid down

under sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

(2)Whether direct dispute raised by the claimant is

barred by limitation?

(3) Whether the claim is not maintainable since the

management has closed down its operations on

25.03.2011?

(4) Whether claimants are entitled to relief of

reinstatement in service.

5. Issue No.(1) and (2) are treated as preliminary

issues. Shri Rakesh Mudgal, authorised representative of

the claimant, submitted that there is, no necessity to lead

evidence in the matter since preliminary issues can be

adjudicated on legal parameters and closed evidence of

the claimants. Shri Ravi Gopal, authorized representative

of the management also chose not to adduce any evidence

on behalf of the management.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Rakesh

Mudgal, authorized representative advanced arguments

on behalf of the workman. Shri Ravi Gopal, authorized

representative raised his submissions on behalf of the

management. I have given my careful considerations to

the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

6098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No.1 and 2.

7. As record projects, dispute under reference was

raised by the claimants, under sub section (2) of section

2A of the Act. Provisions of section 2A of the Act

contemplates that any dispute or difference between the

workman and his employer connected with or arising out

of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall

be deemed to be an industrial dispute, not withstanding

that no other workman nor any union of workman is party

to the dispute. Language, used in section 2A of the Act,

very clearly states that in order to make a dispute an

industrial dispute, it must be sponsored by a union or a

considerable number of workmen in the establishment of

the management. However, any dispute between a

workman and his employer, which is connected with or

arising out of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute.

8. A long line of decisions, handed down by the

Apex Court, had established that an individual dispute

could not per se be an industrial dispute; but could

become one if it was taken up by a trade union or a

considerable number of workmen of the establishment.

This position of law created hardship for individual

workmen, who were discharged, dismissed, retrenched or

whose services were otherwise terminated when they could

not find support by a union or any appreciable number of

workman to espouse their cause. Section 2A was engrafted

in the Act by the Amendment Act of 1965 and it has to be

read as an extension of the definition of industrial dispute

contained in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act. Thus by

way of extension of definition of industrial dispute, by

insertion of section 2A of the Act, the dispute of an

individual workman connected with or arising out of his

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination

of his service by his employer has been brought within

the ambit of the Act.

9. Industrial workman has got a very restricted right

to move an industrial court when his service conditions

have been changed to his prejudice during pendancy of

an industrial dispute or he has been dismissed or

discharged during such pendancy, under section 33-A of

the Act. He has a right to recover certain dues from his

employer under section 33(C)(2) of the Act. An individual

workman who had been thrown out of employment had to

rely for redress only through aegis of the union or his co-

workers where there was no union. Sometimes he found it

hard to proceed further or get the union to take up his

cause. Besides, there are industries where so far no union

have been formed. Workers are still, in certain industries,

unorganized. Enactment of section 2A of the Act was

taken up by the Parliament solely with a view to modify

the law to raise industrial. disputes relating to discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

services of the workmen.

10. Classification between workmen unaided by

union or considerable number of workmen and workman

whose cause is espoused by a union or considerable

number of workmen has been made by the legislature,

when provisions of section 2A were brought on the Statute

Book. Thus, it is evident that by way of extension of

definition of industrial dispute relating to discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of the

workmen, Legislature provided remedy to the workmen

who is unaided by a union or considerable number of

workmen. Section 2A of the Act does hot destroy the

concept of industrial dispute and collective dispute and

such concept still remains as a major class and in all other

provisions of the Act. Consequently, it is evident that

excepting the disput relating to dispute of dismissal,

discharge, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

services of a workman, a dispute is to be espoused by the

union or considerable number of workmen to reach the

status of an industrial dispute.

11. Even in cases of dispute between a workman

and his employer connected with or arising out of his

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of his

service, it has to pass through the procedure provided in

the Act. For raising a dispute, an employee has to raise a

demand on the employer and thereafter he has to raise the

dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who had to enter

into the conciliation proceedings. In case conciliation

proceedings fails, the Conciliation Officer submits his

report to the appropriate Government. On consideration

of the report, so submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the

appropriate Government has to form an opinion that an

industrial disputes exists or is apprehended and refer that

dispute to an industrial adjudicator under sub-clause (c)

or (d), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Act. Procedure, referred above, would take

considerable time and an employee had to wait for the

decision of the appropriate Government, making reference

to an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of the dispute.

With a view to do away with this hardship, Legislature,

vide Amendment Act No.24 of 2010, inserted sub section

(2) and (3) in section 2A and re-numbered original section

as sub section (1) in order to enable the workman to

approach an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of his

dispute, without it being referred by the appropriate

Government. For sake of convenience, provisions of sub-

section (2) and (3) of section 2A of the Act are reproduced

thus:

‘‘(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section

10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section

(1) may make an application 'direct to Labour Court

or industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute

referred to therein after expiry of forty five days from

the date he has made the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government

for conciliation of the dispute and in receipt of such

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6099

application, the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have

powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the

dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the

appropriate Government in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this

Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as

they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred

to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall

be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in sub-section (1).’’

12.

Bare perusal of sub-section (3) of section 2A

makes it clear that an application for adjudication of an

industrial dispute, relating to discharge dismissal,

retrenchment or termination of his service can be moved,

by an employee before expiry of three years from the date

of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service, as the case may be .

13. Provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of

the Act empowers a workman to move an application before

an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute,

after expiry of 45 days from the date he made such

application before the Conciliation Officer. On receipt of

such application, the industrial adjudicator shall have

powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as if it

were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate

Government, in accordance with provisions of the Act.

Thus, it is evident that before moving an application before

an Industrial Adjudicator, the workman has to approach

the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of his dispute. In

case no settlement is arrived at or conciliation proceedings

goes beyond a period of 45 days from the date the workman

had moved the application to the Conciliation officer, he

may approach the Industrial Adjudicator for adjudication

of his dispute, without being referred by the appropriate

Government under the provisions of the Act.

Consequently, it is evident that before approaching an

Industrial Adjudicator, workman. whose services have

been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated by

his employer, shall have to approach the Conciliation

Officer and wait for expiry of a period of 45 days, in case

no settlement arrived between them. Obligation to

approach the Conciliation Officer and allow him to enter

into conciliation proceedings are mandatory. It is also

obligatory on the workman to wait for a period of 45 days

and only thereafter he can seek indulgence of an industrial

adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute. In case he opts

not to approach the Conciliation Officer or fails to wait for

a period of 45 days from the date of moving his application,

the Industrial Adjudicator will acquire no jurisdiction to

entertain the dispute.

