dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2404-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~ }kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6
ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, jktLFkku jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼lewg&V½ foHkkx] t;iqj
ds fnukad 21 flracj] 2013 ds i= lañ ,Qñ 19¼103½ x`g&5@2013
}kjk izkIr lgefr ls Jh ckcw yky ukxj ds fo#) iqfyl LVs'ku
lksMkyk] t;iqj esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 45½ dh /kkjk 323 vkSj 376 ds rgr iathd`r ekeyk lañ 292@2013
rFkk mi;qZDr ekeys ls lacaf/kr iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa ds
vUos"k.k djus ds laca/k esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh
'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/kdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ jktLFkku jkT; ij djrh gSA
[lañ 228@72@2013&,ohMh&II]
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2013
S.O. 2404.—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 Rajasthan, Home (Group-V)
Department, Jaipur vide Letter No. F. 19(103) Home-5/
2013 dated 21st September, 2013, hereby extends the
powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment to the whole State of
Rajasthan for investigation of case No. 292/2013 under
sections 323 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act
No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur
against Shri Babu Lal Nagar and attempts, abetments
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- 48]
ubZ fnYyh, uoEcj 24—uoEcj 30] 2013] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 3—vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
No. 48]
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 24—NOVEMBER 30, 2013, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 3—AGRAHAYANA 9, 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)
4769 GI/2013
(6351)
6352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and conspiracies in relation to the above mentioned
offence.
[No. 228/72/2013-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2405-—dsUnz ljdkj] ,rn~okjk] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6
ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] vle jkT; ljdkj] jktuSfrd ¼,½ foHkkx] fnliqj dh
fnukad 6 Qjojh] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ ih,y, 276@2008@135
}kjk izkIr lgefr ls vle ds dkchZ&,axyksax] ukaxkao rFkk xksyk?kkV
ftyksa esa xSaMs dk f'kdkj djus laca/kh fd, x, vijk/kksa vkSj muds
laca/k esa fd, x, iz;kl] nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM;a= ls lacaf/kr fuEufyf[kr
vijk/kksa ds varxZr vkus okys ekeyksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy,
fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj
dk foLrkj laiw.kZ vle jkT; esa djrh gS%—
Øñ
ekeyk
fof/k dh /kkjk
iqfyl LVs'ku
lañ
lañ
dk uke
1-
05@2012 oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e
iqfyl LVs'ku
1972] ¼1972 dh vf/kfu;e
jksaxeksaxoh
lañ 53½ dh /kkjk 51¼1½ ds lkFk ¼dkchZ&
ifBr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860
,axyksax½
¼1860 dh vf/kfu;e lañ 45½
ds v/khu /kkjk 379 rFkk 429
2-
06@2012 oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e
1972] ¼1972 dh vf/kfu;e
lañ 53½ dh /kkjk 51¼1½ ds lkFk
ifBr vkEtZ vf/kfu;e] 1959
¼1959 dh vf/kfu;e lañ 54 dh
/kkjk 25¼1½¼,½ rFkk 27 ds
lkFk ifBr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk]
1860 ¼1860 dh vf/kfu;e
lañ 45½ dh /kkjk 379
rFkk 429
3-
07@2012 oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e
1972] ¼1972 dh vf/kfu;e
lañ 53½ dh /kkjk 51¼1½ ,oa
vkEtZ vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼1959
dh vf/kfu;e lañ 54½ dh /kkjk
25¼1½¼,½ rFkk 27 ds lkFk
ifBr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860
¼1860 dh vf/kfu;e lañ 45½
ds v/khu /kkjk 379 rFkk 429
4-
131@2012 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860
>kdykckank
dh vf/kfu;e lañ 45½ dh /kkjk
iqfyl LVs'ku
379 ,oa vkEtZ vf/kfu;e] 1959
¼1959 dh vf/kfu;e lañ 54½
dh /kkjk 25 ¼1&,½ rFkk 27
ds lkFk ifBr oU; tho
¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e 1972]
¼1972 dh vf/kfu;e lañ 53½
dh /kkjk 51¼1½
[lañ 228@10@2013&,ohMh&II]
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2013
S.O. 2405.—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 Assam, Political (A) Department, Dispur
vide Notification No. PLA. 276/2008/135 dated 6th February,
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 following
cases under the offences indicated below:—
Sl.
Case No.
Section Laws
Name of
No.
Police
Station
1.
05/2012
under sections 379 and 429
Police
of the Indian Penal Code,
Station
1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)
Rongmongwe
read with section 51(1) of
(Karbi-
the Wild Life (Protection)
Anglong)
Act, 1972 (Act No. 53 of
1972).
2.
06/2012
under sections 379 and 429
of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)
read with section 51(1)
of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972 (Act No. 53 of
1972) read with sections
25(1) (a) and 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54
of 1959).
3.
07/2012
under sections 379 and 429
of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)
Øñ
ekeyk
fof/k dh /kkjk
iqfyl LVs'ku
lañ
lañ
dk uke
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6353
read with section 51(1)
of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972 (Act No. 53 of
1972) read with sections 25(1)
(a) and 27 of the Arms Act,
1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959).
4.
131/2012 under section 51(1) of the
Police
Wild Life (Protection) Act,
Station
1972 (Act No. 53 of 1972)
Jakhala-
read with 379 of the Indian
bandha.
Penal Code, 1860 (Act
No. 45 of 1860) and
section 25(1-A) and 27 of
the Arms Act, 1959 (Act
No. 54 of 1959)
relating to Rhino poaching in the Districts of Karbi-
Anglong, Nagaon and Golaghat (Assam) and attempts,
abetments and conspiracies in relation to the above
mentioned offences.
[No. 228/10/2013-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2406-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~ }kjk izfØ;k lafgrk]
1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk 8 }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh cythr flag ,MoksdsV dks
fo'ks"k tt lhchvkbZ nsgjknwu esa ekeyk la[;k vkjñlhñ 2¼,l½
2006 ,lvkbZ;w 1@,llh 1@ubZ fnYyh ¼lhchvkbZ cuke dSuFk tkWc½
vkSj blls lac) o vuq"kkafxd fdlh vU; ekeys esa fopkju ds fy,
fo'ks"k yksd vk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA
[lañ 225@18@2013&,ohMh&II]
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2406.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri Baljeet Singh, Advocate as Special
Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial of RC No. 2 (S)/
2006/SCU-1/CBI/SC-1/New Delhi (CBI Vs. Kainath Job and
others) in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases at
Dehradun and any other matter connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
[No. 225/18/2013-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
foÙk ea=ky;
¼vk;dj foHkkx½
¼eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr dk dk;kZy; — enqjS½
enqjS] 19 flrEcj] 2013
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] enqjS dh dk;Zokgh
lEifÙk% Jh chñdsñ feJk] Hkkñjkñlsñ
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] enqjS
enqjS & 625 002
fu/kkZfjrh dk uke ,oa irk
% eSñ enzkl lhfeaVl~ fyñ] ,tqds'kuy
,oa pSfjVscy VªLV] jkeeafnje] 642]
rsudklh jksM] jktiky;e&626 117
vkosnu izkfIr dh rkjh[k
% 28-09-2012
ftl fu/kkZj.k o"kZ gsrq
% 2012&13 ds ckn ls
vkosnu
vkns'k dh rkjh[k
% 19-09-2013
vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 10¼23lh½ ¼vi½ ds v/khu
vkns'k
dkñvkñ 2407-—eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] enqjS vk;dj
vf/kfu;e 1961 ¼1961 dk 43½ dh /kkjk 10 ds [kaM ¼23lh½ ds
mi [kaM (vi) ds lkFk ifBr vk;dj fu;e 1962 ds fu;e 2lh }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, mijksDr mi [kaM esa crk, x,
iz;kstuksa ds fy, fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 2012&13 ls eSñ enzkl lhfeaVl~ fyñ
,tqds'kuy ,oa pSfjVscy VªLV] jkeeafnje] 642] rsudklh jksM]
jktiky;e &626 117 iSu % ,,lhVh,e 8241 ds dks fuEufyf[kr
'krks± ds vk/kkj ij vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 10¼23lh½(vi)
ds v/khu vuqeksnu iznku djrk gwa%
v- vk;dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10¼23lh½ (vi) ds rhljs ijUrqd
ls visf{kr fu/kkZfjrh viuh vk; ;k tek vk; dk iz;ksx dsoy
iz;kstuksa] ftuds fy, mldh LFkkiuk dh xbZ gS] ds fy, iw.kZr%
vkSj vuU;r% mi;ksx djrk gSA
c- vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 dh /kkjk 11 dh mi /kkjk ¼5½ esa
fofufnZ"V rjhdksa esa ls fdlh ,d ;k vf/kd :iksa ;k i)fr;ksa esa
fdlh Hkh vof/k ds fy, fu/kkZfjrh viuh fuf/k ls vU;Fkk fuos'kksa
;k fu{ksiksa ¼vkHkw"k.k ,oa QuhZpj ;k ,slh oLrq ds :i esa izkIr
vkSj j[ks x, LosfPNd vfHknk; ds vykok½ esa fuos'k vFkok
tek mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr fu/kkZj.k o"kks± ls lacaf/kr iwoZ o"kks± ds
nkSjku fdlh Hkh vof/k ds fy, ugha djsxkA
l- ;g vuqeksnu fdlh ,slh vk; ds fy, ykxw ugha gksxk tks dkjksckj]
O;kikj ls ykHk vkSj vf/kykHk izkIr gksrk gS] tc rd dkjksckj
Sl.
Case No.
Section Laws
Name of
No.
Police
Station
6354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fu/kkZfjrh ds y{;ksa dh izkfIr ds fy, gS rFkk ,sls dkjksckj ds
fy, vyx cgh&[kkrs j[kk tk jgk gSA
n-
vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i fu/kkZfjrh
vk;dj izkf/kdkjh ds le{k fu;ferrk ls vk; fooj.kh Qkby
djsaxsA
b-
blds Hkax gksus ds mlds vf/k'ks"k ,oa vkfLr;ksa ,sls laxBu dks nh
tk,xh tks iw.kZr% ,sls gh iz;kstuksa ds fy, gS vkSj ykHk ds iz;kstukFkZ
ugha gSa vkSj vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 dh /kkjk 13¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V
vuqlkj mldk dksbZ Hkh Hkkx izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls fu/kkZfjrh
ds fgrkf/kdkjh ;k vU; fdlh dks ugha tk,xkA
Q- /kkjk 143¼3½ ds ijUrqd ds izko/kkuksa ds v/khu vuqeksnu Lohd`r
fd;k tk,xkA
t- ;fn ;g ckn esa irk yxrk gS fd vuqeksnu QthZ ;k rRFk ds
vU;Fkk&dFku }kjk fy;k x;k gS rks mls 'kwU; ekuk tk,xkA
g-
mDr vuqeksnu dsoy vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 dh /kkjk
10¼23lh½(vi) ds iz;kstu ds fy, fn;k x;k gS rFkk vU; fdlh
iz;kstu ds fy, ugha vkSj vuqeksnu okil ys fy;k ekuk tk,xk
;fn fu/kkZfjrh dh xfrfof/k;ka izkekf.kd ugha gSa ;k xfrfof/k;ka
Lohd`r vuqeksnu esa mfYyf[kr lHkh ;k fdagh 'krks± ds vuqlkj
ugha dh tk jgh gksA
[Qkñ lhñ lañ 2113@1@eqvk@enqjS@rd-@2012&13]
chñdsñ feJk] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Income-Tax Department)
(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX—MADURAI)
Madurai, the 19th September, 2013
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX—MADURAI
MADURAI-625002
PRESENT: Shri B.K. MISRA, IRS
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX—MADURAI
MADURAI-625002
Name of the applicant
:
M/s Madras Cements Ltd.,
Educational & Charitable
Trust, Ramamandiram,
642, Tenkasi Road,
Rajapalayam-626117
Date of receipt of
:
28.09.2012
application
Asst. Year for which
:
2012-13 onwards
applied for
Date of Order
:
19.09.2013
ORDER UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (vi) OF THE
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
S.O. 2407.—In exercise of the powers conferred on
me by the Sub-clause (vi) of Clause (23C) of the Section 10
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with Rule 2C
of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. The Chief Commissioner of
Income tax-Madurai, Madurai hereby accords approval to
M/s. Madras Cements Ltd., Educational & Charitable Trust,
Ramamandiram, 642, Tenkasi Road, Rajapalayam-626117
PAN:AACTM8241K for the purpose of the said section
for the assessment year 2012-13 onwards, subject to the
conditions given in Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income tax
Act, 1961 including conditions mentioned hereunder:
a.
The assessee shall apply its income, or accumulate its
income for application, wholly and exclusively, for the
objects for which it is established and in accordance
with Third Provision to Section 10(23C)(vi) of the IT
Act;
b.
The assessee shall not invest or deposit its funds (other
than voluntary contributions received and maintained
in the form of jewellery, furniture, etc.) for any period
during the previous years relevant to the assessment
years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or
more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5)
of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;
c.
This approval shall not apply in relation to any income
being profits & gains of business, unless the business
is incidental to the attainment of the objects of the
assessee and separate books of accounts are
maintained in respect of such business;
d.
The assessee shall regularly file its return of income
before the Income-tax authority in accordance with
the provisions of the income tax Act, 1961;
e.
In the event of its dissolution, its surplus and assets
will be given to an organization with similar objects
and no part of the same will go directly or indirectly to
any of the beneficiaries of the assessee or anybody
specified in section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961;
f.
The approval granted shall be subject to the provisions
of 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 143;
g.
The approval shall be void if it is subsequently found
that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation
of fact(s).
The above approval is given only for the purpose of
Sec. 10(23C) (vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and not for
any other propose(s) and the same is liable to be withdrawn
if it is subsequently found that the activities of the
institution are not genuine or if they are not carried out in
accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to
which it was approved.
[F.C. No. 2113/1/CC/MDU/Tech./2012-13]
B.K. MISRA, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6355
¼jktLo foHkkx½
¼dsanzh; mRikn 'kqYd vk;qDr dk dk;kZy;] csaxywj&I vk;qDrky;½
csaxywj] 14 vDrwcj] 2013
lañ 01@2013&lhñ'kqñ ¼,uñVhñ½
dkñvkñ 2408-—lhek 'kqYd vf/kfu;e 1962 dh /kkjk 152
ds [kaM ¼d½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj] foÙk ea=ky;] jktLo foHkkx]
ubZ fnYyh ds fnukad 1 tqykbZ 1994 dh vf/klwpuk lañ 33@94&lhñ'kqñ
¼,uñVhñ½ esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, eSa] dukZVd ds csaxywj
ftys esa fLFkr losZ lañ 19@1 ,oa 19@3] vfy cksElanzk] eqFkuYywj
iksLV] vusdy rkywd] ltkZiwj gkscyh] csaxywj&562 106 dks lhek
'kqYd vf/kfu;e 1962 dh /kkjk 9 ds v/khu 100% fu;kZrksueq[k
,dd ¼bZñvksñ;wñ½ dks LFkkfir djus dh lhfer mís'; ds fy, HkkaMkxkj
LVs'ku ,rn~}kjk ?kksf"kr djrk gwaA
[Qkñ lhñlañ IV@16@141@2013 rd- csañ&I]
v'kksd] vk;qDr
(Department of Revenue)
(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
EXCISE, BANGALORE-I COMMISSIONERATE)
Bangalore, the 14th October, 2013
No. 01/2013-CUS (NT)
S.O. 2408.—In exercise of the powers delegated to
the undersigned vide Notification No. 33/94-Cus (NT) dated
1st July, 1994 by the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under clause
(a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962, I hereby declare
Sy No. 19/1 & 19/3, Ali Bommasandra, Muthanal'ur Post,
Anekal Taluk, Sarjapur Hobli, Bangalore 562 106, in the
state of Karnataka to be warehousing station under Section
9 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the limited purpose of setting
up of 100% EOU.
[F. C. No. IV/16/141/2013 Tech B-I]
ASHOK, Commissioner
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 18 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2409-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh
daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh
/kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk 3¼t½ vkSj ¼3&d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh jktho ykspu fc'uksbZ
¼tUe frfFk% 21-01-1960½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/klwpuk dh
rkjh[k ls rhu o"kks± dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks
Hkh igys gks] cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds funs'kd eaMy esa va'kdkfyd xSj
ljdkjh funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 6@17@2013&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 18th October, 2013
S.O. 2409.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3(h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Rajeev Lochan Bishnoi (DoB:
21.01.1960) as part-time Non-official Director on the Board
of Directors of Bank of India for a period of three years,
from the date of notification of his appointment or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 6/17/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2410-—loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk
;g vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj fu;ekoyh]
1962 ¼mDr fu;ekoyh½ ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr
vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼mDr vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&
/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼ii½ ds iz;kstukFkZ bafM;u IykbZoqM baMLVªht fjlpZ
,aM Vªsfuax baLVhV~;wV] caxykSj] ¼iSu&,,,,vkbZ 0707ih½ dks
1-4-2012 ls fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu ^fo'ofo|ky;] dkWyst
vFkok vU; laLFkku* dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] uker%—
¼i½ vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k;ksa dk mi;ksx oSKkfud
vuqla/kku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk(
¼ii½ vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius ukekafdr
Nk=ksa ds ek/;e ls oSKkfud vuqla/kku djsxk(
¼iii½ vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, blds }kjk
izkIr jkf'k ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ys[kk cgh j[ksxk] ftlesa
vuqla/kku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 288 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ ds Li"Vhdj.k esa
;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh [kkrk&cgh dh
ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 139 dh
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr djus dh fu;r
frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/kor lR;kfir ,oa gLrk{kfjr
ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ] ekeys esa {ks=kf/kdkj j[kus okys vk;dj
vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk(
¼iv½ vuqeksfnr laxBu izkIr nku vkSj oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy,
iz;qDr jkf'k dk i`Fkd fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr ys[kk&ijh{kk
6356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kk&ijh{kd }kjk fof/kor lR;kfir ,sls
fooj.k dh izfrfyfi izLrqr djsxkA
2- dsanz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr
laxBu%—
¼d½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iii½ esa mfYyf[kr i`Fkd ys[kk
cgh j[kus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok
¼[k½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iii½ esa mfYyf[kr viuh
ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok
¼x½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ ¼iv½ esa mfYyf[kr oSKkfud
vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr ,oa iz;qDr nku dk viuk fooj.k
izLrqr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS( vFkok
¼?k½ viuk vuqla/kku dk;Z djuk can dj nsxk vFkok blds
vuqla/kku dk;Z dks okLrfod ugha ik;k tk,xk( vFkok
¼³½ mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼ii½ ds
izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk vkSj mudk ikyu ugha djsxkA
[vf/klwpuk lañ 80@2013@Qkñlañ 203@45@2012@vkñdñfuñ&II]
_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo ¼vkñdñfuñ&II½
New Delhi, the 22nd October, 2013
S.O. 2410.—It is hereby notified for general
information that the organization Indian Plywood Industries
Research & Training Institute, Bangalore, (PAN-
AAAAI0707P) has been approved by the Central
Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section
(1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act),
read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962
(said Rules), from 01.04.2012 onwards, assessment year
2012-2013 and onwards in the category of "University
College and other Institution", engaged in research
activities subject to the following conditions, namely:—
(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall
be utilized for scientific research;
(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific
research through its faculty members or its enrolled
students;
(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate
books of accounts in respect of the sums received
by it for scientific research, reflect therein the
amounts used for carrying out research, get such
books audited by an accountant as defined in the
explanation to sub-section (2) of section 288 of the
said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly
signed and verified by such accountant to the
Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of
Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by
the due date of furnishing the return of income
under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the said
Act;
(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate
statement of donations received and amounts
applied for scientific research and a copy of such
statement duly certified by the auditor shall
accompany the report of audit referred to above.
2. The Central Government shall withdraw the
approval if the approved organization:—
(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred
to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or
(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-
paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or
(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations
received and sums applied for scientific research
referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or
(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its
research activities are not found to be genuine; or
(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the
provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section
35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the
said Rules.
[Notfication No. 80/2013/F.No. 203/45/2012/ITA-II]
RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy. (ITA-II)
¼dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ½
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2411-—loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk
;g vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj fu;ekoyh]
1962 ¼mDr fu;ekoyh½ ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr
vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼mDr vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&èkjk
¼1½ ds [kaM (ii) ds iz;kstukFkZ dj fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 2013&14 ls vkSj
vkxs laxBu eSllZ gkQfdu baLVhV~;wV QkWj Vªsfuax fjlpZ ,aM VsfLVax]
eqEcbZ ¼iSu&,,, Vh,p 1654 ch½ dks fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds
v/;èhu ^fo'ofo|ky;] dkWyst ;k vU; laLFkk* dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr
fd;k x;k gS] vFkkZr~%—
(i) vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k dk mi;ksx oSKkfud
vuqla/kku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk(
(ii) vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius ukekafdr
Nk=ksa ds ek/;e ls oSKkfud vuqla/kku djsxk(
(iii) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, blds }kjk
izkIr jkf'k ds laca/k esa vyx ys[kk cgh j[ksxk ftlesa
vuqla/kku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ tk,xh] mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 288 dh mi /kkjk ¼2½ ds Li"Vhdj.k esa
;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh ys[kk&cgh dh ys[kk
ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 139 dh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6357
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr djus dh fu;r
frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/kor gLrk{kfjr ,oa lR;kfir
,slh ys[kk ijh{kk dh fjiksVZ ekeys esa {ks=kf/kdkj j[kus okys
vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk(
(iv) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr nku rFkk
iz;qDr jkf'k;ksa dk vyx fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr
ys[kkijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kkijh{kd }kjk fof/kor izekf.kr
,sls fooj.k dh izfr izLrqr djsxkA
2- dsUnz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr
laxBu%—
¼d½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr vyx ys[kk
cgh ugha j[krk gS( vFkok
¼[k½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr viuh ys[kkijh{kk
fjiksVZ izLrqr ugha djrk gS( vFkok
¼x½ iSjkxzkQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkQ (iv) esa mfYyf[kr oSKkfud
vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr nku ,oa iz;qDr jkf'k;ksa dk viuk
fooj.k izLrqr ugha djrk gS( vFkok
¼?k½ viuk vuqla/kku dk;Z djuk can dj nsrk gS vFkok blds
vuqla/kku dk;Zykiksa dks Bhd ugha ik;k tkrk gS( vFkok
¼³½ mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5³ ds lkFk ifBr mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM (ii) ds
mica/kksa ds vuq:i dk;Z ugha djrk gS rFkk mudk ikyu ugha
djrk gSA
[vf/klwpuk lañ 81@2013@Qkñ lañ 203@32@2012@vkñdñfuñ&II]
_pk jLrksxh] voj lfpo ¼vkñdñfuñ&II)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
New Delhi, the 22nd October, 2013
S.O. 2411.—It is hereby notified for general
information that the organization M/s Haffkine Institute
for Training Research & Testing, Mumbai, (PAN -
AAATH1654B) has been approved by the Central
Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section
(1) of section 35 of the Income-tax, 1961 (said Act), read
with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said
Rules), from assessment year 2013-2014 and onwards in
the category of "University, College or other Institution",
engaged in research activities subject to the following
conditions, namely:—
(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall
be utilized for scientific research;
(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific
research through its faculty members or its enrolled
students;
(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate
books of accounts in respect of the sums received
by it for scientific research, reflect therein the
amounts used for carrying out research, get such
books audited by an accountant as defined in the
explanation to sub-section (2) of section 288 of the
said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly
signed and verified by such accountant to the
Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of
Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by
the due date of furnishing the return of income
under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the said
Act;
(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate
statement of donations received and amounts
applied for scientific research and a copy of such
statement duly certified by the auditor shall
accompany the report of audit referred to above.
2. The Central Government shall withdraw the
approval if the approved organization:—
(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred
to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or
(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-
paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or
(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations
received and sums applied for scientific research
referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or
(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its
research activities are not found to be genuine; or
(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the
provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section
35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the
said Rules.
[Notification No. 81/2013/F.No. 203/32/2012/ITA-II]
RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy. (ITA-II)
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2412-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh
dEiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980
dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk 3 ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh jtr lPpj ds LFkku ij
Jh ,lñlhñ nkl] mi lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks rRdky izHkko ls
,oa vxys vkns'kksa rd iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad ds funs'kd eaMy esa
ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 6@3@2012&chsvks-I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
6358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 22nd October, 2013
S.O. 2412.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & 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 nominates Shri S.C. Das, Deputy Secretary,
Department of Financial Services as Government Nominee
Director on the Board of Director of Punjab & Sind Bank
with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Rajat
Sachar.
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2413-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk
izfrHkwfrdj.k ,oa iquxZBu rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr dk izorZu vf/kfu;e]
2002 dh /kkjk 21 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ,rn~}kjk]
vf/klwpuk lañ lkñdkñfuñ 277 ¼³½] 31 ekpZ] 2011 esa la'kks/ku
djrh gSA
mDr vf/klwpuk esa] iSjk ¼1½ ds uhps] rkfydk ds dkWye ¼2½
vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr dks izfrLFkkfir fd;k
tk,xk] uker%—
^^5oka ry] ,eVh,u,y] nwjHkk"k dsUnz Hkou]
8 Hkh[kkth dkek Iysl]
ubZ fnYyh&110066**
[Qkñ lañ 3@8@2013&fjdojh]
fefgj dqekj] funs'kd ¼fjdojh½
[ikn fVIi.kh% ewy vf/klwpuk dks Hkkjr ds jkti= vlk/kkj.k
Hkkx&II] [k.M 3& mi [k.M (i) esa lkñdkñfuñ 277 ¼³½] fnukad 31
ekpZ] 2011 }kjk izdkf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2413.—In exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 21 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002, the Central Government hereby amends the
Notification No. G.S.R. 277(E) dated 31st March, 2011.
In the said notification, in Column (2) of the Table,
below paragraph (1) and the entries relating thereto, the
following shall be substituted, namely:—
"5th Floor, MTNL Telephone Exchange Building,
8, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066".
[F. No. 3/8/2013-Recovery]
MIHIR KUMAR, Director (Recovery)
[Footnote: Principal Notification published vide G.S.R.
277(E) dated 31st March, 2011 in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary Part II, Section 3—sub-section (i)]
¼dsUnzh; mRikn] lhek'kqYd ,oa lsok dj vk;qDr dk dk;kZy;½
dksfpu] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
lañ 2@2013&dl-
dkñvkñ 2414-—foÙk ea=ky;] jktLo foHkkx] ubZ fnYyh
}kjk tkjh vf/klwpuk lañ 33@94&dl ¼,uñVhñ½ fnukad 1-7-1994
}kjk izR;k;ksftr lhek'kqYd] vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 9 ds varxZr
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSa ,rn~}kjk ,j.kkdqye ftyk ds
dqUurqukMq rkywd ds osaxwj if'pe xkWao dks lhek'kqYd vf/kfu;e]
1962 dh /kkjk 9 ds varxZr HkkaMkxkj.k LVs'ku ?kksf"kr djrk gwaA
[Qkñ lhñ lañ VIII@48@69@2010&dl Vsd]
txnh'k ¯lg] vk;qDr
(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX)
Cochin, the 25th October, 2013
No. 2/2013-Cus.
S.O. 2414.—In exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 delegated by
Notification No. 33/94-Cus. (NT) dated, 1.7.1994 issued by
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, I
hereby declare Vengoor West Village in Kunnathunadu
Taluke, Ernakulam District, Kerala State as a Warehousing
station under section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962.
[F. C. No. VIII/48/69/2010-Cus. Tech]
JAGDISH SINGH, Commissioner
¼lhek'kqYd] dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd o lsok dj vk;qDr dk
dk;kZy;] gSnjkckn III vk;qDrky;½
gSnjkckn] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
lañ 01@2013&lhek 'kqYd ¼,u Vh½
dkñvkñ 2415-—Hkkjr ljdkj] foÙk ea=ky;] jktLo foHkkx]
ubZ fnYyh }kjk tkjh vf/klwpuk lañ 33@94&dLVEl ¼,u Vh½ fnukad
01-07-1994 ds rgr lhek'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 9 ds
varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSa vka/kz izns'k jkT; ds djhe
uxj ftyk] xaxk/kkjk e.My ds vksMkoje xkWao dks lhek'kqYd vf/
kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 52½ dh /kkjk 9 ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj
}kjk Lohd`r 100% fu;kZr vk/kkfjr ,dd ds futh ckWaUM HkaMkxkj dks
ykblsal iznku djus ds iz;kstu ds fy, HkaMkxkj.k {ks= ds :i esa
?kksf"kr djrk gwWaA
[Qkñ lhñ lañ VIII@16@06@2013&rd ¼dl-½]
chñ jfopanzu] vk;qDr
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6359
(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX,
HYDERABAD-III COMMISSIONERATE)
Hyderabad, the 25th October, 2013
No. 01/2013-CUS (NT)
S.O. 2415.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Notification No. 33/94-Customs (NT) dated 01.07.1994 of
the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department
of Revenue, New Delhi, I hereby declare the area of
Odayaram Village, Gangadhara Mandal, Karim Nagar
District, in the state of Andhra Pradesh, to be a
Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act,
1962 (52 of 1962) for the purpose of licensing of Private
Bonded Warehouse (100% Export Oriented Unit).
[F. C. No. VIII/16/06/2013-Tech (Cus)]
B. RAVICHANDRAN, Commissioner
¼jktHkk"kk izHkkx½
[vk;dj funs'kky; ¼tñ lañ eqñ izñ ,oa jkñ Hkkñ½]
ubZ fnYyh] 8 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2416-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; izR;{k dj cksMZ ds layXu vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr
lac)@v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us
fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr
djrh gS%—
vuqlwph
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] dkuiqj {ks= ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
Øe lañ
dk;kZy; dk uke
1- dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] dkuiqj
2- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼izFke½] dkuiqj
3- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&1½] dkuiqj
4- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&2½] dkuiqj
5- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&3½] dkuiqj
6- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼f}rh;½] dkuiqj
7- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&4½] dkuiqj
8- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&5½] dkuiqj
9- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&6½] dkuiqj
10- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vkfMV½] dkuiqj
11- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½&I] dkuiqj
12- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½&II] dkuiqj
13- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼dñ vkñ½] dkuiqj
14- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼Vhñ Mhñ ,lñ½] dkuiqj
15- dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] ckWank
16- dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] mjbZ
17- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼izFke½] vkxjk
18- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&1½] vkxjk
19- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&2½] vkxjk
20- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;qDr ¼jsat&3½] vkxjk
21- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼f}rh;½] vkxjk
22- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&4½] fQjkstkckn
23- dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&5½] eFkqjk
24- dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ¼jsat&6½] >kalh
25- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½&I] vkxjk
26- dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½&II] vkxjk
27- dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] bVkok
28- dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] bVkok ¼vkSjs;k½
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] nsgjknwu izHkkj ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
Øe lañ
dk;kZy; dk uke
1-
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] nsgjknwu
2-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] nsgjknwu
3-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½&I ,oa II, nsgjknwu
4-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&1] nsgjknwu
5-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&2] nsgjknwu
6-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&gfj}kj
7-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh ¼okMZ&1½] #<+dh
8-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh ¼okMZ&2½] #<+dh
9-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh ¼okMZ&1½] _f"kds'k
10-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh ¼okMZ&2½] _f"kds'k
11-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] Jhuxj
12-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] dksV}kjk
13-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] gY}kuh
6360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&uSuhrky
15-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&dk'khiqj
16-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&gY}kuh
17-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] :nziqj
18-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] fiFkkSjkx<+
19-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] vYeksM+k
20-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] [kVhek
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] xkft;kckn izHkkj ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
Øe lañ dk;kZy; dk uke
1-
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] xkft;kckn
2-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] xkft;kckn
3-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] xkft;kckn ¼vihy½
4-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&1] xkft;kckn
5-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&2] xkft;kckn
6-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat& cqyUn'kgj
7-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] gkiqM+
8-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] vyhx<+
9-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr jsat&vyhx<+
10-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr jsat&,Vk
11-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr jsat&1] Q:Z[kkckn
12-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] eSauiqjh
13-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] dklxat
14-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] dUukSt
15-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] gkFkjl
16-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] esjB
17-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½] esjB
18-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr jsat&1] esjB
19-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr jsat&2] esjB
20-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] cM+kSr
21-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] uks,Mk
22-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½] uks,Mk
23-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&1] uks,Mk
24-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&2] uks,Mk
25-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&3] uks,Mk
26-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] eqt¶Qjuxj
27-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½ eqt¶Qjuxj
28-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&1] eqt¶Qjuxj
29-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&2] eqt¶Qjuxj
30-
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat& lgkjuiqj
31-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] [krkSyh
32-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] 'kkeyh
33-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] nsocan
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] y[kuÅ ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
vf/klwfpr fd, tkus okys u, dk;kZy;ksa dh lwph
Øe lañ dk;kZy; dk uke
1-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vij@la;qDr vk;qDr ¼varjkZ"Vªh; djkèku½
y[kuÅ
fnukad 13-10-2012 dh vf/klwpuk esa izdkf'kr fd, x,
dk;Zy;ksa ds uke ftUgsa vc ;Fkkla'kksf/kr iqu% vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk
gSA
Øe lañ
iwoZ vf/kwlfpr dk;kZy;
;Fkkla'kksf/kr vf/kwlfpr
dk uke
dk;kZy; dk uke
1-
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj
dk;kZy; vk;dj
vk;qDr&1] y[kuÅ
vk;qDr&1] y[kuÅ
2-
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj
dk;kZy; vk;dj
vk;qDr&2] y[kuÅ
vk;qDr&2] y[kuÅ
3-
dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;dj
dk;kZy; vk;dj
vk;qDr ¼VhñMhñ,lñ½]
vk;qDr ¼VhñMhñ,lñ½]
y[kuÅ
y[kuÅ
4-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr
dk;kZy; vk;dj funs'kd
¼vkbZñ,.M lhñvkbZñ½]
¼vkbZñ,.M lhñvkbZñ½]
y[kuÅ
y[kuÅ
5-
dk;kZy; vk;dj mi@lgk;d
dk;kZy; vk;dj
funs'kd
mi@lgk;d vk;qDr
¼dsUnzh;½& 1] y[kuÅ
¼dsUnzh;½& 1] y[kuÅ
6-
dk;kZy; vk;dj mi@lgk;d
dk;kZy; vk;dj mi@
funs'kd ¼dsUnzh;½&2] y[kuÅ lgk;d vk;qDr
¼dsUnzh;½&2] y[kuÅ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6361
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] cjsyh izHkkj ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
Øe lañ dk;kZy; dk uke
1-
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] cjsyh
2-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½] cjsyh
3-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] cjsyh
4-
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vkñvkñ jsat&1 cjsyh
5-
dk;kZy; vij@lgk;d vk;dj vk;qDr] lfdZy&1] cjsyh
6-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&1¼1½] cjsyh
7-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&1¼2½] cjsyh
8-
dk;kZy; dj olwyh vf/kdkjh jsat&1] cjsyh
9-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh &1] 'kkgtgkaiqj
10-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh &2] 'kkgtgkaiqj
11-
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vkñvkñ jsat&2] cjsyh
12-
dk;kZy; mi@lgk;d vk;dj vk;qDr] lfdZy&2] cjsyh
13-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&2¼1½] cjsyh
14-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&2¼2½] cjsyh
15-
dk;kZy; dj olwyh vf/kdkjh jsat&2] cjsyh
16-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh okMZ&1] ihyhHkhr
17-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh okMZ&2] ihyhHkhr
18-
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&lhrkiqj
19-
dk;kZy; mi@lgk;d vk;dj vk;qDr] ldZy&lhrkiqj
20-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&lhrkiqj
21-
dk;kZy; dj olwyh vf/kdkjh&lhrkiqj
22-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh okMZ&1] y[kheiqj] [khjh
23-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh okMZ&2] y[kheiqj] [khjh
24-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh okMZ] gjnksbZ
25-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] eqjknkckn
26-
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&1] eqjknkckn
27-
dk;kZy; mi@lgk;d vk;dj vk;qDr] lfdZy&1] eqjknkckn
28-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&1¼1½] eqjknkckn
29-
dk;kZy; dj olwyh vf/kdkjh&1] eqjknkckn
30-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&1] jkeiqj
31-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&2] jkeiqj
32-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] lEHky
33-
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&2] eqjknkckn
34-
dk;kZy; mi@lgk;d vk;dj vk;qDr lfdZy&2] eqjknkckn
35-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh &2¼1½] eqjknkckn
36-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&2¼2½] eqjknkckn
37-
dk;kZy; dj olwyh vf/kdkjh&2] eqjknkckn
38-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] pUnkSlh
39-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] cnk;wa
40-
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] jsat&fctukSj
41-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&1] fctukSj
42-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&2] fctukSj
43-
dk;kZy; dj olwyh vf/kdkjh] fctukSj
44-
dk;kZy; mi@lgk;d vk;dj vk;qDr] uthckckn
45-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&1] uthckckn
46-
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh&2] uthckckn
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] Hkksiky {ks= ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
Øe lañ dk;kZy; dk uke
1
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr&I] tcyiqj
2
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr&II] tcyiqj
3
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ifj-&I tcyiqj
4
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr ifj-&II tcyiqj
5
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] fNanokM+k
6
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] lkxj
7
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] lruk
8
dk;kZy; vij@la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] dVuh
9
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] jhok
10
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] flokuh
11
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] ckyk?kkV
12
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] neksg
13
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] 'kgMksy
Øe lañ dk;kZy; dk uke
6362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] iq.ks {ks= ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
Øe lañ
dk;kZy; dk uke
1
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr&I] iq.ks
2
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj egkfuns'kd ¼vUos"k.k½] iq.ks
3
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr&I] iq.ks
4
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr&jsat&1] iq.ks
5
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼VhMh,l½] iq.ks
6
dk;kZy; lgk;d vk;dj vk;qDr&jsat] vgenuxj
7
dk;kZy; vk;dj funs'kd ¼vkbZ Vh@Vh ih½] iq.ks
8
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr&IV] iq.ks
9
dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr&jsat &1] lksykiqj
10
dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr&jsat &2] lksykiqj
11
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr&jsat &7] iq.ks
12
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihYl½&I] iq.ks
13
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihYl½&II] iq.ks
14
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihYl½&III] iq.ks
15
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihYl½&IV] iq.ks
16
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼dañizñ½] iq.ks
17
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihYl½ ¼vñdñ@vñeqñfuñ½]
iq.ks
18
dk;kZy; vij vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vUos".k½] dksYgkiqj
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] gqcyh o i.kth {ks= ,oa v/khuLFk
dk;kZy;
Øe la-
dk;kZy; dk uke
1
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] gqcyh
2
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] fljlh
3
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] xnx
4
dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;qDr] jsat&3] gqcyh
5
dk;kZy; vk;dj mi funs'kd ¼vUos-½] gqcyh
6
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] xqycxkZ
7
dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;qDr] xqycxkZ jsat
8
dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;qDr] jk;pwj jsat
9
dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;qDr] csYykjh jsat
10
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr] nko.kxsjs
11
dk;kZy; la;qDr vk;dj vk;qDr] nko.kxsjs jsat
12
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] gkosjh
13
dk;kZy; vk;dj vf/kdkjh] fp=nqxkZ
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] i.kth {ks=
Øe lañ
dk;kZy; dk uke
1
dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] i.kth
2
dk;kZy; vk;dj vij@la;qDr vk;qDr] eMxkao
3
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½] eMxkao
4
dk;kZy; vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½] i.kth
fnYyh {ks= ds dk;kZy;
Øe lañ
dk;kZy; dk uke
1
vk;dj egkfuns'kky; ¼izpkyu ra=½] ubZ fnYyh
2
vk;dj funs'kky; ¼chñihñvkjñ½] ubZ fnYyh
3
vk;dj funs'kky; ¼O;; ctV½] ubZ fnYyh
4
vk;dj funs'kky; ¼ekñlañfoñ½] ubZ fnYyh
eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] iwoksZÙkj {ks= ,oa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;
Øe lañ
dk;kZy; dk uke
1
vk;dj funs'kd ¼vUos"k.k½ dk dk;kZy;] iwoksZÙkj {ks=
xqokgkVh
[Qkñ lañ 2300@jkñHkkñizñ@2013&14]
vkjñ ,eñ xxZ] vk;dj funs'kd ¼tñlañeqñizñ ,oa jkñ Hkkñ½
(OFFICIAL LANGUAGE DIVISION)
[DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (PR, PP & OL)]
New Delhi, the 8th November, 2013
S.O. 2416.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the Attached/Subordinate Offices (as mentioned in the
Schedule) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, whereof
more than 80% of the staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi.
SCHEDULE
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur Region and
Subordinate Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Kanpur
2
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (First) Kanpur
3
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-1), Kanpur
4
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-2), Kanpur
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6363
5
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-3), Kanpur
6
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Second),
Kanpur
7
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-4) Kanpur
8
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-5) Kanpur
9
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-6), Kanpur
10
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit),
Kanpur
11
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-I,
Kanpur
12
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II
Kanpur
13
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (C.O.),
Kanpur
14
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur
15
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Banda
16
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Urai
17
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (First) Agra
18
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-1), Agra
19
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-2), Agra
20
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-3), Agra
21
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Second),
Agra
22
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-4), Firozabad
23
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(Range-5), Mathura
24
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Range-
6), Jhansi
25
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-I,
Agra
26
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II,
Agra
27
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Etawah
28
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Etawah (Oraiya)
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun Charge
and Subordinate Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Dehradun
2
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax Dehradun
3
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-I &
II, Dehradun
4
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-
1, Dehradun
5
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-
2, Dehradun
6
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range
- Haridwar
7
O/o The Income Tax Officer (Ward-1), Roorkee
8
O/o The Income Tax Officer (Ward-2), Roorkee
9
O/o The Income Tax Officer (Ward-1), Rishikesh
10
O/o The Income Tax Officer (Ward-2), Rishikesh
11
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Shrinagar
12
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Kotdwar
13
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haldwani
14
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range
- Nainital
15
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range
- Kashipur
16
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range
- Haldwani
17
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Rudrapur
18
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Pithoragarh
19
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Almora
20
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Khatima
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad Charge
and Subordinate Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Ghaziabad
2
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad
3
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad
(Appeal)
4
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-
1, Ghaziabad
S.No.
Name of the Office
6364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-2, Ghaziabad
6
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range,
Bulandshehar
7
O/o The The Income Tax Officer, Hapur
8
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh
9
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aligarh
10
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range,
Etah
11
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-
1, Farrukhabad
12
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Mainpuri
13
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Kasgang
14
O/o The Income Tax Officer Kannauj
15
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Hathras
16
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut
17
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal),
Meerut
18
O/o The Addl./Commissioner of Income Tax Range-
1, Meerut
19
O/o The Addl./Commissioner of Income Tax Range-
2, Meerut
20
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Baraut
21
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida
22
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal),
Noida
23
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-
1, Noida
24
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-
2, Noida
25
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-
3 Noida
26
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Muzaffarnagar
27
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal),
Muzaffarnagar
28
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-1, Muzaffarnagar
29
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-
2, Muzaffarnagar
30
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-
Saharanpur
31
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Khatuli
32
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Shamli
33
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Deoband
Chief Commissiner of Income Tax, Lucknow and
Subordinate Offices
List of Offices which are required to be notified:—
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
O/o The Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
International Taxtation, Lucknow
Name of offices which are already notified as on
13.10.2012 and required to be re-notified
as amended.
S.
Name of the Office
Name of Offices which
No.
are now to be re-notified
as amended
1
O/o The Chief
O/o The Commissioner
Commissioner of Income
of Income Tax - 1, Lucknow
Tax- 1, Lucknow
2
O/o The Chief
O/o The Commissioner
Commissioner of Income
of Income Tax - 2, Lucknow
Tax- 2, Lucknow
3
O/o The Joint
O/o The Commissioner
Commissioner of Income
of Income Tax (TDS),
Tax (TDS), Lucknow
Lucknow
4
O/o The Commissioner
O/o The Director of
of Income Tax (C&C.1.),
Income Tax (C&C.1),
Lucknow
Lucknow
5
O/o The Dy./Asstt.
O/o The Dy./Asstt.
Director (Central), - 1,
Commissioner of Income
Lucknow
Tax (Central), - 1, Lucknow
6
O/o The Dy./Asstt.
O/o The Dy./Asstt.
Director (Central) - 2,
Commissioner of Income
Lucknow
Tax (Central) - 2, Lucknow
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly Charge
and Subordinate Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly
2
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal),
Bareilly
3
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly
4
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-1 Bareilly
5
O/o The Dy./Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-1, Bareilly
6
O/o The Income Tax Officer - 1 (1), Bareilly
S.No.
Name of the Office
S.No.
Name of the Office
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6365
7
O/o The Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Bareilly
8
O/o The Tax Recovery Officer Range - 1, Bareilly
9
O/o The Income Tax Officer - 1, Shahjahanpur
10
O/o The Income Tax Officer-2, Shahjahanpur
11
O/o The Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range -2 Bareilly
12
O/o The Dy./Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-2, Bareilly
13
O/o The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly
14
O/o The Income Tax Officer - 2 (2), Bareilly
15
O/o The Tax Recovery Officer Range-2, Bareilly
16
O/o The Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 Peelibheet
17
O/o The Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 Peelibheet
18
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range, Sitapur
19
O/o The Dy./Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle, Sitapur
20
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Sitapur
21
O/o The Tax Recovery Officer, Sitapur
22
O/o The Income Tax Officer Ward - 1, Lakhimpur
Kheri
23
O/o The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Lakhimpur
Kheri
24
O/o The Income Tax Officer Ward, Hardoi
25
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad
26
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-1, Moradabad
27
O/o The Dy./Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-1, Moradabad
28
O/o The Income Tax Officer - 1 (1), Moradabad
29
O/o The Tax Recovery Officer -1, Moradabad
30
O/o The Income Tax Officer-1, Rampur
31
O/o The Income Tax Officer-2, Rampur
32
O/o The Income Tax Officer Sambhal
33
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-2, Moradabad
34
O/o The Dy./Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-2, Moradabad
35
O/o The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Moradabad
36
O/o The Income Tax Officer -2 (2), Moradabad
37
O/o The Tax Recovery Officer -2, Moradabad
38
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Chandausi
39
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Badaun
40
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range, Bijnore
41
O/o The Income Tax Officer - 1 Bijnore
42
O/o The Income Tax Officer-2 Bijnore
43
O/o The Tax Recovery Officer, Bijnore
44
O/o The Dy./Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Najibabad
45
O/o The Income Tax Officer-1 Najibabad
46
O/o The Income Tax Officer-2 Najibabad
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Region and
Subordinate Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Jabalpur
2
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax - II, Jabalpur
3
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range - I, Jabalpur
4
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range - II, Jabalpur
5
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax -
Chhindwara
6
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax -
Sagar
7
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax -
Satna
8
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax -
Katni
9
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Rewa
10
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Siwani
11
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Balaghat
12
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Damoh
13
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Shahdol
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune Region and
Subordinate Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune
2
O/o The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Pune
3
O/o The Income Tax Commissioner-I, Pune
4
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax-Range-I,
Pune
5
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Pune
S.No.