14. As emerged out of the claim statement, claimants

were dismissed/ discharge-a on 31.05.2009/01.06.2009 and

05.06.2009. They served notice of demand dated 11.08.2007

of} the management. Subsequently, they raised a dispute

before the conciliation officer for redressal of their

grievance. Management project that the Conciliation

Officer entered into conciliation proceedings and made

efforts for settlement on 27.07.2009, which efforts could

not succeed due to stubborn attitude shown by the

claimants.

15. Out of facts presented by the claimants, it

emerged over the record that their services were

disengaged by the management in May and June 2007.

They project a case of dismissal/discharge of their services

by the management on 31.05.2009/01.06.2009 and

05.06.2009. For approaching this Tribunal, under

provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act,

limitation of three year from the date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of an

employee has been imposed by the legislature. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimants could have approached this

Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act till

30.05.2012/31.05.2012 and 04.06.2012 only. As is evident,

claim statement was filed by them on 16.10.2012.

Apparently their claim statement, to approach the Tribunal

for adjudication of their dispute without being referred by

the appropriate Government, is barred by time. Under these

circumstances, this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction

for adjudication of the dispute.

16. Since the dispute has been raised beyond the

period of limitation, the Tribunal cannot entertain it. Under

these circumstances, the Tribunal is constrained to

announce that the claim statement cannot be entertained

under sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act. 'The

preliminary issues are answered in favour of the

management and against the claimants.

17. Since the preliminary issues, which are

jurisdictional in nature, are answered against the claimant

there remains no occasion to adjudicate the factual issues.

Hence adjudication of factual issues is not resorted to.

Those issues are left unanswered for want of jurisdiction

to do so.

18. In view of foregoing discussion, it is announced

that the Tribunal cannot entertain the dispute, being barred

by time. Claim statement, presented by the claimants,

cannot be entertained. Accordingly. Their claim is

dismissed, being beyond period of limitation enacted in

sub-section (3) of section 2A of the Act. An award is,

accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dr. R. K.YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 10.07. 2013

6100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2293-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj bf.M;u cSad

ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&02] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

07@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

27&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@28@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2013

S.O. 2293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on

27-09-2013.

[No. L- 12011/28/2006-IR(B- II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Sri Harbansh Kumar Saxena, Presiding Officer

I D No. 7/2007

Smt. Shree Devi,

W/o Shri Ram Prasad,

C/o Okhla Industrial Workers Union (Regd.)

Opp Kalkaji Bus Depot, Govindpuri,

New Delhi-110019

Versus

The Manager,

Indian Bank, 47-48, Pragati House,

Nehru Place, New Delhi.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry or Labour

vide notification No L- 12011/28/2006-IR(R-II) dated

12-02-2007, referred the following Industrial Dispute to

this tribunal for the adjudication :-

‘‘Whether the action of management of Indian Bank

in terminating the services of Smt. Shree Devi Safaiwalli

w.e.f. 13-3-2005 is just, fair and legal? If not to what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to and from which

date?’’

On 26-3-2007 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register asI.D. No 07/2007, and claimant were

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date or service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman filed reply to claim

statement on 7-12-2007 through which she claimed that

this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an award

directing the Management to reinstate the worker with all

consequential benefits and continuity of service along

with the full back wages.

Where management filed Written Statement on

7-12-2007. Wherein Contents of Claim Statement were

virtually denied as follows :-

1. Contents of Para 1 of the claim statement are wrong

and vehemently denied. The claimant has never worked

on a consolidated salary and her services were never

terminated by the bank. It is pertinent to appraise the

Hon’ble Tribunal with the correct factual position. The

claimant was never appointed by the bank or regular basis.

Admittedly, she was engaged as a casual worker on a

need based situation and she was asked to do the cleaning

job on daily basis, whenever the part time sweeper in the

bank’s rolls was absent. It is further submitted that she

was never engaged continuously by the respondent bank

hence the question of her termination does not arise. The

claim statement filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed

at the thresh hold itself.

2. Contents of para 2 of the claim statement are wrong

and denied. It is submitted that the claimant was never

engaged on permanent basis. In fact as has been stated in

the preceding paras her engagement was purely on a need

based daily basis. Hence she cannot be a member of the

union. The Union espousing her cause is not a union in

the Bank. Hence the averment made by the claimant in the

corresponding para is totally frivolous.

3. Contents of para 2 of the claim statement are wrong

and baseless hence are vehemently denied. In this regard

it is submitted that as has been stated in the preceding

paras the claimant was engaged by the bank on need based.

daily basis in the absence of its part time sweeper . Hence

the question of her termination does not arise at all. The

claimant has raised false, frivolous and baseless pleas

only to gain undue advantage from this Hon’ble Tribunal.

The fact is the claimant was never been in continuous

services with the respondent. She was been paid money

on daily basis as and when she was called to work and

engaged.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6101

4. Contents of para 4 of the claim statement are wrong

and vehemently denied. The management has filed a

detailed reply wherein they have stated the correct factual

position before the Conciliation Officer. It is pertinent to

mention here that the claimant has only misrepresented

the fact before the Conciliation Officer.

5. Contents of para 5 of the claim statement is a

matter of record and needs no reply.

6. Contents of para 4 of the claim statement are wrong

and vehemently denied. It is submitted that when the

claimant was not appointed by the Bank and a regular

rolls of the bank and also when the claimant was engaged

on need based daily basis and was paid then and there

she is not entitled to any benefits given to duly appointed

employees as per rules. The claimant is misguiding and

misleading this Hon’ble Tribunal by raising unwanted

pleas and averments.

7. Contents of para 7 of the claim statement are wrong

and denied. The claimant was engaged on need basis by

the respondent bank in the absence of its part time sweeper,

hence the question of her termination does not arises. As

the claimant was not appointed to any post and was

engaged on a causal basis and that too intermittently, the

question of invoking Sec. 25 F of ID Act does not arise at

all.

8. Contents of para 8 of the statement of claim is

wrong and denied. The claimant may be put to strict proof

for the averments made in this para.

9. Contents of para 9 of the statement of claim is a

matter of record needs no reply.

10. Contents of para 10 of the statement of claim is

wrong and vehemently denied. As has been stated in the

preceding paras the claimant is engaged purely on casual

basis on daily wages. She is aware of this position of such

engagement. The claimant is trying to invoke sympathy

of this Hon’ble Tribunal. Courts have repeatedly held that

absorption in permanent service on ground of sympathy

is not sustainable.

11. Contents of para 11 of the statement of claim are

wrong and denied. The claimant is not covered under

section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

12-14. Contents of para 12 to 14 of the statement of

claim are wrong and vehemently denied. The claimant has

raised false, baseless and misconceived pleas. It is

specifically mentioned that the Industrial Disputes Act is

not applicable to the claimant. Hence the claim statement

filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed. It is further

submitted that as has been stated in the preceding paras

since the claimant was engaged purely on need based and

daily basis and she was not on the bank’s rolls therefore

the question of her re-joining does not exis/arise at all.