Name of the Office
S.No.
Name of the Office
6366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6
O/o The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Range,
Ahmednagar
7
O/o The Director of Income Tax (IT/TP), Pune
8
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Pune
9
O/o The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax-Range-I,
Solapur
10
O/o The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax-Range-2,
Solapur
11
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-
7, Pune
12
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I,
Pune
13
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II,
Pune
14
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-
III, Pune
15
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V,
Pune
16
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (CO), Pune
17
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
(IT/TP), Pune
18
O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Inv.),
Kolhapur
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli &
Panaji Region and Subordinate Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hubli
2
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Sirsi
3
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Gadag
4
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-
3, Hubli
5
O/o The Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Hubli
6
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga
7
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Gulbarga Range
8
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Raichur
Range
9
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bellary
Range
10
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere
11
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Davangere Range
12
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Haveri
13
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Chitardurga
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji Region
1
O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji
2
O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Margao
3
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Panaji
Delhi Region Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
Directorate General of Income Tax (Logistics), New
Delhi
2
Directorate of Income Tax (B.P.R.), New Delhi
3
Directorate of Income Tax (Expenditure Budget),
New Delhi
4
Directorate of Income Tax (HRD), New Delhi
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, N.E. Region,
Guwahati and Subordinate Offices
S.No.
Name of the Office
1
Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), N.E.
Region, Guwahati
[F. No. 2300/O.L.D./2013-14]
R. M. GARG, Director of Income Tax (PR, PP & OL)
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lhihoh izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2417-—jktuf;d vkSj dkalyh; vkWfQlj ¼'kiFk
vkSj Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh vlhe eaMy] lgk;d dks 18 uoEcj]
2013 ls Hkkjr ds jktnwrkokl] vfnl vckck] lgk;d dksalqyj
vf/kdkjh ds dÙkZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gSA
[lañ Vhñ 4330@01@2006]
lqfp=k nqjS;] la;qDr lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2417.—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
S.No.
Name of the Office
S.No.
Name of the Office
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6367
hereby authorize Shri Asim Mandal, Assistant, in Embassy
of India, Addis Ababa to perform the duties of Assistant
Consular Officer with effect from 18th November, 2013.
[No.T. 4330/01/2006]
SUCHITRA DURAI, Jt. Secy. (Consular)
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2012
dkñvkñ 2418-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds [kaM ¼[k½
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn
ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn rFkk bl ea=ky; dh fnukad 20-04-2009 dh
lela[;d vf/klwpuk esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku ls] ,rn~}kjk mDr
vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&III esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gSa
vFkkZr~%&
yanu fo'ofo|ky; ds lEca/k esa nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&III esa] Øe la[;k 9 ds
le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa ^^;wfuoflZVh vkWQ
yanu] fMikVZesaV vkWQ ,fiMseksyksth ,aM ifCyd gSYFk] yanu** 'kh"kZd
ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk%—
^^,e,llh ¼MsaVy ifCyd gSYFk½ ,e,llh ¼MsaVy ifCyd gSYFk½]
tks Hkkjrh; fo'ofo|ky;ksa
;wfuoflZVh vkWQ yanu**
}kjk iznku dh tkus okyh
,eMh,l fMxzh ds led{k gS
¼;fn 1-1-1993 dks ;k mlds
igys iznku dh gks½
[Qkñ lañ oh&12018@2@2007&MhbZ]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2012
S.O. 2418.—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 partial modification
in this Ministry's Notification of even no. dated 20.4.2009,
hereby, makes the following further amendments in Part-III
of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
2. The existing entries of column 2 & 3 of serial
number 9 in part-III of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,
1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to University of London under
the heading "University College of London, Department
of Epidemiology and Public Health, London" shall be
substituted as follows:—
"M.Sc is Dental Public Health
M.Sc in Dental Public
as equivalent to MDS Degree
Health, University of
awarded by Indian
London."
Universities if granted on or
before 1.11.1993.
[F.No. V-12018/2/2007-DE]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2013
dkñvkñ 2419-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ
djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa
fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gSa vFkkZr~%&
Jh xksfoan f='krkCnh MsaVy dkWyst( vLirky ,oa vuqla/kku
laLFkku cq<sjk] ds fy, iafMr chñMhñ 'kekZ LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
jksgrd }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds lEca/k esa nar
fpfdRld vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I
esa Øe la[;k 84 ds le{k dkWye 2 ,oa 3 ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa
fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh%—
ekLVj vkWQ MsaVy ltZjh
vksjy iSFkksykWth ,aM ekbZØks&
,eñMhñ,lñ ¼vksjy iSFkksykWth½]
ck;ksyksth ¼;fn 29-05-2012
iafMr chñMhñ 'kekZ LokLF;
dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ½
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd
ifCyd gSYFk MsafVLVªh ¼;fn
,eñMhñ,lñ ¼ifCyd gSYFk
30-05-2012 dks ;k mlds ckn
MsafVLVªh½]
iznku dh xbZ½
iafMr chñMhñ 'kekZ LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] jksgrd**
[Qkñ lañ oh&12017@20@2007&MhbZ]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 14th February, 2013
S.O. 2419.—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. 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 Sri Govind Tricentenary Dental College,
6368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hospital and Research Institute, Budhera, the following
entries shall be inserted thereunder:—
"Master of Dental Surgery
Oral Pathology & Microbiology
MDS (Oral Path.),
(if granted on or after 29.5.2012)
Pt. B.D. Sharma
University of
Health Sciences,
Rohtak.
Public Health Dentistry
MDS (Pub. Health),
(if granted on or after 30.5.2012)
Pt. B.D. Sharma
University of
Health Sciences,
Rohtak."
[F.No. V-12017/20/2007-DE]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ebZ] 2013
dkñvkñ 2420-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ
djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa
fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gSa vFkkZr~%&
2- nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh
vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa Øe la[;k ds ckn fuEufyf[kr Øe la[;k vkSj
izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axh] vFkkZr~%&
^^112 Jh fl)kFkZ
Jh fl)kFkZ MsaVy
ch Mh ,l] Jh fl)kFkZ
fo'ofo|ky;]
dkyst] Vwedqj
fo'ofo|ky;]
Vwedqj
cSpyj vkWQ MsaVy
Vwedqj**
ltZjh
¼;fn 28-07-2012
dks ;k mlds ckn
iznku dh xbZ½
[lañ oh&12017@57@2009&MhbZ]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2013
S.O. 2420.—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 Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948
(16 of 1948) after Serial No., the following Serial number
and entries shall be inserted, namely:—
"112 Sri
Sri Siddhartha
Siddhartha
Dental College,
University,
Tumkur
Tumkur
Bachelor of
BDS, Sri Siddhartha
Dental Surgery
University,
(if granted on
Tumkur."
or after 28.7.2012)
[No. V-12017/57/2009-DE]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013
dkñvkñ 2421-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ
djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph dh vuqlwph ds
Hkkx&I esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku djrh gS vFkkZr~%—
¼2½ ^^fgekpy MsaVy dkWyst ,oa vLirky] lqnjuxj** ds
le{k fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRld
vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx-I esa Øe
la[;k 52 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr
izfof"V;ka vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh%
^^ekLVj vkWQ MsUVy ltZjh
dUlZosfVo MsuLVªh; ,oa bUMksMksuVhdy
,eMh,l ¼dksul MsuLVªh½
¼;fn 4-6-2013 ;k mlds ckn iznku
fgekpy izns'k]
dh xbZ gks½
fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk**
[lañ oh&12017@19@2009&MhbZ]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013
S.O. 2421.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16
of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with
Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following
amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act,
namely:—
2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against
Serial No. 52, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,
1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees
awarded by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla against
Himachal Dental College & Hospital, Sundernagar, the
following entries shall be inserted thereunder:—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6369
"Master of Dental surgery
Conservative Dentistry
MDS (Cons. Dentistry),
and Endodontics
Himachal Pradesh
(if granted on or after
University, Shimla."
4.6.2013)
[No. V-12017/19/2009-DE]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013
dkñvkñ 2422-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ
djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph dh vuqlwph ds
Hkkx&I esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS vFkkZr~%—
ehuk{kh mPp f'k{kk ,oa vuqla/kku vdkneh] pSUubZ n~okjk
iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/k esa nar fpfdRld
vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa ehuk{kh
vEey MsaVy dkWyst ,aM vLirky] pSUubZ] rfeyukMq ds lEca/k esa
Øe la[;k 77 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa
^ekLVj vkQ MsaVy ltZjh* 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka
vUr%LFkkfir dh tk;sxh%—
vksjy esfDlyksQsf'k;y ltZjh
,e Mh ,l ¼vksjy ltZjh½]
¼;fn 14-02-2013 ;k mlds ckn ehuk{kh mPp f'k{kk ,oa
iznku dh xbZ½
vuqla/kku vdkneh] pSUubZ
[lañ oh&12017@13@2008&Mh bZ]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013
S.O. 2422.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of section 10 of theDentists 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 I of
Serial No. 77, in respect of Meenakshi Ammal Dental College
& Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, in Part-I of the Schedule
to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to
recognition of dental degrees awarded by Meenakshi
Academy of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, the
following entries under the heading "Master of Dental
Surgery" shall be inserted thereunder:—
Oral Maxillofacial Surgery
MDS (Oral Surg.)
(if granted on or after
Meenakshi Academy of
14.02.2013)
Higher Education and
Research, Chennai
[No. V-12017/13/2008-DE]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013
dkñvkñ 2423-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ
djus ds ckn ,rr~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph dh vuqlwph ds
Hkkx&I esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS vFkkZr~%—
jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd
n~okjk iznÙk nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dh ekU;rk ds laca/k esa ,eñvkjñ
vEcsMdj MsaVy dkWyst ,aM vLirky] csaxykSj] dukZVd ds le{k
nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh vuqlwph ds
Hkkx&I esa Øe la[;k 49 ds VIII ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh ekStwnk
izfof"V;ksa esa ^^ekLVj vkQ MsaVy ltZjh** 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr
izfof"V;ka vUr%LFkkfir dh tk,axh%—
iSMksaVhDl ,aM izhosaVho MsafVLVªh
,eñMhñ,lñ ¼iSMks½ñ] jktho xka/kh
¼;fn 22-05-2013 dks ;k
LokLF; foKku
mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ½
fo'ofo|ky;] csaxykSj] dukZVd
ifCyd gsYFk MsafVLVªh
,eñMhñ,lñ ¼ifCyd gsYFk MsafVLVªh½]
¼;fn 22-05-2013 dks ;k
jktho xka/kh LokLF; foKku
mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ½
fo'ofo|ky;]csaxykSj] dukZVd
[lañ oh&12017@14@2009&Mh bZ]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013
S.O. 2423.—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 M.R. Ambedkar Dental College
& Hospital, Bangalore, 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:—
Paedodontics and
MDS (Paedo.), Rajiv Gandhi
Preventive Dentistry
University of Health
(if granted on or after
Sciences, Bangalore
22.05.2013)
Public Health Dentistry
MDS (Public Health Dent.),
(if granted on or after
Rajiv Gandhi
22.05.2013)
University of Health
Sciences, Bangalore
[No. V-12017/14/2009-DE]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
6370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2424-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ
djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph dh vuqlwph ds
Hkkx&I esa fufEyfyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku djrh gS vFkkZr~%
¼2½ ^^NÙkhlx<+ MsaVy dkyst ,oa fjlpZ laLFkku] jktukanxkao**
ds le{k] NÙkhlx<+ vk;q"k ,oa LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] jk;iqj
}kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh
vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa Øe la[;k 112 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa 3 dh
ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh tk,axhA
2
3
¼ekLVj vkWQ MsaVy ltZjh½
,eñ Mhñ ,lñ ¼vkFkksZ½ NÙkhlx<
vk;q"k ,oa LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky; ] jk;iqj
¼'kS{kf.kd o"kZ 2010&11 ds nkSjku
nkf[kyk ysus okys Nk=ksa ds laca/k
esa 3 lhVksa vkSj rRi'pkr~ vfxze nks
lhVksa ds lkFk ;fn fnukad 30-4-2013
dks ;k mls ckn iznku gksA
ifj;MksuksVksykWth
¼;fn 8-5-2013 dks ;k mlds ckn ,eMh,l ¼iSjks½ NÙkhlx<+ vk;q"k
iznku dh xbZ gS½
,oa LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
jk;iqj
[lañ oh&12017@77@2005&MhbZ]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th August, 2013
S.O. 2424.—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. 112, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,
1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees
awarded by Chhattisgarh Ayush and Health Sciences
University, Raipur, against Chhattisgarh Dental College &
Research Institute, Rajnandgaon, the following entries shall
be inserted thereunder:—
"Master of Dental Surgery
-Orthodontics & Dentofacial
MDS (Ortho.),
Orthopedics
Chhattisgarh Ayush and
(if granted on or after
Health Sciences University,
30.4.2013 with 3 seats in
Raipur
respect of the students
admitted during the
academic year 2010-11
and subsequently with 2
seats onwards)
-Periodontology
MDS (Perio.), Chhattisgarh
(if granted on or after
Ayush and Health
8.5.2013)
Sciences University, Raipur
[No. V-12017/77/2008-DE]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2425-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e]
1948 ¼1948 dk 16½ dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ
djus ds ckn ,rn}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph dh vuqlwph ds
Hkkx&I esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku djrh gS vFkkZr~%
¼2½ ^^egkjktk d`".kdqekj flag th Hkkouxj fo'ofo|ky;
Hkkouxj** }kjk iznÙk nar fpfdRld vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk
16½ dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa Øe la[;k 62 ds le{k dkye 2 ,oa
3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ka var%LFkkfir dh
tk,axhA
2
3
^^dkyst vkWQ MsUVy lkbal]
Hkkouxj ¼xqtjkr½
cspyj vkWQ MsUVy ltZjh
¼;fn 25-4-2013 dks ;k mlds
chñ Mhñ ,lñ egkjktk d`".k dqekj
ckn iznku dh xbZ gSa½
flag th Hkkouxj fo'ofo|ky; ]
Hkkouxj**
[lañ oh&12017@49@2008&MhbZ]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013
S.O. 2425.—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:—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6371
2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against
Serial No. 62, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,
1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees
awarded by Maharaja Krishnakumarsinghji Bhavnagar
University, Bhavnagar, the following entries shall be
inserted thereunder:—
"College of Dental Sciences,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
Bachelor of Dental Surgery
BDS Maharaja krishna-
(if granted on or after 25.4.2013)
Kumarsinghji
Bhavnagar University,
Bhavnagar."
[No. V-12017/49/2008-DE]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 6 uoEcj] 2012
dkñvkñ 2426-—dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~
vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls
ijke'kZ djus ds ckn] ,rn~}kjk vgZrk ds uke esa cnyko ds dkj.k
mDr vf/kfu;e dh igyh vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku djrh
gS] vFkkZr~%—
mDr vuqlwph esa—
¼d½ ^^xq# xksfoan flag banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh** ds
lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼2½
ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr
izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, lais{k.k* [vc ds ckn LraHk
¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k
tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼HkkSfrd
,e Mh ¼ih ,e vkj½
fpfdRlk ,oa iquokZl½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g o/kZeku
egkohj esMhdy dkWyst ,oa
LukRrdksÙkj laLFkku] lQnjtax
vLirky] ubZ fnYyh esa izf'kf{kr
fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k
esa] xq# xksfoan flag banzizLFk
fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh] }kjk
2011 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~
iznku dh xbZ gks½A
¼[k½ ^^iwoksZÙkj fgy fo'ofo|ky;] f'kykax**] ds lkeus 'kh"kZd
^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼2½ ds :i esa
lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn
'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼3½ ds :i esa
lanfHkZr½ ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,eMh ¼iSFkksyksth½
¼iSFkksyksth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g iwoksZÙkj bafnjk
xka/kh {ks=h; LokLF; ,oa
vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] f'kykax esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa
ds laca/k esa] iwoksZÙkj fgy
fo'ofo|ky;] f'kykax }kjk ebZ]
2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~
iznku dh xbZ gks½A
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½
¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g iwoksZÙkj bafnjk
xka/kh {ks=h; LokLF; ,oa
vk;qfoZKku laLFkku] f'kykax esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa
ds laca/k esa] iwoksZÙkj fgy
fo'ofo|ky;] f'kykax }kjk ebZ]
2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~
iznku dh xbZ gks½A
¼x½ ^^iatkc fo'ofo|ky;] paMhx<+** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼2½ ds :i esa
lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn
'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼3½ ds :i esa
lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼VªkaLQ~;qtu esMhflu½
¼VªkaLQ~;qtu esMhflu½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g jktdh;
esMhdy dkWyst]paMhx<+ esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa
ds laca/k esa] iatkc fo'ofo|ky;]
paMhx<+ }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gks½A
¼?k½ ^^ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] QjhndksV]
iatkc** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn
LraHk ¼2½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls
lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k* [vc ds
ckn LraHk ¼3½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir
fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
6372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼QkekZdksykWth½
¼QkekZdksykWth½
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g xq# jke nkl
vk;qfoZKku ,oa vuqla/kku laLFkku]
Jh ve`rlj] iatkc esa izf'kf{kr
fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k
esa] ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] QjhndksV] iatkc
}kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½A
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½
¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g xq# jke nkl
vk;qfoZKku ,oa vuqla/kku laLFkku]
Jh ve`rlj] iatkc esa izf'kf{kr
fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k
esa] ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] QjhndksV] iatkc
}kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½A
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e ,l ¼bZ ,u Vh½
¼vksVks jkbZuks ySfjaxksykWth½
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g xq# nke nkl
vk;qfoZKku ,oa vuqla/kku laLFkku]
Jh ve`rlj] iatkc esa izf'kf{kr
fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k
esa] ckck Qjhn LokLF; foKku
fo'ofo|ky;] QjhndksV] iatkc
}kjk twu] 2012 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½A
¼³½ ^^xksok fo'ofo|ky;] xksok** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼2½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds
varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd
^iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼3½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr]
ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
^^cky jksx esa fMIyksek**
Mh lh ,p
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g xksok esfMdy
dkWyst] xksok esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa] xksok
fo'ofo|ky;] xksok }kjk 1994
esa iznku dh xbZ½A
¼p½ ^^jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj** ds
lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼2½
ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr
izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k* [vc ds ckn LraHk
¼3½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k
tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½
¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g jktdh;
esfMdy dkWyst] dksVk esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa
ds laca/k esa] jktLFkku LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj }kjk
twu] 2012 esa vFkok mlds i'pkr~
iznku dh xbZ½A
¼N½ ^^vkxjk fo'ofo|ky;@MkWñ Hkhe jko vEcsMdj
fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk] mÙkj izns'k** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr
fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼2½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds
varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd
^iathdj.k ds fy, la{kis.k* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼3½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr]
ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu ¼{k;
,e Mh ¼{k; ,oa Nkrh jksx@'okl
,oa Nkrh jksx@'okl jksx½**
jksx½
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g ,l ,u
esfMdy dkWyst] vkxjk esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa
ds
laca/k
esa]
vkxjk
fo'ofo|ky;@MkWñ Hkhe jko
vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk]
mÙkj izns'k }kjk o"kZ 1991 esa
vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh
xbZ½A
¼N½ ^^cqnsy[kaM fo'ofo|ky;] >kalh] mÙkj izns'k** ds lkeus
'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼2½ ds :i
eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds
ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, la{kis.k* [vc ds ckn LraHk ¼3½ ds
:i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk]
vFkkZr~%&
^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh
,e ,l ¼dku] ukd] xyk½
¼vksVks jkbZuks ySfjaxksykWth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g egkjkuh
y{ehckbZ esfMdy dkWyst] >kalh]
mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk
jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa] cqansy[kaM
fo'ofo|ky;] >kalh] mÙkj izns'k
}kjk o"kZ 1993 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6373
^^ySfjaxksykWth vkSj vksVksykWth
Mh ,y vks
esa fMIyksek**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g egkjkuh
y{ehckbZ esfMdy dkWyst] >kalh]
mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk
jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa]
cqansy[kaM fo'ofo|ky;] >kalh]
mÙkj izns'k }kjk o"kZ 1992 esa
vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh
xbZ½
¼>½ ^^Lokeh foosdkuan lqHkkjrh fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj
izns'k** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds ckn
LraHk ¼2½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls
lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k* [vc ds
ckn LraHk ¼3½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir
fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼tSo jlk;u½
¼tSo jlk;u½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkrhZ
esfMdy dkWyst] esjB] mÙkj izns'k
esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa
ds laca/k esa] Lokeh foosdkuan
lqHkkjrh fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj
izns'k }kjk twu] 2012 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼fQft;ksykWth½
¼fQft;ksykWth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkrhZ
esfMdy dkWyst] esjB] mÙkj izns'k
esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa
ds laca/k esa] Lokeh foosdkuan
lqHkkjrh fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj
izns'k }kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½
¼ekbZØksck;ksykWth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g lqHkrhZ
esfMdy dkWyst] esjB] mÙkj izns'k
esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa
ds laca/k esa] Lokeh foosdkuan
lqHkkjrh fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj
izns'k }kjk twu] 2012 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½
¼´½ ^^if'pe caxky LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
dksydkrk** ds lkeus 'kh"kZd ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [vc ds
ckn LraHk ¼2½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls
lacaf/kr izfof"V ds ckn 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k* [vc ds
ckn LraHk ¼3½ ds :i eas lanfHkZr] ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir
fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼fQft;ksykWth½
¼fQft;ksykWth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g vkjñ thñ dkj
esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds
laca/k esa] if'pe caxky LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk
}kjk ebZ] 2012 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½
¼ekbØksck;ksykWth½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g vkjñ thñ dkj
esfMdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds
laca/k esa] if'pe caxky LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk
}kjk ebZ] 2011 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
,e Mh ¼Qksjsafld esMhflu½
¼Qksjsafld esMhflu½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g vkjñthñ dkj
esMhdy dkWyst] dksydkrk esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fon~;kfFkZ;ksa
ds laca/k esa] if'pe caxky
LokLF; foKku fo'ofon~;ky;]
dksydkrk n~okjk ebZ] 2012 esa
vFkok mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh
xbZ½
^^ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh
,e ,l ¼tujy ltZjh½
¼tujy ltZjh½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g c/kZoku
esfMdy dkWyst] c/kZoku esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds
laca/k esa] if'pe caxky LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk
}kjk twu] 2012 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½
^^MkWDVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vksVks
,e ,l ¼bZ ,u Vh½
jkbZuks ySfjaxksykWth½
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh ;fn ;g c/kZoku
esfMdy dkWyst] c/kZoku esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds
laca/k esa] if'pe caxky LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] dksydkrk
}kjk vizSy] 2011 esa vFkok mlds
i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ½
lHkh ds laca/k esa uksV% 1- fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy,
iznÙk ,slh ekU;rk 5 o"kks± dh vf/kdre vof/k ds fy, gksxh] ftlds
mijkar bldk uohuhdj.k djokuk iM+sxkA
6374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2- mi&[kaM 4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr ekU;rk ds le;iwoZd uohuhdj.k
laca/kh vis{kk esa vlQy jgus dk vfuok;Zr% ifj.kke lacaf/kr
LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk can djus ds :i esa fudysxkA
[lañ ;wñ 12012@69@2012&,ebZ ¼ih&II)]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th November, 2012
S.O. 2426.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,
after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes
the following further amendments in the First Schedule to
the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the
qualification namely:—
In the said Schedule—
(a) against "Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, New Delhi" under the heading 'Recognised
Medical Qualification' [hereinfater referred to as column
(2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred
to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
"Docoter of Medicine
MD (PMR)
(Physical Medicine &
(This shall be a recognised
Rehabilitation)"
medical qualification when
granted by Guru Gobind
Singh
Indraprastha
University, New Delhi in
respect of students being
trained
at
Vardhman
Mahavir Medical College &
Postgraduate
Institute
Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi on or after 2011.)
(b) against " North Eastern Hill University, Shillong"
under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification'
[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry
and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation
for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the
following shall be inserted, namely:—
"Docoter of Medicine
MD (Pathology)
(Pathology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by North Eastern
Hill University, Shillong in
respect of students being
trained at North Eastern
Indira Gandhi Regional
Institute of Health &
Medical Sciences, Shilloing
on or after May, 2012.)
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Microbiology)
(Microbiology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by North Eastern
Hill University, Shillong in
respect of students being
trained at North Eastern
Indira Gandhi Regional
Institute of Health &
Medical Sciences, Shillong
on or after May, 2012.)
(c) against, "Punjab University, Chandigarh" under
the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter
referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry
relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for
Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the
following shall be inserted, namely:—
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Transfusion Medicine)
(Transfusion Medicine)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted
by
Punjab
University, Chandigarh in
respect of students being
trained at Govt. Medical
College, Chandigarh on or
after May, 2012.)
(d) against "Baba Farid University of Health
Seciences, Faridkot, Punjab" under the heading 'Recognised
Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column
(2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred
to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Pharmacology)
(Pharmacology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Baba Farid
University of Health
Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab
in respect of students being
trained at Guru Ram Das
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences & Research, Sri
Amritsar, Punjab on or after
May, 2012.)
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Microbiology)
(Microbiology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Baba Farid
University of Health
Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab
in respect of students being
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6375
trained at Guru Ram Das
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences & Research, Sri
Amritsar, Punjab on or after
May, 2012.)
"Master of Surgery
MS(ENT)
(Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Baba Farid
University of Health
Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab
in respect of students being
trained at Guru Ram Das
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences & Research, Sri
Amritsar, Punjab on or after
June, 2012.)
(e) against "Goa University Goa" under the heading
'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to
as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto
under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall
be inserted, namely:—
"Diploma in Child Health"
DCH
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Goa University,
Goa in respect of students
being trained at Goa
Medical College, Goa on or
after 1994.)
(f) against "Rajasthan University of Health Sciences,
Jaipur" under the heading 'Recognised Medical
Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after
the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Microbiology)
(Microbiology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Rajasthan
University of Health
Sciences, Jaipur in respect
of students being trained at
Govt. Medical College,
Kota on or after June, 2012)
(g) against "Agra University/Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar
University, Agra, Uttar Pradesh" under the heading
'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to
as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto
under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall
be inserted, namely:—
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (TB & Chest/
(Tuberculosis & Chest/
Respiratory Disease)
Respiratory Disease)”
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Agra University/
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar
University, Agra Uttar
Pradesh in respect of
students being trained at
S.N. Medical College, Agra
on or after 1991.)
(h) against "Bundelkhand University Jhansi, Uttar
Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognised Medical
Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after
the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
"Master of Surgery (Oto-
MS (ENT)
Rhino-Laryngology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Bundelkhand
University Jhansi, Uttar
Pradesh in respect of
students being trained at
Maharani Laxmibai Bai
Medical College, Jhansi,
Uttar Pradesh on or after
1993.)
“Diploma in Laryngology
DLO
and Otology”
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Budelkhand
University, Jhansi, Uttar
Pradesh in respect of
students being trained at
Maharani Laxmibai Bai
Medical College, Jhansi,
Uttar Praeash on or after
1992.)
(i) against "Swami Vivekanand Subharti University,
Uttar Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognised Medical
Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after
the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Biochemistry)
(Biochemistry)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted
by
Swami
6376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vivekanand
Subharti
University, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh in respect of
student being trained at
Subhartiu Medical College,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or
after June, 2012)
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Physiology)
(Physiology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted
by
Swami
Vivekanand
Subharti
University, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh in respect of
students being trained at
Subharti Medical College,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or
after May, 2012.)
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Microbiology)
(Microbiology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted
by
Swami
Vivekanand
Subharti
University, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh in respect of
students being trained at
Subharti Medical College,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or
after June, 2012.)
(j) against "West Bengal University of Health
Sciences, Kolkata" under the heading 'Recognised Medical
Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after
the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Physiology)
(Physiology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by West Bengal
Universtity of Health
Sciences, Kolkata in respect
of students being trained at
R.G. Kar Medical College,
Kolkata on or after May,
2012.)
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Microbiology)
(Microbiology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by West Bengal
University of Health
Sciences, Kolkata in respect
of students being trained at
R.G. Kar Medical College,
Kolkata on or after May,
2011.)
"Doctor of Medicine
MD (Forensic Medicine)
(Forensic Medicine)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by West Bengal
Universtity of Health
Sciences, Kolkata in respect
of students being trained at
R.G. Kar Medical College,
Kolkata on or after May,
2012.)
"Master of Surgery
MS (General Surgery)
(General Surgery)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by West Bengal
University of Health
Sciences, Kolkata in respect
of students being trained at
Burdwan Medical College,
Burdwan on or after June,
2012.)
"Master of Surgery (Oto-
MS (ENT)
Rhino-Laryngology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by West Bengal
University of Health
Sciences, Kolkata in respect
of students being trained at
Burdwan Medical College,
Burdwan on or after April,
2011.)
Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to a
Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of
5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as
required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage
of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. U. 12012/69/2012-ME(P.II)]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
[vk;qosZn] ;ksx o izkd`frd fpfdRlk] ;wukuh] fl) ,oa gksE;ksiSFkh
¼vk;q"k½ foHkkx]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2427-—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj
dY;k.k ea=ky; ds vk;qosZn] ;ksx o izkd`frd fpfdRlk] ;wukuh] fl)
,oa gksE;ksiSFkh ¼vk;q"k½ foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6377
dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd
Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rr~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gS%µ
2- ^^jk"Vªh; iapdeZ vuqla/kku laLFkku ps:rq:Fkh**
[lañ bZ&11018@1@2013&vk;q"k ¼jk-Hkk-½]
,lñ Jhfuokl] mi&lfpo
[Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani,
Sidha and Homeopathy (AYUSH)]
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2427.—In pursurance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule
10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central
Government hereby notifies the following office under the
administrative control of the Department of AYUSH,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, where more than 80%
staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
2. ''National Research Institute for Panchkarma,
Cheruthuruthy''.
[No. E-11018/1/2013-AYUSH (O.L.]
S. SRINIVAS, Secy.
lw{e] y?kq vkSj e/;e m|e ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2428-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa lw{e] y?kq vkSj e/;e m|e ea=ky; ds fu;a=.kk/khu
jk"Vªh; y?kq m|ksx fuxe fyfeVsM ¼eq[;ky;½] ubZ fnYyh ds
fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us
fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr
djrh gS%
1- 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] jk"Vªh; y?kq m|ksx fuxe] fyfeVsM] IykWV lañ&
49] igyh eafty] esu jksM] xq: ukud dkWyksuh]
fot;okM+k&520008 ¼vkaU/kz izns'k½A
2- 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] jk"Vªh; y?kq m|ksx fuxe] fyfeVsM] lh&424]ihfu;k
igyh LVst] ihfu;k iqfyl LVs'ku ds ihNs] csaxyq:&560058
¼dukZVd½A
3- 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] jk"Vªh; y?kq m|ksx fuxe] fyfeVsM] U;wñ uañ 422
¼vksYM ua- 615½] vUuk lykbZ] pSUubZ& 600006 ¼rfeyukMq½A
4- 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] jk"Vªh; y?kq m|ksx fuxe] fyfeVsM] 16 & Mh
igyh eafty egky{eh eSVªks Vkoj] lh & 1] lh & 2 lsDVj & 4]
oS'kkyh xkft;kckn & 201010 ¼mÙkj izns'k½A
[lañ bZ&12016@01@2005&fgUnh]
,lñ ,uñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM
ENTERPRISES
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2013
S.O. 2428.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Langague (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the following offices of National Small Industries Corpora-
tion Ltd. (Headquarters) New Delhi under control of the
Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, whose more
than 80% staff has acquired working knowledge in Hindi:
1.
Branch Office, National Small Industries Corporation
Ltd., Plot No. -49, 1st Floor, Main Road, Guru Nanak
Colony,, Vijayawada - 520 008 (Andhra Pradesh).
2.
Branch Office, National Small Industries Corporation
Ltd., C-424, Peenya 1st Stage. Behind Peenya Police
Station, Bangalore-560058, (Karnataka).
3.
Branch Office, National Small Industries Corporation
Ltd., New No. 422 (Old No. 615), Anna Salai, Chennai -
600006, (Tamil Nadu).
4.
Branch Office, National Small Industries Corporation
Ltd., 16-D, 1st Floor, Maha Laxmi Metro Tower, C-1,
C-2, Sector-4] Vaishali, Ghaziabad-201010 (Uttar
Pradesh).
[No. E-12016/01/2005-Hindi]
S.N. TRIPATHI, Jt. Secy.
lapkj ,oa lwpuk izkSn~;ksfxdh ea=ky;
¼Mkd foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2429-—jktHkk"kk fu;e ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa
ds fy, iz;ksx½] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnz ljdkj] Mkd foHkkx ds v/khuLFk dk;kZy; eq[; iksLVekLVj
tujy vle lfdZy] xqokgkVh&781001 dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls
vf/kd vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr
dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gS%—
[lañ 11017&1@2011&jk-Hkk-]
Vhñ ,lñ flUgk] mi egkfuns'kd ¼fQySVyh@jktHkk"kk½
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND IT
(Department of Posts)
New Delhi, the, 31st October, 2013
S.O. 2429.—In pursuance of Rule 10 (4) of the
Official Language (use for official purposes of the Union)
6378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Office
of Chief Postmaster General, Assam Circle Guwahati-781001
of the Department of Posts where 80% Officers/Officials
has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:—
[No. 11017-1/2011-O.L.]
T. S. SINHA, Director General (Philately/O.L.)
ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;
¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½
¼jktHkk"kk ;wfuV½
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2430-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4 ds
vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; ¼Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa lk{kjrk
foHkkx½ ds varxZr tokgj uoksn; fon~;ky;] ekuiqj] ftyk bankSj]
e/;izns'k dks] ,sls dk;kZy; ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd
deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]
vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[lañ 11011&1@2013&jkñHkkñ,ñ]
vuUr dqekj ¯lg] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
(O.L. UNIT)
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2430.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Manpur, Distt. Indore,
Madhya Pradesh under the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy)
as office, whose more than 80% members of the staff have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11011-1/2013-O.L.U.]
ANANT KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
fo|qr ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2431-—17-08-2006 dks vf/klwfpr eq[; oS|qr
fujh{kd vkSj oS|qr fujh{kd dh vgZrk] 'kfDr vkSj dk;Z fu;ekoyh]
2006 ds lkFk ifBr fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 ¼2003 dk 36½ dh
èkjk 162 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
dsanz ljdkj ,rn}kjk dsanzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k ¼lhbZ,½ ds fuEufyf[kr
vf/kdkfj;ksa dks bl vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls lhbZ, esa muds dk;Zdky
rd] mi;qZDr fu;e esa mfYyf[kr vgZrk vkSj 'krZ dks iwjk djus ds
v/khu muds lacaf/kr vkjvkbZvks ds fy, oS|qr fujh{kd ds :i esa
fu;qDr djrh gS%&
Øe
uke¼Jh½
inuke
rSukrh LFky
vgZrk
ds :i esa
lañ
fu;qDr
1-
lhñ'kueq?ke¹
v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark
vkjvkbZvks¼nf{k.k½
chñbZñ¼oS|qr½
oS|qr fujh{kd
2-
vksñihñ flag¹¹
v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark
vkjvkbZvks¼if'pe½
chñbZñ¼oS|qr½
oS|qr fujh{kd
3-
misUnz dqekj¹¹¹
v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark
vkjvkbZvks¼mÙkj½
chñbZñ¼oS|qr½
oS|qr fujh{kd
4-
jke panz
funs'kd
bZvkbZ izHkkx
chñbZñ¼oS|qr½
oS|qr fujh{kd
5-
vkjñdsñ ikgok$
funs'kd
bZvkbZ izHkkx
chñbZñ¼oS|qr½
oS|qr fujh{kd
6-
vkbZñdsñ esgjk
mifuns'kd
bZvkbZ izHkkx
chñbZñ¼oS|qr½
oS|qr fujh{kd
¹Jh vflr flag] v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] vkjvkbZvks ¼nf{k.k½] lhbZ, ds LFkku ij
¹¹Jh ,lñthñ Vsuis] v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] vkjvkbZvks ¼if'pe½] lhbZ, ds LFkku ij
¹¹¹Jh ,eñ,lñ lrhtk] v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] vkjvkbZvks ¼mÙkj½] lhbZ, ds LFkku ij
$ Jh Hkhe jk;] eq[; vfHk;ark] bZvkbZ izHkkx] lhbZ, ds LFkku ij
mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vf/kdkjh dsUnzh; fo|qr izkf/kdj.k ¼lqj{kk
vkSj fo|qr vkiwfrZ ls lacaf/kr mik;½ fofu;e] 2010 esa nh xbZ izfØ;k
ds vuqlkj] lhbZ, ds vf/kdkj okys {ks=ksa esa izpkyuk/khu oS|qr dk;ks±]
oS|qr laLFkkiukvksa rFkk oS|qr jksfyax LVkWd ds laca/k esa vf/kdkjksa dk
iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj viuk dk;Z fu"ikfnr djsaxsA
lhbZ, ;g lqfuf'pr djsxk fd mPp vf/kdkjh] muds lacaf/kr
{ks= esa fn, x, dk;ks± ds laca/k esa oS|qr fujh{kd ugha gksaxsA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6379
oS|qr fujh{kd ds :i esa fu;qDr vf/kdkjh og izf'k{k.k ysaxs
ftls dsUnz ljdkj bl mís'; ds fy, vko';d le>s rFkk ,slk izf'k{k.k
ljdkj dh larqf"V ds Lrj rd iwjk fd;k tk,xkA
[Qkñlañ 42@3@2013&vkj ,.M vkj]
T;ksfr vjksM+k] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2431.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section(1) of section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003
S.
Name (Shri
Designation
Place of
Qualification
Appointed As
No.
Posting
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
C. Shanmugham*
Supt. Engineer
RIO(South)
B.E.(Elect)
Electrical Inspector
2.
O.P. Singh**
Supt. Engineer
RIO(West)
B.E.(Elect)
Electrical Inspector
3.
Upendra Kumar***
Supt. Engineer
RIO(North)
B.E.(Elect)
Electrical Inspector
4.
Ram Chandra
Director
EI Division
B.E.(Elect)
Electrical Inspector
5.
R.K. Pahwa$
Director
EI Division
B.E.(Elect)
Electrical Inspector
6.
I.K. Mehra
DD
EI Division
B.E.(Elect)
Electrical Inspector
*In place of Shri Asit Singh Supt. Engineer, RIO(South), CEA
**In place of Shri S.G. Tenpe, Superintending Engineer RIO(West), CEA
***In place of Shri M.S. Satija, Supt. Engineer RIO(North), CEA
$In place of Shri Bhim Rai, Chief Engineer, EI Division, CEA
(36 of 2003) read with Qualification, Power and Function of
Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors Rules,
2006 notified on 17.8.2006, the Central Government hereby
appoints the following officers, of Central Electricity
Authority as Electrical Inspector for CEA, in their respective
RIOs, from the date of this Notification till their tenure in
CEA, subject to fulfillment of the qualification and Condition
mentioned in the above Rule:
The above mentioned officer shall exercise the powers
and perform his functions in respect of electrical works,
electrical installations and electrical rolling stock in operation
within the jurisdiction of CEA, as per the procedure provided
in Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety
and Electricity Supply) Regulation, 2010.
CEA will ensure that above said officers will not be
the Electrical Inspectors in respect of the work assigned to
them in their respective area.
The officers appointed as Electrical Inspector shall
undergo such training as the Central Government may
consider necessary for the purpose and such training shall
be completed to the satisfaction of the Government.
[F. No. 42/3/2013-R&R]
JYOTI ARORA, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 uoacj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2432-—dsUæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu dsUæh; fo|qr
fofu;ked vk;ksx] rhljk vkSj pkSFkk ry] pUæyksd fcfYMax] 36 tuiFk]
ubZ fnYyh&110001 dks] ftuds 80 çfr'kr deZpkjho`an us ¯gnh dk
dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[lañ 11017@10@2013&¯gnh]
jhrk vkpk;Z] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th November, 2013
S.O. 2432.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, 3rd & 4th Floor,
Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 under the
administrative control of Ministry of Power, the 80% staff
whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]
RITA ACHARYA, Jt. Secy.
6380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoacj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2433-—dsUæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu ,u,pihlh
fyfeVsM ds ifj;kstuk vUos"k.k izHkkx] QhYM ;wfuV] iBkudksV dk;kZy;
dks] ftlds 80 çfr'kr deZpkjho`an us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr
dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
[lañ 11017@10@2013&¯gnh]
jhrk vkpk;Z] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2433.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify
PID, FIELD, PATHANKOT of NHPC Ltd. under the
administrative control of Ministry of Power, the 80% staff
whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]
RITA ACHARYA, Jt. Secy.
laLd`fr ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2434-—dsUæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa laLd`fr ea=ky; ds vUrxZr vkus okys dk;kZy; bafnjk
xka/kh jk"Vªh; dyk dsUæ] ubZ fnYyh dks ftlesa 80 çfr'kr deZpkjh;ksa
us ¯gnh dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
;g vf/klwpuk jkti= esa izdkf'kr dh rkjh[k ls izo`Rr gksxhA
[lañ 13016@1@2011&¯gnh]
ohñ Jhfuokl] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF CULTURE
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2434.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies
the office Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, New
Delhi under the Ministry of Culture wherein more than 80%
staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
This notification shall come into force from the date
of publication in the Official Gazatte.
[F. No. 13016/1/2011-Hindi]
V. SRINIVAS, Jt. Secy.
okf.kT; ,oa m|ksx ea=ky;
¼okf.kT; foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2435-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa okf.kT; foHkkx ds v/khu ,EihMk ds fuEufyf[kr
mi{ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa dks vf/klwfpr djrh gS] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls
vf/kd deZpkjho`an us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS%&
1- leqnzh mRikn fu;kZr fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mi {ks=h; dsUnz
¼vDok½] ukscy vkdsZM] igyk ry] fcfYMax lañ ,l&ch] 764 tsM+
2] d¸;kr nkeksnju jksM] mi jftLVªkj dk;kZy; ds lkeus] dUuwj &
670 002] dsjy
2- leqnzh mRikn fu;kZr fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mi {ks=h; dk;kZy;
106&ts] nwljk ekxZ] feYysjiqje] rwfrdksfju & 628 008] rfeyukMq
[lañ bZ&11013@1@2008&¯gnh]
Jherh nsodh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 31st October, 2013
S.O. 2435.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
union) Rules, 1976, the Central Govt. hereby notifies the
following regional offices of MPEDA under Department of
Commerce, whereof more than 80% staff has acquired a
working knowledge of Hindi:—
1. The Marine products Export Development
Authority, Sub Regional Centre (Aqua), Noble Arcade, Ist
floor, Building No. SB-764-Z2, Kayyath Damodaran Road,
Opp. Sub- Registrar office, Kannur-670 002, Kerala.
2. The Marine Products Export Development
Authority, Sub Regional Office, 106-J, 2nd Street,
Millerpuram Tuticorin-628 008, Tamil Nadu.