The claimant has filed a false, frivolous and concocted

claim and trying to abuse to the process of law. Hence the

same is liable to be dismissed.

15. Contents of para 15 of the statement of claim are

wrong and vehemently denied. The well settled law is that

there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek

regularization and regularization can be done only in

accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. The

claimant was never engaged on regular basis. Infact her

engagement was purely on casual and temporary basis.

As has been stated by the claimant in the correspondening

para her job was not perennial and permanent in nature.

As has been stated in the preliminary objections as well

as in the preceding paras of reply on merits. The

respondent bank has appointed Sh. Manish Ram as a part

time sweeper and he was on the regular rolls of the bank

since from the inception of the bank and it is due to the

absence of Sh. Munshi Ram the respondent bank has to

engage the claimant i.e. Smt. Sree Devi on daily basis which

was purely on need basis for which she was been paid on

daily basis. Hence the averment of the claimant that the

management has illegally disengaged her with ulterior

motive is baseless. Misconceived and without any

authenticity. In light of the said fact the claim statement

filed by the claimant is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed.

Prayer para of the statement of claim is false,

untenable and the claimant is not legally entitled for any

reinstatement with all consequential benefits and

continuity of service. No right had accrued to the claimant

to claim any benefit from the Bank.

In view of the above narrated factual position it is

most respectfully paryed that the claim statement filed by

the claimant is not maintainable and the same is liable to

be dismissed with exemplary cost in favour of the

respondent bank.

Against reply workman filed rejoinder wherein she

stated as follows:-

1. The contents of the para no. 1 of the reply are

wrong and hence categorically denied. It is submitted that

the claimant was engaged by the management and she

has worked since May, 1990 till March, 2005. The

management has not regularized the services of the claimant

and when she requested for the legal facilities including

regularization of her services, she was terminated.

2-6. The contents of the para no. 2-6 of the reply are

wrong and hence categorically denied. It may be submitted

that there is no bar in law for the present Union to fight the

cause of the present worker.

For rest of the contents the reply the corresponding

paras of the Statement of Claim are reiterated.

7-15. The contents of the para no.7-15 of the reply

are wrong and hence calegorically denied. It may be

6102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

submitted that the claimant was engaged by the

management in May 1990 and since then she worked till

March 2005. The management used to change the mode of

her payment for the reason that the management could

take different stand to thwart the legal claim of the worker.

It is totally illegal that the claimant till date been shown

as casual worker and the management has not regularized

the services of the worker.

The poor claimant has no choice but to initiate the

present proceeding when the management terminated her

services illegally and did not allow her to resume her duties

despite her repeated requests.

For rest of the contents of the reply the contents of

the corresponding para of the Statement of claim are

reiterated.

The prayer clause are denied.

It is therefore most respectfully prayed the

management may kindly be directed to reinstate the claimant

with the full back wages and regularize the worker at the

post she has been working since long.

Workman/Claimant in support of her case filed her

affidavit on 09/05/2008. Wherein she mentioned as follows:-

1. Smt. Sri Devi W/o Shri Ram Prasad, aged about 55

years C/o Okhla Industrial Worker Union (Regd.), Affiliated

to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Opposite Kalkaji Bus Depot,

New Delhi-110019 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That I am the worker in the aforesaid matter and

well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

case matter and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the management engaged me at the post of

Safaiwali since May,1990. My salary was Rs.1500 per month.

My services were terminated on 13-03-2005.

3. That the Union sent a demand notice dated

17.06.2005 to the management. The management did not

respond to the demand notice. Then I approached to the

Conciliation Officer by way of filing his claim dated

11-08-2005.

4. That I was illegally disengaged by the Mgt.

without any rhyme and reason. I served the management

with almost devotion and promptness. There was no

complaint against me.

5. That the management responded to the claim

before the Conciliation Officer and filed factually wrong

reply and illegally denied my claim.

6. That the management has not provided the legal

facilities like appointment letters, earn leave, casual leave,

attendance register, leave, ESI, Bonus etc. and when I

demanded the same I was ousted from the service.

7. That the management neither gave any show

cause notice nor paid notice pay and terminated my services

without following the provisions of the I.D. Act.

8. That I have been rendered jobless and I am

unemployed from the date of illegal disengagement from

the service. I am ready and willing to join duty as and when

I am allowed to do so.

The management is well aware that my husband is

suffering of cancer and I am the only beard earner for my

family. My family is at the verge of starvation. My husband

is at death bed. And I have absolutely no other source of

income. My children are minors and the whole family

depends upon me for their bread.

This is very unfair. Instead of regularizing my services

the management took extreme step which is likely to be

fatal for my family.

9. That I was engaged on the post of Safaiwali and

my job has always been of perennial and permanent nature.

the management has illegally disengaged me with ulterior

motive to engage some other persons. My juniors have

been working there while I have been ousted without any

reason.

10. That a copy of the demand notice dated 17.06.2005

with receipts are exhibited as Ex.WW 1/1(Colly). Copy of

the claim of the worker, reply of the management and the

rejoinder thereto are exhibited collectively and marked as

Ex.WW 1/2 (Colly). A testimonial issued by Senior Manager.

Indian Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi in favour of the me is

exhibited as Exh.WW1/3. Copy of pay vouchers dated

2.04.97, 2.5.97, 3.02.98, 9.3.98, 11.4.98, 4.5.98, 2.7.98, 3.10.98,

3.11.98, 8.11.99, 6.12.99, 5.1.2000, and 3.3.2000 are exhibited

as Exh. WW 1/4 (Colly). Copy of Passbook of S.B. A/c

No.353845 entries dated 25.01.2001 to 31.10.01 are exhibited

as Exh. WW 1/5 (Colly).

That I was engaged on the post of Safaiwali and any

job has always been of perennial and premanent nature.

The management has illegally disengaged me with ulterior

motive to engage some other persons. My juniors have

been working there while I have been outsed without any

reason.

No cross-examination on behalf of management

conducted.

No Evidence on behalf of management

adduced.

Argument on hehalf of workman/claimant heard as

none appeared on behalf of management for counter

contentions. I perused the evidence on record in the light

of contentions on behalf of workman/claimant.

Termination of service of workman/claimant who

completed 240 days of work during a period of 12 month

proceeding the date of termination. An order of termination

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6103

passed in violation of provision although can be set aside

but an award of reinstatement should not. However, be

automatically passed.

The

factors

which

are

relevant

for

determining the same, inter alia are:-

(i) whether in making the appointment, the statutory

rules, if any, had been complied with.

(ii) The period he had worked.

(iii) whether there existed any vacancy, and

(iv) whether he obtained some other employment

on the date of termination in passing of the award.