[No. E-11013/1/2008-Hindi]
(Smt. DEVKI, Director (O.L.)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6381
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| ,oa lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2436-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;u] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal la[;k
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkk ek
Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
lañ
frfFk o"kZ ekg
la[;k
01-
3955278
12 twu] 2013
eSllZ vkfgj Iyk;oqM izkbZosV fyfeVsM
lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy, IykbZoqM
303
0
0
1989
losZ uEcj] 27] fdju isVªksy iEi ds
ihNs] xkao ojlk.kk] rkyqdk vatkj] ftyk
dPN] xqtjkr&370110
02-
3958587
20 twu] 2013
eSllZ vf'ou ,.M daiuh
1100 oksYV rd dh dk;Zdkjh
694
0
0
1990
IykWV ua 18&21] f'ko bUMLVªh;y bLVsV]
oksYVrk ds fy, ihohlh jksf/kr
'ksM ua 1] QkYdu iEil ds lkeus]
dscy
okoMh] ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004
03-
3955076
11 twu 2013
eSlslZ ds ds ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
'kksi ua 1@2] vkse 'kfDr pkSd]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
ckik lhrkjke pkSd] jkoij jksM eksjoh]
eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V
ftyk] jktdksV] xqtjkr&363641
04-
3957383
17 twu 2013
eSllZ lksuh }kjdk/kh'k ohjpaM ,.M lUl
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
ukukosV cktkj] ,e th jksM] ftyk
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364001
eqgjkadu & fof'k"V
05-
3961677
29 twu] 2013
eSllZ Hkxokuth eksjkjth tosjh
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
tks/kk ekusd jksM] lksuh okMh ds lkeus]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
}kjdk] ftyk tkeuxj] xqtjkr
eqgjkadu & fof'k"V
06-
3957484
17 twu 2013
eSllZ eqjyh/kj TosYlZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
xka/kh pksd] /kzksy] ftyk] tkeuxj]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
xqtjkr&361120
eqgjkadu & fof'k"V
07-
3961778
28 twu] 2013
eSllZ dkfyUMh TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
331] ljkQ cktkj] tsriqj]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr
eqgjkadu & fof'k"V
08-
3961879
28 twu] 2013
eSllZ ve`ryky y[e.k ,.M lUl
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
jktMk jksM] rsty dksEIysDl]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
[kaHkkMh;k] ftyk tkeuxj] xqtjkr
eqgjkadu & fof'k"V
09-
3961980
28 twu] 2013
eSllZ ukjk;.k TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
'kksi ua 2] IykWV ua 256] oksMZ ua 12@ch]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
xka/kh/kke] ftyk dPN] xqtjkr
eqgjkadu & fof'k"V
10-
3962073
28 twu] 2013
eSllZ txnh'kHkkbZ ikyk ,aM lUl
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
isysl jksM] jkteanhj dksYMªhDl ds ikl]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360001
eqgjkadu & fof'k"V
11-
3955379
12 twu] 2013
eSllZ vkfgj Iyk;oqM izkbZosV fyfeVsM]
CykWd cksMZ
1659
0
0
2004
108] vue dkse'khZ;y dksEiysDl]
IykWV ua 37] lsDVj ua 9] xka/kh/kke]
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr 370201
12-
3953274
07 twu] 2013
eSllZ ,l-,l- bUMLVªht
daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp lkeF;Z
1786
0
0
2008
losZ ua 23@1] 23@2] flgksj ?kka?kyh jksM]
fodflr bLikr NM+ vkSj rkj
xkao oMh;k] rkyqdk flgksj] ftyk
Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364240
6382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13-
3959589
24 twu] 2013
eSllZ vk/;k'kfDr LVhYl]
daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp
1786
0
0
2008
losZ ua 98@2 ?kka?kyh jksM]
lkeF;Z fodflr bLikr NM vkSj rkj
rkyqdk flgksj] ftyk Hkkouxj]
xqtjkr&364240
14-
3958890
20 twu] 2013
eSllZ Jh lkabZukFk Msdksj vsy vsy ih
ltkoVh rki fLFkj.k laf'y"V
2046
0
0
1995
losZ uacj 52] IykWV uacj 19]
jsftuc) ijrnkj píj
';ke thuhax ds lkeus] gMerkyk]
rkyqdk dksVMk lkaxkuh]
ftyk] jktdksV] xqtjkr&360311
15-
3952676
05 twu] 2013
eSllZ vxzoky bUMLVªht
lkekU; lajpuk dk;ks± ds fy,
2062
0
0
2006
IykWV uEcj 100@3&4]
bLikr
th-vkbZ-Mh-lh- Qs> 2] flgksj]
ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364240
16-
3955177
12 twu 2013
eSllZ vkfgj Iyk;oqM izkbZosV fyfeVsM
ydM+h ds likV njokts ds 'kVj ¼Bksl
2202
1
0
1999
losZ uEcj 27] fdju isVªksy iEi ds ihNs]
dksj Vkbi½ Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM ds lrg
xkao ojlk.kk] rkyqdk vatkj] ftyk] dPN
;qD~r iy~ys
xqtjkr&370110
17-
3954276
11 twu] 2013
eSllZ xsysDlh fdpu ,Iyk;Ul
?kjsyq izs'kj dqdj & fof'k"V
2347
0
0
2006
IykWV ua 1049] vkth olkgr]
vt; os czht ds ikl] 80 QhV jksM]
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360003
18-
3952777
05 twu] 2013
eSllZ lsrq iksfyelZ
ikuh dh vkiwfrZ ds fy, mPp ?kuRo
4984
0
0
1995
fnun;ky bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV]
okys ikWfy,fFkyhu ikbi & fof'k"V
IykWV ua 108] fjax jksM]
xkejk iEi ds lkeus] jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360003
19-
3960978
27 twu] 2013
eSllZ ts-ds- iksfyelZ
ikuh dh vkiwfrZ ds fy, mPp ?kuRo
4984
0
0
1995
IykWV ua th&1433] fr:irh ehy ds ikl]
okys ikWfy,fFkyhu ikbi & fof'k"V
thvkbZMhlh esVksMk] dkykokM jksM]
rkyqdk yks/khdk] ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360021
20-
3953981
11 twu] 2013
eSllZ vkbMksy IykLVks izkbZosV fyfeVsM
is; ty dh iw£r ds fy, vlq?kfV;r
4985
0
0
2000
jktdksV & vgenkckn jktekxZ]
ih-oh-lh- ikbi & fof'k"V
vkj-,l- ua 5521@1] vksYM xqank jksM]
dqokMok gkbZLdwy ds lkeus]dqokMok]
ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360023
21-
3952373
03 twu] 2013
eSllZ flQksu iEil izkbZosV fyfeVsM
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
IykWV ua 6] fd'ku os czht LVªhV]
ljnkj iVsy ,LVsV] <scj jksM ¼lkmFk½]
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360002
22-
3962174
28 twu] 2013
eSllZ gkbQquh iEil izkbZosV fyfeVsM
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
IykWV ua 9] losZ ua 168]
iVsy bUMLVªh;y ,fj;k] dksBkjh;k]
ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360002
23-
3954680
10 twu] 2013
eSllZ ;qx iai bUMLVªht
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
vkf'k"k ,Uthfu;fjax odZl ds ihNs]
ek:rh bUMLVªh;y ,fj;k] IykWV ua 77ch]
pkjHkqtk ekcZy LVªhV xksaMy jksM ds ihNs]
vksDVªks; ukdk] jktdksV] xqtjkr&360003
24-
3954882
10 twu] 2013
eSllZ vxzhek iEil
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
2] juqtk uxj] fojk.kh v?kkr ds ikl]
vgenkckn ck; ikl jksM] jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360002
Øe
ykblsal la[;k
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkk ek
Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
lañ
frfFk o"kZ ekg
la[;k
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6383
25-
3955884
12 twu] 2013
eSllZ calh xksYM lcelhZcy
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
jkuh bUMLVªh;y ,fj;k] Jh jke ,LVsV]
IykWV ua 18] losZ ua 17] 'ksM ua 6]
ijhu QuhZpj ds ihNs] xksaMy jksM]
okoMh] ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360003
26-
3956078
13 twu] 2013
eSllZ vsdksZVsd bUthfu;fjax
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
IykWV uacj 1] 2] 'ksM uacj 6]
jke os czht ds lkeus] eky/kkjh gksVy
ds ihNs] us'kuy gkbos xksaMy jksM]
fd"uk ikdZ ds lkeus] jksysDl bUMLVªht
ds ikl] dksBkfj;k] ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360002
27-
3957181
17 twu] 2013
eSllZ flQksu iEil izkbosV fyfeVsM
iEi & iqu;ksZth LoPN BaMs ikuh ds
8472
0
0
1998
IykWV uEcj 6] fd'kku os czht LVªhV]
fy, & fof'k"V
ljnkj iVsy LVsV] <scj jksM ¼lkmFk½]
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360002
28-
3953173
03 twu] 2013
eSllZ lqfize bUVjizkbt
fueTtu eksVjksa ds okabfMax rkj&
8783
4
3
1995
IykWV ua 30] thvkbZMhlh&2]
fof'k"V
tkeokMh] xksaMy] ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360311
29-
3959488
24 twu] 2013
eSllZ jks;y IykfLVd bUMLVªht
fo|qr laLFkkiuksa ds fy, daM~;wV~l
9537
3
0
1983
ih-ch- 70] twukx<+ jksM] /kksjkth]
Hkkx % 3] fo|qr jks/ku lkexzh ds n`<+
ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360410
lkns daM;wV
30-
3952474
03 twu] 2013
eSllZ flQksu iEil izkbZosV fyfeVsM
[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt; iEilsV
14220
0
0
1994
IykWV ua 6] fd'ku os czht LVªhV]
ljnkj iVsy ,LVsV] <scj jksM ¼lkmFk½]
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360002
31-
3954781
10 twu] 2013
eSllZ ;qx iEil bUMLVªht
[kqys dqa, ds fy, fueTt; iEilsV
14220
0
0
1994
vkf'k"k bUthfu;fjax odZl ds ihNs]
ek#rh bUMLVªh;y ,fj;k] IykWV ua 77 ch]
pkjHkqtk ekWcy LVªhV] xksaMy jksM ds
ihNs] vksDVªks;ukdk] jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360004
32-
3955783
12 twu] 2013
eSllZ calh xksYM lcelhZcy
[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt; iEilsV
14220
0
0
1994
jkuh bUMLVªh;y ,fj;k
Jh jke ,LVsV]
IykWV uañ 18] losZ uañ 17] 'ksM uañ 6]
ijhu QfuZpj ds ihNs] xksaMy jksM]
ckoMh] ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360003
33-
3956179
13 twu] 2013
eSllZ vayfdr esU;qQsDpjl
[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt; iEilsV
14220
0
0
1994
^^oklqdh ,LVsV**]
Jh gfj bUMLVªh;y ,jh;k]
LVªhV ua- 5]
vkth ¯jx jksM] jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360004
34-
3959791
25 twu] 2013
ckykth feujYl] dSyk'k uxj]
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd 14543
0
0
2004
tsdsoh gksy ds ikl] dkykoM] ftyk
feujy ty ds vykok½
tkeuxj] xqtjkr&361160
[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13% 11]
,eñ jk/kkd`"uk, oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
Øe
ykblsal la[;k
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkk ek
Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
lañ
frfFk o"kZ ekg
la[;k
6384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 2436.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)
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 address of the party
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part. Sec.
Year
No.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.
3955278
12/06/2013
M/s. Ahir Plywood Pvt. Ltd.
Specification for
303
0
0
1989
Survey No. 27,
plywood for general
Behind Kiran Petrol Pump,
purposes
Village Varsana,
Taluka Anjar,
District: Kachchh,
Gujarat
2.
3958587
20/06/2013
M/s. Ashvin & Company
PVC Insulated cables
694
0
0
1990
Plot No. 18-21,
for working voltages
Shiv Industrial Estate,
upto and including 1100 V
Shed No. 1, Opp. Falcon Pumps,
Vavdi, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
3.
3955076
11/06/2013
M/s. K.K. Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Shop No. 1/2, Om Shanti Complex,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Bapa Sitaram Chowk,
Fineness and Marking-
Ravapar Road, Morbi,
Specification
District: Rajkot, Gujarat-363641
4.
3957383
17/06/2013
M/s. Soni Dwarkadas
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Virchand & Sons
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Nanavait Bazar, M.G. Road,
Fineness and Marking-
District: Bhavnagar,
Specification
Gujarat-364001
5.
3961677
28/06/2013
M/s. Bhagwanji Morarji Zaveri
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Jodha Manek Road,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Opp. Soni Wadi, Dwaraka
Fineness and Marking-
District: Jamnagar,
Specification
Gujarat-361335
6.
3957484
17/06/2013
M/s. Murlidhar Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Gandhi Chowk, Dhrol,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
District: Jamnagar,
Fineness and Marking-
Gujarat-361120
Specification
7.
3961778
28/06/2013
M/s. Kalindi Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
331, Saraf Bazar, Jetpur,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
District: Rajkot
Fineness and Marking-
Gujarat-360370
Specification
8.
3961879
28/06/2013
M/s. Amrutlal Lakhman & Sons
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Rajda Road, Tejal Complex
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Khambhaliya, District: Jamnagar,
Fineness and Marking-
Gujarat-361305
Specification
9.
3961980
28/06/2013
M/s. Narayan Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Shop No. 2, Plot No. 256,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Ward 12/B, Gandhidham,
Fineness and Marking-
District: Kachchh, Gujarat-370201
Specification
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6385
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
3962073
28/06/2013
M/s. Jagdishbhai Pala & Sons
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Palace Road, Near Rajmandir
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Coldrinks, District: Rajkot
Fineness and Marking-
Gujarat-360001
Specification
11.
3955379
12/06/2013
M/s. Ahir Plywood Pvt. Ltd.
Specification for block boards
1659
0
0
2004
108, Anam Commercial Complex,
Plot No. 37, Sector No-9,
Gandhidham, District: Kachchh,
Gujarat-370201
12.
3953274
07/06/2013
M/s. S.S. Industries
Specification for high
1786
0
0
2008
Survey No. 23/1, 23/2, Sihor
strength deformed steel
Ghanghali Road,
bars and wires for
Vadia, Taluka Sihor,
concrete reinforcement
District: Bhavnagar,
Gujarat-364240
13.
3959589
24/06/2013
M/s. Adhyashakti Steels
Specification for high
1786
0
0
2008
Survey No. 98/2, Ghanghali Road,
strength deformed steel
Taluka Sihor,
bars and wires for
District: Bhavnagar,
concrete reinforcement
Gujarat-364240
14.
3958890
20/06/2013
M/s. Shri Sainath Decor LLP.
Decorative Thermosetting
2046
0
0
1995
Survey No. 52, Plot No. 19,
Synthetic Resin Bonded
Opposite Shyam Gining,
Laminated Sheets-Specification
At Hadamatala, Taluka Kotda
Sangani, District: Rajkot,
Gujarat-360311
15.
3952676
05/06/2013
M/s. Agarwal Industries
Steel for General Structural
2062
0
0
2006
Plot No. 100/3-4, GIDC Phae II,
Purposes-Specification
Sihor, District: Bhavnagar,
Gujarat-364240
16.
3955177
12/06/2013
M/s. Ahir Plywood Pvt. Ltd.
Specification for wooden
2202
1
0
1999
Survey No. 27, Behind Kiran Petrol
flush door shutters
Pump, Village Varsana, Taluka Anjar,
(solid core type): Part 1
Distt: Kachchh, Gujarat
Plywood face panels
17.
3954276
11/06/2013
M/s. Galaxy Kitchen Appliances
Domestic Pressure
2347
0
0
2006
Plot No. 1049, Aji Vasahat,
Cookers-Specification
Near Ajay Weigh-Bridge, 80
feet Road, District: Rajkot
Gujarat-360003
18.
3952777
05/06/2013
M/s. Setu Polymers
Specification for high
4984
0
0
1995
Dindayal Industrial Estate, Plot
density polyethylene
No. 108, Ring Road,
pipes for water supplies
Opp. Gamara Pump, District:
Rajkot, Gujarat-360003
19.
3960978
27/06/2013
M/s. J.K. Polymers
Specification for high
4984
0
0
1995
Plot No. G-1433, Near
density polyethylene
Tirupati Mill, GIDC-Metoda,
pipes for water supplies
Taluka Lodhika, Kalawad Road,
GIDC-Metoda, District: Rajkot,
Gujarat-360021
20.
3953981
11/06/2013
M/s. Idol Plasto Pvt. Ltd.
Unplasticized PVC
4985
0
0
2000
Rajkot-Ahmedabad Highway,
Pipes for Potable Water
R.S. No. 552/1,
Supplies-Specification
Old Gunda Road, Opposite
Kuvadva High-School Kuvadva,
District: Rajkot, Gujarat-360023
21.
3952373
03/06/2013
M/s. Siphon Pumps Pvt. Ltd.
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
Plot No. 6, Kishan Way Bridge
Specification
Street, Sardar Patel Estate,
Dhebar Road (South), Near Atika
Railway Crossing, Rajkot,
Gujarat-360002
6386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
22.
3962174
28/06/2013
M/s. Hifuni Pumps Pvt. Ltd.
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
Plot No. 9, Survey No. 168,
Specification
Patel Industrial Area,
Kothariya, District: Rajkot
Gujarat-360002
23.
3954680
10/06/2013
M/s. Yug Pumps Ind.
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
B/H Ashish Eng. Works,
Specification
Maruti Ind. Area, Plot No.77B,
Charbhuja Marble Street, B/H
Gondal Road, Octroi Naka,
Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
24.
3954882
10/06/2013
M/s. Agrima Pumps
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
2002
2, Ranuja Nagar,
Specification
Near Virani Aghat, Ahemadabad
By-Pass Road, Rajkot,
Gujarat-360002
25.
3955884
12/06/2013
M/s. Bansi Gold Submersible
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
2002
Rani Industrial Area,
Specification
Shri Ram Estate, Plot No. 18,
Survey No. 17, Shed No. 6,
B/H Parin Furniture, Gondal Road,
Vavdi, Rajkot, Gujarat-360003
26.
3956078
13/06/2013
M/s. ACCO-Tech Engineering
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
2002
Plot No. 1, 2, Shed No. 6,
Specification
Opp. Ram-way Bridge, B/H
Maldhari Hotel, National Highway
Gondal Road, Opp. Krishna Park,
Near Rolex Ind., Kothariya, Rajkot,
Gujarat-360002
27.
3957181
17/06/2013
M/s. Siphon Pumps Pvt. Ltd.
Centrifugal-Regenerative
8472
0
0
1998
Plot No. 6, Kishan Way Bridge
Pumps for clear, cold
Street, Sardar Patel Estate,
water-Specification
Dhebar Road (South), Rajkot,
Gujarat-360002
28.
3953173
03/06/2013
M/s. Suprime Enterprise
Winding Wires for
8783
4
3
1995
Plot No. 30, GIDC-2,
Submersible Motors-
Jamwadi, Gondal,
Specification-Part 4:
District: Rajkot
Specification for
Gujarat-360311
Individual Wires-Section 3:
Polyester and Polypro-
pylene Insulated Wire
29.
3959488
24/06/2013
M/s. Royal Plastic Industries
Conduits for electrical
9537
3
0
1983
P.B. 70, Junagadh Road
installations: Part 3
Dhoraji, District: Rajkot,
Rigid plain conduits of
Gujarat-360410
insulating materials
(superseding IS: 2509)
30.
3952474
03/06/2013
M/s. Siphon Pumps Pvt. Ltd.
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
Plot No. 6,
Pumpsets-Specification
Kishan Way Bridge Street,
Sardar Patel Estate,
Dhebar Road
(South), Rajkot,
Gujarat-360002
31.
3954781
10/06/2013
M/s. Yug Pumps Ind.
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
B/H Ashish Eng. Works,
Pumpsets-Specification
Maruti Ind. Area, Plot No.-77B,
Charbhuja Marble Street,
B/H Gondal Road, Octroi Naka,
Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6387
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
32.
3955783
12/06/2013
M/s. Bansi Gold Submersible
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
Rani Industrial Area,
Pumpsets-Specification
Shri Ram Estate, Plot No. 18,
Survey No. 17, Shed No. 6,
B/H Parin Furniture, Gondal Road,
Vavdi, District: Rajkot,
Gujarat-360003
33.
3956179
13/06/2013
M/s. Alankit Manufacturers
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
"Vasuki Estate" Shri Hari Industrial
Pumpsets-Specification
Area, Street No. 5, Aji Ring Road,
Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
34.
3959791
25/06/2013
M/s. Balaji Minerals
Packaged Drinking
14543
0
0
2004
Kailash Nagar,
Water (other than
Near J.K.V. Hall, Kalawad,
Packaged Natural
District: Jamnagar,
Mineral Water)-
Gujarat-361160
Specification
[No. CMD/13:11]
M. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2437-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal jí fd, x, gSa%
vuqlwph
Øñ lañ
ykblsal
ykblsal l/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe
jíhdj.k frfFk
la[;k
lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
1-
7125358
vyekbZVh ,xzksVsd izkbosV fyfeVsM
ikuh dh vkiwfrZ ds fy, mPp
06 twu 2013
th 1934&35]
?kuRo okys ikWfy,fFkyhu ikbi&
yks/khdk thvkbZMhlh]
fof'k"V
esVksMk] rkyqdk yks/khdk]
ftyk jktdks] xqtjkr 360021
2-
7390276
eksVu bUMLVªht]
lk/kkj.k iksVZySUM flesUV
25 twu 2013
IykWV uañ 1109&10]
th vkbZ Mh lh 2] lcyiqj]
ftyk tqukx<+ xqtjkr&362001
[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
,eñ jk/kkd`"uk, oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 2437.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)
Regulations, 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given
below have cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl. No.
Licences
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with
Date of
No.
relevant Indian
Cancellation
CM/L-
Standards covered
by the licence cancelled/
suspension
1
2
3
4
5
1.
7125358
M/s. KELVIN PLASTIC PRIVATE
Specification for high
06/06/2013
LIMITED
density polyethylene
Plot No. 7,8, & 9,
pipes for potable
Survey No. 160/2, Sidc Road,
water supplies
Veravl (Shapar),
6388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
Taluka Kotda Sangani,
District: Rajkot
Gujarat
2.
7390276
M/s. MOTAN INDUSTRIES
Specification for 53
25/06/2013
Plot No. 1109-10 GIDC II, Sabalpur,
grade ordinary
District: Junagadh
Portland cement
Gujarat, 362001
[No.CMD/13:11]
M. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2438-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gS%—
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkk ek
Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
lañ
la[;k
frfFk o"kZ ekg
la[;k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01-
3966081
16 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ ik;yksu dscy
1100 oksYV rd dh dk;Zdkjh
694
0
0
1990
2 dkafr uxj] fot; Qqyh ds lekus]
cksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksf/kr
dksBkjh;k pkSdMh ds vkxs]
dsoy
jk"Vªh; jktekxZ 8 ch]
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360003
02-
3963378
04 tqykbZ 2013
eSsllZ lksge bUthfu;fjax dksiksZjs'ku
e`nq bLikr ds ikbi]
1239
2
0
2011
IykWV uañ 13@ch] ve`r m|ksx]
ufydkdkj lajpuk,a rFkk
Mso dY;k.k vkbl QsDVªh ds lkeus]
fiVoka bLikr dh ikbi fQfVax
dksFkkjh;k] jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360004
03-
3965382
12 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ lksuh vfuy exuyky dqa
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
ukuh ikslkM 'ksjh]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
ljkZQ cktkj]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
Hkqt] ftyk dPN] xqtjkr
04-
3965584
12 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ ekykckj xsYM izkbZosV fyfeVsM
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
'kksi uañ 1 v] xzkmUM ¶yksj]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
dkykokM jksM]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
fØLVy eksy] jkuh Vkoj lkeus]
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360007
05-
3969289
23 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ vksfl;k TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
dkulkjk cktkj pksd]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
lksuh cktkj] Hkqt]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370001
06-
3965483
12 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ ekykckj xsYM izkbZosV fyfeVsM
pkanh ,oa pkanh feJ/kkrq,a] vkHkw"k.k
2112
0
0
2003
'kksi uañ 1 v] xzkmUM ¶yksj]
f'kYidkjh & fof'kf"V
dkykokM jksM]
fØLVy eksy] jkuh Vkoj lkeus]
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360007
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6389
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
07-
3964178
08 tqykbZ 2013
dsfiVy LVhy bZUMLVªht
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iquosZYyu
2830
0
0
2012
losZ uañ 198@P, IykWV uañ 4 & 5]
ds fy, dkcZu <yokZ bLikr fcysV
xkao ?kka?kyh] rkyqdk flgksj]
baxV foysV Cywe vkSj LySc dh
ftyk Hkouxj] xqtjkr&364240
fof'k"V
08-
3967285
17 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ ,eñ Mhñ bUMDVks dkLV
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iquosZYyu
2830
0
0
2012
izkbosV fyfeVsM
ds fy, dkcZu <yokZ bLikr fcysV
losZ uañ 144] iSdh 1 & 2]
baxV foysV Cywe vkSj LySc dh&
xkao uslM+k] rkyqdk flgksj]
fof'k"V
ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr
09-
3969390
24 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ Qykg LVhy
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iqyosZYyu
2830
0
0
2012
IyksV uacj 2] losZ uacj 161
ds fy, dkcZu <yokZ bLikr fcysV
flgksj&?kka?kyh jksM] rkyqdk flgksj]
baxV foysV Cywe vkSj LySo dh&
ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364240
fof'k"V
10-
3965988
17 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ ckykth lcelhZcy iEil
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
izkbZosV fyfeVsM
losZ uañ 19] IykWV uañ 40]
lezkV ekcZy ds ihNs] VkVk 'kks:e ds lkeus]
xksaMy jksM] ckoMh]
ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004
11-
3968691
23 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ ihñ ,eñ Mhty izkbosV fyfeVsM
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
;qfuV 2] ehjk bUMLVªh;y lkslk;Vh]
IykWV uañ 137] 140] 144] 147]
fjax jksM+ jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360003
12-
3970981
29 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ QscVsd dscYl izkbosV fyfeVsM
fueTtu eksVjksa ds ckbZfMax rkj&
8783
4
3
1995
IyksV uacj 19] 20] 22] 23] 26] 27]
fof'kf"V Hkkx 4 vyx vyx
losZ uacj 39@3] uojax bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV]
rkjksa dh fof'kf"V vuqHkkx 3
fØ"uk ikdZ gksVy ds ihNs] ckoMh]
ikfy;LVj vkSj ikfyizkihyhu
ftyk jktdksV]
lksf/kr ckabZfMax rkj
xqtjkr&360004
13-
3966182
16 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ v'kksd ,fUtfu;jhax ,.M QkmUMªh
d`f"k iz;kstu ds fy, LoPN] BaMs
11501
0
0
1986
odZl]
vkSj rkts ty gsrq eksukslsV iEi
v'kksd okVhdk]
ds batu dh fof'kf"V
<scj jksM lkmFk ,.M]
jktdksV] xqtjkr&360002
14-
3971478
30 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ vksLdj bUMLVªht
cVj¶ykbZ okYc] lkekU; dk;ks± ds
13095
0
0
1991
16] lezkV ,sjh;k]
fy;
,l Vh odZ 'kksi ds ihNs]
xksaMy jksM] jktdksV&360004
15-
3968893
22 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ xhjhjkt ehYd izksMDVl izkñ fyñ
eykbZjfgr nw/k ikmMj&fof'kf"V
13334
1
0
1998
th&2702] Økafr xsV]
jksud ekcZy]
esVksMk th vkbZMhlh]
xkao esVksMk]
rkyqdk yks/khdk]
ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360021
6390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
16-
3965887
17 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ ckykth lcelhZcy iEil izkbZosV
[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt; iEilsV
14220
0
0
1994
fyfeVsM] losZ uañ 19] IykWV uañ 40]
lezkV ekcZy ds ihNs]
VkVk 'kks:e ds lekus]
xksaMy jksM ckoMh]
ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360004
17-
3966283
16 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ ihñ,eñ Mhty izkbosV fyfeVsM
[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt; iEilsV
14220
0
0
1994
;qfuV 2
ehjk bUMLVªh;y lkslk;Vh]
IykWV ua 137] 140] 144] 147
jhax jksM] jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360003
18-
3965180
12 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ fo".kq csojsftl
iSdstCn is; ty ¼iSdstcUn
14543
0
0
2004
jS;k.kh deys'k ckcqHkkbZ]
izkd`frd feujy ty ds vykok½
Hkkstijk tsriqjk jksM]
ifo= pkSd] xzhu ikdZ lkslk;Vh]
xksaMy] ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360311
19-
3971579
30 tqykbZ 2013
eSllZ Jh ekrk fcojsftl
iSdstCn is; ty ¼iSdstcUn
14543
0
0
2004
IykV uañ 28] Jhth bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV]
izkd`frd feujy ty ds vykok½
gycM /kkax/kzk gkbos]
gycM] ftyk lqjsUnuxj] xqtjkr&363330
[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
,eñ jk/kkd`"uk] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 7th August, 2013
S.O. 2438.—In pursuance of sub-regulations (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)
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 address of the party
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part. Sec.
Year
No.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01.
3966081
16/07/2013
M/s Pylon Cable
PVC Insulated cables for
694
0
0
1990
2, Kanti Nagar,
working voltages up to and
Opposite Vijay Fully,
including 1100 V
Ahed of Kothariya Chowkdi,
N/H 8-B, Rajkot, Gujarat-360003
02.
3963378
04/07/2013
M/s Sohan Engineering
Mild steel tubes, Tubulars
1239
2
0
2011
Corporation
and other wrought steel
Plot No. 13/B Amrut Udyog,
fittings, Part 2 Mild steel
Opp. Dev Kalyan Ice factory,
tubulars and other wrought
Kothariya,
steel pipe fittings
Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
03.
3965382
12/07/2013
M/s Soni Anil Maganlal
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
& Co.
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Nani Poshad Sheri, Saraf Bazar,
Fineness and Marking-
Bhuj, District: Kachchh,
Specification
Gujarat
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6391
04.
3965584
12/07/2013
M/s Malabar Gold Private
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Limited,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Shop No. 1A, Ground Floor,
Fineness and Marking-
Kalawad Road,
Specification
Crystall Mall, Opp. Rani Tower,
Rajkot, Gujarat-360007
05.
3969289
23/07/2013
M/s Asia Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Kansara Bazar Chowk,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Soni Bazar, Bhuj,
Fineness and Marking-
District: Kachchh,
Specification
Gujarat-370001
06.
3965483
12/07/2013
M/s Malabar Gold Private
Silver and Silver Alloys,
2112
0
0
2003
Limited,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Shop No. 1A Ground Floor,
Fineness and Marking-
Kalawad Main Road,
Specification
Crystall Mall,
Opp. Rani Tower,
Rajkot, Gujarat-360007
07.
3964178
08/07/2013
M/s Capital Steel Industries
Carbon steel cast billet
2830
0
0
2013
Survey No. 198/P, Plot No. 4 & 5,
ingots, billets, blooms and
Village Ghanghali, Taluka Sihor,
slabs for re-rolling into steel
District: Bhavnagar,
for general structural
Gujarat-364240
purposes
08.
3967285
17/07/2013
M/s M. D. Inducto Cast Private
Carbon steel cast billet
2830
0
0
2012
Limited,
ingots, billets, blooms and
Survey No. 144, Paiki 1 & 2,
slabs for re-rolling into steel
At Nesada, Taluka Sihor,
for general structural
District: Bhavnagar,
puposes
Gujarat
09.
3969390
24/07/2013
M/s Falash Steel,
Carbon steel cast billet
2830
0
0
2012
Falah Steel 119-Madhav Darshan,
ingots, billets, blooms and
1st Floor Waghavadi Road,
slabs for re-rolling into steel
Bhavnagar,
for general structural
Gujarat-364001
purposes
10.
3965988
17/07/2013
M/s Balaji Sumbersible Pumps
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
Pvt.. Ltd.
Specification
Sr. No. 19, Plot No. 40,
B/H Samrat Marble,
Opposite Tata Show Room,
Gondal Road,
Vavdi, Rajkot,
Gujarat-360004
11.
3968691
23/07/2013
M/s P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd.
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
(Unit-2) Mira Ind Society,
Specification
Plot No. 137, 140, 144, 147,
Ring Road, District: Rajkot,
Gujarat- 360003
12.
3970981
29/07/2013
M/s Fabtech Cables Private
Winding Wires for
8783
4
3
1995
Limited,
Submersible Motors-
Plot No. 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 & 27,
Specification- Part 4:
Survey No. 39/3, Navrang
Specification for Individual
Industrial Estate,
Wires- Section 3: Polyester
Behind Hotel Krishna Park,
and Ploypropylene
Vavdi,, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
Insulated Wi
13.
3966182
16/07/2013
M/s Ashok Engineering &
Specification for Engine
11501
0
0
1986
Foundry Works
Monoset Pumps for Clear,
Ashok Vatika, Dhebar Road
Cold, Fresh Water for
(South End), Rajkot,
Agricultural Purposes
Gujarat-360002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
3971478
30/07/2013
M/s Oskar Industries
Butterfly valves for general
13095
0
0
1991
Oskar Industries 16,
purposes
Samrat Industrial Area,
B/H S.T. Work Shop,
Gondal Road,
Rajkot Gujarat- 360004,
15.
3968893
22/07/2013
M/s Giriraj Milk Products
Skimmed Milk Powder-
13334
1
0
1998
Pvt. Ltd.
Specification-Part 1:
G-2702, Kranti Gate,
Standard Grade
Near Ronak Marble,
Metoda GIDC, At Village Metoda,
Taluka Lodhika,
District: Rajkot
Gujarat-360021
16.
3965887
17/07/2013
M/s Balaji Submersible
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
Pumps Pvt. Ltd.
Pumpsets-Specification
Survey No. 19, Plot No. 40,
B/H Samrat Marble,
Opposite Tata Show Room,
Gondal Road Vavdi,
Rajkot,
Gujarat-360004
17.
3966283
16/07/2013
M/s P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd.
Opwenwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
(Unit 2) Mira Indl. Society,
Pumpsets-Specification
Plot No. 137, 140, 144, 147
Ring Road, Rajkot,
Gujarat-360003
18.
3965180
12/07/2013
M/s Vishnu Beverages
Packaged Drinking Water
14543
0
0
2004
Raiyani Kamles Babubhai,
(other than Packaged
Bojpara, Jetpur Road,
Natural Mineral Water
Pavitra Chowk, Green Park Society,
Specification
Gondal,
District: Rajkot
Gujarat-360311
19.
3971579
30/07/2013
M/s Shree Mata Beverages
Packaged Drinking Water
14543
0
0
2004
Plot No. 28, Shreeji Industrial Estate, (other than Packaged
Halvad-Dhrangdhar High-Way,
Natural Mineral Water)-
Halvad,
Specification
District: Surendranagar,
Gujarat-363330
[No. CMD/13:11]
M. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2439-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal
Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkk ek
Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
lañ
la[;k
frfFk o"kZ ekg
la[;k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01
3972682
02 vxLr 2013
eSllZ xaxk n'kZu iksfyelZ
is; ty dh iwfrZ ds fy,
4985
0
0
2000
xkao uhph eaMk] rkyqdk eksjch]
vlq?kfV;r ihñohñlhñ
ftyk jktdksV]
ikbi & fof'k"V
xqtjkr 363642
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6393
02
3973684
05 vxLr 2013
eSllZ Jhth LVhy bUMLVªht
daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp
1786
0
0
2008
IykWV uañ 168171]
lkeF;Z fodflr bLikr NM
flgksj vgenkckn jksM]
vkSj rkj
th vkbZ Mh lh& IV] xkao ?kka?kyh
rkyqdk flgksj] ftyk Hkkouxj]
xqtjkt 364240
03
3975183
07 vxLr 2013
esllZ ohñ,ñ bUMLVªht
lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy,
303 0
0
0
1989
losZ uañ 4103] eksMonj jksM]
IykbZoqM
xkao ehBh jksgj] rkyqdk xka/kh/kke]
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr 370201
04
3975284
07 vxLr 2013
esllZ ohñ,ñ bUMLVªht
ydM+h ds likV njokts ds
2202
1
0
1999
losZ uañ 410 3] eksMonj jksM]
'kVj Bksl dksj Vkbi
xkao ehBh jksgj] rkyqdk xka/kh/kke]
¼Hkkx 1½ IykbZoqM ds lrg
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr 370240
;qDr iy~ys
05
3975385
07 vxLr 2013
esllZ ohñ,ñ bUMLVªht
CykWd cksMZ
1659
0
0
2004
losZ uañ 410 3] eksMonj jksM]
xkao ehBh jksgj] rkyqdk xka/kh/kke]
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370240
06
3975486
07 vxLr 2013
eSllZ viksyks fodkl LVhy
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa
2830
0
0
2012
izkbZosV fyfeVsM
iquosZYyu ds fy;s dkcZu
losZ uañ 176] CykWd ua 139]
<yoka bLikr fcysV baxV
IykWV ua 1] Hkkouxj ryktk jksM+]
fcysV Cywe vkSj LySc dh&
xkao ekelk] rkyqdk ?kks?kk]
fof'kf"V
ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr
07
3976387
08 vxLr 2013
eSllZ lqeks iksfyIykLV izkbZosV fyfeVsM]
rIr vkSj vrIr is; ty
15778
0
0
2007
IykV uañ th 925]
forj.k O;oLFkk ds fy,
fd"uk xsV jksM] dkykoM jksM]
Dyksjhud`r ikWyhfouk;y
thñvkbñ Mhñ lhñ esVksMk]
DyksjkbM lhihohlh ikbi
ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360026
08
3976488
08 vxLr 2013
eSllZ Jh lksuh fnus'kdqekj
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ /kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
y{ehnkl >kalh dh jkuh jksM]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk
lksuh cktkj] ekaMoh]
,oa eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370465
09
3977288
12 vxLr 2013
eSllZ vUuiw.kkZ bZLikr
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa
2830
0
0
2012
Cyksd uañ 65] IykWV uañ 2]
iquosZYyu ds fy;s dkcZu
xkao ekelk] rkyqdk /kks/kk 'kaijk]
<yoka bLikr fcysV baxV
ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364001
fcysV Cywe vkSj LySc dh
fof'kf"V
10
3977086
13 vxLr 2013
eSllZ czsuk bfjxs'ku izkbZosV
behVhax ikbZi lhLVe
13488
0
0
2008
fyfeVsM] IykV uañ 807]
c<oku thñvkbZñMhñlhñ]
Qst&rkyqdk o<oku]
ftyk lqjsUnzuxj]
xqtjkr&364240
11
3977187
13 vxLr 2013
eSllZ czsuk bfjxs'ku izkbZosV
flapkbZ miLdj&Nyuh Vkbi
12786
0
0
1989
fyfeVsM] IyksV uañ 807]
fQYVj & fof'kf"V
c<oku thñvkbZñMhñlhñ]
Qst&rkyqdk o<oku]
ftyk lqjsUnzuxj]
xqtjkr&364240
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12
3977793
13 vxLr 2013
eSllZ foyeksj Iyk; izkbZosV
CykWd cksMZ
1659
0
0
2004
fyfeVsM] losZ uEcj 1311]
xzsu bysDVªksfud ds ihNs]
Hkpkm vatkj jksM] xkao
ojlkesMh] rkyqdk vatkj]
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr
13
3977894
13 vxLr 2013
eSllZ foyeksj Iyk; izkbZosV
lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds fy,
303
0
0
1989
fyfeVsM] losZ uEcj 1311]
IykbZoqM
xzsu bysDVªksfud ds ihNs]
Hkpkm vatkj jksM] xkao
ojlkesMh] rkyqdk vatkj]
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr
14
3977995
13 vxLr 2013
eSllZ foyeksj Iyk; izkbZosV
ydM+h ds likV njokts
2202
1
0
1999
fyfeVsM] losZ uEcj 1311]
ds 'kVj Bksl dksj Vkbi
xzsu bysDVªksfud ds ihNs]
¼Hkkx 1½ IykbZoqM ds lrg
Hkpkm vatkj jksM] xkao
;qd~r iy~ys
ojlkesMh] rkyqdk vatkj]
ftyk dPN] xqtjkr
15
3978694
14 vxLr 2013
esllZ ckykth dscy bUMLVªht
1100 oksYV rd dh dk;Zdkjh
694
0
0
1990
o/kZeku bUMLVªh;y ,jh;k]
oksYVrk ds fy, ihohlh jksf/kr
IykWV ua 5] dksBkjh;k]
dsoy
losZ 2592] lkSjk"Vª lksyoaV
jk"Vªh; jktekxZ] dksBkjh;k]
jktdksV xqtjkr 360004
16
3978795
14 vxLr 2013
esllZ veh/kkjk iEi bUMLVªht
[kwys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;
14220
0
0
1994
xekjk isVªksy iEi ds ikl]
iEilsV
IykWV ua 18] losZ ua 17]
'ksM ua 6] jktdksV
xqtjkr 360003
17
3978896
14 vxLr 2013
esllZ vLFkfouk;d bUthfu;lZ
[kwys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;
14220
0
0
1994
13] eugj IykWV 2] can xyh]
iEilsV
xksMkoqu jksM] jktdksV]
xqtjkr 360002
18
3979898
16 vxLr 2013
eSllZ ek:fr bySDVªhd
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
,Vykl bUMLVªh;y ,jh;k]
IykWV ua 37] , jk"Vªh; ekxZ 8 ch]
gksVy fd"uk ikdZ ds lkeus]
jsyos Øk²lx ds ikl] dksBkjh;k]
jktdksV xqtjkr 360004
19
3979999
16 vxLr 2013
eSllZ nkrkj ,UVjizkbt
[kwys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;
14220
0
0
1994
laLdkj bUMLVªh;y lkslk;Vh]
iEilsV
LVªhV uañ 2] IykWV uañ 36]
[kks[kMnMh unh ds ihNs]
jk"Vªh; ekxZ 8 ch fjax jksM]
jktdksV] xqtjkr 360002
20
3980277
16 vxLr 2013
eSllZ vadhr TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
tSu mikJ; ds lkeus]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk
f'kYik TosylZ ds ikl isysl
,oa eqgjkadu & fof'k"V
jksM] ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr 360001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6395
21
3981481
19 vxLr 2013
eSllZ lkxj bfjxs'ku izkbZosV
flapkbZ miLdj&Nyuh Vkbi
12786
0
0
1989
fyfeVsM IyksV ua 109&111]
fQYVj & fof'kf"V
vksYM jk"Vªh; jktekxZ]
ckucksj] thñvkbZñMhñlhñ]
xkWo uokxke] rkyqdk pksVhyk]
ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr 363520
22
3981986
19 vxLr 2013
eSllZ xgsuk TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a
1417
0
0
1999
fgjkou dksEiysDl ds lekus]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
foBy izsl jksM]
eqgjkadu&fof'k"V
lqjsUnzuxj] xqtjkr 360001
23
3983788
22 vxLr 2013
eSllZ ueZnk ikbZIl
flapkbZ miLdj mRltZu&
13487
0
0
1992
losZ uacj 211] us'kuy gkbZos]
fof'k"V
8&ch] xkao osjkoy ¼lkij½]
ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr 360002
24
3984487
23 vxLr 2013
eSllZ Jh jke bysDVªhdYl
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
ek:fr bUMLVªh;y ,fj;k]
LVªhV uañ 5] eqjfy/kj osbV fczt ds
ihNs] dksBkjh;k ¯jx jksM]
jktdksV] xqtjkr 360002
25
3985287
26 vxLr 2013
eSllZ dkLV ,UM Cyksoj
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
dqa xqtjkr izkbZosV fyfeVsM]
ih vks cksDl uañ 1009]
f='kqy ,LVsV] vkth bZUMLVªh;y
,LVsV] 80 fQV jksM] jktdksV]
xqtjkr 360003
26
3985388
26 vxLr 2013
eSllZ jkt'kfDr TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a
1417
0
0
1999
f'k;kuh iksy ds vanj]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
'kkd ekdsZV ds ikl o<oku]
eqgjkadu—fof'k"V
lqjsUnzuxj] xqtjkr 363030
27
3985489
26 vxLr 2013
eSllZ Jh ctjax TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a
1417
0
0
1999
tykjke 'kksfiax lsUVj]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
ukuh cktkj] xqnkyk 'ksjh xksaMy]
eqgjkadu—fof'k"V
ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr 360311
28
3985590
26 vxLr 2013
eSllZ chñ thñ TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a
1417
0
0
1999
,eñthñ jksM]] tSu gksfLiVy ds
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
ikl] osjkoy] ftyk iksjcanj]
eqgjkadu—fof'k"V
xqtjkr 362265
29
3987493
27 vxLr 2013
eSllZ o"kkZ TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
fo'os'oj VsEiy ds ikl]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
eoMh esbu jksM] ek:fruxj]
eqgjkadu—fof'kf"V
j.kNksM+ fo|ky;] jktdksV]
xqtjkr 360004
30
3987594
27 vxLr 2013
eSllZ ehrh TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
11] vtqZu dksEiysDl]]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
vfrfFk pksd] iapoVh esbu jksM]
eqgjkadu—fof'kf"V
jktdksV] xqtjkr 360002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31
3987695
27 vxLr 2013
eSllZ ikVhnkj TosylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
0
0
1999
3] guqeku 'kksfiax lsUVj]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
nhun;ky pksd] cksVkn]
eqgjkadu—fof'k"V
ftyk Hkkouxj]
xqtjkr 364710
32
3989497
30 vxLr 2013
esllZ lsUp;qjh bysDVªhdy
[kqys dq,a ds fy, fueTt;
14220
0
0
1994
dEiuh
iEilsV
2] mekdkUr m|ksxuxj]
eoMh IykWV] jktdksV]
xqtjkr 360004
33
3989501
30 vxLr 2013
eSllZ ijQsDV iEi
fueTtuh; iEi lsV
8034
0
0
2002
nhid VªkUliksVZ ds ihNs]
jk"Vªh; ekxZ] pUnziqj]
rkyqdk okdkusj]
ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr 360002
[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13% 11]
,eñ jk/kkd`"uk] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013
S.O. 2439.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)
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 address of the party
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part. Sec.
Year
No.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01
3972682
02/08/2013
M/s.. Ganga Darshan Polymers
Unplasticized PVC
4985
0
0
2000
Village Nichi Mandal,
Pipes for Potable
Taluka Morbi,
Water Supplies—
District Rajkot,
Specification
Gujarat-363642
02
3973684
05/08/2013
M/s. Shreeji Steel Inustries
Specificaton for high
1786
0
0
2008
207, Shoppers Plaza,
strength deformed
Parimal Chowk,
steel bars and wires
Waghwadi Road,
for concrete
Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364002
reinforcement
03
3975183
07/08/2013
M/s. V.A. Industries
Specification for
303
0
0
1989
Vraj, Plot No. 215,
plywood for general
Ward No. 8a, Subhash Nagar,
purposes
Opposite Sports Complex,
District: Kachchh,
Gujarat-370240
04
3975284
07/08/2013
M/s.. V.A. Industries
Specification for wooden
2202
1
0
1999
Survey No. 410/3,
flush door shutters (solid
Modvadar Road,
core type): Part 1 Plywood
Village Mithi Roher,
face panels
Taluka Gandhidham,
District: Kachchh,
Gujarat-370240
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6397
05
3975385
07/08/2013
M/s.. V.A. Industries
Specification for block
1659
0
0
2004
Vraj, Plot No. 215,
Boards
Ward No. 8a, Subhash Nagar,
Opposite Sport Complex,
District: Kachchh,
Gujarat-370201
06
3975486
07/08/2013
M/s.. Apollo Vikas Steels
Carbon steel cast billet
2830
0
0
2012
Pvt. Ltd.
ingots, billets, blooms
Survey No. 176, Block No. 139,
and slabs for re-rolling
Plot No. 1, Bhavanagar,
into steel for general
Talaja Road, Village: Mamsa,
structural purposes
District : Bhavnagar, Gujrat
07
3976387
08/08/2013
M/s.. Sumo Polyplast Pvt. Ltd.
Chlorinated PVC Pipes
15778
0
0
2007
Plot No. G-925, Krishan Gate
for Potable Hot and Cold
Road, Kalawad Road, G.I.D.C.,
Water Distribution
Metoda, District: Rajkot,
Supplies
Gujarat-360026
08
3976488
08/08/2013
M/s. Soni Dineshkumar
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Laxmidas
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Zansi Ki Rani Road,
Fineness and Marking-
Soni Bazar, Mandvi,
Specification
District : Kachchh,
Gujarat-370465
09
3977288
12/08/2013
M/s. Annapurna Ispat
Carbon steel cast billet
2830
0
0
2012
Lati Bazar,
ingots, billets, blooms and
Bhavnagar,
slabs for re-rolling into steel
Gujarat
for general structural perposes
10
3977086
13/08/2013
M/s. Brenna Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.
Emitting pipes system
13488
0
0
2008
325, Mega Mall, 3rd Floor,
Near Milan Cinema
Main Road, Surendranagar,
Gujarat-363001
11
3977187
13/08/2013
M/s. Brenna Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.
Irrigation Equipment-
12786
0
0
1989
325, Mega Mall, 3rd Floor,
Polyethylene Pipes for
Near Milan Cinema
Irrigation Laterals-
Surendranagar,
Specification
Gujarat-363001
12
3977793
13/08/2013
M/s. Willmore Ply Private
Specifcation for block
1659
0
0
2004
Limited
boards
14, Surya Complex, 2nd Floor,
Navyug Colony,
Bhulabhai Park Char Rasta,
District : Ahmedabad,
Gujarat-380022
13
3977894
13/08/2013
M/s. Willmore Ply Private
Specification for plywood
303
0
0
1989
Limited
for general purposes
14, Surya Complex, 2nd Floor,
Navyug Colony,
Bhulabhai Park Char Rasta,
District : Ahmedabad,
Gujarat-380022
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14
3977995
13/08/2013
M/s. Willmore Ply Private
Specification for wooden
2202
1
0
1999
Limited
flush door shutters (solid
Survey No. 131-1,
core type): Part 1 Plywood
Behind Gran Electronic,
face panels
Bhachau-Anjar Road,
Village Varsamedi Taluka
Anjar, District: Kachchh,
Gujarat
15
3978694
14/08/2013
M/s. Balaji Cable Industries
PVC Insulated cables for
694
0
0
1990
Vardhaman Industrial Area,
working voltages upto and
Plot No. 5, Kothariya,
including 1100 V
Survey 259/2, Behind
Saurastra Solvent,
National Highway,
Kothariya, District: Rajkot,
Gujarat-360004
16
3978795
14/08/2013
M/s. Amidhara Pump Industries
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
Near Gamara Petrol Pump,
Pumpsets-Specification
Plot No. 18, Survey No. 17,
Shed No. 6, District: Rajkot,
Gujarat-360003
17
3978896
14/08/2013
M/s. Ashtavinayak Engineers
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
13 Manhar Plot, 2nd Closed Street,
Pumpsets-Specification
Godown Road, District : Rajkot,
Gujarat-360002
18
3979898
16/08/2013
M/s. Maruti Electric
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
Atlas Ind. Area, Plot No. 37-A,
Specification
N.H. 8-B, Opp. Hotel Krishna Park,
Near Railway Crossing, Kothariya,
District: Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
19
3979999
16/08/2013
M/s. Datar Enterprise
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
Sanskar Industrial Society,
Pumpsets-Specification
Street No. 2, Plot No. 36,
B/h. Khokhaddadi River,
N.H. 8/B, Ring Road, Rajkot,
Gujarat-360002
20
3980277
16/08/2013
M/s. Ankit Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Opp. Jain Upashray,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Near Shilpa Jewellers,
Fineness and Marking-
Palace Road, District: Rajkot
Specification
Gujarat-360001
21
3981481
19/08/2013
M/s. Sagar Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.