No appointment can be made by authority without

following provisions of the recruitment rules.Any

appointment made in violation of the said reles would be a

nullity as per provisions of Articles 14 & 16 Indian

Constitution.

Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment

on daily wages or on an adhoc basis was permissible, but

by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to

be permanently absorbed in service or made statutory

rules. Merely bcsause an employee completed 240 days of

work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment or

termination. the same would not mean that his services

were liable to be regularized.

As per Settled Law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a

situation of this nature instead and in place of directing

reinstatement with full back wages the workman should be

granted adequate manetary compensation.

I am of considered view that payment of a sum of Rs.

50.000 (Fifty thousand only) by way of damages to the

workman/claimant by the management after expiry of period

fo writ petition that will serve the purpose. Exparte Award

is accordingly passed.

Dated: 25-09-2013

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2294-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj fot;k cSad ds

çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

12@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks

27&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@56@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013

S.O. 2294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No.12/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Vijaya Bank and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 27-09-2013.

[No. L-12012/56/2008-IR(B- II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present :- Sri Harbansh Kumar Saxena, Presiding Officer

I D No. 42/2009

Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Jagdish Prasad,

R/o Jaipuria Mills, Ghanta Ghar,

Subji Mandi,

Delhi-110007.

Versus

The Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

Kamla Nagar,

Delhi-110007.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-12012/56/2008-IR(B-II) dated

6-2-2008, referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for the adjudication :-

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Vijaya

Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Vinod Kumar

w.e.f. 7-8-2007 is just, fair and legal? To what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to and from which

date?’’

On 15-6-2009 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No 12/2009, and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days from

date or service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman filed claim statement

through which he claimed that Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to pass an award in favour of workman thereby

holding the termination of the workman as illegal and

unjustified and directing the management to reinstate the

workman along with full back wages and continuity of

service and consequential benefits and all other legal dues

as the same is very necessary in the interest and

furtherance of justice and equity.

6104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Where management filed written statement on

30-06-2010. Wherein Contents of Claim Statement were

virtually denied as follows:-

1. That the contents of Para-1 as stated are not

admitted. However, it is admitted that the claimant was

engaged intermittently as a part time Sweeper at the bank’s

Kamla Nagar Branch upto 7-8-2007. The engagement of

the claimant was on daily wage basis and the same has

been admitted by him in his legal notice dated 27.08.2007.

The claimant was paid daily wages @ Rs.80 per day as and

when he was engaged. His name was not sponsored by

the Employment Exchange. His engagement was not

against any advertisement. The claimant did not go through

any selection procedure or test or interview before his

engagement on daily wages basis. The averments made

that he was working in a regular post and continuously

is threfore wrong and denied.

2. That contents of Para-2 as stated are wrong and

denied. It is stated that the claimant was only engaged

intermittently for part time work upto the period 07.08.2007.

He was paid Rs. 80 per day for the services rendered as and

when he was engaged.

3. That the contents of Para-3 as stated are wrong

and denied. It wrong and denied that the management

used to take the work of Daftri/Peon from the claimant.

4. That the contents of Para-4 as stated are wrong

and denied. It is wrong and denied that any assurance was

given to the claimant that he would be absorbed with the

management Bank. It is wrong and vehemently denied that

he had worked for more than 12 years with the management.

In fact the engagement of the claimant was on temporary

basis and the same would not give him any right for

absorption. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been

rejected by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case as referred to

above.

5. That the contents of Para-5 as stated are wrong

and denied for want of knowledge. It is wrong and denied

that any hope was given to the claimant that he would be

appointed on permanent basis in the bank. The claimant

was appointed intermittently on daily wage basis and he

had accepted such engagement with his open eyes.

6. That the contents of Para-6 as stated are wrong

and denied. It is submitted that merely submitting of

representations by the claimant would not give him any

right for permanent absorption with the management bank.

It is again reiterated that the recruitment in the subordinate

cadre of the management bank is through the Employment

Exchange and after following due recuritment procedure.

The local Employment Exchange has to sponsor the

candidates to be considered for selection and appointment

in the subordinate staff cadre.

7. That the contents of Para-7 as stated are wrong

and denied. It is wrong and denied that the claimant had

worked for 91 days during the period 1984 to 1989 as

alleged by him in fact in his representation made to the

Bank he has submitted his Date of Birth as 01.12.1972 and

in that case he would attain his majority only on 01.12.1990

and therefore the allegation that he was engaged in 1984

to 1989 could not be believed as he would be a minor at

that time.

8. That the contents of Para-8 as stated are wrong

and denied. It is wrong and denied that the claimant was

working on regular basis as has been alleged or that he

was working at a permanent post of Sweeper. The claimant

was only engaged on temporary basis and was paid

according to his days of working.

9. That the contents of Para-9 as stated are wrong

and denied. It is wrong and denied that there was any

unfair labour practice followed by the management. It is

submitted that since the claimant was on daily wage basis

he was paid according to the days of his working.

10. That the contents of Para-10 as stated are wrong

and denied. Since the claimant was only on temporary and

on daily wage basis the question of issuance of any charge-

sheet/show cause notice does not arise.

11. That the contents of Para-11 as stated are not

admitted. However it is a matter of record that the

engagement of the claimant intermittently was till

6th August, 2007 and he was paid according to his days

of working.

12. That the Para-12 as stated are not admitted.

However, it is submitted that since the claimant was on

daily wage basis his services were no longer required w.e.f.

07/08/2007. The question of issuing any Show Cause Notice

or Charge-sheet does not arise in the facts of the present

case.

13. That the contents of Para-13 are wrong and

denied. It is submitted that there is no violation of Section

25 F, 25 G and 25 H of the industrial Disputes Act,1947. It is

further submitted that since the claimant was on daily wages

basis he would not be entitled to retrenchment

compensation as stated in this paragraph.

14. That the contents of Para-14 as stated are wrong

and denied. It is sumitted that there is no unfair labour

practice or no violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act,1947.

15. That the content of Para-15 in so far as they relate

to demand notice dated 27/08/2007, the same being matter

of record is not disputed. However the averments made in

the said notice are wrong and vehemently denied.

16. That the contents of Para-16 as stated are wrong

and denied. It is unbelievable that the claimant would be

not gainfully employed anywhere.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6105

17. That the contents of Para-17 need no reply.

On the basis of which management bank prayed that

reference be answered in favour of the management bank

and since the workman was only working on daily wage

basis he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

Against Written Statement workman filed a

replication on 27-10-2010. Wherein he stated as follows :-

I-V. That the contents of para No. I to V of the written

statement are matter of record. However, it is submitted

that the claim filed by the workman is correct and genuine

and the workman is entitled to get relied as prayed by him

in his claim petition which are reiterated as correct and the

claim of the workman is also reiterated as reaffirmed.