Irrigation Equipment-
12786
0
0
1989
Plot No. 109 to 111,
Polyethylene Pipes for
Old National Highway,
Irrigation Laterals-
Bamanbore Gidc,
Specification
At Village Navagam,
Taluka Chotila, Distrct: Rajkot
Gujarat-363520
22
3981986
19/08/2013
M/s. Gahena Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Opp. Hiravan Complex,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Vitthal Press Road,
Fineness and Marking-
Surendranagar,
Specification
Gujarat-363001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6399
23
3983788
22/08/2013
M/s. Narmada Pipes
Irrigation Equipment-
13487
0
0
1992
Survey No. 211,
Emitters-Specification
National Highway 8-B,
Village Veraval (Shapar),
District: Rajkot,
Gujarat-360002
24
3984487
23/08/2013
M/s. Shree Ram Electricals
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
Maruti Ind. Area, St. No. 5,
Specificaiton
B/H Murlidhar Weight Bridge,
Kothariya Ring Road,
Rajkot, Gujarat-360002
25
3985287
26/08/2013
M/s. Cast and Blower Company
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
(Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd.
Specification
P.B. No. 1009, Trishul Pump,
Aji Industrial Estate,
80 Feet Road, District: Rajkot,
Gujarat-360003
26
3985388
26/08/2013
M/s. Rajshakti Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
In Shiyani Pol,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Nesar Shakmarket, Wadhwan,
Fineness and Marking-
Surendranagar,
Specification
Gujarat-363030
27
3985489
26/08/2013
M/s. Shree Bajrang Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Jalaram Shoping Centre,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Nani Bazar, Gundala Street,
Fineness and Marking-
Gondal, District: Rajkot,
Specification
Gujarat-360311
28
3985590
26/08/2013
M/s. B.G. Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
M.G. Road, Near Jain Hospital,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Veraval, District: Porbandar,
Fineness and Marking-
Gujarat-362265
Specification
29
3987493
27/08/2013
M/s. Varsha Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
Nr. Visweshwr Temple,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Mavdi Ain Road, Marutinagar,
Fineness and Marking-
Ranchod Vidhyalaya,
Specification
Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
30
3987594
27/08/2013
M/s. Miti Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
11, Arjun Complex, Atithi Chowk,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Panchvati Main Road,
Fineness and Marking-
Rajkot, Gujarat-360002
Specification
31
3987695
27/08/2013
M/s. Patidar Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
1417
0
0
1999
3, Hanuman Shoping Centre,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Dindayal Chowk, Botad,
Fineness and Marking-
District: Bhavnagar,
Specification
Gujarat-364710
32
3989497
30/08/2013
M/s. Century Electrical Company
Openwell Submersible
14220
0
0
1994
2-Umakant Udyognagar,
Pumpsets-Specification
Mavdi Plot, Rajkot,
Gujarat-360004
33
3989501
30/08/2013
M/s. Perfect Pump
Submersible Pumpsets-
8034
0
0
2002
Behind Dipak Transport,
Specification
National Highway,
At Chandrapur,
Taluka Wankaner,
District: Rajkot, Gujarat-363621
[No. CMD/13:11]
M. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh 11 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2440-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] dks ykblsal jí fd, x, gSa%
vuqlwph
Øñ lañ
ykblsal
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe
jíhdj.k frfFk
la[;k
lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
1-
3910660
eSllZ I;ksj vyks;l izkbZosV fyfeVsM
daØhV izcyu ds fy, mPp
13 vxLr] 2013
jksyhax ehy Mhfotu]
lkeFkZ~; fodflr bLikr NM
flgksj ?kka?kyh jksM uEcj 214]
vkSj rkj
vkj ,l uEcj 225&7]
iSdh IyksV uacj 1 ,oa 2]
xko ?kka?kyh] rkyqdk flgksj]
ftyk Hkkouxj]
xqtjkr&364240
[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
,eñ jk/kkd`"uk] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013
S.O. 2440.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)
Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given
below have cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl. No.
Licences
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with
Date of
No.
relevant Indian
Cancellation
Standards covered
by the licence cancelled/
suspension
1
2
3
4
5
1.
3910660
M/s. Pure Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
High Strength
13/08/2013
Sihor Ghanghali Road No. 214,
deformed steel bars
R.S. No. 225-7,
and wires for
Paiki, Plot No. 1 &2 ,
concrete
Village Ghanghali, Taluka Sihor,
reinforcement
District: Bhavnagar,
Gujarat-364001
[No. CMD/13:11]
M. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2441-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dks gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 10322 ¼Hkkx 5@vuqHkkx 5½ % 2013
&
07 vDrwcj] 2013
iznhid Hkkx 5 fooj.kkRed
vis{kk,Wa vuqHkkx 5 QyM ykbZfVax
¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6401
2-
vkbZ ,l 10322 ¼Hkkx 5@vuqHkkx 6½ % 2013
&
07 vDrwcj] 2013
iznhid Hkkx 5 fooj.kkRed
vis{kk,a vuqHkkx 6 gSaM ySEi
3-
vkbZ ,l 10322 ¼Hkkx 5@vuqHkkx 7½ % 2013
&
07 vDrwcj] 2013
iznhid Hkkx 5 fooj.kkRed
vis{kk,a vuqHkkx 7 ykbfVax psu
4-
vkbZ ,l 10322 ¼Hkkx 5@vuqHkkx 8½ % 2013
&
07 vDrwcj] 2013
iznhid Hkkx 5 fooj.kkRed
vis{kk,a vuqHkkx 8 vkikrdkyhu izdk'k—
O;oLFkk
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;kWa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqacbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ bZVh 24@Vh&103] Vh&104] Vh&105 ,oa Vh&106]
vkjñ lhñ eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2013
S.O. 2441.—In purusance 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 issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Established
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 10322 (Part 5/Sec 5): 2013
—
07 October, 2013
Luminaires Part 5
particular requirements
Section 5 flood lights
(First revision)
2.
IS 10322 (Part 5/Sec 6): 2013
—
07 October, 2013
Luminaires Part 5
particular requirements
Section 6 hand lamps
3.
IS 10322 (Part 5/Sec 7): 2013
—
07 October, 2013
Luminaires Part 5
particular requirements
Section 7 lighting chains
4.
IS 10322 (Part 5/Sec 8): 2013
—
07 October, 2013
Luminaires Part 5
particular requirements
Section 8 emergency
lighting
Copies of these Standards 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, Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. ET 24/T-103, T-104, T-105 & T-106]
R.C. MATHEW, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Electrotechnical)
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
6402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2442-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fue;] 1987 ds fu;e] 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k]
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 12762 ¼Hkkx 3½% 2013
&
08 vDrwcj] 2013
izdk'koksYVh; ;qfDr;kWa Hkkx 3 lanHkZ
o.kZØeh; vfHkfdj.k MkVk LFkyh;
izdk'koksYVh; ¼ih oh½ lkSj ;qfDr ds fy,
ekiu fl)kar ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
2-
vkbZ ,l 12762 ¼Hkkx 7½% 2013
&
08 vDrwcj] 2013
izdk'koksYVh; ;qfDr;kWa Hkkx 7
izdk'koksYVh; ;qfDr;ksa ds ekiu gsrq
liSDVªy vlarqyu lq/kkj dh x.kuk
3-
vkbZ ,l 12763% 2013 izdk'koksYVh;
&
08 vDrwcj] 2013
;qfDr;kWa & ekfir vkbZ&oh vfHky{k.kksa
esa rkieku rFkk vfHkfdj.k lq/kkj gsrq
dk;Zfof/k ¼igyk iqujhf{k.k½
4-
vkbZ ,l 12834% 2013 lkSj
&
08 vDrwcj] 2013
izdk'koksYVh; ÅtkZ iz.kkfy;kWa & 'kCn]
ifjHkk"kk,Wa ,oa fpUg ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
5-
vkbZ ,l 16077% 2013 irys fQYe
&
08 vDrwcj] 2013
okys Hkw izdk'koksYVh; ¼ih oh½ ekWM;wy&
fMtkbZu vgZrk,Wa ,oa Vkbi vuqeksnu
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;kWa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqacbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ bZVh 28@Vh&9] Vh&22] Vh&15] Vh&2] Vh&29]
vkjñ lhñ eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2013
S.O. 2442.—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 issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Established
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 12762 (Part 3): 2013 Photovoltaic Devices—
—
08 October, 2013
Part 3 Measurement Principles for
Terrestrial Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Devices
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6403
With Reference Spectral Irradiance Data
(First Revision)
2.
IS 12762 (Part 7) : 2013 Photovoltaic Devices
—
08 October, 2013
- Part 7 Computation of the Spectral
Mismatch Corrections for Measurements of
Photovoltaic Devices
3.
IS 12763 : 2013 Photovoltaic Devices
—
08 October, 2013
Procedures For Temperature And Irradiance
Corrections to Measured I-V Characteristics
(First Revision)
4.
IS 12834 : 2013 Solar Photovoltaic Energy
—
08 October 2013
Systems-Terms, Definitions And Symbols (First Revision)
5.
IS 16077 : 2013 Thin-Film Terrestrial
—
08 October, 2013
Photovoltaic (PV) Modules-Design
Qualification and Type Approval
Copies of these Standards 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 28/T-9, T-22, T-15, T-2, T-29]
R.C. MATHEW, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Electrotechnical)
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2443-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud ¼dks½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
la'kks/ku dh la[;k
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vkSj frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ,l 1397% 1990 ØkQV
la'kks/ku la[;k uañ 3
30 flracj 2013
dkxt ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
flracj 2013
2
vkbZ,l 12766% 1997 dkxt]
la'kks/ku la[;k uañ 3
30 flracj 2013
dEi;wVj ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
flracj 2013
bu Hkkjrh; ekudks dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ
fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV
ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ lh,pMh 15@vkbZ,l 1397 vkSj 12766]
Mkñ jktho dsñ >k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013
S.O. 2443.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
6404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date from which the
No.
Indian Standards
amendment
amendment shall
have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 1397: 1990 Kraft Paper—
Amendment No. 3
30 September 2013
Specification (second revision)
September 2013
2.
IS 12766: 1997 Paper, Computer—
Amendment No. 3
30 September 2013
Specification (first revision)
September 2013
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolcatta, Chandigarh, Channai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhuleshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at: http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. CHD 15/IS 1397 & 12766]
Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2444-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~
}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud ¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
la'kks/ku dh la[;k
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vkSj frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ,l 6714% 1989 Msd ij iz;qDr
la'kks/ku la[;k uañ 1
30 flracj 2013
fefJr jksxu] ifjlTtk ds fy,] u
flracj 2013
fQlykus okyk& fof'kf"V ¼igyk
iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ
fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV
ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ lh,pMh 20@vkbZ,l 6714]
Mkñ jktho dsñ >k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013
S.O. 2444.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date from which the
No.
Indian Standards
amendment
amendment shall
have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 6714: 1989 Ready mixed paint,
Amendment No. 1
30 September, 2013
finishing, non-slip, deck—
Septembber 2013
Specification (first revision)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6405
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Channai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubeneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at: http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. CHD 20/IS 6714]
Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2445-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~
}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;s gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 6182&7%2004
&
30-09-2013
vfXu lqj{kk&Lopfyr fLizadyj ra=
Hkkx 7 tYnh neu rst izfrfØ;k
¼b,l,Qvkj½ okys fLizadyjksa dh
vko';drk,a vkSj ijh{k.k fof/k;ka
2-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 7240&5%2003
&
30-09-2013
vfXu lalwpd o lapsrd ra= Hkkx 5
uqdhys m"ek lalwpd
3-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 7240&7%2011
&
30-09-2013
vfXu lalwpd o lapsrd ra= Hkkx 7
fc[kjk izdk'k] lapkfjr izdk'k ;k
vk;uu dk iz;ksx djus okys uqdhys /kwe
lalwpd
4-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 7240&11%2011
&
30-09-2013
vfXu lalwpd o lapsrd ra= Hkkx 11
gLrpfyr ladsrd
5-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 7240&15%2004
&
30-09-2013
vfXu lalwpd o lapsrd ra= Hkkx 15
fc[kjk izdk'k] lapkfjr izdk'k vFkok
lsalj lfgr vk;uu lsalj dk iz;ksx
djus okys uqdhys vfXu lalwpd
6-
vkbZ ,l 16109% 2013 VuZVscy ySMj
&
30-09-2013
fof'kf"V
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+]
psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2445.—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 indicate it:
6406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Established
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS/ISO 6182-7:2004 Fire Protection—
—
30-09-2013
Automatic Sprinkler Systems Part 7
Requirements and Test Method for Early
Suppression Fast Response (ESFR)
Sprinklers
2.
IS/ISO 7240-5:2003 Fire Detection and
—
30-09-2013
Alarm Systems Part 5 Point-Type Heat
Detectors
3.
IS/ISO 7240-7:2011 Fire Detection and
—
30-09-2013
Alarm Systems Part 7 Point-Type Smoke
Detectors Using Scattered Light,
Transmitted Light or lonization
4.
IS/ISO 7240-11:2011 Fire Detection and
—
30-09-2013
Alarm Systems Part 11 Manual Call Points
5.
IS/ISO 7240-15:2004 Fire Detection and
—
30-09-2013
Alarm Systems Part 15 Point-Type Fire
Detectors Using Scattered Light,
Transmitted Light or lonization Sensors in
Combination with a Heat Sensor
6.
IS/ISO 16109:2013 Turntable Ladder—
—
30-09-2013
Specification
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Channai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubeneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2446-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 2963%2013 flad o okW'k csflu ds fy, rkack
vkbZ ,l 2963%1979
30 flrEcj 2013
feJ /kkrq ds osLV Iyx o fQfVax—fof'kf"V ¼nwljk
vkbZ ,l 3311%1979
iqujh{k.k½ ¼lekesyh vkbZ ,l 3311%1979½
2-
vkbZ ,l 5219%2013 <yokW rkack feJ /kkrq ds VªSi
vkbZ ,l 5219
30 flrEcj 2013
fof'k"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
¼Hkkx 1½ % 1969
3-
vkbZ ,l 5312 ¼Hkkx 2½%2013 tydy ds fy, fLoax
vkbZ ,l 5312
30 flrEcj 2013
psd izdkj ds fjQyDl ¼xSjokilh okys½ okYo&
¼Hkkx 2½% 1986
fof'kf"V% Hkkx 2 cgq njokts izfr:i ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6407
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh & 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa] ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa] vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.kZ rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
ts- jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* o izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2446.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each.
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 2963:2013 Copper alloy waste
IS 2963:1979
30 September 2013
fittings and waste plug for wash basin
IS 3311:1979
and sinks—Specification (Second revision) (Amalgamating IS 3311:1979)
2.
IS 5219:2013 Cast copper alloy traps—
IS 5219
30 September 2013
Specification (First revision)
(Part 1) : 1969
3.
IS 5312 (Part 2): 2013 Swing check
IS 5312 (Part :
30 September 2013
type reflux (non-return) valves for water
2): 1986
works purpose—Specification: Part 2 Multi-door pattern (First revision)
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: 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] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2447-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}okjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 14435%2013 'kSf{kd
vkbZ ,l 14435%1997
30-09-2013
laLFkkuksa esa vfXu 'keu —jhfr lafgrk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh & 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa %
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
ts- jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
6408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2447.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated it.
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 14435: 2013 Fire Safety in
IS 14435: 1997
30.09.2013
Educational Institutions—Code of Practice (First Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad,
Bangalore, Bhopal Bhubneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2448-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}okjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dks gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 10386 ¼Hkkx 2½%2013 unh
vkbZ ,l 10386
30-09-2013
?kkVh ifj;kstukvksa ds fuekZ.k] izpkyu vkSj j[kj[kko dh lqj{kk lafgrk
¼Hkkx ¼2½ % 1982
Hkx 2 lqfo/kk,a] lqj{kkRed diM+s ,oa midj.k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh & 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa
ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouariqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSA Hkkjrh; ekud dksa http://www.standardsbis.in ij vkWuykbu
}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCY;wvkjMh@21@Vh&2]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2448.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6409
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., Title & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 10386: (Part 2): 2013 Safety
IS 10386 (Part 2): 1982
30.09.2013
Code for Construction, Operation and Maintenance of
River Valley Projects Part 2 Amenities, Protective Clothing
and Equipment (first Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal. Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. WRD 21/T-2]
J.C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2449-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e-1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}okjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vf/kØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]
;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 10386¼Hkkx 1½%2013 unh
vkbZ ,l 10386
30-10-2013
?kkVh ifj;kstukvksa ds fuekZ.k] izpkyu vkSj j[kj[kko dh lqj{kk lafgrk
¼Hkkx 1½ % 1983
Hkkx 1 lkekU; igyw ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouariqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSA Hkkjrh; ekud dksa http://www.standardsbis.in ij vkWuykbu
}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCY;wvkjMh 21@Vh&1]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2449.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. Title & Year of the
No. & Year of
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
the Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 10386: (Part 1): 2013 Safety
IS 10386 (Part 1): 1983
31.10.2013
Code for Construction, Operation and Maintenance of
River Valley Projects Part 1 General Aspects
(first Revision)
6410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal. Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. WRD 21/T-1]
J.C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2450-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x,s gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vf/kØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 10386¼Hkkx 4½% 2013 unh
vkbZ ,l 10386 ¼Hkkx 4½% 1992
31&09&2013
?kkVh ifj;kstukvksa ds fuekZ.k] izpkyu
vkSj j[kj[kko dh lqj{kk lafgrk Hkkx 4
foLQksVdksa dk ifjogu] izgLru rFkk
HkaMkj.k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj]dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekud dksa http://www.standardsbis.in ij
vkWuykbu }kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 21@Vh&4]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2450.—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 Scheduled
hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. Title & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 10386 (Part 4): 2013 Safety Code for Construction,
IS 10386 (Part 4): 1992
30 Sept. 2013
Operation and Maintenance of River Valley Projects Part 4
Handling, Transportation and Storage of Explosives (first revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvanthapuram.
[Ref. WRD 21/T-4]
J.C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6411
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2451-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 d fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x, gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vf/kØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 16091%2013 [kqys pSuyksa esa
—
30-09-2013
nzo izokg ekiu & gkbMªksehVjh miLdjksa
fufnZ"V dk;Zdkfjrk dh i)fr
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh & 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa
ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekud dksa http://www.standardsbis.in ij
vkWuykbu }kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 01@Vh&79]
ts- lh- vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2451.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. Title & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 16091: 2013 Measurement of
—
30 Sep 2013
Liquid Flow in Open Channels
— Method of Specifying Performance
of Hydrometric Equipment
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvanthapuram.
[Ref. WRD 01/T-79]
J.C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
6412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2452-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, ekud¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k
la'kks/ku dh la[;k
la'kks/ku ykxw gksus
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vkSj frfFk
dh frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 16102 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2012
1 flrEcj] 2013
15 vDrwcj] 2013
a
bl Hkkjrh; la'kks/ku dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh & 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa %
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ bZVh 23@Vh&98]
vkj- lh- eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2452.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
From which the
No.
Indian Standards
Amendment
amendment shall have
effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 16102 (Part 2): 2012 SELF
1, September, 2013
15 October, 2013
BALLASTED LED LAMPS FOR
GENERAL LIGHTING SERVICES
— PART 2 PERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS
Copies of this Amendment are available with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices: Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad,
Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvanthapuram.
[Ref. ET 23/T-98]
R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' and Head (Electrotechnical)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6413
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2453-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x,s gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vf/kØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 9401 ¼Hkkx 20½ % 2013
&
31&10&2013
unh ?kkVh ifj;kstukvksa esa dk;Z
ekiu dh i)fr;ka ¼cka/k vkSj
lEc) lajpuk,W½ Hkkx 20 laj{k.k
dk;Z
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZYk;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekud dksa http://www.standardsbis.in vkWuykbu
}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 23@Vh&35]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2453.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standardes Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. Title & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 9401 (Part 20) : 2013 Method of
-
31-10-2013
measurement of works in river vally
projects (dams and appurtenant
structures) Part 20 Protection works
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, Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. WRD 23/T-35]
J.C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2454-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x,s gSaA
6414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vf/kØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 11527% 2013 mRIyo
vkbZ ,l 11527% 1985
30&09&2013
ekxks± ds ÅtkZ fMfLkisVjksa ds
lajpukRed fMtkbZu & ekin.M
¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZYk;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekud dksa http://www.standardsbis.in vkWuykbu
}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 09@Vh&20]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2454.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standardes Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. Title & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 11527 : 2013 Structural design of
IS 11527: 1985
30-09-2013
energy dissipators for spilways—
Criteria (first revision)
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, Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in
[Ref. WRD 09/T-20]
J.C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2455-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6415
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vf/kØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼1½
vkbZ ,l 1125 % 2013 izkd`frd fuekZ.k iRFkjksa dk
vkbZ ,l 1125 % 1974
30 flrEcj] 2013
vi{k;u Kkr djuk & ijh{k.k i)fr ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa %
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2455.—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 is given in the Schedule hereto
annexed has been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
IS 1125 : 2013 Determination of
IS 1125 : 1974
30 September, 2013
weatheirng of natural building stones-Method of Test
(Second revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : 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] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2456-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkk ek lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½ % o"kZ
1-
4609365
01-07-2013
eSllZ ft;ksu iEIl ,.M eksVlZ
[kqys dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh;
IS 14220 : 1994
lañ 80&B1 & B2 & B3, dke/ksuw uxj]
iEilsV
dsñvkjñ iqje] dks;EcÙkwj] 641006
2-
4610249
05-07-2013
eSllZ Jh fo".kq ,Dok QkeZ
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 : 2004
11 & 12, esudk uxj]
feujy ty ds vykok½
iuejrqj jksM] dks;EcÙkwj&641039
3-
4612960
12-07-2013
eSllZ ihñVhñvkjñ ,Dok QkElZ
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 : 2004
1/372 J, jk/kk uxj] uYykrqiky;e eq[; lM+d]
feujy ty ds vykok½
xkSUMkuk;du iky;e ¼mÙkj½] eUukjS rkyqd]
fr:Iiqj&641607
6416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
4-
4613760
15-07-2013
eSllZ banjksyk LVhy jksfyax feYl bafM;k fyfeVsM
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iquosZYyu ds
IS 2830: 2012
28] efu;kdjuiky;e] bafMxjS iksLV]
fy, dkWcZu] <yoka bLikr fcysV baxV]
dks;EcÙkwj&641022
fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc
5-
4614459
16-07-2013
eSllZ ,l vkj ,y oh bathfu;fjax
vidsUnzh; tsV iEi
IS 12225: 1997
37@11E1] t;flEgk iqje] ds lh lh Ldwy ds ikl]
ihñ,uñ iky;e] dks;EcÙkwj&641037
6-
4515764
19-07-2013
eSllZ dks;EcÙkwj ¶yks dUVªksYl
lkekU; mn~ns';ksa ds fy,
IS 13095: 1991
1@50] is#eky dksfoy lM+d] dqUuÙkwj
cVj¶ykbZ okYo
iqnqj iksLV] dqUuqÙkqj] ,l ,l dqye ds jkLrs]
dks;EcÙkwj&641107
7-
4616564
24-07-2013
eSllZ Jh egky{eh ,Dok QkElZ
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan feujy
IS 14543 : 2004
328@2C] d#Iijk;j dksby lM+d]
ty ds vykok½
osyeiky;e] fr#Iiqj&641652
8-
4618265
30-07-2013
eSllZ ,LVhe baMLVªhl
fuEetuh; iEilsV
IS 8034: 2002
211@1] usrkth uxj] uUrqUnkiqje jksM]
dks;EcÙkwj&641036
9-
4621557
31-07-2013
eSllZ ,e ,l ds oh iEi
[kqys dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh;
IS 14220 : 1994
lañ 23] vkUMky uxj] mfIiyhiky;e iksLV]
iEilsV
dks;EcÙkwj&641015
10-
4624658
31-07-2013
eSllZ ,e ,l ds oh iEi
fuEetuh; iEilsV
IS 8034 : 2002
lañ 23] vkUMky uxj] mfIiyhiky;e iksLV]
iEilsV
dks;EcÙkwj&641015
[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2456.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation, 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant Date
Name &Address (Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No. No.
Sec. Year
1.
4609365
01.07.2013
M/s. Zion Pumps and Motors
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
No. 80-B1 & B2 & B3, Kamadhenu Nagar,
Pumpsets
K.R. Puram, Coimbatore-641006
2.
4610249
05.07.2013
M/s Sri Vishnu Aqua Farm
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543 : 2004
11 & 12, Menaka Nagar,
(other than Packaged Natural
Panamarathur Road,
Mineral Water)
Coimbatore-641039
3.
4612960
12.07.2013
M/s PTR Aqua Farms
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543 : 2004
1/372 J, Radha Nagar,
(other than Packaged Natural
Nallathupalayam Main Road,
Mineral Water)
Goundanaickaen Palayan (North)
T. Mannarai, Tiruppur-641607
4.
4613760
15.07.2013
M/s Indrola Steel Rolling Mills India Ltd.
Carbon steel cost billet ingots,
IS 2830 : 2012
28, Maniyakaran Palayam, Idigarai Post,
billets, blooms and slabs for
Coimbatore-641022
re-rolling into steel for general
structural purposes
5.
4614459
16.07.2013
M/s. SRLV Engineering
Centrifugal jet pump
IS 12225 : 1997
37/11E1, Jayasimha Puram, Near KCC
School, P.N. Palayam, Coimbatore-641037
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6417
6.
4615764
19.07.2013
M/s Coimbatore Flow Controls
Butterfly valves for
IS 13095 : 1991
1/50, Perumal Kovil Street,
general purposes
Kunnathur Pudhur Post, Kannathur,
S.S. Kulam (Via), Coimbatore-641107
7.
4616564
24.07.2013
M/s Shri Mahalakshmi Aqua Farms
Packaged Drinking
IS 14543 : 2004
328/2C, Karupparayar Koil Street,
Water (other than
Velampalayam,
Packaged Natural
Tiruppur-641652
Mineral Water)
8.
4618265
30.07.2013
M/s Easteem Industries
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034: 2002
211/1, Nethaji Nagar, Nanjundapuram Road,
Coimbatore-641036
9.
4621557
31.07.2013
M/s MSKV Pump
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
No. 23, Andal Nagar,
Pumpsets
Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore-641015
10.
4624658
31.07.2013
M/s KSKV Pump
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034 : 2002
No. 23, Andal Nagar, Uppilipalayam Post,
Coimbatore-641015
[No. CMD/13 : 11]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2457-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkk ek lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½ % o"kZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
1-
4620757
01@08@2013
esllZ fo".kq y{eh ,Dok izksMDV~l
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan feujy
IS 14543 % 2004
,l ,Q la- 82] njoktk la- 1]
ty ds vykok½
dfyDdkuk;duiky;e xkao] rkfy;wj iapk;r]
dks;EcÙkwj&641007
2-
4621254
01@08@2013
esllZ ,DokLVkj eksVlZ
LoPN BaMs ikuh ds fy, vidsUnzh;
IS 8472 % 1998
15] Hkkjr uxj] psfV~V;kj rksV~Ve]
iqu#Riknd iEi
uhyhdksueiky;e iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641033
3-
4622559
05@08@2013
esllZ vfrf'kou LVhYl izk;osV fyfeVsM
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iquosZYyu ds
IS 2830 % 2012
622@1] ojkiV~Vh xkao] osyIikuk;duiky;e iksLV]
fy, dkWcZu] <yoka bLikr fcysV baxV]
lqywj rkyqd] dks;EcÙkwj&641402
fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc
4-
4622660
05@08@2013
esllZ jaxk ,ykW¸l
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iquosZYyu
IS 2830 % 2012
,l ,Q la- 337 & 338] fpUukdYyhiV~Vh xkao]
ds fy, dkWcZu] <yoka bLikr fcysV
fl#eqxS iksLV] esVwiky;e rkyqd dks;EcÙkwj&641302
baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc
5-
4622862
06@08@2013
esllZ jsbu MªkWIl vkj vks okVj izk;osV fyfeVsM
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
la- 7@1ch] dhjure jksM] ljoueiV~Vh]
feujy ty ds vykok½
dks;EcÙkwj&641035
1
2
3
4
5
6
6418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6-
4623157
06@08@2013
esllZ ds-ds-,l- ,Dok baMLVªhl
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
losZ lañ 16@1] vUuk uxj iwoZ] dkejkt uxj]
feujy ty ds vykok½
us#isfjpy xkao] fr#Iiqj&641602
7-
4624159
07@08@2013
esllZ gSMªkykbu baMLVªe
d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,
IS 9079 % 2002
¼lh-vkj-vkbZ- iEIl izkbosV fyfeVsM dk ;wfuV½
fctyh ds eksukslsV iEIl
lañ 43@17] vkokjeiky;e jksM] x.kifr jksM]
dks;EcÙkwj&641006
8-
4624664
07@08@2013
esllZ Vksulu baMLVªhl izkbosV fyfeVsM
vidsUnzh; tsV iEi
IS 12225 % 1997
11@10,] osYyS fouk;xj rksV~Ve]
nhik fey jksM] xksYMfoUl]
flfoy ,sjkWMªkse iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641014
9-
4625565
08@08@2013
esllZ Vh ,l vkj feujy okVlZ
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
,l ,Q lañ 518] dky;uwj] ih-,u- iky;e]
feujy ty ds vykok½
24] ohjkikUMh] dks;EcÙkwj&641108
10-
4625666
08@08@2013
esllZ bZ'ojh feujYl
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan
IS 14543 % 2004
njoktk lañ 1@339&1] Årqdqyh jksM]
feujy ty ds vykok½
psUxkiYyh] vfouk'kh]
fr#Iiqj&638812
11-
4629068
19@08@2013
esllZ jksVj ioj izkbosV fyfeVsM
LoPN BaMs ikuh ds fy,
IS 8472 % 1998
2] 'kksHkk uxj] nwljk lM+d]
vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi
vkokjeiky;e] dks;EcÙkwj&641006
12-
4630659
20@08@2013
esllZ iwtk bEisDl
?kjsyw izs'kj dqdj
IS 2347 % 2006
112&lh] ,l-,l-ih- uxj] jkleiky;e]
isfj;k lsewj] bZjksM&638004
13-
4630760
20@08@2013
esllZ lqjfHk vk;uZ ,.M LVhy daiuh izkbosV
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iquosZYyu
IS 2830 % 2012
fyfeVsM ,l ,Q lañ 41@3] ,e-th-lh- iky;e]
ds fy, dkWcZu] <yoka bLikr fcysV
dq#deiky;e iksLV] x.ks'kkiqje]
baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc
dks;EcÙkwj&641107
14-
4632158
22@08@2013
esllZ VsDLeks baMLVªhl ¼iEi fMfo'ku&2½
fuEetuh; iEilsV
IS 8034 % 2002
lañ 4@133,] ifUueMS jksM] ds- oMkenqjS]
dks;EcÙkwj&641017
15-
4632057
22@08@2013
esllZ osy iEilsV~l
[kqys dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh;
IS 14220 % 1994
66,@67,] vfriky;e jksM] x.kifr]
iEilsV
dks;EcÙkwj&641006
16-
4633564
26@08@2013
esllZ ,ysu baMLVªhl izkbosV fyfeVsM
fuEetuh; iEilsV
IS 8034 % 2002
,l ,Q lañ 275] vfoukf'k jksM]
lqywj CykWd] vjlwj] dks;Ecrwj&641407
[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]
,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
1
2
3
4
5
6
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6419
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2457.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant Date
Name & Address (Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No. No.
Sec. Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
4620757
01/08/2013
M/s. Visnu Laxmi Aqua Products
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543:2004
S.F. No. 82, Door No. 1,
(other than Packaged Natural
Kalikkanaickenpalayam (Village)
Mineral Water)
Thaliyur Panchayat
Coimbatore-641007
2.
4621254
01/08/2013
M/s.Aquastar Motors
Centrifugal Regenerative
IS 8472: 1998
15, Bharath Nagar, Chettiar Thottam,
Pumps for clear, Cold Water
Neelikonampalayam Post,
Coimbatore-641033
3.
4622559
05/08/2013
M/s. Athisivan Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Carbon steel cast billet ingots,
IS 2830: 2012
622/1, Varappatti Village,
Billets, Blooms and Slabs for
Velappanaicken Palayam
re-rolling into steel for general
(P.O.), Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore-641402
4.
4622660
05/08/2013
M/s. Rangga Alloys
Carbon steel cast billet ingots,
IS 2830: 2012
SF No. 337 & 338, Chinnakallipatti
Billets, Blooms and Slabs for
Village, Sirumugai Post, Mettupalayam
re-rolling into steel for general
(TK), Coimbatore-641302
structural purposes
5.
4622862
06/08/2013
M/s. Rain Dropps RO Water Private Limited
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543: 2004
No. 7/1B, Keeranatham Road,
(other than Packaged
Saravanampatti, Coimbatore-641035
Natural Mineral Water)
6.
4623157
06/08/2013
M/s. K.K.S. Aqua Industries
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543: 2004
Sur. No. 16/1, Anna Nagar East,
(other than Packaged
Kamaraj Nagar, Neruperichal
Natural Mineral Water)
Village, Tiruppur-641602
7.
4624159
07/08/2013
M/s. Hydraline Industries
Electric Monoset Pumps for
IS 9079: 2002
(Unit of C.R.I. Pumps Private Limited)
clear, Cold Water for
No. 43/17, Avarampalayam Road,
Agricultural and Water Supply
Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641006
purposes
8.
4624664
07/08/2013
M/s. Tonsan Industries Private Limited
Centrifugal Jet Pump
IS 12225: 1997
11/10A, Vellai Vinaynagar Thottam,
Deepa Mill Road, Goldwins,
Civil Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore-641014
9.
4625565
08/08/2013
M/s. TSR Mineral Waters
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543: 2004
S.F. No. 518, Kalayanur, P. N. Palayam,
(other than Packaged
24, Veerapandi, Coimbatore-641108
Natural Mineral Water)
10.
4625666
08/08/2013
M/s. Eswari Minerals
Packaged Drinking Water
IS 14543: 2004
D. No. 1/339-I, Uttukuli Road,
(other than Packaged
Chengappalli,
Natural Mineral Water)
Avinashi, Tiruppur-638812
11.
4629068
19/08/2013
M/s. Rotor Power Private Limited
Centrifugal Regenerative
IS 8472: 1998
2, Shobha Nagar, 2nd Street,
Pumps for clear, Cold Water
Avarampalayam, Coimbatore-641006
12.
4630659
20/08/2013
M/s. Pooja Impex
Domestic Pressure Cooker
IS 2347: 2006
112-C, S.S.P. Nagar Rasampalayam,
Periya Semur, Erode-638004
6420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
4630760
20/08/2013
M/s. Surabhi Iron and Steel Company
Carbon steel cast billet ingots,
IS 2830: 2012
Private Limited
Billets, Blooms and Slabs for
SF. No. 41/3, M.G.C. Palayam,
re-rolling into steel for general
Kurukampalayam (P.O.), Ganeshapuram,
structural purposes
Coimbatore-641107
14.
4632158
22/08/2013
M/s. Texmo Industries (Pump Division-II)
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034: 2002
No. 4/133A, Pannimadai Road,
K. Vadamadurai,
Coimbatore-641017
15.
4632057
22/08/2013
M/s. Vel Pumpsets
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220: 1994
66A/67A, Athipalayam Road,
Pumpsets
Ganapathy,
Coimbatore-641006
16.
4633564
26/08/2013
M/s. Ellen Industries Private Limited
Submersible Pumpsets
IS 8034: 2002
S.F. No. 275, Avinashi Road,
Sulur Block, Arasur,
Coimbatore-641407
[No. CMD/13 : 11]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2458-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud¼dksa½ esa la'kksèu fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksfèr Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k] o"kZ
la'kksèu dh la[;k vkSj frfFk
la'kksèu ykxw gksus dh
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZ
frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 14269%1995 Lopy okgu&
la'kksèu la[;k 1] flracj 2013
rRdky izHkko ls
lexz ikWoj LVh;fjax fx;j&ijh{k.k i)fr
2
vkbZ ,l 15428%2004 foeku ds fy,
la'kksèu la[;k 1] flracj 2013
rRdky izHkko ls
jsfM;ky@ØkWl IykbZ Vk;jksa dh fjVªhafMax&fof'kf"V
3
vkbZ ,l 15796%2008 Lopyu okgu&gkWuZ
la'kksèu la[;k 2] flracj 2013
rRdky izHkko ls
laLFkkiu dh vis{kk,W
4
vkbZ ,l 11849%1986 Lopfyr okguksa ds
la'kksèu la[;k 1] flracj 2013
rRdky izHkko ls
xq:Ro&dsanz Kkr djus dh i)fr
la'kksèu dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh]
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psékbZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks] ijok.kq] nsgjknwu rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ Vh bZ Mh@th&16]
ihñ lhñ tks'kh] oSKkfud ^,Q^ ,oa izeq[k ¼Vh bZ Mh½
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2458.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
1
2
3
4
5
6
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6421
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., year & title of the
No. and year of
Date from which
No.
Indian Standards
the amendment
the amendment
shall have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
14269:1995 Automotive vehicles-
Amendment No. 1, Sept. 2013
With immediate effect
Integral power steering gear-Method
of test
2
15428:2004 Retreading of radial/corss
Amendment No. 1, Sept. 2013
With immediate effect
ply tyres for aircraft-Specification
3
15796:2008 Automotive vehicles-
Amendment No. 2, Sept. 2013
With immediate effect
Horn installation-Requirements
4
11849:1986 Method of determination
Amendment No. 1, Sept. 2013
With immediate effect
of centre of gravity of automotive
vehicles
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Parwanoo, Dehradun, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. TED/G-16]
P.C. JOSHI, Scientist 'F'& Head (Transport Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2459-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
4690%2013 ckW; 'kWdy&fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
&
flarcj 2013
2
11086%2013 Lopy vuqiz;ksx ds fy,
&
flarcj 2013
LihMksehVj@vksMksehVj i)fr&fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
3
13602%2013 Lopy okgu&midj.k ra=&rki
&
flarcj 2013
xst ;kaf=d Vkbi&fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
4
16009%2013 lM+d okgu&nzfor isVªksfy;e xSl
&
flarcj 2013
¼,yihth½ lkis{k miLdj&'kV vkWQ okYo
5
16053%2013 lM+d okgu&nzfor isVªksfy;e xSl
&
flarcj 2013
¼,yihth½ lkis{k miLdj&fu;a=d ,oa ok"id
6
16062%2013 lM+d okgu&nzfor isVªksfy;e xSl
&
flarcj 2013
¼,yihth½ lkis{k miLdj&nkc ,oa@;k rkieku lsalj
7
16063%2013 lM+d okgu&nzfor isVªksfy;e xSl
&
flarcj 2013
¼,yihth½ lkis{k miLdj&,yihth fQYVj ;wfuV
8
16064%2013 lM+d okgu&nzfor isVªksfy;e xSl
&
vDrwcj 2013
¼,yihth½ lkis{k miLdj&xSl fefDlax ihl
6422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9
16065%2013 lM+d okgu&nzfor isVªksfy;e xSl
&
flarcj 2013
¼,yihth½ lkis{k miLdj&b±èu jsy
10
16055%013 eSfju m|ksx gsrq dkWij ,ykW; okYo&
&
vDrwcj 2013
Qsl Vw Qsl vkSj dsUnz ls Qsl dh nwfj;ka
11
16058%2013 HkaMkj.k vuqiz;ksxksa ds fy, iquizZ;qDr
&
flarcj 2013
IykfLVd vif'k"Vksa ls fufeZr Must iSysV&fof'k"V
12
11852%2013 Lopy okgu&czsfdax lacaèh ,e
vkb ,l 11852 ¼Hkkx 1
vDrwcj 2013
,u vkSj Vh Js.kh ds okguksa dh Lohd`rh ls lac)
ls 9½% 2001 dk lekesyu
,d leku izkoèku nwljk iqujh{k.k
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psékbZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ Vh bZ Mh@th&16]
ihñ lhñ tks'kh] oSKkfud ^,Q^ ,oa izeq[k ¼Vh bZ Mh½
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2459.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. Year & Title of the
No. & Year of
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
4690:2013 Buoy shackles-Specification
-
September 2013
(First Revision)
2
11086:2013 Speedometer/odometer systems
-
September 2013
for automotive application-Specification (First Revision)
3
13602:2013 Automotive vehicles-
-
September 2013
Instrument systems-Temperature gauges mechanical types-Specification (First Revision)
4
16009:2013 Road vehicles-Liquefied
-
September 2013
petroleum gas (LPG)-Specific equipment-Shut off valve
5
16053:2013 Road vehicles-Liquefied
-
September 2013
petroleum gas (LPG)-Specific equipments-Pressure regulator and vapourizer
6
16062:2013 Road vehicles-Liquefied
-
September 2013
petroleum gas (LPG)-Specific equipment-Pressure and/or temperature sensor
7
16063:2013 Road vehicles-Liquefied
-
September 2013
petroleum gas (LPG)-Specific equipment-LPG Filter unit
8
16064:2013 Road vehicles-Liquefied
-
October 2013
petroleum gas (LPG)-Specific equipment-Gas mixing piece
9
16065:2013 Road vehicles-Liquefied
-
September 2013
petroleum gas (LPG)-Specific equipment-Fuel rail
10
16055:2013 Copper alloy vlaves for marine
-
October 2013
industry-Face to face & centre to face distances
11
16058:2013 Dunnage pallets made from
-
September 2013
recycled plastic wastes for warehousing applications-Specification
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6423
12
11852:2013 Automotive vehicles-
Amalgamating
October 2013
Uniform provisions concerning the
IS 11852
approval of vehicles of categories M, N and T
(Pt 1 to 9) : 2001
with regard to braking (Second Revision)
Copy of these Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. TED/G-16]
P.C. JOSHI, Scientist 'F'& Head (Transport Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2460-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mi&fofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk
LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds
jí gksus dh
lañ
lh ,e@,y&
varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud
frfFk
dk 'kh"kZd
1
4559679
eSllZ fueZy iEIl ¼izk½ fyfeVsM
d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy, fctyh ds
14@08@2013
,l ,Q lañ 434] foyUdqfjph jksM]
eksukslsV iEIl]
rUuhj iUny ¼ds ikl½]
IS 9079% 2002
dks;EcÙkwj&641004
[la- lh ,e Mh@13%13]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2460.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No.
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with
Date of
No.
CM/L—
relevant Indian Standard
Cancellation
covered by the licence
cancelled/suspension
1.
4559679
M/s. Nirmal Pumps (Pvt) Ltd.
Electric Monoset Pumps for
14/08/2013
SF No. 434, Vilankurichi Road,
clear, cold water for
(Near) Thanneer Pandhal,
agricultural and water
Coimbatore-641004
supply purposes,
IS 9079: 2002
[No. CMD/13:13]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F'& Head
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2461-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mi&fofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%—
(1)
(2)
( 3 )
(4)
6424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ
ykblsalèkjh dk uke o irk
LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal ds
jí gksus dh
lañ
lh ,e@,y&
varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud
frfFk
dk 'kh"kZd
1
6963494
esllZ y{eh okVj izksMDV~l
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdstcan feujy ty
17@07@2013
No. 1@193] fcyhph iksLV]
ds vykok½
isfj;ereiky;e] dks;EcÙkwj&641019
IS 14543% 2004
[la- lh ,e Mh@13%13]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2461.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence No.
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with
Date of
No.
CM/L-
relevant Indian Standard
Cancellation
covered by the licence
cancelled suspension
1.
6963494
M/s. Lakshmi Water Products
Packaged Drinking Water
17/07/2013
No. 1/193, Bilichi Post,
(other than Packaged
Periyamatham Palayam,
Natural Mineral Water),
Coimbatore-641019
IS 14543: 2004
[No. CMD/13:13]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 17 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2462-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkk ek lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½ % o"kZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
1-
4641462
2013&09&11
esllZ phuw vEek vkyks; ¼izkñ½ fyfeVsM
lkekU; lajpuk esa iquosZYyu ds
IS 2830 % 2012
lañ 379&380] ekfjvEeu dksby lM+d] ihyesMq
fy, dkWcZu] <yok¡ bLikr baxV]
iqnqj] dks;EcÙkwj&641004
fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc
2-
4642666
2013&09&13
esllZ ckykth ih oh lh ikbIl
is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy, mPp ?kuRo okys
IS 4984 % 1995
2@155&2 x.ks'kkiqje] d#Ddeiky;e iksLV]
ikWyh,fFkyhu ikbIl
vfoukf'k] fr#Iiqj&641654
3-
4643870
2013&09&13
esllZ fiz;k fuV QsCl
lwrh dk cquk gqvk ØhMk deht+
IS 4375 % 1975
,l ,Q lañ 360@ch&2] èkjkiqje eq[; lM+d]
dsñ psV~Vhiky;e] fr#Iiqj&641608
4-
4642363
2013&09&13
esllZ Jh iyuh vkUMoj ,ykW¸l ,.M LVhYl
lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iquosZYyu
IS 2830 % 2012
izk;osV fyfeVsM
ds fy, dkWcZu] <yok¡ bLikr fcysV
,l ,Q 304@1] 2%305@1] psfUueyS xk¡o]
baxV]fcysV Cywe ,oa LySc
is#anqjS rkyqd] bZjksM&638051
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6425
5-
4642565
2013&09&16
esllZ Jh psfV~VukM flesaV dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM
ikWVZysUM ikWTtksykuk flesaV&
IS 1489 ¼Hkkx 1½% 1991
flesaV iSafdax ,oa cYd VfeZuy
Hkkx1 & QyS,'k vkèkfjr
,l ,Q lañ 21@2B2 enqDdjS xk¡o]
dks;EcÙkwj&641105
6-
4645066
2013&09&20
esllZ jks;y baMLVªhl
[kqys dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh;
IS 14220 % 1994
,l ,Q lañ 281@1B] ,u th vkj uxj]
iEilsV
ikuh Vadh ds lkeus] foyadqfjph eq[; lM+d]
ihyesMq] dks;EcÙkwj&641004
7-
4645470
2013&09&24
esllZ ykSjk iEIl
LoPN BaMs ikuh ds fy,
IS 8472 % 1998
lañ 119&A] eqfu;Iiu dksfoy rksV~Ve]
vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi
x.kifr iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641006
8-
4645369
2013&09&24
esllZ ykSjk iEIl
d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,
IS 9079 % 2002
lañ 119&A] eqfu;Iiu dksfoy rksV~Ve]
fctyh ds eksukslsV iEIl
x.kifr iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641006
9-
4645571
2013&09&24
esllZ ykSjk iEIl
[kqys dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh;
IS 14220 % 1994
lañ 119&A] eqfu;Iiu dksfoy rksV~Ve]
iEilsV
x.kifr iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj&641006
10-
4646371
2013&09&27
esllZ psfV~VukM flesaV dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM
lkèkj.k ikWVZysUM flesaV 43 xzsM
IS 8112 % 1989
flesaV iSafdax ,oa cYd VfeZuy
,l ,Q lañ 21@2B2 enqDdjS xk¡o]
dks;EcÙkwj&641105
11-
4646472
2013&09&27
esllZ vk;kZ flesaV~l
ikWVZysUM ikWTtksykuk flesaV&
IS 1489 ¼Hkkx 1½
20@1] iYyMe jksM]
Hkkx 1&QyS,'k vkèkfjr
% 1991
egkfyaxkiqje iksLV] iksYykph rkyqd]
dks;EcÙkwj&642002
[lañ lh ,e Mh@13 % 11]
,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2462.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant Date
Name & Address (Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
No. No.
Sec. Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
4641462
2013&091
M/s. Cheenu Amma Aalloy (P) Ltd.
Carbon steel cast billet ingots,
IS 2830 : 2012
No. 379-380, Mariamman Koil Street,
billets, blooms and slabs for
Peelamedu Pudur.
re-rolling into steel for general
Coimbatore-641004
structural purposes
2.
4642666
2013&09&13
M/s. Balaji PVC Pipes
HDPE pipes for water supply
IS 4984 : 1995
2/155-2, Ganeshapuram,
Karukkampalayam (P.O.),
Avinashi, Tiruppur-641654
3.
4643870
2013&09&13
M/s. Priyaa Knit Faabs
Cotton Knitted Sports Shirts
IS 4375 : 1975
SF No. 360/B-2, Dharapuram Main Road,
K. Chettipalayam, Tiruppur-641608
1
2
3
4
5
6
6426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
4642363
2013&09&13
M/s. Sree Palani Andavar Alloys and Steels
Carban steel cast billet ingots,
IS 2830 : 2012
Pvt. Ltd.,
billets, blooms and slabs for
S.F. 304/1,2:305/1, Chennimalai Village,
re-rolling into steel for general
Perundurai (Tk), Erode-638051
structural purposes
5.
4642565
2013&09&16
M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd.,
Portland Pozzolana Cement-
IS 1489 (Part 1) :
Cement Packing & Bulk Terminal
Part 1-Flyash based
1991
S.F. No. 21/2B2 Madukkarai Village,
Coimbatore-641105
6.
4642066
2013&09&20
M/s. Royal Industries
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
S.F. No. 281/1B, NGR Nagar,
Pumpsets
Opp: Water Tank, Villankurichi Main Road,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641004
7.
4645470
2013&09&24
M/s. Laura Pumps
Centrifugal Regenerative
IS 8472 : 1998
No. 119-A, Muniappan Kovil Thottam,
Pumps for clear, cold water
Ganapathy (P.O.),
Coimbatore-641006
8.
4645369
2013&09&24
M/s. Laura Pumps
Electric Monoset Pumps for
IS 9079 : 2002
No. 119-A, Muniappan Kovil Thottam,
clear, cold water for
Ganapathy (P.O.),
agricultural and water supply
Coimbatore-641006
purposes
9.
4645571
2013&09&24
M/s. Laura Pumps
Openwell Submersible
IS 14220 : 1994
No. 119-A, Muniappan Kovil Thottam,
Pumpsets
Ganapathy (P.O.),
Coimbatore-641006
10.
4646371
2013&09&27
M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd.
Ordinary Portland Cement 43
IS 8112 : 1989
Cement Packing & Bulk Terminal
Grade
SF. No. 21/2B2 Madukkarai Village,
Coimbatore-641105
11.
4646472
2013&09&27
M/s. Arya Cements
Portland Pozzolana Cement-
IS 1489 (Part 1) :
20/1, Palladamm Road,
Part 1-Flyash based
1991
Mahalinga Puram-Post
Pollachi (Tk), Coimbatore-642002
[No. CMD/13:11]
M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2463-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%µ
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k]
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dks gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 14169 % 2013 laHkjdksa ds izk:i
µ
rqjUr
p;u dks flQkfj'ksa ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
2-
vkbZ,l 6044 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2013 æfor
µ
rqjUr
isVªksfy;e xSl HkaMkj.k la;a=&jhfr lafgrk% Hkkx 1 vkoklh;]
okf.kfT;d vkSj vkS|ksfxd flfyaMj la;a= ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
1
2
3
4
5
6
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6427
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouarkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standarsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk
tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ ,e bZ Mh@th&2%1]
rstohj flag] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼;kaf=d baftfu;fjax½
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2463.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules
1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 14169 : 2013 Recommendations for
—
With immediate
type selection of feeders (first
effect
revision)
2.
IS 6044 (Part 1) : 2013 Liquefied
—
With immediate
petroleum gas storage installations-
effect
Code of practice: Part 1 Residential, commercial and
industrial cylinder installations (second revision)
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram. On-line purchase of Indian Standard can be made at: http://www.standarsbis.in
[Ref. MED/G-2 :1]
T.V. SINGH, Scientist 'F' & Head (Mechanical Engineering)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2464-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, ekud¼dks½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd, x, gSa %µ
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksfèr Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k] o"kZ
la'kksèu dh la[;k vkSj frfFk
la'kksèu ykxw gksus dh
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZ
frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 6452 % 1989
la'kksèu la[;k 5] tqykbZ 2013
08 vDVwcj] 2013
bl la'kksèu dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9, cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% dksydkrk]
p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj]
iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
6428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2464.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule below, has been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and year of the
No. and year of
Date from which
No.
Indian Standards
the amendment
the amendment
shall have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 6452 : 1989
Amendment No. 5, July 2013
08 October, 2013
Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices at Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna &
Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2465-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,r~n~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftl ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;k gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dks gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 16073 % 2013 ckal&iVlu
µ
31&10&2013
daiksftV ds iYys ds njoktksa ds 'kVj
&fof'kf"V
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksfPp esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkSèjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2465.—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 ae given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated it:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Established
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 16073 : 2013 Bamboo-Jute
—
31-10-2013
Composite Panel Door Shutter-Specification
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6429
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2466-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlja.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr
djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dks gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 269%2013 lk/kkj.k iksVZySaM
vkbZ ,l 269%1989
28 vDrwcj] 2013
lhesaV] 33 xzsM&fof'kf"V ¼ikWapoka iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQ+j ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa %
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2466.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule below
has been established on the date indicated against it:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Established
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established ad Title
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 269:2013 Ordinary
IS 269:1989
28 October, 2013
Portland Cement, 33 Grade-
Specification (Fifth revision)
Copy of the Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices: Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Brach Offices: Ahmedabad,
Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagapur, Patna, Pune and Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2467-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk~
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;s gSa %—
6430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir gksus dh frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]
rks la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 12147%2013 vknzZ pqacdh; d.k
vkbZ ,l 12147%1987
30 flrEcj] 2013
ijh{k.k dh vuq'kaflr jhfr ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQ+j ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ ,eVhMh 21@Vh&43]
ihsñ ?kks"k] oSKkkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2013
S.O. 2467.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules,
1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule here to annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:—
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 12147:2013 Recommended practice
IS 12147:1987
30 September, 2013
for wet magnetic particle examination (first revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagapur,
Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. MTD 21/T-43]
P. GHOSH, Scientist 'F' & Head (MTD)
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2468-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os jnn~ dj fn, x, gSa%&
vuqlwph
Øñ lañ
ykblsal
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe
jí djus dh frfFk
la[;k
lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
1
2
3
4
5
1-
7581182
iyZ bysDVªhdYl b.MLVªht izkñ fyñ
Hkkñ ekñ 3854 % 1997
18@07@2013
th&2 vkSj 3 feysfu;e b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy, fLops
nkHksy] ne.k ,oa nho&396210
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6431
2-
7581788
iyZ bySDVªhdYl b.MLVªht izkñ fyñ
Hkkñekñ 1293%2005
22@08@2013
th&2 vkSj 3 feysfu;e b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ
nkHksy] ne.k ,oa nho&396210
rd jsfVr /kkjk ds Iyxl vkSj lkWdsV
3-
7829495
ikWyhdWc ok;j b.MLVªht
Hkkñekñ 694% 1990
05@08@2013
losZ lañ 353@1 vkSj 2]
1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh
foyst dkphxke]
oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksf/kr dscy
dkphxke] ftyk ne.k]
ne.k ,oa nho & 396210
4-
7885913
inekorh ok;j ,.M dscYl izkñfyñ
Hkkñekñ 1554 ¼Hkkx 1½% 1988
05@08@2013
xsV lañ 194] rkulk QkeZl
ih oh lh jksf/kr ¼Hkkjh M;qVh½
foyst ukjs] okMk fHkoaMh jksM]
fo|qr dscy% Hkkx 1]100 oksYV dk;Zdkjh
rkyqdk okMk] ftyk Fkk.ks & 421303
oksYVrk rd o lfgr ds fy,
5-
0821646
dsbZlh baVjus'kuy fyñ
Hkkñekñ 7098% Hkkx 2% 1985
05@08@2013
iks[kju jksM uañ 2]
3-3 fdok ls 33 fdok rd dk;Zdkjh
ihñchñ ua 11]
oksYVrk rd ds fy, ØklfyaDM ikWyhfFkyhu
Fkk.ks & 400601
vkofjr fo|qrjks/kh dscy
6-
7229572
fizTe b.MLVªht
Hkkñekñ 3854%1997
22@08@2013
fcfYMax lañch] IykV lañ 770]
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy, fLops
egkjkuh m|ksx bLVsV ds ihNs
lkseukFk jksM]
ne.k] ne.k ,oa nho &396210
7-
7280673
dqnu b.MLVªht
Hkkñekñ 1293%2005
22@08@2013
xkyk ua 13 vkSj 14 xhrk b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ rd
fcfYMax uañ 3] lkrhoyh jksM]
jsfVr /kkjk ds Iyxl
olbZ iwoZ
vkSj lkWdsV&
ftyk Fkk.ks
egkjk"Vª&401208
8-
7032149
dksuk b.MLVªht
Hkkñekñ 371% 1999
23@08@2013
10 ls 13 xka/kh b.MLVªh;y bLVsV] lQsn iwy]
lhfyax jkst&fof'kf"V
lkdh ukdk] va/ksjh dqykZ jksM eacbZ&400072
9-
7794102
'kqHke b.MLVªht]
Hkkñekñ 4250%1980
28@08@2013
Mh 59] igyk ekyk]
fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kkn; feDlj
Liku b.MLVªh;y dkEIysDl]
¼nzohijd vkSj xzkbMj½
Nknjk psd iksLV ds ikl]
Nknjk uxj gosyh&396191
10-
7231256
,yikbu bysDVªhdy eSuqQDpjhax dañ izkñ fyñ
Hkkñekñ@vk;bZlh 60079@Hkkx& 12007
29@08@2013
Jh x.ks'k b.MLVªh;y bLVsV] IykV lañ 360@6 o
,DlIyksflo <sVeWfLQvlZ&Hkkx&1
362@6] dkphxke]
,yseizwQ buDykstj ^Mh^ }kjk
ne.k ,oa nho &396210
miLdj laj{kk
11-
3768784
visDLl daT;wej izkñfyñ
Hkkñekñ 4250%1980
27@09@2013
IykV lañ 29] iksñvkñ dkatqj xkWo jksM]
fcyh ds ?kjsyw [kkn; feDlj
ØslsaV b.MLVªh;y bLVsV ds lkeus]
¼nzohijd vkSj xzkbMj½
dkatqj ekxZ iwoZ eqacbZ&400042
[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%13]
,ñ,lñ tkef[kaMhdj] oSKkfud ^,Q^ ,oa izeq[k ¼,e Mh ,e&III½
1
2
3
4
5
6432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2468.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regualtion 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 in the
following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:—
SCHEDULE
Sl. No.
Licence
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with
Date of
No.
relevant Indian
Cancellation
Standards covered
by the licence
1
2
3
4
5
1.
7581182
Pearl Electrical Ind. Pvt. Ltd.
IS 3854:1997
18/07/2013
G-2&3 Millenium Industrial Estate,
Switches for domestic and
Daman
similar purposes
Distt:Daman
Daman & Diu -396210
2.
7581788
Pearl Electrical Ind. Pvt. Ltd.
IS 1293:2005
22/07/2013
G-2&3 Millenium Industrial Estate,
Plugs and socket outlets of
Daman
250 volts and rated current
Distt:Damann
up to 16 amperes
Daman & Diu -396210
3.
7829495
Polycab Wires Industries Pvt. Ltd.
IS 694:1990
05/08/2013
SR. No. 353/1&2, Village Kachigam,
PVC Insulated cables for
Kachigam
working voltages upto and
Distt:Daman
including 1100 V as per IS 694:1990
Daman & Diu-396210
4.
7885913
Padmavati Wire & Cables Pvt. Ltd.
IS 1554:part 1:1988
05/08/2013
Gut No. 194, Tansa Farm, Village Nare,
PVC insulated (heavy duty)
Wada-Bhivandi Road,
electric cables: Part 1
Taluka Wada,
For working voltages upto
Distt Thane-421303
and including 1100 V
5.
0821646
KEC International Limited
IS 7098: Part 2:1985
05/08/2013
Pokhran Road No. 2, P.B. No. 11
crosslinked polyethylene insulated
Thane,-400601
pvc sheathed cables : part 2 for
working voltages from 3.3 kv upto
and including 33 kv
6.
7229572
Prism Industries
IS 3854:1997
22/08/2013
Bldg. No B, Plot 770, B/H Maharani Udyog
Switches for domestic and
Estate, Somnath Road,
similar purposes
Daman
Daman & Diu-396210
7.
7280673
Kundan Industires
IS 1293:2005
22/08/2013
Gala No. 13 & 14 Geeta Indl. Estate, building
Plugs and socket outlets of
No. 3, Sativali Road,
250 volts and rated current
Vasai East
up to 16 amperes
Distt. Thane
Maharashtra-401208
8.
7032149
Cona Enterprise
IS 371: 1999
23/08/2013
10 to 13 Gandhi Indl. Estate, Safed Pool,
Ceiling Roses
Kurla Andheri Road, Saki Naka,
Mumbai-400072
9.
7794102
Shubham Industries
IS 4250:1980
28/08/2013
D-59, 1st Floor, Span Indl. Complex, Nr. Dadra
Domestic Electric Food-Mixers
Checkpost,
(Liquidizes and Grinders)
Dadra (U.T)
as per IS 4250:1980
Distt: Dadra and Nagar Haveli-396230
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6433
10.
7231256
Alpine Electrical MFG. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
IS 60079: part 1: 2007
29/08/2013
Shree Ganesh Industrial Estate, Plot No.
Explosive Atmospheres-part 1:
360/6& 362/6, Kachigam,
Equipment Protection by
Daman Distt: Daman
Flameproof Enclosures "d"
Daman & Diu - 396210
11.
3768784
Apex Consumer Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
IS 4250:1980
27/09/2013
Plot No. 29, P.O. Kanjur Village Road, Opp.
Domestic Electric Food-Mixers
Crescent Indl. Estate,
(Liquidizes and Grinders) as per
Kanjur Marg-East, Mumbai-400042
IS 4250:1980
[No. CMD/13:13]
A.S. JAMKHINDIKAR, Scientist 'F'& Head (MDM-III)
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2469-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e ¼5½ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%µ
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`fr djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkñ ekñ lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
[kaM½@ o"kZ
1-
3967992
03@07@2013
dksuk bysDVªkWfuDl eSU;q] ,.M fjlpZ izkñfyñ
250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ
Hkkñekñ1293%2005
17 ls 20] izxfr b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
rd jsfVr /kkjk ds Iyxl vkSj
66 dsoh ikoj LVs'ku ds lkeus] veyh] flyoklk
lkWdsV^
nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh&396230
2-
3968085
04@07@2013
dksuk bysDVªkWfuDl eSU;q] ,.M fjlpZ izkñfyñ
lhfyax jkst
Hkkñekñ 371%1999
17 ls 20] izxfr b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
66 dsoh ikoj LVs'ku ds lkeus] veyh] flyoklk
nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh&396230
3
3963681
05@07@2013
t; ok;lZ vkSj dscYl
1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh
Hkkñekñ 694% 1990
;wfuV 30@31] es?knwr bLVsV
oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh jksf/kr
yqFkjh;k gkml ds lkeus] okfyo QkVk]
dscy
lkrhoyh jksM] ftyk Bk.ks]
olbZ iwoZ&401208
4
3971882
29@07@2013
egkohj eSU;wQSDpfjax
fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kkn~; feDlj
Hkkñekñ 4250% 1980
igyk ekyk] 29 ,MeW.M fMlwtk daikm.M]
¼nzohijd vkSj xzkbMj½
[kSjkuh jksM] lkdhukdk]
va/ksjh iwoZ] eqcabZ &400072
5
3971983
29@07@2013
xSyWDlh VªkUlfe'ku izkñfyñ
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkkñ ekñ 398 Hkkx 5% 1992
losZ lañ 99] IykWV lañ 11]
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd & Hkkx & 5]
e/kqcu b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd] vfrfjDr mPp
e/kqcu MSe jksM] jk[kksyh]
oksYVrk ¼400 dsoh vkSj vf/kd½
nknjk ,oa uxj gosyh]
ds fy, tLrhd`r bLikr izcfyr
flyoklk&396230
6
397206
29@07@2013
xSyWDlh VªkUlfe'ku izkñfyñ
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkkñ ekñ 398 Hkkx 1% 1996
losZ lañ 99] IykWV lañ 11
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd&Hkkx&1]
e/kqcu b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e yMnkj pkyd
1
2
3
4
5
6434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
e/kqcu MSe jksM] jk[kksyh]
nknjk ,oa ukxj gosyh]
flyoklk&396230
7
3972177
29@07@2013
xSyWDlh VªkUlfe'ku izkñfyñ
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkkñ ekñ 398 Hkkx 2% 1996
losZ lañ 99] IykWV lañ 11]
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd&Hkkx&2]
e/kqcu b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd]tLrhd`r bLikr
e/kqcu MSe jksM] jk[kksyh]
izcfyr
nknjk ,oa uxj gosyh]
flyoklk&396230
8
3972278
29@07@2013
xSyWDlh VªkUlfe'ku izkñfyñ
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkkñ ekñ 398 Hkkx 4% 1996
losZ lañ 99] IykWV lañ 11
,Y;wfefu;e pkyd&Hkkx&4]
e/kqcu b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e feJ/kkrq ds yMnkj
e/kqcu MSe jksM] jk[kksyh]
pkyd] ¼,Y;wfefu;e eSXuhf';e
nknjk ,oa uxj gosyh]
flyhdkWu VkbZi½
flyoklk&396230
9
3976690
12@08@2013
dksuk bysDVªkWfuDl eSU;q],.M fjlpZ izkñfyñ
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkkñekñ 3854% 1997
17 ls 20] izxfr b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
fLopsa
66 dsoh ikoj LVs'ku ds lkeus] veyh]
flyoklk
nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh&396230
10
3980378
14@8@2013
Mh,evks b.MLVªht
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkkñekñ 3854% 1997
22] viwokZ b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
fLops
edokuk jksM] ejksy ukdk]
va/ksjh ¼iwoZ½
eqacbZ&400059
11
2808058
23@08@2013
_'kHknso VsDuks dscy fyñ
1100 oks rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh
Hkkñekñ 694% 1990
losZ lañ 60@41ih] IykWV lañ 18]
dscy oksYVrk ds fy, ih oh lh
bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku ds lkeus]
jksf/kr dscy
djtxe xkWao]
ftyk nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh
flyoklk&396230
12
2807965
23@08@2013
_'kHknso VsDuksdscy fyñ
ØklfyaDM ikWyhfFkyhu fon;qrjks/kh
Hkkñ ekñ 7098 Hkkx 1% 1988
losZ lañ 60@41 ih] IykWV lañ 18]
ih oh lh vkojhr dscy Hkkx
bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku ds lkeus]
1] 1100 oksñ rd ,oa lfgr
djtxe xkao]
dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk gsrq
ftyk nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh
flyoklk&396230
13
280159
23@8@2013
_'kHknso VsDuksdscy fyñ
ih oh lh jksf/kr ¼Hkkjh M~;qVh½ fo|qr
Hkkñ ekñ 1554 ¼Hkkx 1½
losZ lañ 60@41 ih IykWV lañ 18]
dscy% Hkkx 1] 1100 oksYV dk;Zdkjh
1988
bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku ds lkeus]
oksYVrk rd o lfgr ds fy,
djtxe xkao]
ftyk nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh
flyoklk&396230
14
3988596
23@08@2013
ljLorh ok;j ,.M dscy b.MLVªht
1100 oksñ rd ,oa lfgr dk;Zdkjh
Hkkñekñ 694% 1990
IykWV lañ lh 1] nsou b.Mñ dkEIysDl]
oksYVrk ds fy, ihñohñlhñ jksf/kr dscy
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkñ ekñ lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
[kaM½ @ o"kZ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6435
osowj xkao] euksj jksM]
iky?kj] iwoZ
ftyk Bk.ks&401 404
15
3988495
26@08@2013
dksykslZ bysDVªhdYl
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkkñ ekñ 3854% 1997
tkudh vikVZesaV] oklqnso ikVhy uxj]
fLopsa
dY;k.k fHko.Mh jksM] dsuxkWo]
fHko.Mh]
ftyk] Bk.ks&423131
16
3989295
27@08@2013
xks;ksfyu Qk;clZ bafM;k izkñ fyfeVsM
ØklfyaDM ikWyhfFkyhu fon;qrjks/kh
Hkkñ ekñ 7098 Hkkx 1%
losZ lañ 104@2@3] mej dksbZ jksM]
ih oh lh vkojhr dscy Hkkx
1988
Qqykanh xkao] tsch,Q IykUV ds ckn]
1] 1100 oksñ rd ,oa lfgr
nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh
dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk gsrq
flyoklk & 396230
17
3990482
03@09@2013
flyoj bysDVªhdYl
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy, fLops Hkkñekñ 3854% 1997
;wfuV lañ , 107] igyk ekyk ,oa , 217
oklqiwT; bLVsV] y{eh uxj]
xksjsxkao&if'pe
eqacbZ & 400 062
18
3996696
17@09@2013
o/kZeku mn;ksx
ikuh xeZ djus ds baLVsV ghVj
Hkkñ ekñ 8978% 1992
xkyk 126] igyk ekyk]
fgjkuankuh b.MLVªh;y bLVsV
jsyos LVs'ku ds lkeus
dkatqjekxZ
eqcabZ &400078
19
3998195
17@09@2013
bLlkj Qsjks vykW;t daiuh
ih oh lh jksf/kr ¼Hkkjh M~;qVh½ fo|qr
Hkkñ ekñ 1554 ¼Hkkx 1½
97@4 ,oa 97@5] neu b.MLVªh;y bLVsV
dscy% Hkkx 1]1100 oksYV dk;Zdkjh
1988
dnS;k xkao]
oksYVrk rd o lfgr ds fy,
neu dsUnz 'kkflr]
ftyk neu
neu ,oa nho & 396210
[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
,ñ ,lñ tkekf[kaMhdj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,e Mh ,e&III)
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2469.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1998, the Bureau of Indian Standards,hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant Date
Name of Address (Factory) of the Party
Product
IS No. Part/
No. No.
Sec. Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3967992
03/07/2013
Cona Electronics Mnfg. & Research
Plug and socket outlets of
IS 1293: 2005
Pvt Ltd.
250 volts and rated current
17 To 20, Pragati Industrial Estate,
up to 16 amperes
Opp: 66kv Power Station, Amli
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Silvassa-396230
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ
Hkk ek lañ ¼Hkkx@
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
vuqHkkx½ % o"kZ
6436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2
3968085
04/07/2013
Cona Electronics Mnfg. Research Pvt. Ltd.
Ceiling Roses
IS 371:1999
17 To 20, Pragati Industrial Estate,
Opp: 66KV Power Station, Amli
Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Silvassa-396230
3
3963681
05/07/2013
Jai Wires & Cables
Pvc Insulated cables for working
IS 694: 1990
Unti 30/31, Meghdoot Estate,
voltages upto and including 1100 V
Opp. Luthria House, Waliv Phata,
Sativali Road Dist- Thane
Vasai East-401208
4
3971882
29/07/2013
Mahaveer Manufacturing
Domestic electric food-mixres IS 4250: 1980
1st Floor, 29 Edmond Dsouza
(liquidizes and grinders)
Compound,
Khairani Road, Sakinaka,
Andheri-(east)
Mumbai-400072
5
3971983
29/07/2013
Galaxy Transmissions Pvt.Ltd
Aluminium conductors for
IS 398: Part 5: 1992
Survey No. 99, Plot No, 11,
overhead transmission
Madhuban Indl. Estate,
purposes: Part 5 aluminium
Madhuban Dam Road, Rakholi
conductors - galvanized steel-
Dadra And Nagar Haveli
reinforced for extra high voltage
Silvassa - 396230
(400 Kv And Above)
6
3972076
29/07/2013
Galaxy Transmissions Pvt. Ltd.
Aluminium conductors for
IS 398: Part 1 : 1996
Survey No. 99 Plot No. 11
overhead transmission purposes:
Madhuban Indl. Estate
Part 1 Aluminium standerd conductors
Madhuban Dam Road, Rakholi
Dadra And Nagar Haveli
Silvassa - 396230
7
3972177
29/07/2013
Galaxy Transmission Pvt. Ltd.
Aluminium conductors for
IS 398: Part 2: 1996
Survey No. 99, Plot No. 11,
overhead transmission
Madhuban Indl. Estate
purpose: Part 2 Aluminium
Madhuban Dam
conductors, galvanized steel
Road, Rakholi
reinforced
Dadra And Nagar Haveli
Silvassa-396230
8
3972278
29/07/2013
Galaxy Transmissions Pvt. Ltd.
Aluminuim Conductors for
IS 398: Part 4: 1994
Survey No. 99, Plot No. 11,
overhead transmission
Madhuban Indl. Estate
purposes: Part 4 Aluminium
Madhuban Dam Road, Rakholi
alloy standerd conductors
Dadra And Nagar Havelim
(aluminium magnesium silicon
Silvassa-396230
type)
9
3976690
12/08/2013
Cona Electronics Mnfg &
Switches for domestic and
IS 3854: 1997
Research Pvt. Ltd.
similar purposes
17 to 20 Pragati Industrial Estate,
Opp.66 Kv Power Station, Amli
Dadra And Nagar Haveli
Silvassa-396230
10
3980378
14/08/2013
DMO Industries
Switches for domestic and
IS 3854:1997
22, Apurva Ind. Estate,
similar Purpose
Makwana Road,
Marol Naka,
Andheri (East)
Mumbai - 400059
1
2
3
4
5
6
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6437
11
2808058
23/08/2013
Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd.
PVC Insulated cables for working
IS 694:1990
Survey No. 60/41P, Plot No. 18, Opp.
voltages upto and including 1100 V
Indian Oil Corporation, Village
Karajgam, Distt: Dadra & Nagar
Haveli, Silvassa - 396230
12
2807965
23/08/2013
Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd.
Crosslinked polyethylene insulated
IS 7098:
Survey No. 60/41P, Pilot No. 18, Opp.
PVC sheathed cables: Part 1 for
Part 1 : 1988
Indian Oil Corporation, Village
working voltage upto and Including
Karajgam, Distt: Dadra & Nagar
1100V
Haveli Silvassa-396230
13
2808159
23/08/2013
Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd.
PVC insulated (heavy duty) electric
IS 1554:
Survey No. 60/41P, Plot No. 18, Opp.
cables: Part 1 for working voltages
Part 1:1988
Indian Oil Corporation, Village
upto and including 1100V
Karajgam, Distt: Dadra & Nagar
Haveli, Silvassa-396 230
14
3988596
23/08/2013
Saraswati Wire & Cable Inds.
PVC Insulated cables for working
IS 694: 1990
Plot No. C-1, Dewan Indl. Complex
voltages upto and including 1100 V
Village Vevoor, Manor Road,
Thane
Palghar (East)- 401404
15
3988495
26/08/2013
Kolors Electricals
Switches for domestic and similar
IS 3854:1997
Janki Apartments, Vasudev Patil Nagar,
purposes
Kalyan Bhivandi Road, Kongaon
Thane
Bhiwandi-423131
16
3989295
27/08/2013
Goyolene Fibres (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Crosslinked Polyethylene insulated
IS 7098:
Survey No. 104/2/3. Umar Koi Road,
PVC sheathed cables: Part 1 for
Village Falandi, after JBF Plant
working voltage upto and including
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
1100 V
Silvassa-396230
17
3990482
03/09/2013
Silver Electricals
Switches for domestic and similar
IS 3854:1997
Uni No. A-107, First Floor,
purposes
Vasupuja Estate, Laxmi Nagar
Goregaon-West
Mumbai-400062
18
3996696
17/09/2013
Vardhaman Udyog
Electrictic instantaneous water
IS 8978:1992
Gali No. 126, 1st Floor,
heaters
Hiranandani Indl. Estate,
Opp. Railway Stn.
Kanjurmarg,
Mumbai-400078
19
3998195
17/09/2013
Essar Ferro Alloys Company
PVC Insulated (heavy duty) electric
IS 1554:
97/4 & 97/5, Daman Industrial Estate,
Cables: Part 1 for working voltages
Part 1: 1988
Village Kadaiyap
upto and Including 1100 V
Daman (U.T.)
Distt: Daman
Daman & Diu - 396210
[No. CMD/13:11]
A.S. JAMKHINDIKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (MDM-III)
1
2
3
4
5
6
6438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2470-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dks gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 16121 % 2013@
&
31 vxLr] 2013
vkbZ ,l vks 3402% 1999
rEckdw ,oa rEckdw mRikn&
vuqdwyu ,oa ijh{k.k ds
fy;s okrkoj.k
2-
vkbZ ,l 16122% 2013@
&
31 vxLr] 2013
vkbZ ,l vks 7218% 2007
[kkn~; ,oa i'kq vkgkj
lkefxz;ksa dk lw{e
tSofoKku&lw{e tSfod
ijh{k.kksa ds fy, lkekU;
vis{kk,a ,oa ekxZnf'kZdk
3-
vkbZ ,l @ vkbZ ,l vks@
&
31 vxLr] 2013
Vh ,l 22002&1% 2009
[kkn~; lqj{kk ij iwoZi{k
dk;ZØe
Hkkx 1 [kkn~; mRiknu
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] pSUubZ] eqEcbZ p.Mhx< rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ ,Q,Mh@th&128]
dqekj vfuy, oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼[kkn~; ,oa d`f"k½
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2470.—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 notified that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed has been established on the date indicated against it:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Established
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 16121: 2013/
31 August, 2013
ISO 3402:1999
Tobacco and Tobacco
Products - Atmosphere for
conditioning and testing
2.
IS 16122 : 2013/
-
31 August, 2013
ISO 7218 : 2007
Microbiology of food and
animal feeding Stuffs -
General requirements and
guidance for microbiological
examinations
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6439
3.
IS/ISO/TS 22002-1:2009
-
31 August, 2013
Prerequisite programmes on
food safety
PART 1 - Food Manufacturing
Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Kochi.
[Ref. FAD/G-128]
KUMAR ANIL, Scientist 'F' and Head (Food & Agri.)
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2471-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd vuqlwph esa fn;s ekud ¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s g®%
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
la'kks/kuksa dh la[;k
la'kks/ku ykxw gksus dh frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vkSj frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 649%1997 'kfDr
la'kks/ku la[;k 4 %
31 vxLr 2013
fo|qrh; midj.kksa ds
vxLr 2013
pqEcdh; ifjiFk ds fy,
bLikr pn~njksa dh ijh{k.k
fof/k ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh & 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] paMhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa( vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k g®A
[lanHkZ ,eVhMh 4@Vh&200]
ihñ ?kks"k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2471.—In pursunace of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules,
1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Amendment(s), Indian Standards, particulars of which are
given in the Schedule here to annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
IS No. & Title of the
No. & Year of the
Date from which the
No.
Amendment(s)
Amendment(s)
amendment shall have
effected
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
I.
IS 649: 1997 Methods of testing
Amendment
31 August, 2013
Steel Sheets for Magnetic
No. 4
Circuits of Power Electrical
August 2013
Apparatus (Second Revision)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
6440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi -110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolcatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. MTD 4/T-200]
P. GHOSH, Scientist 'F' & Head (MTD)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2472-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g® os LFkkfir gks x, g®%—
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dks gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&bZ 01%2010
vkbZ ,l 767 % 1988
flrEcj 2013
oL=kfn & jax ds iDdsiu dh i)fr Hkkx bZ 01 ikuh ds izfr jax dk iDdkiu
2-
vkbZ ,l @ vkbZ ,l vks 105&bZ 07%2010
vkbZ ,l 972 % 1988
flrEcj 2013
oL=kfn & jax ds iDdsiu dh i)fr Hkkx bZ 07 /kCck yxus ij jax dk iDdkiu % ikuh
3-
vkbZ ,l 14715 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2013
vkbZ ,l 14715 % 2000
flrEcj 2013
twV ds Hkw&oL= Hkkx 1 lM+d ds lc &xzsM dks etcwrh iznku djus gsrq & fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
4-
vkbZ ,l 16089 % 2013 twV d`f"k oL=kfn &
&
flrEcj 2013
lhMfyax@lSaifyax dh o`f) ds fy;s lSifyax cSx & fof'kf"V
5-
vkbZ ,l 16090% 2013 Hkwd`f=e & lqj{kk
&
flrEcj 2013
¼vFkok dq'kfuax½ gsrq HkwoL=kfn lkexzh & fof'kf"V
bu Hkkjrh; ekudkas dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k g®A
[lanHkZ Vh ,DlMh@th&25]
izHkkdj jk;] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k ¼Vh ,Dl Mh½
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2472.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules,
1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule
hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., Title & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS/ISO 105-E 01:2010 Textiles-
IS 767:1988
September 2013
Tests for Colour Fastness Part E 01
Colour Fastness to Water
2.
IS/ISO 105-E 07:2010 Textiles-
IS 972:1988
September 2013
Tests for Colour Fastness Part E 07
Colour Fastness to Spotting :Water
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6441
3.
IS 14715 (Part I) : 2013 Jute Geo-
IS 14715 : 2000
September 2013
Textiles Part 1 Strengthening of Sub-
Grade in Roads - Specification
4.
IS 16089:2013 Jute Agro-Textile -
—
September 2013
Sapling Bags for Growth of
Seedling/Sapling - Specification
5.
IS 16090:2013 Geo-Synthetics-
—
September 2013
Geo-Textiles used as Protection (or
Cushioning) Materials - Specification
Copy of the above Indian Standards 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. TXD/G-25]
PRABHAKAR RAI, Scientist 'E' Head (TXD)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2473-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS %—
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 16126 % 2013 oL=kfn & cqus gq,
—
vDrwcj 2013
ikfy,LVj diM+s ds cus gq, tyjks/kd
frjiky & fof'kf"V
bu Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k g®A
[lanHkZ Vh ,Dl Mh@th&25]
izHkkdj jk;] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k ¼Vh ,Dl Mh½
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2473.—In pursunace 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 Indian Standard, particular of which is given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., Title & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
I.
IS 16126: 2013 Textiles - Waterproof `
—
October 2013
Tarpaulins Made from Woven Polyester
Fabric - Specification
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
6442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Copy of the above Indian Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai
and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur,
Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. TXD/G-25]
PRABHAKAR RAI, Scientist 'E' & Head (TXD)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2474-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s g®%
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k
la'kks/kuksa dh la[;k
la'kksf/kr ykxw gksus dh frfFk
la[;k
vkSj o"kZ
vkSj frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 269%2013
la'kks/ku la[;k 1] tqykbZ 2013
28 vDrwcj]
2013
bl la'kks/ku dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % dksydkrk]
p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj]
iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k g®A
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2474.—In pursurance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule below, has been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date from which
No.
Indian Standards
Amendment
the amendment shall
have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 269:2013
Amendment No. 1, July 2013
28 October, 2013
Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110 002 and Regional Offices: 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.)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6443
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2475-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s g® os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 14174%2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7813%2006
&
vxLr 2013
lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh & igpku i= & foÙkh; ysunsu dkMZ
¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
2-
vkbZ,l 16124%2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 12207%2008
&
flrEcj 2013
iz.kkfy;ka vkSj lkW¶Vos;j bathfu;jh & thou pØ izØe
3-
vkbZ,l 16125 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 15938&
&
flrEcj 2013
2%2002 lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh — eYVh ehfM;k va'k ds o.kZu dk baVjQsl
Hkkx 2 o.kZu dh ifjHkk"kk ds fy, Hkk"kk
4-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 3½% 2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
3%2006 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 3 lEidZ lfgr dkM~lZ — fo|qrh;
baVjQsl vkSj izlkj.k lays[k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
5-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 5½%2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
5%2004 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 5 vkosnu iznkrkvksa dk iathdj.k
¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
6-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 6½% 2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
6%2004 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 6 baVjb.MLVªh vknku iznku ds fy,
vkadM+s vo;o ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
7-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 7½ % 2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
7%1999 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 7 lajfpr dkMZ Dosjh Hkk"kk ¼,llhD;w,y½
ds fy;s baVjb.MLVªh vkns'k
8-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 8½%2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
8%2004 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 8 lqj{kk dk;ks± ds fy;s vkns'k
9-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 9½% 2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
9%2004 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 9 dkMZ izca/ku ds fy, vkns'k
10-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 10½% 2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
10%1999 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 10 rqY;dkfyd dkMks± ds fy,
bySDVªkfud ladsr vkSj jhlsV mÙkj
11-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 11½% 2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
11%2004 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 11 ck;ksehfVªd rjhdksa ds ek/;e
ls O;fDrxr lR;kiu
12-
vkbZ,l 14202 ¼Hkkx 13½%2013@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 7816&
&
flrEcj 2013
13%2007 igpku dkM~lZ — ,dhd`r ifjiFk dkM~lZ Hkkx 13 vkosnu izca/ku ds fy;s ,d
cgq&vkosnu i;kZoj.k esa vkns'k
bu Hkkjrh; ekudkas dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k g®A
[lanHkZ ,yvkbZVhMh@th&75]
Mhñ xksLokehs] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼bySDVªkWfudh ,oa vkbZ Vh½
6444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2475.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Established
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 14174:2013/ISO/IEC 7813 :2006
-
August 2013
Information Technology-Identification Cards—Financial
Transaction Cards (First Revision)
2
IS 16124:2013/ISO/IEC 12207 :2008
-
September 2013
Systems and software engineering—software
life cycle processes
3
IS 16125 (Part 2): 2013/ISO/IEC 15938-2:2002
-
September 2013
Information technology—Multimedia content description
interface
Part 2: Description definition language
4
IS 14202 (Part 3):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-3:2006
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated circuit cards
Part 3 Cards with contacts-Electrical Interface and
transmission protocols (First Revision)
5
IS 14202 (Part 5):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-5:2004
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated circuit cards
Part 5 Registration of application providers
(First Revision)
6
IS 14202 (Part 6):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-6:2004
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated Circuit Cards
Part 6 Interindustry data elements for interchange
(First Revision)
7
IS 14202 (Part 7):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-7:1999
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated circuit cards
Part 7: Interindustry commands for structured card
query language (SCQL)
8
IS 14202 (Part 8):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-8:2004
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated circuit cards
Part 8 Commands for security operations
9
IS 14202 (Part 9):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-9:2004
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated Circuit Cards
Part 9 Commands For Card Management
10
IS 14202 (Part 10):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-10:1999
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated circuit cards
Part 10:Electronic signals and answer to reset for
synchronous cards.
11
IS 14202 (Part 11):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-11:2004
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated circuit cards
Part 11 Personal verification through biometric methods
12
IS 14202 (Part 13):2013/ISO/IEC 7816-13:2007
-
September 2013
Identification cards—Integrated circuit cards
Part 13:Commands for application management in a
multi-application environment
Copy of these Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices:New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. LITD/G-75]
D. GOSWAMI, Scientist 'F' & Head (LITD)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6445
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2476-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud ¼dks½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k
la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj frfFk
la'kks/ku ykxw gksus dh frfFk
la[;k
vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 4911%1986
1] vDBwcj 2013
31-10-2013
bl la'kks/ku dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh]
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2013
S.O. 2476.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date from which the
No.
Indian Standard
the amendment
amendment shall have
effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 4911:1986
1, October 2013
31.10.2013
Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2477-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 7½% 2013 Hkou
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 7½% 1972
30-09-2013
fuekZ.k vkSj flfoy bathfu;j dk;ks± dh ekiu i)fr;ka Hkkx 7 gkMZos;j ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½
6446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2-
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 10½% 2013 Hkou
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 10½% 1973
30-09-2013
fuekZ.k vkSj flfoy bathfu;j dk;ks± dh ekiu i)fr;ka Hkkx 10 lhfyax o ykbfuaxl
¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½
3-
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 11½% 2013 Hkou
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 11½% 1977
30-09-2013
fuekZ.k vkSj flfoy bathfu;j dk;ks± dh ekiu i)fr;ka Hkkx 11isfoax] Q'kZ ifjlt~tk]
cM+k fdukjk ¼MSMks½ o NksVk fdukjk ¼l~d²Vx½ ¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½
4-
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 27½% 2013 Hkou fuekZ.k vkSj flfoy bathfu;j dk;ks± dh
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 27½% 1992
30-09-2013
ekiu i)fr;ka Hkkx 27 ;kaf=d midj.kksa ds }kjk fd;k x;k Hkwfe dk;Z ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2013
S.O. 2477.—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 it:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of
Date of Established
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
Established
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 1200 (Part 7):2013 Method of
IS 1200 (Part 7):1972
30-09-2013
Measurement of Building and Civil Engineering Works Part 7 Hardware
(Third Revision)
2
IS 1200 (Part 10):2013 Method of
IS 1200 (Part 10):1973
30-09-2013
Measurement of Building and Civil Engineering Works Part 10 Ceilings
and Linings (Third Revision)
3
IS 1200 (Part 11):2013 Method of Measurement of Building and Civil
IS 1200 (Part 11):1977
30-09-2013
Engineering Works Part 11 Paving, Floor Finishes, Dado and Skirting
(Fourth Revision)
4
IS 1200 (Part 27):2013 Method of Measurement of Building and Civil
IS 1200 (Part 27):1992
30-09-2013
Engineering Works Part 27 Earthwork Done by Mechanical Appliances
(First Revision)
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6447
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2478-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS%
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx vuq
o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu
bdkbZ nj
LySc esa
'ks"k
izpkyu frfFk
ekud
'kqYd ¼#-½
LySc 1 ¼#-½
bdkbZ;ka
la[;k
cMs iSekus
NksVs iSekus
ij
ij
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
335
&
&
1993
u;s fo|qr jks/ku rsy
1 fdyks
74000
63000
#- 8-70
lHkh
&
12-02-2013
fyVj
1626
3
&
1994
,LcsLVkWl lhesaV ds Hkou fuekZ.k ikbIl
,d Vu
34000
29000
# 21
lHkh
&
12-02-2013
rFkk ikbi fQfVaXl] xVj] xVj fQfVaXl
rFkk Nr fuekZ.k Hkkx&3 Nr fuekZ.k fQfVax
4989
&
&
2006
vfXu 'keu ds fy, ;kaf=d >kx mRiUu
1 fyVj
34000
29000
#- 0-2
lHkh
&
12-02-2013
djus gsrq >kx lkanz
6452
&
&
1989
lajpukRed mi;ksx ds fy, mPp
,d Vu
44000
38000
#- 4-00
lHkh
&
rqjUr izHkko ls
,yqfeuk lhesaV
7834
3
1987
ty vkiwfrZ gsrq bUtsD'ku ekWfYMm
100 ihl
34000
29000
#- 8-65
lHkh
&
12-02-2013
ihohlh lkWdsV fQfVax lfgr lkWYosUV
lhesaV ds tksM+ Hkkx 3—90 fMxzh ,Ycks
gsrq fo'ks"k vis{kk,a
15500
5
2004
xgjkbZ ls ikuh fudkyus ds
100 ihl
34000
29000
#- 13-9&
&
12-02-2013
gFkcjes—?kVd vkSj fo'ks"k vkStkj
(Fig. 5.5, 5.6)
Hkkx 5—dkLV vk;ju
#- 10-4&
(Fig. 5.4)
#- 17-3&
(Fig. 5.1,5.2,5.3)
15500
6
2004
xgjkbZ ls ikuh fudkyus ds
100 ihl
34000
29000
#- 8-7&
&
12-02-2013
gFkcjes—?kVd vkSj fo'ks"k vkStkj
(Fig. 6.16, 6.2, 6.15)
Hkkx 6—czkl@czksat ?kVd
#- 3-5&(Fig. 6.3, 6.9)
#- 7-0&
(Fig. 6.10, 6.12, 6.4)
#- 20-8&(Fig. 6.13)
#- 5-3&(Fig. 6.5)
#- 10-4&(Fig. 6.6)
#- 15-6&(Fig. 6.8)
#- 13-9&(Fig. 6.7)
#- 2-7&(Fig. 6.1.1)
#- 17-3&(Fig. 6.14)
#- 2-6&(Fig. 6.1)
15500
7
2004
xgjkbZ ls ikuh fudkyus ds
100 ihl
34000
29000
#- 1-75&
gFkcjes—?kVd vkSj fo'ks"k vkStkj
(Fig. 7.1, 7.2)
Hkkx 7—jcM+ ds ?kVd
#- 3-5&
(Fig.7.6, 7.7, 7.9)
7&(Fig. 7.8, 7.5, 7.4,
7.12,7.13,7.14,7.15)
#- 10-4&(Fig. 7.3)
#- 5-3&(Fig. 7.10, 7.11)
6448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15787
2008
fLop lkWdsV vkmVysV~l ¼ukWu
100 ihl
34000
29000
#- 3-50
lHkh
12-02-2013
baVjykWfdax Vkbi½
15884
2008
lfØ; ÅtkZ gsrq izR;korhZ /kkjk izR;{k tqM+s]
,d ihl
3]20000
2]72000
#- 3-00
lHkh
rqjUr izHkko ls
LFkSfrd iwoZHkqxrku okys ehVj ¼Js.kh 1,oa 2½
15905
2011
yksgs ds goySl] vidsUnzh <+ys ¼Liu] ikbi]
,d Vu
51000
43000
#- 9-00
lHkh
rqjUr izHkko ls
fQfVaxsa vkSj lgk;dkax&fLixV Js.kh
[lañ lh,eMh@13%10]
ihñdsñ xEHkhj] oSKkfud ^th* ,oa iz/kku ¼izek.ku½
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2013
S.O. 2478.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
IS
Part Sec.
Year
Product
Units Minimum Marking Unit Rate Units Remai- Effective
Fee Large Scale
Slab 1
Slab-1
ning
Date
(in Rs.)