1 to 14. That the contents of para No. 1 to 14 of the

reply on merits of the written statement are false wrong

hence denied. However, the contents of para No. 1 to 14 of

the claim filed by the workman are reiterated as reaffirmed.

15. That the contents of para No. 15 of the reply on

merits of the written statement are denied to the extent

that averments made in the said notice are wrong and

vehemently denied the contents of rest para is matter of

record. However, the contents of para No. 15 of the claim

filed by the workman are reiterated as reaffirmed.

16. That the contents of para No. 16 of the reply on

merits of the written statement are false wrong hence

denied. However, the contents of para No. 16 of the claim

filed by the workman are reiterated as reaffirmed.

17. That the contents of para No. 17 of the reply on

merits of the written statement need no reply. However,

the contents of para No. 17 of the claim filed by the

workman are reiterated as reaffirmed.

The last para is prayer clause which is totally denied

and the same is devoid of any merit.

On the basis of which he prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the written

statement in limine with heavy cost in favour of the

workman and against the management and the relief may

kindly be pleased to given to the workman as prayed by

him in his claim.

On the basis of pleadings of parties predecessors

on 29-11-2010 passed following order.

‘‘It is submitted that the issue referred to in the

terms of reference is enough and no further issue needs to

be framed in this case. Now, for evidence of the workman

by way of affidavit to come upon 8-2-2011.’’

In support of his case Claimant/Workman filed his

affidavit on 8-2-2011. Alongwith the aforesaid affidavit he

filed photostat copies of documents which was

accordingly marked exhibited.

Workman/Claimant was examined as WW1 on

15-5-2012 as WW1. He was cross examined on the same

day.

After evidence of Workman/Claimant management

in support of his case filed affidavit of its witness Sh. S.P.

Singh on 18-10-2012.

He was examined by management 14-5-2013. He

was partly cross examined by the Ld. A/R of Workman/

Claimant and further cross examined on 23-7-2013.

I have heard the Arguments of Ld. A/R for the parties

at length and fixed 19-9-2013 for the award.

Ld. A/R for the workman requested for re-argument.

His argument were heard. I have heard the arguments of

Ld. A/R of the parties. Ld. A/R for the workman contended

that nature of work of workman Vinod Kumar Sweeper-

cum-Peon.

Workman worked more than 240 days workman

initially appointed. As soon as 91 days completed he will

be confirmed.

On 7-8-07 services were terminated without notice.

No Gratuity was given.

No Compensation was given.

Workman gave Demand Notice through Regd. Post

with AD. on 27-8-2007.

Management Replied on 30-10-2007.

No settlement of workman.

In written statement it is not specified that how many

days workman worked. Ld A/R for workman placed reliance

on principle laid down in following rulings :-

1. Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula

and Another 2007 (8) supreme 336.

Principle laid down:-

‘‘Appellant completed 240 days of work. Appellant

entitled to compensation notice and notice pay.

Direction to pay Rs. 50,000 by was of Damages.

2. M.C.D. Vs. Vijai Pal and others 140 (2007) Delhi

Law Times 351.

Non-compliance of provisions of S. 25F of Industrial

Dispute Act.

Ld. A/R for Management counter contended that

workman was casual worker. He was never regular worker.

He work in place of Premwati only for 60 days during her

leave. He received Rs. 80 per day. Which raised Rs. 100

per day.

He was not paid salary.

6106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Her alleged salary not came into her Account.

No appointment letter was issued to workman.

No termination letter was issued to workman.

No charge sheet submitted against workman.

Certificate indicates casual nature of work. As per

concept of 240 days, 240 days will commence since

7-8-2007 backwardly.

MW was not cross-examined on the point of 240

days of work done by workman.

Gratuity Act is not applicable in the instant case

because claimant has not completed 5 years of service.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the contents of claim statement, written

statement and rejoinder along with evidence on record.

Which shows that workman claimed following reliefs :-

1. To pass an award holding termination illegal and

unjustified.

2. Reinstate the workman along with full back wages.

3. Continuity of Service and consequential benefits.

4. All other legal dues.

Out of aforesaid reliefs claimant is entitled to

compensation only in the circumstances of case so amount

of compensation is no be computed in the circumstances

of case.

The Factors which are relevant for determining the

same, inter alia are:-

(i) Whether in making the appointment, the statutory

rules, if any, had been complied with.

(ii) The period he had worked.

(iii) Whether there existed any vacancy; and

(iv) Where he obtained some other employment on

the date of termination in passing of the award.

Perusal of Ext. WW1/3 dated 16/05/2011 on record

makes it crystal clear that Vijaya Bank, Head Office,

Personnel Department (PA & IR) 41/2. M.G. Road, Trimity

Circle, Bangalore-560001 issued circular No. 57/92 dated

24.03.1992. Through which applications from temporary

sweepers were invited who had worked as temporary

Sweepers in the Bank’s branches/offices for a period of 90

days or more during the period between 1.1.1982 to

31.12.1989 to draw up their panel for appointing them on

temporary/permanent basis against vacancies that may

arise in future.

Perusal of Ext. WW1/4 dated 16/05/2011 shows it is

photocopy of letter which was written to the Deputy General

Manager, Personnel Department H.O. Manager, Regional

Office, Delhi by Senior Branch Manager Vijaya Bank, Kamla

Nagar on 16.10.1999. Through which photo copy of

application of Sri Vinod Kumar for appointment for Sweeper

post recommendation to the Deputy General Manager H.O.

Bangalore for consideration of appointment of Vinod Kumar

as Part Time Sweeper. It is also mentioned in this letter that

Vinod Kumar applied for the post on 24.04.92. It is also

relevant to mention here that it is also mentioned in this

letter that there is no permanent Sweeper in this Kamla

Nagar Branch of Vijaya Bank.

Perusal of Photo Copy of Letter Ext. WW1/6 dated

16/05/2011 shows that Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Kamla

Nagar, Delhi on 24/04/92 wrote a letter to the Deputy General

Manager, Regional Office, New Delhi-110001. Through

which he forwarded a application of Vinod Kumar for the

post of Temporary Sweeper as he completed work of 90

days between 1984 to 1989.

Perusal of Photo Copy of Letter dated 28/06/98 Ext.

WW1/7 dated 16/05/2011 shows that Senior Branch

Manager, Vijaya Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi wrote letter on

28.06.1998. Diputy Genaral Manager Zonal Office Delhi.

Through which he forwarded application of Sri Vinod

Kumar for the post of sweeper in following forwarding

note:-

“We forward herewith a letter received from Sri Vinod

Kumar which is self explanatory. The applicant has been

working in this Branch of and on. On daily wage basis

since long. Whereas he belongs to the under privileged

eategory, we request you to advice as suited since we

have been managing without a regular Sweeper w.e.f. Feb.

1995.’’

On the basis of evidence on record Reference is

decided in favour of Workman/Claimant and against

management Vijaya Bank.

I am of considered view that payment of a sum of

Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand only) by way of damages to the

Workman/Claimant by the management after expiry of

period of writ petition that will serve the purpose.

Award is accordingly passed in favour of Workman/

Claimant and against management of Vijaya Bank.

Dated : 26-9-2013

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2295-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 uoEcj] 2013 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6107

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/

NRrhlx< jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]

vFkkZr~ %

^^ftyk jk;x<+ ds vUrxZr jktLo xzke&tkexkao]

dksykbZcgky] csgjkikyh] Nqghikyh] ukokikjk] dqdqnkZ] euqokikyh]

ljkbZikyh] dks;yaxk] HkqbZ;kaikyh rFkk rglhy ,oa ftyk jk;x<+ ds

vUrxZr vkus okys lHkh {ks=k A

¹la- ,l&38013@62@2013&,l,l&Iº

tktZdqVh Vh- ,y-] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013

S.O. 2295.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st November, 2013 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and

Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76

and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in

the following areas in the State of Chhattisgarh namely :—

‘‘Revenue villages of Jamgaon, Kolaibahal,

Beharapali, Chhubipali, Nawapara, Kukurda, Manuwapali,

Saraipali, Koylanga, Bhuhiyanpali and the areas falling

within the Tehsil and District Raigarh.’’

[No. S-38013/62/2013-SS-I]

GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2296-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 uoEcj] 2013 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds

mica/ mM+hlk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]

vFkkZr~ %

^^ftyk vuxqy dh NsaMhiM+k rgfly esa fu'kk] ik.kiqj]

dkfyvkdVk taxy] dkfyvkdVk] NksVcsfj.kh] xksyk xkfM;k]

dkamflf<+i] jkb>j.k] ckfypUnziqj] dadjsbZ] fij[ke.k] ekfyczk>.kh

,oa edqUniqj rFkk ftyk vuxqy dh cujiky rgfly esa d`".kpUnziqj]

tjMk] lkudsjtkax] ikfjijk] cklqnsciqj] lkudsjtkax taxy] ejkfrjk]

tkeqaMk taxy] cM+dsjtkax taxy] c.kqvklkfg] lnkuaniqj] csMk'kj]

cs.kkxkfMvk] xksykca/] Msjtkax taxy] tjkflagk ds jktLo xkao**A

¹la- ,l&38013@67@2013&,l,l&Iº

tktZdqVh Vh- ,y-] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013

S.O. 2296.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st November, 2013 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and

Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76

and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in

the following areas in the State of Odisha namely :—

‘‘The Areas comprising of the Revenue villages

of Nisha, Panapur, Kaliakata Jungle, Kaliakata,

Chhotaberini, Golagadia, Kaunsidhip, Raijharan,

Balichandrapur, Kankarei, Pirakhaman,

Malibrahmani and Makundpur in the Tahasil of

Chhendipada in the district of Angul and

Krushnachandrapur, Jarada, Sanakerajang,

Paripara, Basudevapur, Sanakerajang Jungle,

Maratira, Jamunda Jungle, Badakerajang Jungle,

Banuasahi, Sadanandapur, Bedasar,Banagadia,

Golabandha, Derajang Jungle, Jarasingha in the

Tahasil of Banarpal in the district of Angul.’’

[No. S-38013/67/2013-SS-I]

GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2297-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj bf.M;u

,;jykbUl fyfeVsM ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh;

ljdkj dks 15&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&11012@8@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.24/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Airlines Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 15-09-2013.

[No. L-11012/8/2003-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

6108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

DELHI

I. D. No. 24/2007

Shri Fayyaz Mohammad,

S/o Ali Hussain, 796,

Pocket No.1, Paschim Puri,

New Delhi - 110063.

.... Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

M/s. Indian Airlines,

IGI Terminal-I, Palam,

New Delhi.

....Management

AWARD

Erstwhile M/s. Indian Airlines in short the Airlines)

awarded contract for annual maintenance of cleaning of

Aircrafts A 300 and A 320 on night halt at Indira Gandhi

lnternational Airport, New Delhi to M/s. Aroon Enterprises.

Writ petitions No.3823 of 98, and 2300 of 99 were filed by

employees of the contractor for regularization of their

services with the Airlines. Interim order was passed by

High Court of Delhi on 1.08.1998 in writ petition No.3827

of 98, directing the Airlines not to dispense with the

services of petitioners, till disposal of the petition. Contract

of M/s. Aroon Enterprises came to an end and fresh

contract was awarded to M/s. Sunshine Enterprises. In

compliance of the interim order passed by High Court of

Delhi, the Airlines wrote to the Contractor to absorb the

petitioners, numbering six, in their employment. Writ

petition was dismissed by the High Court in the year

2001. Services of the claimant were dispensed with by the

contractor on 01.01.2002. The claimant approached the

Airport Employees' Union (Regd.) (in short the Union) for

redressal of his grievances. The union raised an industrial

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the claim

was contested by the Airlines as well as the contractor,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No. L-11012/8/2003-IR(CM-I), New Delhi dated 21.02.2007,

with following terms:

"Whether demand of Airport Employees Union to

reinstate Shri Fayyaz Mohammad, ex-Cleaner with

full back wages in the services of M/s. Sunshine

Enterprises or M/s. Indian Airlines, is legal and

justified ? If so, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled?"

2. The Airlines assailed the reference order before

High Court of Delhi by way of a writ petition. On 28.02.2013,

Shri Ravi Gopal, Authorized Representative of the Airlines,

made a statement before this Tribunal that Writ Petition

has been withdrawn. Thereafter, it was ordered that notice

be issued to the claimant to file his claim statement. Notice

was sent to the claimant by registered post on 8.03.2013,

in pursuance of order dated 28.02.2013, calling upon him

to file his claim statement on or before 20.03.2013. The

postal article was received back with the report that the

claimant had left the address for an unknown destination.

Notice was sent to the claimant at the following address:

"Shri Fayyaz Mohammad, S/o Shri Ali Hussain, 796, Pocket

No.I, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063", which address was

provided by the Appropriate Government in the reference

order. From the above report of the postman it emerged

that the claimant was not residing at the given address.

3. However, fresh notice was sent to the claimant by

registered post on 18.04.2013 calling upon him to file his

claim statement on or before 20.03.2013. Another notice

was sent to the claimant on 23.05.2013 calling upon him to

file claim statement on or before 28.06.2013. Notice was

again sent to the claimant by registered post on 04.07.2013,

commanding him to submit his claim statement on or before

15.07.2013. Lastly, notice was sent to the claimant on

17.07.2013 calling upon him to file his claim statement

before this Tribunal on or before 01.08.2013. All these

notices were received back with the report that the claimant

does not reside at the given address. Therefore, efforts

made by the Tribunal to call the claimant for filing his

claim statement proved futile. No other address was

available with the Tribunal to call the claimant to file his

claim statement.