(in Rs.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
335
—
—
1993 New Insulating Oils
1 Kilo
74000
63000
Rs. 8.70
All
—
12.02,2013
Litre
1626
3
—
1994 Asbestos Cement
1 Tonne
34000
29000
Rs. 21.00
All
—
12.02.2013
Building Pipes and Pipe Fittings,
Gutters and Gutter Fittings and
Roofing Fittings Part 3—Roofing
Fittings
4989
—
—
2006 Foam concentrate
1 Litre
34000
29000
Rs. 0.2
All
—
12.02.2013
for Producing Mechanical Foam
for Fire Fighting
6452
—
—
1989 High Alumina Cement for
One
44000
38000
Rs. 4.00
All
—
With
Structural Use
Tonne
immediate
effect
7834
3
—
1987 Injection moulded PVC socket
100
34000
29000
Rs. 8.65
All
—
12.02.2013
fitting with solvent cement
Pieces
joints for water supplies
Part 3—Specific requirements
for 90 degree elbow
15500
5
—
2004 Deepwell Handpumps,
100
34000
29000
Rs 13.9
—
—
12.02.2013
Components and Special Tools
Pieces
(Fig 5.5, 5.6)
Part 5 Cast Iron Components
Rs. 10.4
(Fig. 5.4)
Rs 17.3 (Fig.
5.1,5.2,5.3)
15500
6
—
2004 Deepwell Handpumps,
100
34000
29000
Rs 8.7 (Fig.
—
—
12.02.2013
Components and
Pieces
6.16, 6.2, 6.15)
Special Tools
Rs. 3.5 (Fig. 6.3,
Part 6—Brass/Bronze
6.9) Rs 7.0
Components
6.10,6.12,6.4)
Rs.20.8
(Fig. 6.13)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6449
Rs. 5.3
(Fig. 6.5) Rs. 10.4
(Fig. 6.6) Rs. 15.6
(Fig. 6.8) Rs. 13.9
(Fig. 6.7) Rs. 2.7
Figs. 6.1.1)
Rs. 17.3 Fig. 6.14)
Rs. 2.6 (Fig. 6.1)
15500
7
—
2004 Deepwell Handpumps,
100
34000
29000
Rs 1.75 (Fig.
—
—
12.02.2013
Components and Special Tools
Pieces
7.1, 6.2, 7.12)
Part 7—Rubber Components
Rs. 3.5 (Fig. 6.3,
7.6,7.7,7.9)
Rs 7 (Fig. 7.8,
7.5,6.4,7.12,
7.13, 7.14,7.15)
Rs. 10.4 (Fig. 7.3)
Rs. 5.3
(Fig. 7.10, 7.11)
15787
—
—
2008 Switch-Socket Outlets
100
34000
29000
Rs. 3.50
All
—
12.02.2013
(Non-interlocking
Pieces
type)
15884
—
—
2010 Alternating Current Direct
One
3,20,000 2,72,000 Rs. 3.00
All
—
With
Connected
Pieces
immediate
Static Prepayment effect
effect
Meters for Active Energy
(Class 1&2)
15905
—
—
2011 Hubless Centrifugally
One
51000
43000
Rs. 9.00
All
—
With
Cast (Spun) Iron
Tonne
immediate
Pipes, Fittings and effect
effect
Accessories—Spigot Series
[No. CMD/13:10]
P. K. GAMBHIR, Scientist ‘G’ & Chief (Certification)
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2479-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e ¼4½ ds mi&fofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal la[;k
Lohd`r djus
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkñ ekñ
Hkkx
vuqñ
o"kZ
la[;k
lh,e@,y
dh frfFk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01-
,y&4820361
02-08-2013
eSñ vEckoVk xzqi]
iSdstcUn is; ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
fdyk uañ 20@2] eqLrfdy uañ 47]
¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd feujy
xkao gjpUniqj] lksguk]
ty ds vykok½
ftyk xqM+xkao] ¼gfj;k.kk½
02-
,y&4820563
02-08-2013
eSñ ijQSDV flySa ,u QSc]
vYi nkc nzo.kh; xSlksa
3196
01
µ
2006
[kljk uañ 039] dhyk uañ 3]8]
ds fy, 5 yhVj ls vf/kd
¼22 QqV usdiqj jksM½]
ty {kerk okys osfYMr
xkao uaxyk xqtjku]
vYi dkcZu bLikr ds
fudV jkoy baVjus'kuy Ldwy]
flysaMj Hkkx 1 nzfor iSVªksfy;e
lksguk jksM] Mkd?kj ikyh]
xSl ¼nziSxS½ ds fy, flysaMj
ftyk Qjhnkckn] ¼gfj;k.kk½
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
6450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
03-
,y&4818576
06-08-2013
eSñ 'kfDr ,iykblsal]
nzfor isVªksfy;e xSlksa ds lkFk
4246
µ
µ
2002
fdyk uañ 6@19]
iz;qDr ?kjsyw xSl pwYgs
fudV vkVks LVs.M]
xkao tlkuk] ftyk Qjhnkckn&121101]
¼gfj;k.kk½
04
,y&4819477
07-08-2013
eSñ ,pih,y bySDVªhd
izR;korhZ fn"V /kkjk lfØ;
15884
µ
µ
2010
,.M ikoj izkñ fyñ]
ÅtkZ ds fy, la;ksftr LFkSfrd
133] lSDVj&37]
iwoZHkqxrku ehVj
isl flVh&1]
¼Js.kh 1 vkSj 2½
ftyk xqM+xkao&122001]
¼gfj;k.kk½
05
,y&4822466
12-08-2013
eSñ ,lñ vkjñ bySDVªksfuDl]
bySDVªksfud izdkj ds ia[ks
11037
µ
µ
1984
vkn'kZ uxj]
ds jsX;wysVj
b.MLVªh;y ,fj;k] eysjuk jksM]
cYyHkx<+&121004] ftyk
Qjhnkckn] ¼gfj;k.kk½
06
,y&4825371
12-08-2013
eSñ DokfyVh Ms;jh bf.M;k fyñ]
nw/k dk ikmMj
1165
µ
µ
2002
[kljk uañ 15@¼13@2] 18@1] 18@2½]
15@¼18@3] 14@1] 17] 23@1] 23@2]
24½ 19@¼3@1] 4] 7@1½] xkao lks¶rk]
rglhy o ftyk iyoy ¼gfj;k.kk½
07
,y&4822668
19-08-2013
eSñ eaxyk IykfLVd b.MLVªht]
futh lqj{kk miLdj
15298
02
µ
2002
1733] ,evkbZbZ]
Hkkx 2 lqj{kk QqVfo;j
cgknqjx<+&124507] ftyk >Ttj]
¼gfj;k.kk½
08-
,y&4821868
26-08-2013
eSñ ,Q,Dl Xykscy eSVy
pkanh ,oa pkanh feJ/kkrq,a
2112
µ
µ
2003
dkWjiksjs'ku izkñ fyñ]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
IykWV uañ] lSDVj&27A,
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu
Qjhnkckn&121003 ¼gfj;k.kk½
09-
,y&4821969
26-08-2013
eSñ Hkksyk ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a
1417
&
&
1999
'kkWi uañ ch&559]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
33 QqV jksM] efLtn ds ikl]
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu
Mcqvk dkyksuh]
Qjhnkckn] ¼gfj;k.kk½
10-
,y&4822062
26-08-2013
eSñ ,Q,Dl Xykscy eSVy
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a
1417
&
&
1999
dkWjiksjs'ku izkñ fyñ]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
IykWV uañ 7] lSDVj&27A]
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu
ftyk Qjhnkckn&121003
¼gfj;k.kk½
11-
,y&4822567
26-08-2013
eSñ Hkksyk ToSylZ
pkWnh ,oa pkWnh feJ/kkrq,a
2112
&
&
2003
'kkWi uañ ch&559]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
33 QqV jksM] efLtn ds ikl]
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu
Mcqvk dkyksuh] Qjhnkckn] ¼gfj;k.kk½
[lañ lh,eMh@13% 11]
fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6451
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2013
S.O. 2479.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in
the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licences
Grant
Name & Address
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part
Sec.
Year
No.
No.CM/L
Date
of the Licensee
01.
L-4820361
02.08.2013
M/s. Ambawata Group,
Packaged Drinking Water
14543
—
—
2004
Kila No. 20/2, Mustkil No. 47,
(Other Than Packaged
Village Harchandpur, Sohna,
Natural Mineral Water)
Distt. Gurgaon, (Haryana)
02
L-4820563
02.08.2013
M/s Perfect Cyl. No. Fab.
Welded Low Carbon Steel
3196
01
—
2006
Khasra No. 039, Kila No. 3, 8,
Cylinders Exceeding 5Litre
(22 Ft. Nekpur Road),
Water Capacity for Low
Village Nangla Gujran,
Pressure Liquefiable Gases
Near Rawal International
Part 1: Cylinders for
School, Sohna Road,
Liquefied Petroleum Gases
P.O Pali, Distt.
(LPG)
Faridabad-121004, (Haryana)
03
L-4818576
06.08.2013
M/s Shakti Appliances,
Domestic Gas Stoves for
4246
—
—
2002
Kila No. 6/19,
use with Liquefied
Near Auto Stand, Village Jasana,
Petroleum Gases
Distt. Faridabad-121101,
(Haryana)
04.
L-4819477
07.08.2013
M/s HPL Electric & Power
Alternating Current
15884
—
—
2010
Pvt. Ltd., 133, Sector-37,
Direct Connected
Pace City-1, Distt.
Prepayment Meters
Gurgaon-122001,
for Active Energy
(Haryana)
(Class 1 &2)
05.
L-4822466
12.08.2013
M/s. S.R. Electronics,
Electronic Type Fan
11037
—
—
1984
Adarsh Nagar,
Regulators
Industrial Area, Malerna Road,
Ballabgarh-121004, Distt.
Faridabad (Haryana)
06.
L-4825371
12.08.2013
M/s. Kwality Dairy India Ltd.,
Milk Powder
1165
—
—
2002
Khasra No. 15/(13/2, 18/1,
18/2), 15/(18/3, 14/1,
17, 23/1, 23/2, 24) 19/
(3/1, 4, 7/1) Village Softa,
Tehsil & District Palwal
(Haryana)
07.
L-4822668
19.08.2013
M/s. Mangla Plastic Industries,
Personal Protective
15298
02
—
2002
1733, MIE,
Equipment
Bahadurgarh-124507,
Part 2: Safety Footwear
Distt. Jhajjar, (Haryana)
08.
L-4821868
26.08.2013
M/s. Fx Global Metal,
Silver & Silver Alloys,
2112
—
—
2003
Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,
Jewellery/Artefacts-
Plot No. 7 Sector-27A,
Fineness and Marking
Faridabad-121003 (Haryana)
09.
L-4821969
26.08.2013
M/s. Bhola Jewellers,
Gold & Gold Alloys,
1417
—
—
1999
Shop No. B 0559,
Jewellery/Artefacts—
33 Ft. Road, Near Masjid,
Fineness and Marking
Faridabad (Haryana)
10.
L-4822062
26.08.2013
M/s. Fx Global Metal,
Gold & Gold Alloys,
1417
—
—
1999
Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,
Jewellery/Artefacts—
Plot No. 7, Sector-27A,
Fineness and Marking
Faridabad-121003 (Haryana)
11.
L-4822567
26.08.2013
M/s. Bhola Jewellers,
Silver & Silver Alloys,
2112
—
—
2003
Shop No. B 0559,
Jewellery/Artefacts—
33 Ft. Road, Near Masjid,
Fineness and Marking
Faridabad (Haryana)
[No. CMD/13:11]
BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer
6452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2480-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal la[;k
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe
jí djus dh frfFk
la[;k
lh,e@,y
irk
lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
01
,y&9688517
eSñ VªSDVy fVjQksj bafM;k
gLrpkfyr pSu iwyh CykWd
16-8-2013
izkñ fyñ]
3832%2005
nw/kksyk jksM]
Mkd?kj i`Fkyk ftyk iyoy 121102]
¼gfj;k.kk½
[lañ lh,eMh 13%13]
fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th October, 2013
S.O. 2480.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifices that the licences particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled /suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licences
Name & Address
Article/Process with relevant
Date of
No.
No. CM/L
of the Licensee
Indian Standards covered by
Cancellation
the licence cancelled/suspension
01
L-9688517
M/s Tractel Tirfor India
Hand-Operated Chain
16.8.2013
Pvt. Ltd.,
Pulley Blocks
Dudhola Road, P.O. Prithla,
3832 : 2005
Distt. Palwal-121102, (Haryana)
[No. CMD/13:13]
BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2481-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼4½ ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g®] dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gS%
vuqlwph
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; Hkkx
vuqñ
o"kZ
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
ekud lañ
01
5721263
03-10-2013
ljLorh ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
dqvkf[k;k] e/kqcu jksM]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
okMZ uañ ts ,&lh] iksLV&jlqyiqj
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
ftyk tktiqj] vksfM'kk&755009
02
5721364
03-10-2013
vyadkj ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
fcykgkV ekdsZV]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
egeniqj] fcykgkV]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
ftyk&dVd]
vksfM'kk&754134
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6453
03
5721465
03-10-2013
:ikJh vyadkj
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
,u , lh ekdsZV]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
vksYM cl LVSaM] [kqnkZ]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
vksfM'kk&752055
04
5721768
07-10-2013
uc?ku lkgw ,aM lUl ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
cklqnso esfMdy ds lkeus]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
Hknzd]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
vksfM'kk&756125
05
5721869
07-10-2013
rkfj.kh Tosyjh ,aM odZ'kki
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
IykWV uañ 01]dks.kkdZ ekdsZV dkEIysDl]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
iksLV&dks.kkdZ]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
ftyk&iqjh]
vksfM'kk&752111
06
5721970
07-10-2013
jkt ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
lk[khxksiky ckt+kj] iksLV&lk[khxksiky]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
iqjh]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
vksfM'kk
07
5722871
09-10-2013
_fFodk xksYM izkñ fyñ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
lh&1 ekdsZV fcfYMax]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
'kkWi de jsflMsafl;y fcfYMax]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
lfgn uxj] Hkqous'oj
]
ftyk&[kqnkZ]
vksfM'kk&751007
08
5722972
09-10-2013
lksuh ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
esu jksM] >kjlqxqMk]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
vksfM'kk&768201
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
09
5723065
09-10-2013
Jh 'kadj vyadkj ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
esu jksM] >kjlqxqMk]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
vksfM'kk&768201
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
10
5723166
09-10-2013
euhek;k ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/kkrq,a]
1417
1999
'kkWi uañ 04] uhfyek dkEIySDl]
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa
MsYVk LDok;j] cjeqaMk] Hkqous'oj]
eqgjkadu&fof'kf"V
ftyk&-[kqnkZ
vksfM'kk&751003
11
5725372
25-10-2013
Jh;k ,aVjizkbtst
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdtcan]
14543
2004
yqvkckgky] iksLV&fcysbZeaqMk]
izkd`frd fefujy ty ds
ftyk lqanjxM+
vykok½
vksfM'kk&770024
12
5725877
29-10-2013
,ojsLV baMLVªht fyfeVsM
,LcsLVkWl lhesaV dh ukyhnkj
459
1992
lkseukFkiqj oDlZ
vkSj v/kZ&ukyhnkj lheasV dh
IykWV uañ tsM 5] vkbZ vkbZ Mh lsaVj]
píjksa dh fof'kf"V
lkseukFkiqj] xzke&ikyla/kk ,oa rsykxfM;k]
ihñ,lñ&baMfLVª;y Fkkus]
ftyk&ckys'oj
vksfM'kk&756019
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
ekud la-
6454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13
5725978
30-10-2013
doSY; baMLVªht
iSdstcan is; ty ¼iSdtcan]
14543
2004
gkVrksVk] rkypsj]
izkd`frd fefujy ty ds
ftyk vuqxqy
vykok½
vksfM'kk&759100
[lañ dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11]
v{k; dqekj iqjksfgr] oSKkfud ^Mh*
New Delhi, the 5th November, 2013
S.O. 2481.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulation, 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 address of the party
Title of the
IS
Part
Sec.
Year
No. No.
Standard
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01
5721263
03.10.2013
Saraswati Jewellers
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
At. Kuakhia, Madhuban Road,
jewellery/artefacts-
Ward No. J.A-C, PO. Rasulpur
fineness and marking
District-Jajpur,
Odisha-755009
02
5721364
03.10.2013
Alankar Jewellers
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
At. Bilahat Market,
jewellery/artefacts-
Mahamadpur Bilahat,
fineness and marking
District-Cuttack,
Odisha-754134
03
5721465
03.10.2013
Rupashree Alankar
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
NAC Market, Old Busstand,
jewellery/artefacts-
District-Khurda,
fineness and marking
Odisha-752055
04
5721768
07.10.2013
Nabaghana Sahoo & Sons Jewellers
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
Opp. to Basudevpur Medical,
jewellery/artefacts-
District-Bhadrak,
fineness and marking
Odisha-756125
05
5721869
07.10.2013
Tarini Jewellery and Workshop
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
Plot, No. 01, Konark Market
jewellery/artefacts-
Complex, PO. Konark,
fineness and marking
District-Puri,
Odisha-752111
06
5721970
07.10.2013
Raj Jewellers
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
At. Sakhigopal Bazar,
jewellery/artefacts-
PO. Sakhigopal,
fineness and marking
District-Puri
Odisha
07
5722871
09.10.2013
Rithvika Gold Private Limited
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
C-1, Market Building,
jewellery/artefacts-
Shop-Cyn-Residence Building,
fineness and marking
Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar,
District-Khurda,
Odisha-751007
08
5722972
09.10.2013
Soni Jewellers
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
At. Main Road PO. Jharsuguda,
jewellery/artefacts-
District-Jharsuguda,
fineness and marking
Odisha-768201
Øñ
ykblsal lañ Lohd`r djus dh
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
lañ
frfFk o"kZ@ekg
ekud la-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6455
09
5723065
09.10.2013
Shree Shankar Alankar Jewellers
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
Main Road Jharsuguda,
jewellery/artefacts-
Odisha-768201
fineness and marking
10
5723166
09.10.2013
Manimaya Jewellers
Gold and gold alloys,
1417
1999
Shop No. 04, Nilima Complex
jewellery/artefacts-
Delta Square, Baramunda,
fineness and marking
Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda,
Odisha-751003
11
5725372
25.10.2013
Shreeya Enterprises
Packaged drinking water,
14543
2004
At;- Luabahal, PO;- Bileimunda,
(other than packaged
District-Sundargarh,
natural mineral water)
Odisha-770024
12
5725877
29.10.2013
Everest Industries Limited
Indian Standard corrugated and,
459
1992
Somanthpur works,
semi-corrugated asbestos-
Plot No.Z5, IID Centare,
cement sheets
Somanathpur, Vill-Palasandha and Telagadia,
PS-Industrial Thane
District-Balasore,
Odisha-756019
13
5725978
30.10.2013
Kaibalya Industries
Packaged drinking water,
14543
2004
AT: Hotolola, Talcher
(other than packaged
District-Angul
natural mineral water)
Odisha-759100
[No. CMD/13:11]
A.K. PUROHIT, Scientist 'D'
ubZ fnYyh] 5 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2482-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g®] dks ykblsal jí fd, x, g®%
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal la[;k
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe
jí@LFkfxr djus
la-
lh,e@,y
lEc) Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
dh frfFk
01
dksbZ ugha
dksbZ ugha
dksbZ ugha
dksbZ ugha
[la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13:11]
v{k; dqekj iqjksfgr] oSKkfud ^Mh*
New Delhi, the 5th November, 2013
S.O. 2482.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the licences particulars of which are given below have
been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licences
Name & Address
Article/Process with relevant
Date of
No.
No. CM/L-
of the Licensee
Indian Standards covered by
Cancellation
the licence cancelling/suspension
01
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
[No. CMD/13:11]
A.K. PUROHIT, Scientist 'D'
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2483-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~
}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og os LFkkfir gks x;k gS%&
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
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
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 8130 % 2013 Å"ekjksèh
&
07-11-2013
fo|qr dscyksa ,oa uEu dkWMks ds pkydksa
dh fof'kf"V&¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh& 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psékbZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè g®A
[lanHkZ bZVh 09@Vh&45]
vkj-lh- eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2013
S.O 2483.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules,
1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which is given in the Schedule
hereto annexed has been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the
No. & Year of the
Date of Establishment
No.
Indian Standards
Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 8130:2013 Conductors for insulated
-
07.11.2013
electric cables and flexible cords-
Specification (Second Reivision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. ET 09/T-45]
R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6457
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2484-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ cSykMhyk
vk;ju vksj izkstsDV ftyk fcykliqj ds izcaèra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 23@94½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23@9@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&26012@1@93&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2013
S.O. 2484.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/94)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bailadila Iron Ore Project, District
(Bilaspur) and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 23/9/2013.
[No. L-26012/1/93-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/23/94
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle
The Secretary,
Bastar Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (HMS),
2/B, New Colony, Kirandul,
Distt. Bastar
...... Workman/Union
Versus
The General Manager,
Bailadila Iron Ore Project,
Deposit No. 14, NMDC Ltd.,
Kirandul,
Distt. Bastar
...... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 1-3-94 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received, The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-26012/
1/93-IR (Misc). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of National
Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Bailadila Iron Ore
Project, deposit No. 14, Kirandul in refusing special casual
leave to Shri M.P. Pandey and not releasing his deducted
wages for the period from 11-7-92 to 17-7-92 when he was
away from head Quarters for attending the meeting of
Central Advisory Committee of Iron Ore, Manganese Ore
and Chrome Ore Labour Welfare Fund is correct? If not, to
what relief he is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by Union, It is
case of Ist party that Under Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Labour requested workman Shri M.P. Pandey
to attend meeting to Central Advisory Committee on
14-7-92. That Mr. Pandey was appointed as member of said
Advisory Committee on 17-10-91. Mr. Pandey requested
General Manager NMDC to grant 5 days special Casual
leave for the period from 11-7-92 to 17-7-92. His application
was rejected. Mr. Pandey was away from Headquarter during
above period for 7 days. Earlier Mr. Pandey was appointed
as member of Advisory Committee for M.P. He was granted
special Casual Leave. It is further submitted that same
dispute was filed. That as per award dated 17-3-92 workman
claims to be entitled to special casual leave. The
management was directed by said award for framing rules.
Special Leave was rejected in disobeying the award. On
such ground, workman prays for grant of special leave for
the period stated above.
3. Management filed Writen Statement at Page 4/1 to
4/4. It is submitted that the service rules of standing orders
do not provide for grant of special leave prayed by the
workman for attending meeting of Central Advisory
Committee of Iron Ore Manganese Ore and Chrome Ore
Labour Welfare Fund. That the special leave cannot be
claimed as right. Grant of leave is always at discretion of
the management. That Special Leave claimed by Mr. Pandey
for the period was rejected for proper reasons. Mr. Pandey
based his claim on previous award passed by this Tribunal
in R/269/89. In para-7, certain observations were made that
Government concerned should take appropriate action to
frame rules and regulations in said regard to that such
problem do not arise in future. The said benefit was granted
because the project did not pointout any rule or regulation
for grant of special leave. It is further submitted that
Government of India has not received any direction,
guidelines for special Casual Leave for attending meeting
of Advisory Committeee. It is submitted that NMDC has
framed its own rules for grant of Special Casual leave.
However claim of Mr. Pandey is not covered by those rules.
Rest of the contention of workman are denied. It is submitted
that notification issued appointing member to Mr. Pandey
on recommendation of Secretary of Hind Mazdoor Sabha,
The said Union has meagre membership of the workman
and therefore Mr. Pandey could not represent workman in
6458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the meeting. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejction
of claim of workman.
4. Rejoinder is filed by workman at page 10/1 to 10/3
reiterating its earlier contentions. Management filed
rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/3 repeating its earlier contentions.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
whether the action of the managment
of National Mineral Development
Corporation Ltd., Bailadila Iron Ore
Project, deposit No. 14, Kirandul in
refusing special casual leave to Shri
M.P. Pandey and not releasing his
deducted wages for the period from
11-7-92 to 17-7-92 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
REASONS
6. In order to substantiate his claim, workman
Shri M.P. Pandey examined himself at Page 13. From his
evidence, documents Exhibit A to G are exhibited.
Document Exhibit A is notification dated 17-10-92
Mr. pandey was appointed as Advisory Committee member
of Iron Ore, Manganese Ore and Chrome Ore Labour Welfare
Fund Exhibit B is letter from Government of India, Ministry
of Labour, It allow 75% travel expenses to be paid in advance
to the memebrs for attending meeting etc. Exhibit C is
clarification issued by Personnel Officer. While attending
such meeting, Mr. Pandey would be entitled only to special
Casual Leave and shall draw TA, DA for MP State. The
said letter is dated 13-5-77. Exhibit D is wireless message
dated 11-5-77. Annexure E is copy of statement of claim
submitted by management in Reference No. 268/89. Exhibit
F is copy of award dated 17-3-92. In para-6 of the award, it
is oberved that Exhibit W-2 disclosed that he was directed
by Manager, Industrial Relations NMDC, Hyderabad to
grant Special Casual leave for attending the meeting. It
shows that earlier also he was permitted to attend meeting
etc. Exhibit G is application submitted to Secretary,
government of India for special leave for attending the
meetings On said application, it is made clear that there is
no specific rule for grant of special Casual Leave. The
management has produced certificate Exhibit M-3 making
rules for grant of special leave. The evidence of workman
M.P. Pandey is consistent with the documentary evidence.
That he was granted special leave in 1977 and again as per
Award in R/268/89, evidence of management's witness Shri
Guruswamy is filed by way of denial that the rules do not
permit grant of special casual leave. IInd party framed rules
on 11-2-93. Those rules cannot have retrospective effect.
7. From documents produced on record, it is
established that workman is appointed as member of the
Advisory Committee. He was granted Special Casual Leave
in 1997 as per Annexure C. As per award, in Reference R/
268/89, para-7, he was granted special Casual Leave
observing that steps needs to be taken. Central Government
has not made rules. The rules are made by Personnel
Manager of IInd party Exhibit M-3. As per Rule-A grant of
Special Casual Leave is in discretion of the Projects
Manager. The discretion needs to be exercised impartially.
There were no rules prior to 11-2-93. The Award in R.268/89
holds the field. That workman attended the meeting of
Advisory Committee, he was away from headquarter for
attending the said meeting. Special leave for 7 days prayed
by workman M.P. Pandey deserved to be granted. The
action of the management rejecting Special Casual leave to
Shri M.P. Pandey is illegal. For above reasons, I record my
finding on Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of National Mineral
Development Corporation Ltd., Bailadila Iron Ore Project,
deposit No. 14, Kirandul in refusing special casual leave to
Shri M.P. Pandey and not releasing his deducted wages for
the period from 11-7-92 to 17-7-92 is illegal.
(2) Absence of Ist party workman Shri M.P. Pandey
from office during the period 11-7-92 to 17-7-92 is treated
as Special Leave. The management of IInd iparty is directed
to pay the wages deductged from the salary of Shri M.P.
Pandey for the said period he refunded to him.
9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2485-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u ,;jykbUl
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27
dk 2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@12@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013
S.O. 2485.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 27/2007) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
In Negative
As per final
order.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6459
Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Indian
Airlines, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/9/2013.
[No. L-11012/12/2003-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 27/2007
Shri Ashok Kumar
S/o, Shri Rajendra Prasad,
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
International 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 (Redg.) (in short the Union) for redressal of his
grienvancs. 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-11012/12/2003-IR
(CM-I), New Delhi dated 21.02.2007, with following terms:
"Whether demand of Airport Employees Union to
reinstate Shri Ashok Kumar, 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 08.03.2013,
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
Ashok Kumar, S/o, Shri Rajendra Prasad 796, Pocket No. 1,
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 Airlines 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 clearners. 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
6460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
with 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 futher 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/Indian 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 fnYYkh] 30 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2486-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u ,;jykbUl
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa dks muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1 ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29
dk 2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@13@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013
S.O. 2486.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispsutes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.29/2007) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. 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 30/09/2013.
[No. L-11012/13/2003-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX DELHI
I.D. No. 29/2007
Shri Vijay Singh Rawat
S/o Lt. Sh. Kundan Singh Rawat,
796, Pocket No. I,
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
International 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-11012/13/2003-IR(CM-I), New Delhi dated
21.02.2007, with following terms:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6461
"Whether demand of Airort Employees Union to
reinstate Shri Vijay Singh Rawat, 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 08.03.2013,
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
Vijay Singh Rawat, S/o Lt. Shri Kundan Singh Rawat, 796,
Pocket No. 1, 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 claime 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 Airlines 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 serive 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
with 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/Indian 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] 30 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2487-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u
,;jykbUl fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 30 dk 2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
30@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@16@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
6462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013
S.O. 2487.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 30/2007) of
the Cent. Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour court No. 1,
New Delhi as shown in the annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s Indian Airlines
Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/09/2013.
[No. L-11012/16/2003 -IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. NO. 30/2007
Shri Avijit Kumar Bose
S/o Late Sh. Ajit Kumar Bose,
796, Pocket No. 1,
Pashim Puri,
New Delhi-110063.
....Workman
Versus
The General manager,
M/s Indian Airlines,
IGL 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
International 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-11012/16/2003-IR(CM-I), New
Delhi dated 21.02.2007, with following terms:
"Whether demand of Airport Employees Union to
reinstate Shri Avijit Kumar Bose, ex-Cleaner, with full
back wages, in the services of M/s. Sunshine
Enterprises of M/s. Indian Airlines, is legal and
justified? If so, what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. The Airlines assiled 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 08.03.2013, 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
Avijit Kumar Bose. S/o Shri Ajit Kumar Bose, 796, Pocket
No. 1, 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 Airlines 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
Internaitonal 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6463
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
with 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 service by M/s. Sunshine
Enterprises/Indian 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 the 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] 30 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2488-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u
,;jykbUl fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 28 dk 2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
30@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@14@2003 vkbZvkj¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013
S.O. 2488.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2007) of
the Cent. Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s Indian Airlines
Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 30/09/2013.
[No. L-11012/14/2003-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. NO. 28/2007
Shri Sunil Kumar
S/o Shri Amar Singh,
796, Pocket No. 1,
Pashim Puri,
New Delhi-110063
....Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
M/s Indian Airlines,
IGL 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
International Airport, New Delhi to M/s Aroon Enterprises.
Writ petitions No. 3823 of 98, and 2300 of 99 were filed by
employees of the cotnractor 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,
6464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-11012/14/2003-IR(CM-I),
New Delhi dated 21.02.2007, with following terms:
"Whether demand of Airport Employees Union to
reinstate Shri Sunil Kumar, ex-Cleaner, with full back
wages, in the services of M/s. Sunshine Enterprises
of M/s. Indian Airlines, is legal and justified? If so, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. The Airlines assiled 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 08.03.2013,
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 Sunil Kumar, S/o Shri Amar Singh, 796, Pocket No.1,
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 Airlines 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.
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
with 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/Indian 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6465
ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2489-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43 dks 2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@430@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2013
S.O. 2489.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 43/2000) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/430/1999-IR(C-I)
M.K. SINGH, 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 (I)
(d) of the I. D. Act,1947.
REFERENCE NO. 43 OF 2000
Parties
: Mr. Madho Singh (Workmen)
Vs. General Manager, Kustore
Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman: Mr. Shekhar Sharma
Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the
: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.Advocate
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad,
the 21 May, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/430/99-IR (C-1) dt. 28.02.2000.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL
Kustore Area in dismissing Sh. Madho Singh, Loader
from service w.e.f. 17.9.92 on grounds of unauthorized
absence is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?"
2. The case of wark man Madho Singh as pleaded in
his written statement is that though he had been
unblemishedly working as M/Loader in Similabahal Colliery
of M/s. BCCL since long, he unluckily could not perform
his duty from 1983 to 27.11.1997 due to his mental sickness
and his treatment at Kanke Mental Hospital during the
said period .After his discharge from the Hospital,when he
reported for duty to the Manager of the Colliery he was
handed over his dismissal order dt.17.9.1992.He represented
to the management for his reinstatement as his absence
was due to the circumstances beyond his control. It came
to his knowledge of the chargesheet having been issued
for alleged misconduct of unauthorized absentism and of
his dismissal on the ex-parte inquiry for his unauthorized
absence from duty. Absence is not a misconduct and
absence beyond ten days without permission or
information for
unsatisfactory reason is a misconduct
under the provision of the Certified Standing Order
applicable to the Colliery. His absence was due to illness
and subsequent long treatment at Kanke Mental Hospital,
Ranchi.The ex-parte enquiry in violation of the principal of
natural justice. His dismissal was based on untenable
charge, so it was illegal; he is sitting idle from 22.11.1997.
The action of the Management in dismissing him from
service w.e.f. 17.9.92 is quite illegal, arbitrary and
unjustified.Thus, the workman sought for declaration of
the Management action of his dismissal as illegal and
unjustified, for his re-instatement in his service with its
continuity with full wages for the aforesaid idle period, and
for any other proper relief.
3. The workman in his rejoinder with specific denials
has stated that he had no knowledge of what the
management did during his hospitalization at Ranchi Mansik
Arogyalaya Kanke, Ranchi.The Enquiry was formal by the
prejudiced Enquiry Officer. No alleged misconduct of
serious nature has been established anywhere that he
knowingly committed the wrong doing. The punishment
of dismissal is disproportionate to the alleged gravity of
the misconduct.
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that the reference
is unmaintainable both in law and facts.The workman
Madho Singh@ Madho Mahato, the Miner Loader of the
Similabahal Colliery of Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL
unauthorizedly absented from his duty from 6.1.1983, for
which he was chargesheeted as per the letter dt.25.5.1998
as per the provision of the Standing Order of the Company.
A copy of the chargesheet was posted on Notice Board of
6466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Colliery as also one copy of it was posted to him on his
home address by the Registered post just the notice of the
enquiry by registered [post sent on his home address,
thereafter Sri C. K. Pandey, Dy. Personnel Manager was
appointed as the Enquiry Officer for the domestic enquiry.
Even at the notice of the enquiry being published in the
daily 'AAJ' dt.25.8.1992,when the workman did not appear,
the Enquiry Officer ex-parte conducted the enquiry in
accordance with the Rules of Natural Justice.He found
the charges proved against the workman for unauthorized
absence beyond the reasonable doubt, and submitted his
report to the management. After considering the enquiry
proceeding and the enquiry report impartially, the
Disciplinary authority dismissed from service as per Order
dt.17.09.1992 in view of the gravity of the misconduct
affecting the discipline and the employees of the Company,
and the financial loss to the Company thereby. Therefore
the action of the Management in dismissing the workman
is legal and justified in view of the grave unauthorized
misconduct for a long time.
5. The O.P./Management in rejoinder categorically
denying the allegations of the workman has pleaded the
dismissal of the workman as legal, as the domestic enquiry
held ex-parte for non-appearance of the workman even after
publication of it in the News Paper.
Finding With Reasoning
6. In the instant case, when the O.P./Management
despite sufficient opportunity failed to produce any witness
at the preliminary issue of the fairness of the domestic
enquiry, the Tribunal by its Order No.16 dt.14.09.2005 held
that there was no scope for conclusion as to the domestic
enquiry as fair,proper and according to the principles of
natural justice.
Then MWI Sanjay Kumar Bharti, Sr. Personnel
Officer, Simlabahal Colliery for the O.P./Management and
MWI Madho Singh, the workman for himself has been
examined on merits.
7. According to MWI Sanjay Kumar Bharti,when
workman Madho Singh, the M/Loader began to
unauthorizedly absent from his duty since 6.1.1983,he was
issued the chargesheet dt. 26.5.1988 (Ext. M.1). 0n receipt
of it, when he did not reply to it, the enquiry was set up as
per the appointment of Mr. C.K. Pandey as the Officer (Ext.
M. 2), who issued the Regd. Notices of the Enquiry and
even published it in the daily Newspaper 'AAJ' on
25th August, 1992 (Ext. M. 6 series), but even then the
workman did not appear in the enquiry, he (MWI) held the
domestic enquiry as per the enquiry proceeding (Ext. M. 3
Series into nine sheets), and submitted his enquiry report
dt. 2.9.1992 (Ext. M. 4), thereafter the workman was
dismissed as per the letter No.1189 dt.15/17.9.1992 (Ext. M.
5). further, the management witness affirmed that after five
years of his dismissal, the workman filed his reply
dt. 31.12.1997 under his signature (Ext. M. 7), none of his
relatives represented to the management any time between
the period 6.1.1983 to 31.12.1997 about his illness, so his
dismissal was justified. Mr. Shekhar Sharma, Learned
Advocate for the workman has fully cross examined the
MW I, who specifically denied the allegation that despite
full knowledge of the management about the admission of
the workman in Mental Hospital, Kanke for his mental
treatment for the said period ,the management had
intentionally illegally dismissed him.
8. Whereas the statement of WWI Madho Mahato,
the workman himself, reveals that he worked as M/Loader
at Bhalgora Simlabahal Colliery from 1993, but he was
getting treated at Mental Hospital, Kanke, from 1987 to
27.11.1993 for the brain as per the Certificate dt.28.11.1997
along with the prescription (two sheets) both dt. 28.11.1997
and another certificate dt. 5.1.1999 issued by the Medical
Supdt. Ranchi, Kanke, Ranchi (both certificates — Ext. W.
1 and 1/1 respectively); on his recovery from mental illness,
when he along with his said documents went to attend his
service at the Colliery, he was not given the service, rather
his dismissal letter was handed over to him, and he for the
first time knew his dismissal. He (WWI) has further to say
that he had neither got the chargesheet nor had the
information of the enquiry. But the workman evidently
admitted that there was no information of his mental
treatment at the aforesaid mental institute Kanke, Ranchi,
to the management. Yet the action of the Management in
dismissing him is alleged as wrong, so he claimed for his
service with financial benefits.
9. The workman in his cross-examination has admitted
to have been though present from 6th Jan., 1983 yet
factually hospitalized at Kanke Mental Hospital from 11th
Jan. to 6th July, 1989, and to have filed his reply dt. 31.12.1997
(Ext. M. 7) to the Chargesheet. lt clearly indicates his reply
was not prior to his hospitalization at Kanke. His admission
affirms that Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, issuing his first
certificate dt.28.11.1997 (two sheets Ext. M. 1) was not the
Doctor of the said Kanke Hospital,but his second certificate
(Ext. W. 1/1) was issued by the said Mental Hospital, Kanke.
The second Certificate was issued by the said Hospital on
5.1.1999 after eleven months from his discharge from the
Hospital, where he was apparently treated for five months
twenty five days only. But the utter failure of the workman
in establishing when he had informed the management of
his mental Illness/treatment stands proved his unauthorized
long absence from his duty. Moreover, his reply dt.
31.12.1997 to the chargesheet appears to be contradictory
and baseless.
10. Mr. Shekhar Sharma, the Learned Counsel for the
workman has submitted that it is very unfortunate and
illegal that the workman was dismissed from his service on
17.9.1992 but the management issued Chargesheet on
31.12.1997 to the delinquent and on that score, the dismissal
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6467
of the workman is illegal, so he is entitled to his
re-instatement in his service with full back wages and other
benefits. The Ld. Advocate for the workman has relied
upon 2012(135) FLR 963 (Gen. H.C.) (DB), Sr. Manager,
Kellyden Estate Vs. P.O., Labour Court, Assam. It relates in
the reference with Sec. 33(2) and (2)(b) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947, to the facts that in order to make a prime
facie case and to show action taken as bonafide, the
Authorities had created circumstances to compel the
workman to remain absent so that action would be taken
against him; on appreciation of legal evidence available on
record, dismissal order was rather found too heavy a
punishment which could have been awarded by the
Management, but in facts and circumstances, the award of
punishment lost its significance when there was a finding
that the action was not bonafide on the part of the
management, the Labour Court had observed that no prime
facie case when there was no notice served on the workman
while the proceeding was initiated; the Labour Court rightly
not accorded approval to the order of the dismissal; so
their Lordships held no interference warranted, hence the
petition was dismissed (Paras 27, 28, 32 to 36).
11. Whereas Mr. D.K. Verma, the Learned Advocate
for the O.P./management has contended that aforesaid
ruling has not resemblance in the facts of the present case,
so it is inapplicable to the present case in which the workman
has appeared five years after his long unauthorized
absentism, so his dismissal from the service in view of the
gravity of his absentism of his misconduct was quite
justified.
12. The plea of Mr. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the
workman about the issuance of the chargesheet to the
workman on alleged date 31st Dec., 1997 appears to be
quite baseless and highly unreasonable, because, the
chargesheet dt. 26.5.1988 (Ext. M.1) was issued to him on
his home address in due course of time prior to his dismissal
for his unauthorized absentism. So far as the applicability
of the said ruling is concerned, in the present reference
case under an adjudication, the workman has no case of
any circumstances created by the management to compel
him to remain absent, rather not only the Notice of enquiry
dt. 11.8.1992 (Ext. M. 2) through Registered Post but also
its publication in the daily news paper "AAJ"
dt. 11/18.8.1992 (Ext. M. 6 series) was effected on the local
as well as on Home address of the workman for his
appearance in the domestic enquiry. So the said authority
holds not good with the present case.
13. On perusal and consideration of the materials on
the case record, I find the following facts as such:
(i)
The workman had been working as M/Loader at
Bhalgora Shimla Bhahal Colliery since 1983, as
stated in his evidence;
(ii)
He began to unauthorizedly absent from his duty
since 6.1.1983, so he was issued the chargesheet
dt. 26.5.1988 by the O.P./management for his
absentism amounting to the misconduct under
clause 17.8. of the Certified Standing Orders for
workmen of Establishments under BCCL (Ext. M. 2).
(iii)
Despite the chargesheet, though Regd. Post, the
Notice of the Enquiry dt. 11.8.1992 (Ext. M. 2)
through Regd. Posts and its publication in the
Daily "AAJ" dt.11/18.8.1992 (Ext. 6 series) on both
the addresses local and home of the workman, he
did not appear in the enquiry, hence the domestic
enquiry was ex-parte held wherein his guilt of
unauthorized absentism was proved.
(iv)
The workman was dismissed for his grave
misconduct of absentism for his long years as per
dismissal order dt. 15/17.9.1992 of the Competent
Authority of the BCCL (Ext. M. 5), but the O.P./
Management has no proof of the second Show
Cause to the workman for his long absentism.
(v)
The workman failed to justify his long
unauthorized absence from his duty, as his medical
certificate dt. 5.1.1999 issued by the Medical
Superintendent, Ranchi Mental Hospital, Kanke
(Ext. M. 1/1) indicates his treatment of his mental
illness for five months 25 days from 11.1.1989 to
6.7.1989, the dates of his admission to discharge
respectively.
Under these circumstances, I find and hold that the
workman deserves lesser punishment of keeping him on the
"Badli" list as per mandatory clause 7.8. of the Certified
Standing Order of the BCCL, as his punishment of dismissal
appears to be too much harsh in view of the nature of his
absentism. Hence, it is hereby, responded to the reference,
and
ORDERED
The Award be and the same as passed that the action
of the management of BCCL, Kustore area in dismissing Sri
Madho Singh, Loader from service w.e.f. 17.7.1992 on
ground of unauthorized absence is unjustified. As per the
mandatory clause 17.8 of the Certified Standing Order of
BCCL, the workman is entitled to keeping him on the "Badli"
List with 50% back wages from the date of joining as
"Badli", if not superannuated but in case of his
superannuation, he shall be entitled to 50% back wages
from the date of 28th Feb., 2000, the date of his Reference
Case till its realization, otherwise with 9% interest over it,
as he had lost his lien on his appointment.
The O.P./Management shall implement it, as may be,
within a month from the date of the publication of the Award
in the Gazette of India. Let the copies — one Soft and one
Hard— of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Government of India, Nev Delhi for
information and needful.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
6468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2490-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 08@1999½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@166@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2013
S.O. 2490.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/1999)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/166/1998-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, 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. 8 of 1999
Parties
: President,
CCEMA, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
Vs. General Manager,
Mugma Area of M/s. E.C.L.,
Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
: None
Workman
On behalf of the
: None
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 14th June, 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-20012/
166/98-IR(C-I) dt. 16.12.1998.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Union of promotion
in Spl. Grade of S/Shri B.M. Ghosh & 21 Others
Clerks Gr. I w.e.f. 9.12.1986 (Annexure enclosed)
on the basis of getting financial benefit through
SLU in clerical Grade I since 1989 is justified? If
not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?"
2. The case of the Union CCMEA, Chirkunda,
Dhanbad, for S/Shri B.M. Ghosh and 21 Others workmen
as pleaded in its written statement (with its annexure) is
that in view of day to day co-operation and adjustment
between both the parties, the representative Union of the
employees approached the management more than once
to settle the dispute through adoption and adjustment
based on agreed conciliation for granting them individually
the prevailing Spl. Grade in view of their length of services,
but the management withheld their individually promotion
unjustifiably, as almost all of the employees concerned
were promoted only once to the Grade II during the years
1974 to 1976; though the management showed its features,
i.e., eagerness for collective bargaining, the capacity to
give and take factors, and the perception to determine the
limits of acceptability. Yet the management as per its Office
Order No. ECL/P/96/:6059/1088 dt. 6/9.12.1996 in utter
violation of the principles of Industrial relations, Rules &
Regulations referred to the factor that whoever has
completed 12 years or more in the same grade has been
promoted in Grade I as per the Circular No. ECL/CMD/C10/
C-6E/96/10/1043 dt. 23.09.1996. Besides improper
adjustment against the wage structure in issue ought not
to be yardstick of the management. The employees raised
the dispute for its solution through bargaining,
consequently the notice dt. 08.10.1996 for going on strike
was served upon the management. The President of the
Association appreciated that negotiations at the
Undertaking level as more suitable, so he allowed the
management to assure its responsibility and to limit the
scope of any industrial dispute. At last, the resort to its
solution through "Mediation preferably and thereafter
'conciliation' which took two years also failed due to
inability of the management, though the A.L.C.(C) had
called for relevant documents during the conciliation
proceedings, in which the management had admitted not
to have maintained and preserved the service records of
its employees in question. It is note worthy that the name
of Shri K.N. Singh, then Personnel Manager assisting
Valley Refractories Ltd., was proposed as an arbitrator, and
Miss Sima Dutta, a Junior Advocate of Dhanbad Court as
his Assistant in respect of interpretation of contracts etc.
for an Award in the reference. The failure in its reconciliation
resulted in the reference for an adjudication.
3. No rejoinder filed by the Association
Representative for the workmen in the case.
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that the present
reference is unmaintainable, that Sri B.M. Ghosh and others
belonged to the clerical Grade, and were working as
Grade II Clerks at different places of Mugma Area while the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6469
provisions of NCWA IV came into force. As per the
provision of NCWA IV, the workmen stagnant in the one
Grade for more than 10 years were eligible to be placed one
Grade higher as a Service Link Upgradation (SLU). The
workmen concerned completing more than 10 years of
service in Grade II in the year 1989 were upgraded to Grade
I in the same year as the aforesaid provision of NCWA.
With the upgradation of any workman, his basis salary in
his existing grade is adjusted in the higher Grade, so he
does not get any promotional benefit of one increment.
Thus, the workman who were fixed in Grade I in the year
1989, taking into account their basic wages in Grade II,
they were receiving at the relevant time. As per policy
decision in the year 1996 to grant promotion to next higher
grade within a period of 12 years as a special case, the
workmen were promoted to Grade I by giving them
promotion benefits, as by that time they had completed
more than 12 years in Grade II, and they were working in
grade II even after their upgradation to Grade I under SLU.
As such they were given the benefits of the provision of
NCWA IV as well as the special provision approved by the
management in view of no vacancy, the workmen concerned
were not promoted to Grade I post despite several years of
stagnation, and so they were promoted to Grade I as a
special case. As regards to the workmen, the management
cannot grant promotion to them to the special Grade in the
year 1996 for the reason of the disturbance in the entire
Administration in respect of implementing SLU as per
NCWA, promotion as per Cadre Scheme, and for financial
liability. Thus the demand of the workmen was unreasonable
and contrary to the provision of the NCWA IV and the
Cadre Scheme of the Company. They are not entitled to
any relief.
5. The O.P./management in its rejoinder has
categorically denied all the allegations of the workmen
and stated that the management granted promotion as a
special measure to the concerned workmen along with
others in Grade I according to the circular of the Head-
quarter.
FINDING WITH REASONING
6. In the instant reference, WWI Dibakar Mahato
(Sl. No. 6 as per list enclosed), one of the twenty two
workmen for himself and his colleagues has been examined
and cross examined, but the declination of the O.P./
Management to produce any witness on its behalf, it came
up for hearing a final argument.
The Statement WWI Dibakar Mahato as one of/for
the other workmen concerned reveals his admission all
the concerned workmen have got their SLU in Grade-I in
the year 1989; a worker how gets his S.L.U. in higher
grade cannot claim promotional benefit of that grade, the
management issued an order (dt. 13.12.1996-Ext. W.2) for
our promotional benefit in Clerk Grade I w.e.f. 1996, they
have refused to accept its, as their claim is for special
grade from 1993, for which they had given the O.P./
management their notice (dt. 8.10.1996-Ext. W.1) for strike.
The witness (WWI) has admitted their appointment to
have been in different years. But he did not respond to
the question whether the post in higher grade is filled up
subject to availability of vacancy or not. It affirmatively
means filling up the post happens only on its vacancy as
per rule.
In the face of admission of the witness (WWI) that
the management had issued order for their promotional
benefit in Clerical Grade I, w.e.f. 1996, but they have refused
to accept it.
7. It seems mere carelessness of the Union/workmen
to put that the witness (WWI) has proved another notice
of the Union concerned as Ext.W.2, but factually it is the
owfice order dt. 13.12.1996 of the Colliery, ECL Ltd.
Whereby all these twenty two workmen since having
completed 12 years in the same Grade were promoted in
Grade-I as per Hr. Circular No. ECL/CMD/C-6/E/96/10/
1048 dt. 23.09.1996. In this reference, the Union/Workmen
have failed to produce and prove any document in regard
to alleged promotion being given to their junior colleagues
in special grade.
It is also ridiculous to note that the workmen as per
the evidence of WWI Dibakar Mahato claim for the Special
Grade from 1993 whereas the Union concerned as per
schedule to the reference claims for their promotion in
the Special grade, w.e.f. 9.12.1996 based on their getting
financial benefit through SLU in clerical grade I since
1989. It is out and out self contradictory.
Therefore, it is hereby, in terms of the reference.
ORDERED
That the Award be or the same is passed that the
demand of the Union for the promotions in Special Grade
of S/Shri B.M. Ghosh & 21 others Clerk Grade I w.e.f.
9.12.1996 (annexure enclosed) on the basis of getting
financial benefit though SLU in Clerical Grade I since 1989
being baseless is unjustified. The concerned workmen are
not entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
(Annexure)
List of the Workmen
Sl. No.
Name
Man No.
1.
Sri B.M. Ghosh
842140
2.
Sri R.P. Singh
852070
3.
Sri R.K. Mondal
842144
4.
Sri S.N. Prasad
852071
5.
Sri N. Ram
842142
6.
Sri Dibakar Mahto
852066
6470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sl. No.
Name
Man No.
7.
Sri Atika Mahato
852025
8.
Sri Onkar Singh
852057
9.
Sri Debraj Prasad
852054
10.
Sri J.P. Singh
852031
11.
Sri Muktar Alam
812259
12.
Sri Sibeswar Singh
852095
13.
Sri D.K. Banerjee
852065
14.
Sri Rabindra Sharma
852052
15.
B.N. Sharma
852063
16.
Sri G.S. Prasad
838692
17.
Sri Dinesh Pd. Mahato
852064
18.
Sri G.P. Gorai
852173
19.
Sri R.P. Dey
852090
20.
Sri Gopal Das
851017
21.
Sri R.K. Mukherjee
852035
22.
Sri M.R. Chatterjee
852034
ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2491-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17 of 2002½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@514@@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2013
S.O. 2491.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of T947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref./17/2002 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of CCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 03/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/514/2001-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 17 OF 2002.
PARTIES
: Kuldip Nonia (workman)
Ex. Gr. II Clerk,Churi Colliery,
Ranchi
Vs Project Officer, Chouri Colliery
of M/s. CCL, Ranchi
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the
: Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld.
workman/Union
Advocate
On behalf of the
: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd May, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/514/2001-IR(C-I) dt. 20.02.2002.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the dismissal from services of Kuldip
Nonia by the Management of CCL,Chouri Colliery
w.e.f. 18.9.1999 is proper legal and justified ? If
not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled. ?"
2. The case of workman Kuldip Nonia as stated in his
written statement is that he was initially appointed as
permanent worker on 26.06.1962 at Bachara Colliery under
the NCDC, but at the time of termination of service, he was
working as Clerk Grade II at Churi Colliery of N.K. Area of
M/s. CCL. Since his service participation as the Office bearer
of the Union in ventilating the grievances of the workman
over annoyed the management by dismissing him from
service. He fell ill from 12.02.1996 and remained under
treatment at the Colliery Hospital, but due to serious mental
illness, he could not resume his duty on 20.03.1996 and his
relative took him to Rourkella for his treatment. After
recovery from illness, he reported for his duty at Churi
Colliery along with Medical Certificate but the management
did not allow him to resume his duty, rather it directed him
to report to its Medical Officer for verification, and for
getting Medical fitness certificate, referring the matter to
the Area Medical Officer. As per the letter dt. 29.11.1997 of
the Area Medical Officer, on the report of the Board
consisting Dr. P. Das and Dr. A.K. Sinha, the Chief Medical
Officer sent him to the Central Institute of Psychiatric for
examined medical fitness which examined him on 6.12.1997
and declared him fit to resume his duty.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6471
When the workman on the basis of aforesaid Medical
Report again reported for his duty, but the anti-labour
management did not allow him to resume his duty, though
his relative had already informed the management of his
mental illness and his shifting to Rourkela for medical
treatment. Despite his representation both in writing and
orally to the several authorities for resuming his duty, the
management at last informed him of his alleged dismissal
for absentism from duty, whereas the workman never
received any chargesheet or any enquiry notice nor any
served upon him. The Management had exparte completed
the enquiry through a biased and prejudicial Officer in utter
violation of natural justice. Despite the charges, though
constituting no misconduct, levelled against having been
unproved in the department enquiry, he was dismissed by
an authorized person. At last, the failure in conciliating
proceeding in the Industrial Tribunal raised before the ALC©
resulted in the reference for an adjudication. The action of
the management in dismissing the workman from service
was alleged to be vindictive, illegal and unjustified. The
dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct.
3. The workman on his rejoinder specifically denying
all the allegations of the management, has stated that he
was on sick leave and under the treatment of the Doctor of
Churi Colliery from 12.2.1990 to 19.3.1996. On not getting a
relief from the aforesaid colliery Doctor, his relative took
him to Rourkela for treatment under the Government Doctor
from 22.3.1996 to 16.11.1997. After getting fitness certificate,
he reported for duty on 17.11.1997, but he was not allowed
to resume his duty. Subsequently, he also submitted his
representation for resumption of duty, but the management
as per letter dt. 29.11.1997 referred to the Chief Medical
Officer, Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi, and as per the Order
dt. 9.12.1997 of the Company Doctor, he was referred to the
Central Institute of Psychitary, Kanke, where he as per its
Certificate dt. 17.1.1998 was declared fit for duty. He had
not got any chargesheet dt. 19/20.9.1997, so the question
of submitting his reply does not arise. He never refused
any letter. The exparte enquiry was neither fair nor justified.
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the
Opp./Management with categorical denials is that the
present reference is unmaintainable in law as well as in
facts. It is alleged that the workman began to absent from
duty since 12.6.1996 unauthorisedly. So he was issued the
chargesheet dt. 9/20.9.1992 for his misconduct of
unauthorized absence. He did not submit his reply to the
chargesheet. The management appointed Mr. D.K.Singh,
the Personnel Officer, Churi Colliery to conduct the
domestic enquiry in respect of the aforesaid chargesheet.
On notice of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer for
participation in the enquiry, the workman neither reported
for duty nor informed the management of his inability to
attend his duty or of his whereabout. The notices issued
to him in result returned undelivered with postal remarks.
Finding no alternative, the Enquiry Officer conducted the
domestic enquiry exparte quite fair, proper and in
accordance with the principle of natural justice and
submitted his report holding therein the charges levelled
against him having been proved, and found him guilty of
the charges. Thereafter, the management dismissed the
workman concerned for proved misconduct which is legal
and justified.
5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has
categorically denied, and stated that the workman never
reported the management of his illness, nor obtained
permission from the management
for absenting from his
duty. The charge sheet and notices of the enquiry were
issued to the workman on his address available to the
management.
FINDING WITH REASONING
6. In the instant case, at the preliminary point as to
the fairness or unfairness of the domestic enquiry, after
hearing both the parties the Tribunal as per Order No. 27
dt. 07.03.2012 held domestic enquiry though exparte yet
quite fair and proper in accordance with the law as the
workman appeared to have evaded. Hence, it came up for
hearing final argument over the quantum of punishment
for the misconduct of the absentism of the workman under
Sec. 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
It is submitted on behalf of the workman Kuldip Nonia
who was Clerk Gr.II at Churi Colliery was terminated from
his service w.e.f. 18/25.9.1999. by the Management as per
the Termination Letter (Ext.M.7) for the first time on the
basis of exparte domestic enquiry so the termination of his
service for his misconduct of absentism is not legally
justified. Whereas Mr D. K.Verma, the Ld. Counsel for the
Opp./Management submits that the workman was
terminated for long absence unauthorisedly, he did not
prove any document of his illness; he was a habitual
absconder for more than a year, hence the harsh punishment
of his termination of his service is legally awarded by the
management. He has relied upon two authorities:
(2009)2 SCC (L & S)689(DB), the Regional Manager,
Bank of Baroda Vs. Anita Nandrajog which related to
unauthorized absence of the Respondent on two occasion
of more than 266 days which was condoned by the
Appellants : Bank; thereafter there was his subsequent
absence for more than 150 days without sanction of leave.
The appellant invoking 17(d) of the 5th Bipartite settlement
issued notice to the Respondent to join service in 30 days
failing which it would be presumed she had voluntarily
terminated her service; even then
the respondent had
failed to join her duty, then the Bank treating respondent
as deemed to have voluntarily terminated her employment.
Their Lordship held that management concerned was
6472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
extremely lenient by condoning the Respondent's absence
but the respondent's behavior of remaining absent without
leave for such long periods was regrettable and unfortunate
and as such no such establishment can function if it allows
its employees to behave in such a manner hence the order
of the Bank was valid.
Likewise Second ruling : (2008)1SCC(L&S)164(DB),
L & T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udaykumar, relied by Mr.Verma,
the Ld. Counsel for the Opp./Management relates to the
case of the workman, who had been in the past found
guilty of unauthorized absentism several times, i.e., 15 times
in his case, was properly in the departmental enquiry once
again found guilty of unauthorized absence for a long
period of 150 days so it was held that consequential
dismissal from service ought not to have been treated to
be-harsh and interfere with by Labour Court/High Court
and it is settled that the habitual absentism means gross
violation of discipline (para 8).
7. But in the present reference under adjudication, the
Opp./Management has not brought anything on the Enquiry
Proceedings as to his past conduct prior to the charge sheet
for his misconduct of absentism since 12.1.1996 nor it carries
any proof whether second Show Cause was issued to the
workman prior to his termination of his service.
Under these circumstances the aforesaid both the
rulings having their ratio decendi different from the present
facts of the reference hold not good with it. Hence the
absolute termination of the workman from his service for
his first absentism appears to be not only harsh but also
quite disproportionate to the nature of his unauthorized
absentism during the service career. Therefore the
termination- punishment is liable to be set aside.
In view of the aforesaid findings, the reference is
responded in its terms and accordingly it is hereby;
ORDERED
The award be and the same is passed that dismissal
of Shri Kuldip Nonia from his service by the management
of CCL, Churi Colliery w.e.f.18.09.1999 is neither proper nor
legal nor justified. Hence the workman entitled to his
reinstatement in his service but without back wages. Let
the copies of the award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry
of Labour & Employment ,Government of India, New Delhi
for information and needful publication the Gazette of India.
The O.P./Management is directed to implement award within
a month from the date of receipt of its publication in the
Gazette of India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2492-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32 of 1998½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@474@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2013
S.O. 2492.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/1998)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of BCCL and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
03/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/474/1996 - IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 32 OF 1998.
PARTIES
: The Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Hirapur,Dhanbad
Vs. Project Officer,
Moonidih Project of M/s.
BCCL, PO: Moonidih, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
: Mr.S.N.Goswami, Ld. Advocate
workman /Union
On behalf of the
: Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad,
: The 20th August, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.1-20012/
474/96-IR (C-I) dt. 20/27.02.1998.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6473
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Project Officer
Moonidh Project of M/s BCCL P.O.Moonidih
(Dhanbad) in dismissing Shri Radheshyam Singh
Ex. TRM w.e.f., 7/8.9.1994 is justified? If not, to
what relief is the concerned workman entitled."
2. The case of workman Radheyshyam Singh as
sponsored by the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad
is that the workman had been unblemishedly working as a
permanent T.R.M. worker at Moonidih Project of
M/s. BCCL. But unfortunately he began to unauthorisedly
absent from his duty due to his mental illness, for which he
was under treatment of the Psychiatrist; and it was duly
informed to the management. Even then, the management
dismissed him on the basis of an alleged exparte enquiry
without notice or any opportunity to reply it. When the
workman with his medical fitness Certificate went to report
the management for his duty, he instead of it was handed
over his letter of dismissal issued by an unauthorized
person. After his representation to the management against
his illegal dismissal, the Union raised the Industrial Dispute
against the management before the ALC©, Dhanbad, but
the failure in its conciliation proceeding due to adamant
attitude of the management resulted in the reference for an
adjudication. The action of the management in dismissing
the workman is illegal, vindictive and against the principle
of the natural justice.
3. The Union concerned in its rejoinder with its
specific denials has stated that the workman was absenting
due to reasonable cause; but the allegation against the
workman constitutes not any misconduct as per the
provision of the Certified Standing Order. The alleged
charge even in the invalid ex-parte enquiry was not
established against the workman, even then he was
dismissed biasedly.
4. Whereas categorically denying all the allegations
of the Union/workman, the O.P./Management has stated
that the workman Radhey Shyam Singh, T.R. Munder
Token No.2095 had started to unauthorizedly absent from
his duty from 01.12.1992, so he was chargesheeted as per
the Notice No. PO/Per/DA(DR)/(MN)/93/1334 dt. 6.7.1993
for his willful absence as a misconduct under clause 26.1.1.
of the Certified Standing Order of the BCCL.The
chargesheet was issued to him through the Regd. Post on
his permanent home address and local address. The
workman did not reply to it, nor informed of his long
absence, so the Disciplinary Authority ordered for a
domestic enquiry into the charge by appointing the Enquiry
Officer as per the Office Order No.MND/PO/Per./DA/(DR)/
26/93/1725 dt. 25.8.93 when on two Regd. Notices of enquiry
dt. 28.12.93 and 4.6.1994 for his appearance in the enquiry
on 7.1.94 and 2.7.94 respectively as the Notice also
published in the local Hindi Newspaper AWAZ on 26.6.94
for his publication on 2.7.94 at 10 a.m, at the Project Office,
the workman neither appeared nor informed any reason for
his non-appearance. It resulted in the enquiry proceeding
exparte. After due enquiry into the charge, on the enquiry
report of the Enquiry Officer based on the statements of
the management witnesses and documents, holding the
workman guilty of the charges, the Competent Authority
sent the enquiry report to the workman for his final reply,
but the workman did not reply.
5. The Competent Authority found from the
attendance of the workman that his attendances were too
low 105,75,82, Nil and NIL days till 2.7.1994 in the year 1990
to 1994 respectively to remain in employment. So the Project
Officer/Agent, Moonidhi Project, after taking approval of
the Competent Authority, dismissed of the workman from
the service of the Company w.e.f. 7/8.9.1994.The workman
without any representation or any appeal to the appellate
Authority raised a dispute before the ALC©, Dhanbad
which resulted in the reference on its failure in conciliation
proceeding. As such the action of the management in
dismissing the workman as per the Certified Standing Order
is quite legal and jusitifed, and the dismissal quite
proportionate to the misconduct.
6. In the rejoinder, the O.P./Management has
categorically denied the allegation of the Union/workman,
and has stated that the workman has/had a chronic case of
long unauthorized absentism. All the necessary steps were
taken up for informing the workman for his participation in
the enquiry for his defence. After due and fair enquiry, he
was already dismissed when he went to resume his duty. So
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
FINDING WITH REASONS
7. In the reference, consequent upon the domestic
enquiry having been declared unfair, improper and against
the principles of natural justice as per the Order No.27
dt. 27.11.2002 of the tribunal, the MWI N.K.Jha, the then
Dy. Personnel Manager, thereafter Personnel Manager, and
MW2 Nanda Dulal Chakravarty, the Office Suprintendent
of the Moonidhi Project Office, and WWI Kameshwar Kr.
Singh, the only son of the workman Radhey Shyam Singh,
Ex-T.R.M, who died on 13.11.2006, for the Union, on all
merits have been examined respectively.
8. The statement of MWI N.K. Jha, as the then
Dy. P.M. of the Moonidih Project reveals his personal
knowledge of the case through all the documents/evidence
in photocopies of the original ones which were not returned
by the Mr. A. Jha, the Advocate concerned to whom the
documents were handed over. According to him ( MWI),
the workman was issued the chargesheet dt. 6.7.1993
(Photocopy thereof —Ext.M.1 after objection) by the
management for the misconduct of his unauthorized
absence since 1.12.1992 under clause 26.1.1. of the Certified
Standing Order applicable to the workman of the
management.
6474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Likewise the statement of MW2 Nanda Dulal (Be
read as Gulal) Chakarvathy, the Office Suprintendent of
the Moonidih Project Office appears to be quite conducive
to the statement of MWI N.K.Jha.To him, (MW2), the
workman was a time rated worker (T.R.W.) in Cat. IV at
Moonidih Project. He was issued the chargesheet as per
the dispatch No.1334 dt. 6.7.1993 (Ext. M.2 with objection)
by Regd. Post with A/D but the A/d unreturned back, the
chargesheet was issued to the workman for committing his
misconduct of his long absentism. Further, the Management
witness (MW2) has affirmed that as per the Register in
Form G(T.R.M.) in original maintained by the management
dealing with qualification of leave for the year 1992-
94(Ext.W3-5 respectively), the workman remained absent
w.e.f. 1.12.1992,his attendance NIL in the year 1993 and
1994,and the workman was dismissed from service as per
the (Dismissal Order)letter dt. 8.9.1994(the Photocopy —
Ext. 6.) The witness (MW2) has expressed his ignorance of
the fact if the concerned workman has submitted any
application with medical certificate giving an intimation
that the workman being a mental patient under the treatment
of a Psychiatrist was unable to join his duty.
9. Whereas the statement of WWI Kameshwar Kumar
Singh, the only son of the workman Radhey Shyam Singh,
Ex.-T.R.M., who died on 13.11.2006 during pendency of the
case, discloses that his father being mentally disturbed
was medically under treatment in the year 1992 at Ranchi
Central Medical, as well as under private as per the seven
prescriptions along with the certificate (Ext.1 series). It also
transpires that his mother Geeta Devi and the Union
Representative had also represented on 13.11.1992,
23.9.1994 and 23.9.1994 to the Project Officer, Moonidih of
BCCL in respect of the treatment of his father (the
representations — Ext. 2 series); and his father died in
course of his treatment, but again it was denied by the
witness (WWI) in his cross examination. The witness
(WWI) has admitted that though his father was found
medically fit as per the Doctor's Certificate dt. 30.1.1995
(Ext.W.1),he (his father) had not reported to the
management about his fitness after his recovery. He (WWI)
had denied all the three representations have been
fabricated by his mother and the Union for the claim. But
the witness (WWI) failed to challenge the dismissal of his
father workman for his misconduct of long unauthorized
absentism from duty.
10. Mr S. N.Goswami, the Ld. Counsel for the
workman as per the written statement submits the workman
(now deceased) was on authorized leave, but unfortunately
he had been under treatment of his mental illness under the
Psychiatrist at Ranchi and due to being beyond the control
of the circumstances, he remained absent from duty, and
after recovery, the workman with his all medical
prescriptions and Medical Fitness Certificate (Ext.W.1
series) went to join his duty, he was handed over the
dismissal order based on the exparte enquiry held without
any notice or supply of essential documents though earlier
information of his illness was given to the management
(Ext.W.2), so the action of the management in dismissal of
the workman from service was illegal and unjustified.
In quite contrary to it, Mr. D. K. Verma,the Learned
Advocate for the O.P./Management, has contended that
there is no documentary proof of any information of the
workman about his mental illness or his mental treatment,
and in spite of full information of the chargesheet (Ext.M.1)
as per Dispatch No. 1334 dt. 6 7.1993 (Ext.M.2) by Regd.
Post without A/D, in the name of the workman, yet he did
not appear/respond to the chargesheet or notice, so it
resulted in the fair exparte enquiry, and accordingly, he
was dismissed for his misconduct of long unauthorized
absence; so his dismissal by the management was quite
legal and justified.
11.On perusal and consideration of them materials
afresh made available on merits, I find the following facts:
(i)
It is an admitted fact that the workman was all
along unauthorized absent from his duty for a
long time from 1.12.1992, for which despite
dispatches of his chargesheet dt. 6.7.93 (Ext.M.1)
as per Dispatch No. 1334 dt. 6.7.1993 (Ext.M.2) by
regd. Post with A/D on his home address, the
workman did not appear in the enquiry, and it
resulted in the fair ex-parte enquiry into the charge
of long absentism.
(ii)
thereafter, the workman was dismissed from his
service, when he did not respond to the copy of
the Enquiry Report sent to him on his home
address as per the Management's Letter 24/
25.8.1994 by Regd. post with A/D as evident from
the very Dismissal Order dt. 7/8.9.1994 (Ext. M.6),
but nothing was heard from him till date.
(iii)
So far the alleged information of the workman's
mental illness by his wife Geeta Devi as per his
application (Ext.W.2) concerned, it is dated
13.11.1992 about his mental treatment going on at
Moonidih Hospital, then heading for Ranchi, it
stands falsified as contrasted with his chargesheet
dt. 6.7.1993 (Ext.M.1) concerning his absentism from
1.12.1992. Other two representations both
dt.23.9.1994 one by his wife and other by the Union
Secretary relate to a request to the Project Officer
concerned for the withdrawal of his dismissal.
(iv)
It is acknowledged fact that the workman after
recovery after his Doctor's Certificate dt. 30.1.1995
(Ext. W.1) did not report to the management about
his fitness. He did not die in course of his
treatment; rather he died on 13.11.2006 much after
his dismissal on 8.9.1994. At death of the
workman, his son Kameshwar Kumar Singh was
substituted for him.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6475
(v)
Any T.R.M. Worker, who is not of sound mind
and health disqualifies for his job of Mine, and in
that case if the workman committed a misconduct
of long unauthorized absentism from duty, he
deserves no relief under 11 A of the Industrial
Dispute Act.1947.
Under these circumstances, the argument of
Mr. Goswami, the Learned Advocate for the workman being
based on unpleaded facts appears to be unpersuasive.
Hence, it is, in the terms of there ference, hereby
ORDER
The Award is and the same be passed that the action
of the Project Officer, Moonidih Project of M/s BCCL, PO:
Moonidih (Dhanbad) after approval of the competent
authority in dismissing Shri Radheshyam Singh, Ex.T.R.M.,
w.e.f., 7/8.9.1994 is quite justified. Since the workman died
during the pendency of the reference, his son Kameshwar
Kumar Singh is entitled to all the financial benefits of his
deceased father workman.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2493-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkQ
bUnkSj ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 265@89½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@246@89&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th October, 2013
S.O. 2493.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.265/89) of
the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Indore and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/246/89- IR(B-1)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/265/89
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Bal Krishna Sharma,
S/o Shri Bansilal Sharma,
6/13, Jagdish ki Gall,
Nayapura, Ujjain
...Workman
Versus
General Manager,
State Bank of Indore
(Merged as State Bank of India), Regional Office,
Gwalior
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of June 2013
1. As per letter dated 12-12-1989 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/
246/89-IR(B-3). The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of the
R.M.State Bank of Indore, Gwalior (merged as State
Bank of India) in not providing employment to
Shri B.K.Sharma clerk/cashier after 12-4-80 (date
of termination) and whether his said termination
is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. 1st Party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 3 to 15. 1st Party submits that he was working as
temporary clerk-cum-cashier from 1st Jan., 1980 to 12-4-1980
for 74 days at Kampoo Branch, Gwalior of State Bank of
Indore merged into State Bank of India. That he was
performing duties at Saving Deposit Counter. He completed
work of Savings Deposit counter, current Deposit counter,
recurring time deposit counter, preparation and verification
of the daily clearing statements and allied works, balancing
of all ledgers etc. That he was appointed as clerk and his
tenure was extended. He was not given notice for
termination of services. Workman refers to certain awards
and claims that he was not given benefit like other
employees similarly situated . That as per the award passed
by CGIT, Kanpur, he claims to be entitled for similar relief of
reinstatement with back wages. That he was not given
chance for appointment when other persons were appointed
in the Bank. That he was appointed on permanent post
against clear vacancies. That his cessation of work amounts
to retrenchment. Retrenchment is in contrary to Para 522(4)
of Sastry Award. That completion of 240 days service is
not obligatory. The workman has referred to ratio held in
different cases and claims that his retrenchment is not
covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of I.D.Act. The
termination of his services is arbitrary and illegal. On Such
contentions, 1st Party workman prays for his reinstatement.
3. IInd Party management filed Written Statement at
Page 17 to 25. According to IInd Party, 1st Party workman
intermittently worked as temporary clerk/cashier for 74 days
during 15-1-80 to 12-4-80. The details of his working are
shown in para-3 of Written Statement. It is submitted that
6476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1st Party workman was aware since beginning of his
employment that term of his employment is for a limited
and specific period. It will come to end after lapse of time.
No separate notice of termination was called for. The
judgment by CGIT, Kanpur was referred by the 1st Party
workman. That there is no violation of para 522(4) of Sastry
Award as workman was in employment for intermittent
periods. Notice for termination is not necessary. The
violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act Rule 76 to 78 of
1.D.(C) Rules 1957 is denied. It is reiterated that the workman
was intermittently employed for specific period. His
discontinuance does not amount to retrenchment. It is
covered under clause (bb)(oo) of Section-2 of I.D.Act. That
due to oversight, letter of appointment was not issued to
the workman.
4. It is submitted that the workman was knowing that
his appointment was purely temporary for specific period.
As per para-20.8 of Bipartite settlement dated 19-10-66,
temporary employment beyond 3 months is forbidden. The
provisions under Section 25-H of I.D.Act is not attracted
as appointment of workman was for specific period as
temporary employee. That the reference by workman is
submitted after a period of 5 years, it is not tenable and
same deserves to be rejected.
5. Workman filed rejoinder at page 27 to 31 reiterating
his earlier contentions that as per Sastry Award, it is
obligatory for IInd Party to give appointment order in writing
and specify kind of appointment, Para 522 deals with
procedure for termination of employment. It is violated as
order of termination was not given to him. It is denied that
his appointment was for temporary period. That Juniors
Mr. Deshmukh and one lady were continued in service and
thereby Section 25-H of I.D.Act is violated. That he was
never verbally advised that his appointment was for specific
days and same will come to an end automatically. That his
appointment was not in leave vacancy of Smt. Vaishali Joshi.
6. IInd Party also submitted reply to rejoinder denying
contentions of the workman and reiterated its earlier
contentions stated above.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management
of
the
R.M.State Bank of Indore,
Gwalior ( merged as State
Bank of India) in not
providing employment to
Shri B.K.Sharma clerk/
cashier after 12-4-80 (date
of termination) is legal?
(ii)
If so, to what relief the
`Relief claimed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
8. My predecessor had passed award dated 15-11-91
upholding the termination of 1st Party workman. The said
award was challenged by workman filing miscellaneous
Petition No. 206/92. The award was set-aside and matter
was sent back to pronounce fresh award in accordance
with law after hearing parties.
9. Workman filed affidavit of evidence. He has stated
that he was working as temporary clerk-cum-cashier during
the period 1st Jan 1980 to 12-4-1980. While working in the
branch, he used to do different kind of work. He was
appointed against permanent vacancy and not in leave
vacancy. After his termination other persons were
appointed. In his cross-examination, workman admitted that
he worked for 74 days. He admits contents of Para-3 of
Written Statement filed by management of IInd Party. That
he was not given appointment letter for specific period. He
denied that he was appointed during leave vacancy of
Vaishali Joshi. That he was working subsequent to leave
vacancy of Vaishali Joshi. From his evidence, it is clear that
he has not worked for 240 days prior to discontinuation of
his service.
10. Management filed affidavit of evidence of
Shri G.R.Agrawal, he has stated on oath that workman had
worked for 74 days from 1-1-1980 to 12-4-1980. The details of
working days is given in para-3 of affidavit. That appointment
of workman was purely temporary for a specific period. As
denied violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D.Act is that workman
had not completed 240 days preceding 12 calendar months
of his termination. In his cross-examination, management's
witness says that there was no need to pay retrenchment
compensation, he was working in the Branch till June, 1980.
He denies para 3&4 of affidavit of evidence filed by workman.
That Mrs. Joshi was on leave. 1st Party was appointed in
leave vacancy of Mrs. Joshi.
Mr. Sharma and Awasthy were employed during said
period. Contrary suggestion are denied by the witness.
11. The evidence discussed above clearly shows that
the workman had not completed 240 days continuous
service preceding his termination from service. The
reference is made after 9 years, written notes of arguments
are submitted by both side. As workman has not completed
240 days continuous service, he is not entitled to protection
under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Learned counsel for 1st Party
Shashi however submits that two persons were employed
in violation of Section 25-H. Workman was not given
appointment, seniority list was not displayed. The workman
is entitled to employment under Section 25-H of I.D.Act.
The evidence discussed above clearly shows that workman
had worked only for 74 days in the year 1980. His pleadings
and evidence are silent about procedure followed for his
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6477
appointment. His appointment was not as regular employee.
No appointment order was issued to him.
12. Counsel for IInd party Shri Praveen Chaturvedi
relies on ratio held in—
Case of S.M.Nilajkar and others versus Telecom
District Manager, Karnataka reported in 2003(4) Supreme
Court Cases 27. Their Lordship held though no limitation
is prescribed for reference of dispute, it should be referred
as soon as possible after it was raised and after conciliation
failed. On facts held, delay in raising the dispute was not
so culpable as to deny the relief to the workmen. The order
of reference is not challenged by IInd Party and therefore
the reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
The order of reference is binding on both the parties. The
ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied to present
case at hand.
Next reliance is placed on Batala Coop. Sugar Mills
Ltd. versus Sowaran Singh reported in 2005(80) Supreme
Court Cases 481. Their Lordship of Apex Court dealing
with Section 25-F, B of I.D.Act and requirements of 240
days continuous service. Held burden of proof lies on
workman. It is for workman to adduce evidence apart from
examining himself or filing an affidavit, to prove the said
factum. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary
or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or
engagement for that year to show that he has worked with
the employer for 240 days.
The workman in his cross-examination has admitted
that he had worked with Ilnd Party for only 74 days. There
is no evidence that he was working for 240 days preceding
his alleged retrenchment. It is surprise to say that workman
has not proved that he was worked for 240 days preceding
his retrenchment.
In case of General Manager Haryana Roadways versus
Rudhan Singh reported in 2005(5) Supreme Court Cases 591.
Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, G of I.D.Act. It
held that continuous service for not less than 1 year, 240
days work in a period of 12 months, though workman had
not been in service of employer for complete one year, held,
is enough to satisfy requirements of Section 25-F.
The ratio cannot be beneficially applied to the case
at hand as workman has admitted in Cross-examination
that he had worked for 74 days.
13. Thus the termination of service of workman
cannot be said in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act as the
workman did not worked for continuous 240 days during
12 months preceding his retrenchment.
14. So far as argument by learned counsel for 1st
Party that workman is entitled to employment under Section
25-H, the terms of reference do not include such question.
The term of reference is only with respect to whether
termination of 1st Party workman from 12-4-80 is legal?
Therefore the argument advanced above by learned
counsel for 1st Party is beyond the terms of reference.
Same cannot be accepted that the termination of services
of 1st party workman can be said in violation of Section
25-H of I.D. Act. Therefore termination of services is
justified. I accordingly record my finding on Point No. 1 in
affirmative.
15. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of the R.M.State
Bank of lndore, Gwalior (merged as State Bank of
India) in not providing employment to Shri
B.K.Sharma clerk/cashier after 12-4-80 (date of
termination) is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
16. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2494-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]
xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@79@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th October, 2013
S.O. 2494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cental
Govenment hereby publishes the Awad (Ref. 7/2010) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
GUWAHATI as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/79/2009-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
PRESENT:
Sri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
6478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:
The Management of S.B.I., Zonal Office, Johat & S.B.I.
Dinjan Branch, Dinjan, Dibrugarh.
Versus
Their Workman Binoy Kr. Sinha, Dinjan, Dibrugarh.
Ref. Case No. 07 of 2010.
APPEARANCES
For the Management
: Mr. A. Dasgupta, Advocate.
Mr. S. Bhuiyan, Advocate.
For the Workman
: Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, Advocate.
Mr. J. Das, Advocate.
Date of Award
: 30.09.2013.
AWARD
1. This Reference is arising out of an Industrial
Dispute exits between the employer in relation to the
Management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office and their
wokman Sri Binoy Kr. Sinha in respect of the matter relating
to termination of service of the workman, which was referred
by the Ministry of Labour & Employment/Shram
Mantralaya, Government of India, vide their Order No.
L-12012/79/2009-IR(B-I); Dated: 29/04/2010. The Schedule
of the Reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, Dinjan Branch in terminating the services of Sri
Binoy Kr. Sinha w.e.f. September 2008 is legal and justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the order of the Ministry of Labour/
Shram Mantralaya as aforesaid this Reference case has
been registered and notices were issued upon both the
parties with direction to exchange their copies of claim
statement/written statement and documents between them.
3. Both the parties appeared and contested the
proceeding by filing claim statement/written statement.
4. The case of the workman, in nutshell, is that
workman Sri Binoy Kr. Sinha was engaged by the State
Bank of India, Dinjan Branch against regular post of
Sweeper in the early part of 2004. Although no formal
appointment letter was issued the workman was assured
by the Bank Authority that his appointment would be
regularized in due course. The workman rendered his service
against a regular post of Sweeper continuously for a period
with effect from 29.3.2004 till 3.9.2008 and during this period
he performed various types of works namely sweeping of
Bank premises and Store Room etc. and grass cutting of
Bank premises. Since January, 2008 he was allotted
additional job of sweeping/cleaning of ATM room and
premises, and from time to time he was engaged as
messenger for collecting stationery articles, NSC despatch
to Post Office, etc.
The workman was paid on daily rated basis, initially
@ Rs. 50/- per day which was increased to Rs. 60/- per day
since middle of 2007. He was also given extra amount of Rs.
30/- per day since 2008 for additional job of cleaning of
ATM premises; and for the work as messenger for collecting
of stationery articles from different places, NCS despatch
to Post Office, etc. He was paid some allowance for bus
fare/rickshaw fare/tea etc. The mode of payment of the
daily rate wages and allowance etc. were made of petty
cash vouchers, drawn daily, fortnightly and monthly in
different periods and also by way of depositing in the SBI,
Dinjan Branch, S.B. A/C No. 0119008582 of the workman.
The workman stated that as per direction of the Branch
Manager, SBI, Dinjan Branch, the workman used to raise
bills on periodical basis, usually for ten to twenty days at a
time and payments were made accordingly against the bills/
petty cash vouchers. Lastly, since 2008 the Bank Authority
used to deposit the wages of the workman in his S.B.
Account mentioned above, every month on raising bills
by the wokman. In third week of October, 2008 the Branch
Manager, SBI, Dinjan Branch called the workman at his
office and told that the service of the workman would
continue upto 30th September, 2008 and thereafter one
Naresh Balmiki will be appointed to carry out the job of
sweeper and ultimately the workman was teminated from
service with effect from 1.10.2008 in a most illegal and
arbitrary manner. The wokman has rendered his service
continuously since March, 2004 till 30th September, 2008
and thereby he has worked for continuous period of 240
days within twelve months and has acquired the right to
the post and under the law he is entitled to be regularized
in the said regular post of Sweeper, SBI, Dinjan Branch.
The workman averred that the fact of issuing petty cash
vouchers, petty cash register, messenger duty bill, T.A.
Bills, ATM clearing vouchers and the pass books mentioned
above established that the workman is an employee of SBI,
Dinjan Branch and he has rendered his service for a
continuous period of about 4 and 1/2 years. As such, the
action of the Management of SBI, Dinjan Branch in
terminating the service of the workman with effect from
30.9.2008 is illegal and unjustified and hence, the workman
is entitled to be reinstated with all backwages.
5. The pleadings of the Management, inter-alia, is
that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as the
workman was not a workman of the State Bank of India as
defined u/s 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and he
was never appointed by the Bank, since the State Bank of
India is an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India, it has to abide by all constitutional mandates so
that it can not act arbitrarily in the affairs of recruitment of
its employees violating the procedure of the recruitment as
framed in this behalf. The workman Sri B.K. Sinha was not
engaged or recruited through the established process of
the recruitment as follows by the Bank. The Management
stated that The Dinjan Branch of the State Bank of India
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6479
hired a generator on monthly rental basis to have
continuous supply of electric power during working hours
and at the relevant time one Sri Sontosh Das installed a
generator on contract basis who engaged the workman
B.K. Sinha as Generator operator who used to look after
the generator for the purpose of due operation in the event
of power failure. Occasionally as requested by Sri Binoy
Kumar Sinha, the Branch Head engaged him for sweeping
etc. as and when required and the Branch used to make
payment for his work on the basis of job performed by him.
The payment so made was deposited in his bank account
as desired by him as such, Sri B.K. Sinha can not be called
as workman u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Section 2(k) of
the Act is meant for the dispute relating to employment,
non-employment and condition of employment for a group
of employees or an individual employee supported by its
co-workers; and Section 2A is deeming provision of
Industrial Dispute whereby an individual workman can raise
by an industrial dispute in the event of his termination,
dismissal or retrenchment, etc. Sri B.K. Sinha was a
employee of the owner of a generator, Sri Sontosh Das and
he is not an employee of the Bank and suppressing of the
materials facts he raised the Industrial Dispute projecting
himself as the workman of the Bank taking the plea that he
was engaged as Sweeper and his due remuneration paid
through different bank vouchers and sometimes deposited
in his bank account. It is also contended by the
Management that the appropriate government has wrongly
or erroneously considered this dispute as Industrial Dispute
and referred the same for adjudication and the appropriate
government was influenced by an extraneous consideration
that the concerned person is a workman as there is no
master and servant relationship between the parties. The
Management categorically denied the contention of the
workman that the Management appointed Sri B.K. Sinha
as sweeper with an assurance to regularize him in due course
and that Sri Sinha rendered his continuous service against
the regular post of Sweeper from 29.3.2004 to 03.09.2008.
The Management also denied that all on a sudden the
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dinjan Branch called
him in his office and told him that his services in the bank
was to be continued up to 30.9.08 and thereafter one Naresh
Balmiki would be appointed to carry out the job of the
Sweeper. It is also averred by the Management that the
claim of workman that he worked for a period of more than
240 days within 12 months and acquired a right to the post
under law and entitled to be regularized is absolutely
untenable and as he is not an employee of the Bank, the
question of his dismissal does not arise at all. Further plea
of the Management is that every payment for a job to be
performed by a person who is not an employee of the bank
has to be made by due entries in a particular register called
as Petty Cash Register by preparing petty cash vouchers
and disbursement of this payment by this mode does not
indicate that he is an employee of the Bank. Hence, the
Management submitted that the workman is not entitled to
any relief, and prayed for passing the award holding that
the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute and the
concerned person is not entitled to any relief.
The workman by filing an additional written statement
denied and disputed the contention of the Management
regarding the pleas taken by the Management, inter-alia,
that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute; that
Sri Santosh Das, owner of the generator engaged the
workman as generator operator and that the workman was
not an employee of the State Bank of India but the employee
of said Santosh Das. The workman also stated that initially
he was engaged by the Management as canteen boy and
his remuneration was paid @ 500/- per month and thereafter
Rs. 1,000/- per month and thereafter the workman was
appointed as Sweeper, and in addition to his duty as
Sweeper he had to do other works for which he was paid
additional remuneration. It is also mentioned that the
workman was engaged against the permanent vacancy and
after his disengagement one Naresh Balmiki was appointed
against the post of Sweeper and in this way the
Management has been resorting the unfair labour practice
depriving the workman of his legitimate claim.
The Management again submitted additional written
statement denying all the allegations raised in the Additional
Claim Statement submitted by the workman and reiterated
that the present case is not an Industrial Dispute and the
same is not maintainable as the workman was not engaged
as Sweeper at any point of time, the question of his
disengagement does not arise at all and he was never paid
with any daily wages but the payment made to him was
due to some specific work performed by him.
6. Both the parties adduced their evidence and proved
the documents which were relied upon by them. The
workman examined two witnesses including himself. The
Management also examined two witnesses including Smti
Bitapa Banerjee, present Branch Manager of Dinjan Branch,
State Bank of India.
7. The workman Sri Bonoy Kumar Sinha (W.W.I.)
stated that having learnt that grade-IV post of Sweeper
was lying vacant in the SBI. Dinjan Branch he approached
the then Branch Manager, Sri Dipak Kumar Deori to appoint
him in the said post and on holding his personal interview
and practical test of his working skill of sweeping, grass
cutting, etc. he was appointed by the Branch Manager on
daily rated basis as there was no other employee in the
said post. Although no appointment letter was issued to
him but the said Branch Manager assured him that his
appointment will be regularized in due course. Accordingly
he joined in the Bank on 29.3.2004 as Sweeper and had
been working in that capacity continuously to the
satisfaction of the Bank authority for a period of 4 years 5
months. His normal duty was sweeping, cleaning of bank
premises and grass cutting of the office compound, etc.
6480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
besides he was assigned additional work of sweeping/
cleaning of ATM room/premises since November, 2007 on
extra payment as per work done, moreover he was engaged
as messenger for collecting stationery articles and once
for collection of maturity value against NSC from Dinjan
Post Office. He was paid daily rate basis, initially at the rate
of Rs.50/- per day which was increased to Rs. 60/- per day
since middle of 2007; and against the additional job of
cleaning ATM premises he was given an extra amount of
Rs. 30/- per day since January 2008; moreover for the work
as messenger, collecting stationery articles from different
places, for collecting money of NSC maturity value from
Post Office, etc. He was paid some allowance for bus fare,
rickshaw fare/tea etc. and the daily rate wages and allowance
etc. were paid by way of petty cash vouchers drawn daily,
fortnightly and monthly in different periods and also by
way of depositing in the SBI, Dinjan Branch A/C No. CBS
11719986289 of the workman. Thereafter on 15.9.2008 the
then Branch Manager Mr. Raju Mandal called the workman
in his office and told the workman that his service with the
bank would be discontinued and one Naresh Balmiki would
be engaged to work as Sweeper and was asked to continue
till Balmiki joined and maximum upto 30.9.2008 and thereafter
the workman was allowed to do normal duty upto 16.9.2008
and on 19.9.2008 he was assigned to do messenger work
for one day and the Bank Manager verbally informed that
his services with the Bank as Sweeper discontinued. The
workman contended that he rendered his sincere service
to the Bank for a continuous period with effect from
29.3.2004 till 16.9.2008 against the Post of Sweeper of the
State Bank of India and thus having worked for a
continuous period of 240 days within 12 months he has
acquired the right to the post; and it is the regular practice
of the Managemet that instead of giving regular
appointment against the post of Sweeper to get the works
done by engaging worker on daily basis rate-basis without
giving formal appointment and to discharge such workers
on whims and caprices of the Bank which is an unfair labour
practices. The workman categorically denied that he was
not engaged by Santosh Das as generator operator. He
said that prior to his engagement as Sweeper Sri Santosh
Das was working as Canteen boy at SBI, Dinjan Branch for
preparing tea & mid-day meal and to operate the generator
and the remuneration of Santosh Das was initially for
Rs. 500/- and subsequently increased to Rs. 1000/-, which
is evident from the Central Audit Report of 2007 at page 67,
para no. 420.12 & 420.13, so the statement that the workman
was engaged by Santosh Das is not true.