4. Since the claimant did not come forward, Airlines

was called upon to place facts before the Tribunal. In its

response to the reference order, the Airline presents that it

engaged services of M/s. Aroon Enterprises for cleaning

of Aircrafts A 300 and A 320 at night halt at Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi. Annual maintenance

contract for cleaning of the aforesaid aircrafts was given

in favour of M/s. Aroon Enterprises, after following due

process. In 1998, cleaners employed by the contractor filed

writ petition 3823 of 98 before the High Court of Delhi

seeking their regularization in service of the Airlines.

Another writ petition No. 2300 of 1999 was also filed,

wherein relief of regularization in service of the Airlines

was claimed by the cleaners. Writ petition filed were

disposed off in the year 2001. Annual maintenance contract

for cleaning of the Aircraft was sanctioned to M/s.

Sunshine Enterprises. Claimant was an employee of the

aforesaid contractors. The Airlines never exercised control

and supervision on the claimant. There was no relationship

of employer and employee between the parties. Contract

entered into between the Airlines and the contractor was

on principle to principle basis and as such, there never

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6109

existed privity of contract between the claimant and the

Airlines. Services of the claimant were not terminated by

the Airlines. The Airlines claimed that the reference is liable

to be answered in its favour.

5. Terminology of the reference order puts onus on

the claimant to establish that demand, for his regularization

in services of M/s. Sunshine Enterprises or Indian Airlines

the full back wages, is legal and justified. Therefore, to

discharge onus resting on him the claimant was under an

obligation to establish that he was an employee of the

contractor, yet the Airlines exercised administrative,

financial, managerial and disciplinary control over him. It

Was further incumbent upon him to project that the

contract entered into between the Airlines and the

contractor was sham and nominal. It was also obligatory

on the claimant to establish that he rendered continuous

service with the contractor/ the Airlines. It is also

obligatory on the claimant to establish that termination of

his services by M/s. Sunshine Enterprises/lndian Airlines

was illegal and not in consonance with provisions of

industrial law. Instead of discharging onus resting on him,

claimant opted not to participate in the proceedings. Thus,

it is evident that there is complete vacuum of evidence on

behalf of the claimant. Resultantly, it cannot be concluded

that the claimant has not been able to establish that his

demand for reinstatement in service with M/s. Sunshine

Enterprises or Indian Airlines with full back wages was

legal and justified. Claimant is not entitled to any relief. An

award is accordingly passed in favour of the Airlines and

against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2298-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj bf.M;u

,;jykbUl fyfeVsM ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh;

ljdkj dks 15&09&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&11012@17@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013

S.O. 2298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.26/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Airlines Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 15-09-2013.

[No. L-11012/17/2003-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

DELHI

I. D. No. 26/2007

Shri Mani,

796, Pocket No.1,

Paschim Puri,

New Delhi - 110063.

.... Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

M/s. Indian Airlines,

IGI Terminal-I, Palam,

New Delhi.

....Management

AWARD

Erstwhile M/s. Indian Airlines ( in short the Airlines)

awarded contract for annual maintenance of cleaning of

Aircrafts A 300 and A 320 on night halt at Indira Gandhi

lnternational Airport, New Delhi to M/s. Aroon Enterprises.

Writ petitions No.3823 of 98, and 2300 of 99 were filed by

employees of the contractor for regularization of their

services with the Airlines. Interim order was passed by

High Court of Delhi on 10.08.1998 in writ petition No.3827

of 98, directing the Airlines not to dispense with the

services of petitioners, till disposal of the petition. Contract

of M/s. Aroon Enterprises came to an end and fresh

contract was awarded to M/s. Sunshine Enterprises. In

compliance of the interim order passed by High Court of

Delhi, the Airlines wrote to the Contractor to absorb the

petitioners, numbering six, in their employment. Writ

petition was dismissed by the High Court in the year

2001. Services of the claimant were dispensed with by the

contractor on 01.01.2002. The claimant approached the

Airport Employees' Union (Regd.) (in short the Union) for

redressal of his grievances. The union raised an industrial

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the claim

was contested by the Airlines as well as the contractor,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No. L-11012/17/2003-IR(CM-I), New Delhi dated

21.02.2007, with following terms:

6110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether demand of Airport 'Employees Union to

reinstate Shri Mani, ex-Cleaner with full back wages

in the services of M/s. Sunshine Enterprises or M/s.

Indian Airlines, is legal and justified ? If so, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

2. The Airlines assailed the reference order before

High Court of Delhi by way of a writ petition. On 28.02.2013,

Shri Ravi Gopal, Authorized Representative of the Airlines,

made a statement before this Tribunal that Writ Petition

has been withdrawn. Thereafter, it was ordered that notice

be issued to the claimant to file his claim statement. Notice

was sent to the claimant by registered post on 8.03.2013,

in pursuance of order dated 28.02.2013, calling upon him

to file his claim statement on or before 20.03.2013. The

postal article was received back with the report that the

claimant had left the address for an unknown destination.

Notice was sent to the claimant at the following address:

Shri Mani, 796, Pocket No.I, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-

110063", which address was provided by the Appropriate

Government in the reference order. From the above report

of the postman it emerged that the claimant was not residing

at the given address.

3. However, fresh notice was sent to the claimant by

registered post on 18.04.2013 calling upon him to file his

claim statement on or before 20.03.2013. Another notice

was sent to the claimant on 23.05.2013 calling upon him to

file claim statement on or before 28.06.2013. Notice was

again sent to the claimant by registered post on 04.07.2013,

commanding him to submit his claim statement on or before

15.07.2013. Lastly, notice was sent to the claimant on

17.07.2013 calling upon him to file his claim statement

before this Tribunal on or before 01.08.2013. All these

notices were received back with the report that the

claimant does not reside at the given address. Therefore,

efforts made by the Tribunal to call the claimant for filing

his claim statement proved futile. No other address was

available with the Tribunal to call the claimant to file his

claim statement.

4. Since the claimant did not come forward, Airlines

was called upon to place facts before the Tribunal. In its

response to the reference order, the Airline presents that it

engaged services of M/s. Aroon Enterprises for cleaning

of Aircrafts A 300 and A 320 at night halt at Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi. Annual maintenance

contract for cleaning of the aforesaid aircrafts was given

in favour of M/s. Aroon Enterprises, after following due

process. In 1998, cleaners employed by the contractor filed

writ petition 3823 of 98 before the High Court of Delhi

seeking their regularization in service of the Airlines.

Another writ petition No. 2300 of 1999 was also filed,

wherein relief of regularization in service of the Airlines

was claimed by the cleaners. Writ petition filed were

disposed off in the year 2001. Annual maintenance contract

for cleaning of the Aircraft was sanctioned to M/s.

Sunshine Enterprises. Claimant was an employee of the

aforesaid contractors. The Airlines never exercised control

and supervision on the claimant. There was no

relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

Contract entered into between the Airlines and the

contractor was on principle to principle basis and as such,

there never existed privity of contract between the claimant

and the Airlines. Services of the claimant were not

terminated by the Airlines. The Airlines claimed that the

reference is liable to be answered in its favour.

5. Terminology of the reference order puts onus on

the claimant to establish that demand, for his regularization

in services of M/s. Sunshine Enterprises or Indian Airlines

the full back wages, is legal and justified. Therefore, to

discharge onus resting on him the claimant was under an

obligation to establish that he was an employee of the

contractor, yet the Airlines exercised administrative,

financial, managerial and disciplinary control over him. It

was further incumbent upon him to project that the contract

entered into between the Airlines and the contractor was

sham and nominal. It was also obligatory on the claimant

to establish that he rendered continuous service with the

contractor/ the Airlines. It is also obligatory on the claimant

to establish that termination of his services by M/s.

Sunshine Enterprises/lndian Airlines was illegal and not

in consonance with provisions of industrial law. Instead

of discharging onus resting on him, claimant opted not to

participate in the proceedings. Thus, it is evident that

there is complete vacuum of evidence on behalf of the

claimant. Resultantly, it cannot be concluded that the

claimant has not been able to establish that his demand

for reinstatement in service with M/s. Sunshine Enterprises

or Indian Airlines with full back wages was legal and

justified. Claimant is not entitled to any relief. An award is

accordingly passed in favour of ,the Airlines and against

the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dated : 21-8-2013

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2299-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/

fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr /kjk

88 nokjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~nokjk nqxkZiqj LVhy

IykaV vkWiQ lsy] nqxkZiqj (if'pe caxky) ds dkj[kkus@LFkkiukvksa

ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku

djrh gS A ;g NwV] vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh

vof/ ds fy, ykxw jgsxh A

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr %&

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs _

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6111

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu

,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus dh rkjh[k ls

iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa _

(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs _

(4) mDr dkj[kus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS)

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e]

1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr

gksrh Fkh _

(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk

45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr

izkf/d`r dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/ dh

ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks lR;kfir

djus ds iz;kstukFkZ _ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;

chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk ;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj

vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha _ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh] fu;kstd

n~okjk fn;s x;s mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds iQyLo:i bl

vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq

:i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha _ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/ ds

nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e ds mica/

izo`Rr Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k

ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk %&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd og mls ,slh

tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d

le>rk gS _ vFkok

([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk/hu] fdlh

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh

mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g

vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh

ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d

le>rs gSa_ ;k

(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod

dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus

dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk _

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa j[ks

x,] fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy

rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk _

(M+) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí

gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh

vuqefr ysuh gksxh A

¹la- ,l&38014@25@2013&,l-,l-&Iº

tktZdqVh Vh- ,y-] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st October, 2013

S.O. 2299.— In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 9l-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of Durgapur Steel Plant of SAIL, Durgapur

(West Bengal) from the operation of the said Act. The

exemption shall be effective from the date of issue of this

Notification for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :-

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the exempted

employees' ;

(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the

date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the said

Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such

returns in such forms and containing such particulars

as were due from it in respect of the said period

under the Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of:-

6112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2013/ASVINA 27, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of Section

44 for the said period; or

(ii)Ascertaining whether registers and records were

maintained as required by the Employees' State

Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said

period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer

in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of

which exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of

the Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation to

the said factory to be empowered to:

(a)require the principal or immediate employer to

him such information as he may consider necessary

for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises occupied by

such principal or immediate employer at any

reasonable time and require any person found in

charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other

official and allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the employment of

personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him

such information as he may consider necessary; or

agent or servant, or any person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises or any person

whom the said inspector or other official has

reasonable cause to believe to have been an

employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register,

account book or other document maintained in such

factory, establishment, office or other premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled

and then the new entity will have to approach the

appropriate Government for exemption.

[ No. S-38014/25/2013-SS-I]

GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2013

dk-vk- 2300-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 nokjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~nokjk bLdks

LVhy IykaV vkWiQ lsy] cuZiqj (if'pe caxky) ds

dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds

izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gS A ;g NwV] vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus dh

rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ykxw jgsxh A

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %&

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs _

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu

,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus dh rkjh[k ls

iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa _

(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs _

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS)

izorZeku rFkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k)

fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkh _

(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk

45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr

izkf/d`r dksbZ vU; in/kjh_

(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/ dh

ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks lR;kfir

djus ds iz;kstukFkZ _ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;

chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk ;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj

vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha _ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh] fu;kstd

n~okjk fn;s x;s mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds iQyLo:i bl

vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq

:i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha _ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/ ds

nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e ds mica/

izo`Rr Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k

ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk %&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd og mls ,slh

tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh vko';d

le>rk gS _ vFkok

([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk/hu] fdlh

dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh

mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g

vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2013@vkf'ou 27] 1935

6113

lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh

ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d

le>rs gSa_ ;k

(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod

dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]

dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus

dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk _

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa j[ks

x,] fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy

rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk _

(Ä) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí

gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh

vuqefr ysuh gksxh A

¹la- ,l&38014@27@2013&,l-,l-&Iº

tktZdqVh Vh- ,y-] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st October, 2013

S.O. 2300.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 9l-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of IISCO Steel Plant of SAIL, Burnpur

(West Bengal) from the operation of the said Act. The

exemption shall be effective from the date of issue of this

Notification for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

showing the name and designations of the exempted

employees';

(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the

date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the said

Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such

returns in such forms and containing such particulars

as were due from it in respect of the said period

under the Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of:-

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of Section

44 for the said period; or

(ii)Ascertaining whether registers and records were

maintained as required by the Employees' State

Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said

period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer

in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of

which exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of

the Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation to

the said factory to be empowered to:

(a)require the principal or immediate employer to

him such information as he may consider necessary

for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises occupied by

such principal or immediate employer at any

reasonable time and require any person found in

charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other

official and allow him to examine accounts, books

and other documents relating to the employment of

personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him

such information as he may consider necessary; or

agent or servant, or any person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises or any person

whom the said inspector or other official has

reasonable cause to believe to have been an

employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register,

account book or other document maintained in such

factory, establishment, office or other premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled

and then the new entity will have to approach the

appropriate Government for exemption.

[ No. S-38014/27/2013-SS-I]

GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.