In support of his contention the workman has proved
the documents namely, (i) His school Certificate vide
Exhibit-I; (ii) OBC Cast Certificates vide Exhibit-2; (iii)
Employment Identity Card vide Exhibit-3; (iv) Photocopy
of petty cash vouchers drawn daily rate basis from 29.3.04
to 15.10.04 @ Rs. 50/- per day vide Exhibit-4 to 42 whereupon
Exhibit-4(1) to 42(1) are his signatures and Exhibit-4(2) to
42(2) are signatures of the Branch Manager; (v) Photo copy
of petty cash Register of SBI from 8.7.2004 to 25.9.06 in 40
sheets showing entries of labour charges of Binoy Kumar
Sinha @Rs. 50/- per day, vide Exhibit-43 to 82; (vi)
Photocopy of petty cash Register of SBI from 26.9.06 to
31.10.07 in 49 sheets showing entry of daily rate given to
the workman vide Exhibit-83 to 131; (vii) Weekly/Bi-weekly
payment vouchers from 15.11.07 to 16.9.2008 in 16 sheets
daily rate Rs. 50/- up to 30.11.07 and thereafter @ Rs. 60/-
vide Exhibit-132 to 147 and 132(1) to 147(1) are the signatures
of the workman and Exhibit-132(2) to 147(2) are the
signatures of the Bank Manager; (viii) Photocopies of
Bankers Cheque and Misc Debit/Credit vouchers of SBI,
Dinjan Branch, showing payment of Binoy Kr. Sinha as
Sweeper in 20 sheets vide Exhibit-148 to 175; (ix) photocopy
of bill for clearing and Sweeping ATM room from 1.3.08 to
3.6.08 in 6 sheets vide Exhibit-176 to 181 whereupon Exihibit-
176(1) to Exhibit-181(1) are the signatures of the workman
and Exhibit-176(2) to Exhibit 181(2) are the endorsements
of the Branch Managers, Exhibit-176(2) to Exhibit-179(2) of
Sri R.K. Dutta and 180(2) to 181(2) of Sri Raju Mondal; (x)
Photocopy of Bills for messenger duty from 24.4.08 to
31.7.08 in 3 sheets vide Exhibit 182 to 184 and Exhibit-182(1)
to 184(1) are signatures of the workman, & Exhibit-182(2) &
183(2) are endorsement of Sri Raju Mondal & Exhibit-184(2)
of Sri B.C. Saha, Branch Manager; (xi) photocopy of TA
Bills payment vouchers, payment directly deposited in the
bank account No. 01190008582, SBI, Dinjan Branch of the
workman, in 11 sheets vide Exhibit-185 to 195 and Exhibit-
185(1) to 195(1) are the signature of the workman and
Exhibit-185(2) to 195(2) are endorsement of Bank Managers
Sri B.C. Saha, Exhibit-185(2) of Sri R.K. Dutta, and Exhibit-
186(2) to 192(2); & Exhibit-193(2) to 195(2) of Sri Raju
Mondal; (xii) photo copy of the letter dated 27.8.08 issued
by the Branch Manager, SBI, Dinjan to the Postmaster,
Dinjan engaging the workman for collection of maturity
payment against two NSC vide Exhibit-196 and Exhibits
196(1) is the signature of the workman, and Exhibit-196(2)
is the signature of the Branch Manager.
In course of his cross-examination the workman
mentioned that as regards his appointment there was no
advertisement from the Management nor any name was
recommended by the Employment exchange for
appointment nor any appointment letter was issued by the
Management. He also said that Sontosh Das was a Canteen
Boy at that time whom he knew and said Sontosh Das was
generator operator. He also denied that said Sontosh Das
engaged him a as generator operator. He also said that he
used to perform the job of sweeping and he was paid on
daily wage basis by issuing vouchers daily by the
Management and thereafter on weekly and monthly basis
also. He also categorically denied the suggestion tendered
by the Management that he did not work more than 10 to
20 days in a month in the Bank as Sweeper; and that he did
not work as Sweeper but sometimes as and when called by
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6481
the bank. It is also denied by the workman that Santosh
Das inducted him to the Management and said Santosh
Das also told to discontinue his service; and that said
Santosh Das engaged him as generator operator @ Rs.
500/- per month and subsequently disengaged him; and
that after his disengagement by Santosh Das he did not
attend the Management bank.
The workman witness No. 2, Sri Raju Sinha the
brother of the workman Sri B.K. Sinha stated that he had
been running a stationery shop which lateron converted
to wet Canteen in Dinjan Army Cantonment Area located
nearer to the State Bank of India, Dinjan Branch, and he
used to supply some office stationery articles to the State
Bank of India, Dinjan Branch. In course of his dealing with
the supply of stationery articles he came to know from the
Branch Manager Sri Deepak Kr. Deori that a post of Sweeper
of Grade-IV was lying vacant in the SBI, Dinjan Branch and
the Bank authority wanted to appoint a person on daily
rate basis and in course of time regular appointment would
be given, while he approached the said Branch Manager to
appoint his brother (the workman). Thereafter the then
Branch Manager, SBI, Dinjan Branch took personal
interview of the workman in his office on 27.3.2004 and
also took practical test of his working skill of sweeping,
grass cutting, etc. On being satisfied with the performance
of the workman the Manager asked the workman for joining
as Sweeper on daily rate basis and understanding was
given for regular appointment in due process after
satisfactory performance for sometime. But no formal
appointment letter was given to the workman and at that
time no other person was working as sweeper in that Bank.
Accordingly the workman joined in the SBI. Dinjan Branch
on 29.3.2004 as weeper and had been working in that
capacity continuously to the satisfaction of the Bank
authority for the period of 4 years 5 months till 16.9.2008.
Normal duty of the workman was sweeping/cleaning of
bank premises, store room cleaning and grass cutting of
the office compound etc. Besides the normal duty the
workman was assigned additional work of sweeping/
cleaning of ATM room/premises since November, 2007 on
extra payment as per work done. The workman was also
engaged as messenger for collecting stationery articles
and once for collection of maturity value against NSC from
Dinjan Post Office. He also added that the payment was
made to the workman initially at the rate of Rs. 50/- which
was increased to Rs. 60/- per day since middle of 2007; and
against the additional job of cleaning ATM premises the
workman was given an extra amount of Rs. 30/- per day
since January, 2008. For the work as messenger the workman
was paid some allowance for bus fare, rickshaw fare/tea
etc. and that the mode of payment of the daily rate wages
and allowance etc. were made by way of petty cash
vouchers, drawn daily, fortnightly and monthly in different
periods and also by way of depositing in the SBI, Dinjan
Branch accounts in the name of the workman. The WW.2
further stated that subsequently on transfer of the earlier
Branch Manager in April, 2008 one Sri Raju Mandal, the
Branch Manager joined and all on a sudden on 15.9.2008.
Mr. Raju Mandal called the workman and told that his
services to the Bank would be discontinued and one Naresh
Balmiki would be engaged against him, and thereafter the
workman was allowed to do normal duty upto 16.9.2008
and on 17.9.2008 he was assigned to do the work as
messenger for one day and on the same day the Branch
Manager verbally told him that he need not come for duty
any more. Thus the workman was discharged from service
in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. It is also mentioned
by the witness concerned that the workman has rendered
his sincere services for such a long period of four years
five months against the post of Sweeper and thus having
worked for continuous period of 240 days within 12 months
he acquired right to the post but the Bank has adopted
regular practice of appointment against the post of sweeper
without giving formal appointment on whims and caprices
of the Bank Manager which is an unfair labour practice. He
further said that prior to engagement as Sweeper one
Santosh Das was working as canteen boy in SBI, Dinjan
Branch for preparing tea & mid day meals and to operate
the generator, which was installed for the purpose of supply
of electric power when load shading occurred in the Bank
and as such, the contention of the Management that the
workman was engaged by Sri Santosh Das, as generator
operator under him is absolutely false. Thus the workman
is entitled to continue in the same capacity as Sweeper and
also entitled to regular appointment in the same post.
The WW.2 in course of his cross-examination said
that the Management called him at the time of engagement
of the workman as Sweeper and discussed with him about
his engagement and the workman was paid his wages by
vouchers on the basis of the job performed by him but the
workman was not paid remuneration on monthly basis. He
also said there was a case of theft in the Bank at that time
prior to 16th September, 2008, but he denied the suggestion
tendered by the Management that after the occurrence of
the alleged theft in the Bank the workman was called by the
Management and scrolled him and asked Santosh Das to
disengage the workman. He also categorically denied the
suggestion that the workman was working as generator
operator under Santosh Das and that sometimes the
workman was served as Sweeper under the Management
Bank.
8. The Management witness No. 1, Smti Bitapa
Banerjee, the existing Branch Manager, SBI, Dinjan Branch
in her evidence stated that the workman Binoy Kr. Sinha
was not appointed as an employee of the Bank and there is
no record to show that the workman offered his candidature
in any formal recruitment procedure of the Bank as such,
no formal appointment letter is available in the Bank record
and hence, this Reference is not maintainable. The SBI
Dinjan Branch was availing a facility of a generator being
6482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
provided by external agencies through different contract
made by the Bank with the contractor from time to time and
one Santosh Das was providing generator in the Bank who
engaged the workman to look after the generator and as
such, the workman had to operate the same in absence of
non-availability of electricity. She has proved the
documents namely the deed of agreement for hiring of
generator set installed at SBI, Dinjan Branch executed
between the Management of SBI, Dinjan Branch and
Santosh Das on 1.5.04, 1.7.06 and on 15.3.2010 vide Exhibit-
A, B and C respectively whereupon Exhibit-A(1), B(1), B(2),
C(3) are the signatures of Sri Santosh Das and Exhibit-C(4)
and C(5) are signatures of the then Branch Manager, SBI,
Dinjan Branch, the second party and Sri Jayanta Basak,
the then Accountant, SBI, Dinjan Branch, the witness
respectively. She said that the workman B.K. Sinha was
always available in the Bank premises and the Bank
Management availed his service in exigencies, by engaging
him for grass cutting, cleaning of record room, stationery
stores, Bank premises and to carry out duty of messenger
in absence of the permanent messenger of the Bank. The
workman performed the job assigned to him and the Bank
used to make payment of his work on the basis of the job
performed by him. She also mentioned that some payments
was made and some was also deposited in the Bank account
of the Management Bank as desired by the workman, and
the payments were made immediately after performance of
the job assigned to him or after 10 to 15 days of his date of
performance which was not considered as his salary or
wages. It is further mentioned that the amount received by
the workman in every month are different and it was neither
made on daily wage basis or monthly wage basis. To pay
salary depending on the quantum of job performed by him,
and as the workman was not engaged as an employee of
the Bank, the question of disengagement does not arise.
Hence, the workman is not entitled to be reinstated or
reengaged nor entitled to have any benefit. The
Management witness again said that the Exhibit-A & B
contain the conditions laid down and to be abide by the
service provider Santosh Das for providing generator
service; and Exhibit-C is the lease agreement in respect of
providing service of the generator executed between the
Branch Manager and Sri Santosh Das. The Bank in order
to have generator service obtained quotation (generator
service on monthly rent obtained quotations from three
persons namely Santosh Das, Sri Gopal Das and M/S. B.
Tech Engineers) and the said quotations were forwarded
to the Regional Manager by the SBI, Dinjan Branch vide
Exhibit-D. Accordingly the recommendation of rate
Committee accepted the quotations submitted by Sri
Santosh Das vide Exhibit-E and the said recommendation
was duly proved on 6.1.04 vide Exhibit-F.
During her cross-examination the MW.1 stated that
the SBI, Dinjan Branch is situated within the Army
Cantonment Complex and the Bank compound is comprising
with grass area and hence, grass cutting is being done in
some interval. She also could not say whether regular
Sweeper was engaged in Dinjan Branch ever, but the
Sweeper work is done by the casual workers on the basis
of the job and the payment is made weekly, bi-weekly and
in rare case on monthly by vouchers and they maintain the
record of the vouchers and no other record maintained by
them in respect of payment. She also proved the documents
marked as Exhibit-4 to Exhibit-33 and Exhibit-36 to Exhibit-
42, the copies of petty cash vouchers issued by SBI, Dinjan
Branch; Exhibit-43 to Exhibit-81, the copies of petty cash
Register pertaining to the period from 8.7.2004 to 31.10.07;
Exhibit-83 to Exhibit-131, the copies of the petty cash
Register; Exhibits-133 to Exhibit-135, the copies of the
workman letters addressed to the Branch Manager; Exhibit-
137 to Exhibit-139, the copies of the letter of the workman
seeking cleaning and sweeping charge made on 7.2.08,
1.4.08 and 1.4.08 respectively; Exhibit-140 to Exhibit-146,
the copies of the bills for cleaning of bank premises for
different periods submitted by the workman; Exhibit-147
another bill for cleaning and sweeping of Bank premises
submitted by the workman: Exhibit-148 & Exhibit-149, the
copies of debit vouchers and banker cheque, and deposit
slip and debit vouchers (together); and the Exhibit-149
shows that amount of bill due to the workman was deposited
in his bank account in the Management Bank; the Exhibit-
150 to Exhibit-162 the copies of debit vouchers and
withdrawal slip (together). Exhibit-164, 165, 168, 169, 170,
171 and Exhibit-175 are the copies of documents namely
the debit vouchers and deposit slip in respect of the
account of the workman; Exhibit-176 and Exhibit-177 the
bills paid to the workman; Exhibit-178 to Exhibit-181 the
copies of the bill of sweeping, cleaning upto May, 2008 in
respect of the workman; Exhibit-182 to Exhibit-184 are the
bills in respect of the workman regarding messenger duty;
Exhibit-185 to Exhibit-192 are the copies of the Bill for
conveyance charges in respect of the workman. She also
categorically mentioned that at the time of engagement of
sweeper they had not held any interview as they are not
skilled worker and at present Ajay and Prabhu are working
in SBI, Dinjan Branch as Sweeper, grass cutting and cleaning
but she could not say who had engaged said Ajay and
Prabhu and they are working prior to joining of MW1 in
the Dinjan Branch of SBI. She denied the suggestion that
before engagement of Sweeper, cutter and cleaner they
held interview. The witness said that the Exhibit-H is the
ltter of Santosh Das dated 10.11.03 addressed to the Branch
Manager regarding supply of generator, which shows that
Sri Santosh Das is still providing the Management Bank
the service of generator. She mentioned that Santosh Das
was perparing tea for them but she could not say if said
Santosh Das had been preparing tea for the Bank staff
prior to 2004. She denied the Preparing tea for the Bank
staff prior to 2004. She denied the suggestion tendered by
the workman that Santosh Das was working as canteen
boy @ Rs. 1000/- per month fixed for preparing tea in the
bank premises. But they did not obtain any certificate from
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6483
Santosh Das regarding his engagement of the workman as
stated by her. She also could not say whether Santosh Das
was granted bank loan for providing generator service.
She also could not say whether any quotation was invited
for the service of generator after expiry of the initial period
of 3 years as agreed upon with Santosh Das. It is denied by
the MW.1 that Santosh Das was favoured by the Bank to
provide generator for the Bank.
The Management witness No. 2 Sri Santosh Das
stated that he was engaged in the year 1993 in the SBI,
Dinjan Branch for supplying tea, snacks etc. to the
employees of the Bank; and at that time there was a
generator in the Dinjan Branch supplied by Sashi Brothers
which he used to look after. After death of Sashi Sahi, the
Proprietor of Sashi Brothers his wife Pratima Devi has been
supplying generator in the said Branch. Thereafter due to
computerisation of the Bank high power generator was
essential to be installed and the proprietor of Sashi Brothers
was asked to install high power generator but they refused
and took away the generator installed by them. Then he
(MW2) installed a high power generator in the SBI, Dinjan
Branch in 2004 and since then he has been looking after
the generator as well as supplying tea, snacks, etc to the
staff of the said Branch. He also mentioned that he knows
the workman B.K. Sinha who was staying with his brother
who was maintaining a book shop within the Army
Cantonment Complex where the SBI, Dinjan Branch is
situated and B.K. Sinha was introduced through their Bank
Manager Mr. T.K. Singha and said T.K. Singha told him
that he requires service of a boy and advised him engage
B.K. Sinha to look after the work of generator. He also said
that the workman B.K. Sinha used to look after the works
of generator and nothing else and sometimes worked in
the Bank as cleaner but he did not know the mode of
payment by the Bank to the workman. He categorically
mentioned that the workman had worked with him from
2004 to 2008 and thereafter he discharged the workman
and in absence of the workman his brother would look
after the works of the generator etc. In course of his cross-
examination the MW.2 confirmed that he had been working
in the Canteen of SBI, Dinjan Branch since 1993 and getting
wages amounting to less than Rs. 1000/- and thereafter Rs.
1000/- and at present Rs. 1250/- per month; and his brother
Ranjit Das who assisted him since 2008 for some days but
at present he has been managing the works of generator
and canteen alone. He also said that the workman B.K.
Sinha used to attend the generator from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
and the operator is to attend in the event of load shading
to restoration of power; he added that he did not maintain
any account in respect of payment to the workman Sri B.K.
Sinha but now he is attending the Bank occasionally and
one Chandan Sarkar is looking after the generator. From
2004 to 2008 he used to attend the Bank daily and to
discharge the duty of the cantteen. He has proved his
application by which he offered his proposal to install
generator to the SBI, Dinjan Branch vide Exhibit-H. The
MW.2 has proved the Deed of Agreement for hiring of
generator set installed at SBI, Dinjan Branch with effect
from 1.5.2004, 1.7.2006 and 15.3.2010 marked as Exhibit-A,
B and C respectively. He mentioned that in the year 1993
there was a permanent Sweeper in SBI, Dinjan Branch but
he could not recollect the name, and after sometime the
said sweeper left and since then the Bank used to get
sweeping works done by engaging casual workers. But he
did not say whether the workman worked since 2004
regularly. However he said that B.K. Sinha used to stay in
the Bank regularly from 2004 to 2008. The witness Santosh
Das denied the suggestions put forward by the learned
Advocate for the workman that the workman did not
operate his generator set at any time; and as he is working
in the Bank he is telling lie favouring the Bank; and that he
is deposing in favour of the bank as he has been engaged
by the bank for a long time and the bank also provided loan
to him for purchasing generator set.
9. From the evidence of both the sides as dicussed
above it is found that the workman Sri B.K. Sinha is claiming
that he was engaged by the Management of SBI, Dinjan
Branch as Sweeper (casual) with effect from 29.3.2004 to
16.9.2008 with assurance by the Management to regularize
him in due course and before his appointment the Manager
of Dinjan Branch tested him by holding interview and
practical test of sweeping, grass cutting etc.; and in addition
to his duties as Sweeper he had to perform the work of
grass cutting, clearning etc. in the Bank premises and also
to work as messenger for collecting stationeries etc. He
also took the plea that his payment was made through
petty cash vouchers/petty cash register and on raising
bills by him through debit slip, account pay in slip, daily,
weekly and sometimes monthly. In support of his
contention the workman has produced the copies of petty
cash vouchers vide Exhibit-4 to Exhibit-33, Exhibit-36 to
Exhibit-47; extracts from the petty cash Register marked as
Exhibit-43 to Exhibit-81 (proved in original) and Exhibit-83
to Exhibit-131; by raising bill by the workman vide Exhibit-
133 to Exhibit-135, Exhibit-137 to Exhibit-139, Exhibit-140 to
Exhibit-147 and by bankers cheques and debit, credit
vouchers of SBI, Dinjan Branch vide Exhibit-148 to Exhibit-
162, Exhibit-164, 165, 168 to Exhibit-171, and Exhibit-175.
He also mentioned that the payments for the works of
cleaning ATM premises/rooms was made on raising
vouchers by the workman vide Exhibit-176 to Exhibit-194
(proved in original). The contention of the workman is that
as he worked for such a long period for more than 240 days
in a year with effect from 29.3.2004 to 16.9.2008 he is entitled
to be reinstated and regularized by the Management. The
Management on the other hand totally denied the plea of
the workman as to his engagement as casual workers against
the Post of sweeper by the Management with assurance to
regularize him in due course and that interview/practical
6484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
test was held before his appointment. They also denied
the averment that the workman had to perform the work of
cleaning/sweeping of ATM room/premises and grass
cutting/cleaning of Bank premises in addition to his duties
as Sweeper.
The Management has brought a different story that
one Santosh Das installed a generator in the Dinjan Branch
of SBI on contact basis for supplying power to the Bank at
the time of load shading/distribution of power and the
workman B.K. Sinha was engaged by said Santosh Das as
generator operator; and as B.K. Sinha was available in the
Bank premises, the Bank management in exigencies availed
his service from grass cutting, clearning of record room,
stationery stores, Bank premises and sometime to carry
out the duty of messenger in absence of permanent
messenger of the Bank; and the payment was made on the
basis of the work done by him. The payments were made
weekly, after performance of the job assigned to him or
after 10 to 20 days from the date of performance which are
neither made on daily wage basis nor monthly wage basis
and hence, the amount so paid can not be a considered as
his salary or wages. The Management also took the plea
that no recruitment process was absolved in engaging the
workman nor there any appointment letter/discharges letter
issued against the workman by the Bank.
10. On perusal of the documents relied upon both
the sides it appears that the petty cash vouchers issued by
the Bank vide Exhibit-4 to Exhibit-33, shows that at the fist
instance the workman was pad @ Rs. 50/- on daily basis on
different dates on 29.3.2004, 1.4.2004, 2.4.2004, 3.4.2004,
5.4.2004, 6.4.2004, 7.4.2004, 12.4.2004, 15.4.2004, 16.4.2004,
17.4.2004, 19.4.2004, 20.4.2004, 21.4.2004, 22.4.2004,
23.4.2004, 24.4.2004, 28.4.2004, 8.7.2004 (over written as
8.4.2004 vide Exhibit-22), 17.9.2004, 18.9.2004, 20.9.2004,
23.9.2004, 25.9.2004, 27.9.2004, 28.9.2004, 29.9.2004,
30.9.2004, 1.10.2004, 4.10.2004, 7.10.2004, 8.10.2004,
9.10.2004, 12.10.2004, 13.10.2004, 14.10.2004, 15.10.2004 and
through petty cash Register payment amounting to different
figures such as Rs. 400/-, Rs. 25/-, Rs. 250/-, Rs. 30/-, Rs. 6/-,
Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 40/-, Rs. 50/- and different rates starting
from 8.7.2004 to 31.10.2007. Thereafter the Bank made the
payment on raising bill @ Rs. 60/- per day by the workman
on different dates for the period from 1.12.2007 to 16.9.2008
vide Exhibit-133 to Exhibit-135, Exhibit-137 to Exhibit-147;
and also by depositing through S.B. Account of the
workman through Debit Pay in Slip in the Bank Account
No. 98118071233 of the SBI, Dinjan Branch, the amount
showing different figures such as Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 1,800/-,
Rs. 540/-, Rs. 70/-, Rs. 210/-, Rs. 110/-, Rs. 155/-, Etc. vide
Exhibit-148, 157, Exhibit-159 to Exhibit-162, Exhibit-164,
Exhibit-168 to Exhibit-171 and Exhibit-175 for the period
from 12th April, 2008 to 17.5.2008 on different dates. Some
payments were also made to the workman on raising bill by
workman for the works of sweeping and cleaning of ATM
premises by the workman @ Rs. 30/- per day on different
dates and showing different amount with effect from
15.11.2007 to 3.6.2008. The workman was also paid the
amount for discharging the duty of messenger on raising
bills with effect from 24.4.2008 to 18.6.2008 vide Exhibit-182
to Exhibit-196 on different dates.
During argument Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Advocate
for the workman submitted that the workman B.K. Sinha
was engaged by the Branch Mananger, SBI, Dinjan Branch
as Sweeper (casual) from 29.3.2004 to 16.9.2008 and he was
discharging his duties such as, sweeping, cleaning of the
Bank premises and ATM room and also grass cutting, and
he was entrusted to work as messenger. But suddenly he
was discharged from his duties without observing the due
process of law. He has mentioned that the workman has
worked for more than 240 days in 12 consecutive months
preceding to his discharge from service and hence, the
workman is entitled to be reinstated. Mr. Bhowmik also
added that the Management Bank has already engaged
any person as Sweeper after dismissal of the workman and
as such, the Management Bank has been doing unfair
labour practice following pick and choose policy. He also
added that the Management also took the plea that the
workman is not engaged by them and as such, the workman
is not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
Mr. Bhowmik also pointed out that from the vouchers,
petty Cash Register, pay-in-Slips and the Bills shows that
the workman worked for long period of 4 years 5 months
continously and if the workman is not found eligible by the
Court to be regularized by the Management, he can not be
deprived of getting reinstatement as well as benefits as
retrenched worker as provide u/s 25(F) of the Act. In support
of his contention Mr. Bhowmik relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs State of
Haryana, reported in AIR 2010 SC 683 wherein it was held
that if sufficient mateirals are shown that workman has
completed 240 days then his service can not be terminated
without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms
of section 25F and no notice or compensation in lieu of it
was given to him, in such circumstances his termination
was illegal. Mr. Bhowmik further referred the decision laid
down in In-Charge Officer and Another vs Shankar Shetty
published in (2010) 9 SCC 126 wherein it was observed as :
"Respondent was engaged as a daily wager in 1978 and his
engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up
to 6.9.1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the
present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement
cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation
would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion,
the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in
lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and
equitable".
Learned Advocate for the workman again submitted
that the approach of the Courts must be compatible with
constitutional philosophy of which Directive Principles of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6485
State policy constitute an integral part and justice due to
the workman should not be denied by entertaining the
specious and untenable grounds put forward by the
employer-public or private; and in doing so Court should
make an effort to protect the rights of the weaker sections
of the society in view of the clear constitutional mandate
mentioned above. In this connection Mr. Bhowmik referred
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Harjinder
Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported
in AIR 2010 SC 1116 wherein it was laid down that any
attempt to dilute the constitutional imperatives in order to
promote the so-called trends of Globalisation, may result
in precarious consequencies; reports of suicidal deaths of
farmers in thousands from all over the country along with
escalation of terrorism throw dangerous signal; and that if
we may remember Tagore who several decades ago, in a
slightly different context spoke of eventualities which may
visit us in our mad rush to ape western ways of life.
Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the
Management vehemently objecting the arguments raised
by the learned Advocate for the workman submitted that
the workman was neither appointed by the Management
observing the formal process of appointment adopted by
the Management Bank nor he was engaged by the Bank
authority against any permanent post making
advertisement for appointing the workman, no relationship
of employer-employee existed between the parties and
hence, in view of the ratio of Umadevi's case the question
of regularization or reinstatement as prayed for by the
workman in his evidence, does not arise. He also mentioned
that the vouchers/petty cash Registers and the Pay-in-
Slips produced by the workman had been discharging his
job as casual Sweeper regularly on any fixed wage such as
monthly, weekly or in other specific period but the
payments were made by the Bank in accordance with the
work done by him in exigencies of the Bank. He also
mentioned that the vouchers also do not justify that the
workman had rendered continuous service of the Bank for
240 days in 12 consecutive preceding months from his
disengagement as such, the disengagement of the workman
form his job by the Management of SBI, Dinjan Branch,
can not be termed as retrenchment as defined in Section 2
(oo) of I.D. Act. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to
the benefit of Section 25(F) as the pre-requisite of
retrenchment has not been fulfilled in the instant case.
Thus the Management has not committed any illegality in
terminating the services of the workman B.K. Sinha and as
such, the workman is not entitled to any benefit.
11. The workman has produced the copies of petty
cash vouchers, extract from the patty cash Registers, the
copies of Bills for sweeping and cleaning of Bank premises
and the bills for cleaning of ATM premises of SBI, Dinjan
Branch, and the copies of Account pay-in-Slip/Debit Slip
by which the payment made by the Bank was deposited in
the account of the workman maintained in the
Management's Bank. On careful scrutiny of the petty Cash
vouchers marked as Exhibit-4 to Exhibit-42, it appears that
the workman has worked for 37 days during the period
with effect from 29.3.2004 to 15.10.2004, and the petty cash
Registers for the period with effect from 1.11.2004 to
24.12.2004 marked as Exhibit-43 to Exhibit-52 the workman
worked for 44 days. Thus the total working days is 81
during the year 2004. From the extracts copies of the petty
cash Registers marked as Exhibit-53 to Exhibit-70 for the
period with effect from 6.1.2005 to 30.12.2005 it appears
that the workman has discharged his duties as casual worker
for 235 days and in the said petty cash Registers the
payment made to the workman has been shown as daily
wage as well as daily charges paid to the workman, some
payments were also shown for cleaning and grass cutting
of the compound. It is also seen in the said petty cash
Registers (Exhibit-53 to Exhibit-70) some payments were
made to another persons as daily wages and labour charges
namely Santosh, Raju Sinha, M. Mishra, Pinku Sonowal,
Munna Lal and others who received the payment by putting
their thumb impression for jungle cutting of the Bank
premises, cleaning of Bank premises and other works. From
the Exhibit-71 to Exhibit-94, the petty cash Registers for
the period from 6.1.2006 to 23.12.2006 the workman appears
to have worked for 320 days i.e. during the year 2006 and
the payment was made to the workman for cleaning, grass
cutting, labour charges etc., but there is no specific mention
of the engagement of the workman as Sweeper regularly.
Although the workman appears to have drawn the
payments @ Rs. 50/- per day for 320 days from the bank for
different type of works he has not been able to establish
that he was engaged by the bank regularly as Sweeper
during the period from 6.1.2006 to 31.12.2006. It will be
more specifically evident from the Exhibit-95 to Exhibit-97
which shows the workman has drawn the labour charge/
daily wage @ Rs. 50/- per day for 37 days with effect from
15.1.2007 to 31.1.2007 (i.e. within 17 days in the month of
January, 2007). From 13.2.2007 to 28.2.2007 vide Exhibit-98
to Exhibit-100, the workman has been shown worked for 30
days, but it is quite surprising that how the workman has
been shown that he had worked for 30 days in the month of
February, 2007 consisting of total 28 days not to speak of
the working days. From 1.3.2007 to 31.12.2007, Exhibit-101
to Exhibit-106 the number of working days shown as 33
days i.e. in the month of March, 2007, From 12.4.2007 to
30.4.2007 vide Exhibit-107 to Exhibit-108 the number of
working days shown as 17 days; from 1.5.2007 to 31.5.2007
vide Exhibit-109 to Exhibit-111, the number of working days
shown as 39 days in the month of May, 2007; from 1.6.2007
to 30.6.2007 vide Exhibit-112 to Exhibit-114 the number of
working days shown as 31 days in the month of June,
2007; from 1.7.2007 to 31.7.2007 vide Exhibit-115 to Exhibit-
117, the number of working days shown as 29 days in the
month of July, 2007; from 1.8.2007 to 31.8.2007 vide Exhibit-
118 to Exhibit-122 the number of working days shown that
the daily wages paid to the workman for 34 days in the
6486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
month of August, 2007 for cleaning of bank premises, from
1.9.2007 to 30.9.2007 vide Exhibit-123 to Exhibit-126 the
number of working days shown as 34 days in the month of
September, 2007, from 1.10.2007 to 30.10.2007 vide Exhibit-
127 to Exhibit-131 the number of working days shown as 32
days. From the copies of the Bills submitted by the workman
vide Exhibit-133 for the month of December, 2007, it appears
that the workman has worked for 11 days only. Thus the
number of working days as shown in the petty cash
Registers for the year 2007 as mentioned about it appears
that in some months the workman have been shown to
have paid for more than 30 days/more than the working
days, while in the month of December he had worked 11
days only.
12. In Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani, (2002)
SCC 25; Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill Ltd. vs
State of Rajasthan and another (2004) 8 SCC 246; and in
Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Sowaran Singh (2005) 8
SCC 481, wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased
to held that where the workman's claimed that he had worked
for more than 240 days in the year preceding termination it
is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining
himself or filing Affidavit, to prove the said factum and
such evidence may be in the form of salary or wages for
240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for
that year to show that he had worked with the employer for
240 days. In the instant case from the evidence of both the
sides it is found well established that the workman was
engaged by the SBI, Dinjan Branch as daily wager in need
for cleaning of bank premises, grass cutting, and also
cleaning of ATM premises; and in certain occasion the
workman was engaged as messenger and other
miscellaneous works and the payment was made on the
basis of the works performed by the workman. There is
also nothing on record to show that the workman was
engaged against any permanent vacancy holding any
interview after making advertisement or collecting the
names of the candidates sponsored by the Employment
Exchange nor any appointment letter or discharge/dismissal
letter was issued to the workman. Further the workman has
also failed to prove that he had worked 240 days
continuously in 12 consecutive months perceding to his
dis-engagement. Thus it is crystal clear that the workman
has not been able to fulfill the criteria for regularization.
In his pleading the workman categorically mentioned
that he was paid daily basis @ Rs. 50/- per day and thereafter
it was increased to Rs. 60/-. He also averred that for cleaning
ATM premises he was paid @ Rs. 30/- but the Petty Cash
Vouchers, the Petty Cash Registers, the Bills raised by the
workman and the Debit Pay-in-Slip which were relied upon,
as the basis of his regular engagement but in none of the
documents marked as Exhibit-4 to Exhibit-194 as discussed
above there is mentioned of payment of daily wage @
Rs. 60/- for cleaning and sweeping the bank premises and
@ Rs. 30/- for cleaning ATM premises of the Bank. As
such, the workman has not been able to prove his contention
that he worked under the SBI, Dinjan Branch regularly and
was paid @ Rs. 60/- at any point of time. From the Bills
raised by the workman vide Exhibit-176 to Exhibit-181 it
appears that the workman performed the cleaning of ATM
for 24 days with effect from 1.11.2007 to 24.1.2008 and in
the month of March, April and May, 2008 he submitted
Bills for cleaning the ATM premises @ Rs. 300/- per month
each. As such, the engagement of the workman is irregular
and he was entrusted to perform different nature of works
by the Bank on different dates in need of the Bank, and the
payment was also made on the basis of the work done by
the workman as it reveals from the Petty Cash Vouchers,
Petty cash Registers, Debit Pay-in-Slip as well as the bills
raised by the workman as mentioned above. The petty
cash Register also shows that some other workers were
engaged by the Management for cleaning, grass cutting
etc. in the bank premises on daily basis. Under the above
circumstances, it can safely be held that the workman is
not entitled to reinstatement and also to get any benefit
u/s 25F of the I.D. Act.
13. In view of my above discussion and having regard
to the findings arrived at as above, I find no illegality or
irregularity committed by the Management of State Bank
of India, Dinjan Branch, in terminating the service of
Sri Binoy Kr. Sinha with effect from 16.9.2008. Accordingly,
this Reference is decided in negative, against the workman.
Send the Award along with a soft copy of the same
to the Ministry as per procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
30th day of September, 2013 at Guwahati.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2495-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fn cSad vkWQ
jktLFkku fyñ ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] p.Mhx< ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 41@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@7@2005&vkbZ vkj¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th October, 2013
S.O. 2495.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2005) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of The Bank of Rajasthan Limited,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/7/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6487
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D. 41/2005
Sh. Ramesh Singh son of Shri Munshi Ram, C/o Shri
Yash Pal Thakur, House No. 51, Sector-9A, Chandigarh.
Applicant
Versus
The Regional Manager, The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.
Now ICICI Bank, Regional Office, SCO 127-128, Sector-
17-C, Chandigarh.
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
: Workman along with
Shailendra Sharma Advocate.
For the mamangement
: None.
AWARD
Passed on 23.9.2013
Central Govt. vide notification No. L-12012/7/2005
[IR(B.I)], dated 14.09.2005, has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of The
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Regional Office, Chandigarh
in terminating the Services of Shri Ramesh Singh
w.e.f. 24.10.2003 without any notice and payment
of retrenchment compensation is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to and from which date?"
2. Today the case was fixed for the evidence of the
workman. The workman along with his representative appeared
and made a statement that he does not want to pursue his
reference No. 41/05 against the ICICI Bank as he is not
interested and the same may be disposed off as withdrawn.
3. In view of the above statement of the workman,
the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. as
withdrawn. Central Government be informed. A soft as well
as hard copy of the award be also sent to the Central Govt.
for publication. File be consigned.
Chandigarh, 23-09-2013
S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2496-—jk"Vªifr] U;k;ewfrZ Jh nhid lkgk jk;] dks
08-10-2013 ¼iwokZg~u½ ls dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kèhdj.k&
lg&Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk] ds ihBklhu vfèdkjh ds :i esa
01-06-2016 rd vFkok vxys vkn'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fu;qDr
djrs gSaA
[lañ ,&11016@2@2011&lh,y,l&II]
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th October, 2013
S.O. 2496.—The President is pleased to appoint
Justice Sh. Dipak Saha Ray as Presiding Officer of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata w.e.f. 08.10.2013 (F/N) for a period upto 01.06.2016
or until further orders, whichever is ealier.
[No. A-11016/2/2011-CLS-II]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2497-—jk"Vªifr] U;k;ewfrZ Jh Hkjr ik.Ms] dks 10-
10-2013 ¼iwokZg~u½ ls dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kèhdj.k&lg&
Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj] ds ihBklhu vfèdkjh ds :i esa 31-12-2017
rd vFkok vxys vkn'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fu;qDr djrs gSaA
[lañ ,&11016@5@2012&lh,y,l&II]
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd October, 2013
S.O. 2497.—The President is pleased to appoint
Justice Sh. Bharat Pandey as Presiding Officer of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur
w.e.f. 10.10.2013 (F/N) for a period upto 31.12.2017 or until
further orders, whichever is ealier.
[No. A-11016/5/2012-CLS-II]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2498-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr
isVªksfy;e dkWjiksjs'ku fyñ ,oe uwru dLaVªDlu vgenuxj ds izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k uañ 2] vgenuxj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2008½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30012@45@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the award (Ref. No. 3/2008)
of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2 Ahmednagar
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Nutan Construction,
Ahmednagar and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-30012/45/2007-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
6488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE SECOND LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR
(BEFORE SHRI R.B. CHORGHE, PRESIDING OFFICER,
2ND LABOUR COURT, AHMEDNAGAR)
Reference (IDA) No. 3/2008
1.
The Manager,
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Akolner Depot, Post—Akolner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
First Party No. 1
2.
M/s Nutan Construction,
Village Akolner,
Tal. Nagar Dist. Ahmednagar.
First Party No. 2
Versus
Sanjay Jaywant Harde,
Age-33 years, Occ-Nil,
R/o Sarola Kasar,
Tal. Nagar, Dist., Ahmednagar.
Second party
Coram:—
Shri R. B. Chorghe, Presiding Officer,
2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar.
APPEARANCES:—
Shri. A. V. Patil, Adovate for First Party No. 1
Shri Khatke Advocate for First Party No. 2.
Shri A.Y. Garje, Advocate for Second Party.
AWARD
(Delivered on 07-06-2012)
1. Present reference was referred for adjudication by
the Officer of Government of India, Bharat Sarkar, Ministry
of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, vide order dated 01-04-2008
holding that the Central Government is of the opinion that
an industrial dispute exists between the employer M/s
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and their workmen,
Hence, it referred the dispute for adjudication 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. The issue as per schedule was to be adjudicated.
On receipt of reference, my Ld. Predecessor issued notices
on both concerned parties. They were served.
2. The second party namely Sanjay Jaywant Harde,
filed 'Statement of Claim' vide Exh-5 challenging the illegal
termination dated 27-7-2007 and prayed for setting-aside the
same and reinstatement with continuity in service and full
back wages. It is contended that the first party namely Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is having its depot at Akolner,
District- Ahmednagar. He started construction and thereafter
functioning of storage and distribution of petrol, diesel,
kerocene and oil. When the work was started there was one
Manager, one Assistant, four operators and to clerks. There
was no office boy or peon. Also there was no watchman.
3. As there were vacancy of post of watchman,
second party approached the first party No. 1 for the post
of security guard. He was allowed to resume on duty w.e.f.
June, 1993 He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 700/-
initially form the first party No. 1 who use to allot him duty
and supervise his work. It is his contention that false and
fabricated documents were prepared to show him as
employee of contractor. That being satisfied with his work,
he was taken in the office as a 'peon' in the year, 1999. His
initial payment was Rs. 1400/- per month. He was alloted
the work to draw Demand Draft, Deposit Demand Draft in
the Bank, withdraw the amounts from the Bank, purchase
the stationary and other miscellaneous items, and also to
submit samples at Manmad Depot and to bring documents
from there. He was carrying out his duties as directed.
4. That the work of loading and unloading, gardening
and sweeping was given to one Popat S. Bhor on contract
basis and it was carried out in the name of first party No. 2
M/s Nutan Construction. That, no muster roll was
maintained by the first party No. 1. Though second party
was being paid along with employees engaged by first
party No. 1. That, his last drawn salary was Rs. 3500/- per
month. He was insisting for maintaining muster-roll and
pay-sheets to have a status as permanent employee. He
had put pu his grievance. Being annoyed, on 27-7-2004 it
was told that his services are no more required. He made a
complaint on 11.10.2004 and 17-11-2004 to the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Ahmednagar. Since the competent
authority is at company, no response was given. It is further
contended that the first party No. 1 during the conciliation
proceeding stated that he was employed by first party no.
2, Contractor. The second party submit that first party no.
2 -Contractor M/s Nutan Construction never engaged him
or made payment to him. There is no employer-employee
relationship between second party and first party No. 2
M/s Nutan Construction. That, he is a 'workman' and the
first party No. 1 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is
his employer. Just by taking advantage of paper
arrangement, his services are terminated. There was no
compliance of one month notice, notice pay. He was working
continuously through out the year. There was no charge
sheet or show cause notice issued to him. Hence, he prayed
for setting aside the termination and reinstatement with
continuity is service and full back wages.
5. That, the first party No. 1 M/s Bharat Ptroleum
Corporation Ltd. appeared through their Advocate and filed
'written statement' vide Exh. C-11 denying all contentions,
allegations and averments of the second party made in the
Statement of Claim, stating that the claim is not legal and
tenable according to law, hence, it be rejected liminie. That,
the second party Sanjay Jaywant Harde was engaged by
the contractor M/s Nutan Construction and as such he
was not a 'workman' within the meaning of section 2 (s) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The instant reference needs
to be rejected for want of employer-employee relationship.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6489
That the first party no. 1 has executed a contract with M/s.
Nutan Construction, an independent contractor for carrying
out Marfatia jobs as per terms and conditions stipulated in
the said contract.
6. It is further submitted that on 29-6-2004 at about
12.30 p.m. when depot incharge Shri D.B. Jadhav was coming
inside the depot premises, he saw the second party Sanjay
Harde carrying aluminum bucket which is used for
correcting the quantity of petrol filled in the tank lorry, and
going towards tank lorry filling shed from two wheeler
parking area. It was found that he has pilfered petrol from
tank-lorry and filled in this motor cycle parked at parking
area. Accordingly, report was given. He was caught red-
handed while committing theft. Hence, M/s. Nutan
Construction shifted him from the Marfatia Job and arranged
to engage him through the contractor performing Tank
Wagon unloading job at the said depot. The second party
did not report at new place and discontinued reporting for
work. He was never recruited/appointed by the first party
no. 1. Hence, reference is not tenable.There was no
employer-employee relationship between first party no. 1
and second party. All contentions are denied parawise.
Repeatedly saying that he was employed by the contractor.
It is further contentions of the first party no. 1 that the first
party no. 1 has given the contract for providing the security
services at the Akolner Depot to M/s. Security Services &
Intelligence Bureau, Thane during the year 1993. The
second party was initially engaged through above agency
under its full supervision and control and paid the wages
by the said agency. Thereafter, the second was engaged
by first party no. 2-contractor M/s. Nutan Construction
who was doing miscellaneous jobs for and on behalf of
first party no. 1, Hence, reference be rejected.
7. The first paty no. 2 appeared but failed to file
reply to the statement of claim and contest the reference.
8. Through the issues were framed by my Ld.
Predecessor. It is a reference in which issues as per schedule
is to be decided.
Issues
Findings
1.
Whether the services provided to
the second party Sanjay Jaywant
Harde, directly by the management
of Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. can be treated as direct
employment
under
Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. while it
is established that at the time of
removal from service, the payment
was made by the contractor M/s.
Nutan Construction engaged by
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd.?
2.
If yes, what relief to be provided to
the workman concerned?
3.
What relief?
As per final order.
R E A S O N S
9. As to issue No. 1:- It is pertinent to note here that
since the reference is referred for adjudication on the
specific issue, this court is bound by the same and cannot
extend the scope of statement of claim or demands of
second party beyond schedule attached to the reference.
So far as employment of second party is concerned, except
mere words he cannot make out that he was engaged by
first party no. 1. He had filed evidence on affidavit and
certain documents vide Exh. U-8. It is a account of Skypak
Services Specialists Ltd. for the month of August, 2000. It
is called daily pick-up - State Bank of India in the name of
client M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Exh. U-15).
He also brought on record certificate at Exh. U-16 issued
by the then Dy. Manager (Admin.) West. It was the
certificate issued on 23-1-2001 mentioning that he was
working with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. He was
authorised to carry 9 Gold coines of 8 gms each. On the
said basis he is claiming that he was employee of M/s.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.-first party no. 1, He has
produced xerox copy of one challan alleged to be prepared
by him for and on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. (Exh. U-17) . Also one letter addressed to the Treasury
Officer, Ahmednagar for collecting the stamp paper in the
name of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Exh. U-18) Copy
of bearer cheque (Exh. U-19). It is a fact that earlier second
party Sanjay Harde was appointed through Security
Agency and the construction was going on. Then and
thereafter when actual functioning of depot was started on
M/s. Nutan Construction, an independent contractor for
carrying out miscellaneous work on contract basis. The
second party was employee of said contractor, working in
the office of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Depot at
Akolner, Dist. Ahmednagar. He was being paid by the
contractor. In the reference also this fact is emphasize that
it is established fact that at the time of removal from service
payment to the second party was made by the contractor
M/s. Nutan Construction engaged by Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.
10.The first party no. 1 through its Advocate have
filed on record number of documents vide Exh. C-14 which
are collectively marked Exh.C-18. They are bills in respect
of miscellaneous jobs done at the depot submitted by
M/s. Nutan construction. It is emphasis that those
payments were made by Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. to M/s. Nutan Construction for hiring the services
of second party. Also filed on record vide Exh. C-19 a
Certificate of Registration in respect of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act. Also vide Exh. C-20 a
certificate of particulars. Vide Exh. C-21 particulars of
in the
negative
does not
survive
6490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
registration, agreement in respect of Marfatia contract
with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which is at
Exh. C-22, details of contract vide Exh. C-23, Part time
marfatia Contract vide Exh. C-24; the first party no. 1 vide
Exh. C-26, C-26, C-27, C-28, C-29 and C-30 is another
agreement stating out terms and conditions. All the
documents are in repect of contract with M/s. Nutan
Construction are produced after Exh. C-31. Further a copy
of tender for providing security services at proposed oil
depot. Akolner is produced. Further bio-data's of security
guards employed at the relevant time vide Exh. C-42;
Security Services & intelligence Bureau, Thane - the
charges for security arranagement rendered at Akolner
Depot for the month of June, 1993 along with names of
employees mentioned. Mr. S.J. Harde is also one of the
employed as a security guard. Memorandum of agreement
dated 4-7-1994 is also produced between Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Security Services &
Intelligence Bureau. Vide Exh. C-43 the muster rolls for
the concerned period are produced showing the number
of employees employed by M/s Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. Nowhere the name of the second party
is mentioned. Thus, from October, 1997 the first party
no. 1 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has tried to
prove that the second party was never employed by them
directly. Except the documents filed at Sr.no. 2 of Exh.
U-8, there is nothing to show that he was employed by
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. He was not under
direct employment of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
He has raised the claim on the basis of said document.
Except this he cannot produce any other documents to
show that he was employed by them.
11.It is pertinent to note that, the first party no. 1
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is Government of
India undertaking. There are rules and procedure for
recruitment of employees. Advertisements are published.
exams, interviews are held, written appointment letters
are issued, muster rolls are maintained. No such
documents are produced on record by the second party.
Though he had given a notice demanding documents, he
himself cannot provide that he was employee of first party
no. 1.
12.The documents produced by the first party on
record along with evidence of their witness examined on
affidavit one Mr. Deepak Baburao Jadhav, Dy. Manager
Ops, number of facts are disclosed. He had filed affidavit
as to how documents claimed by the second party could
not be produced. As the second party was employee of
contractor, those documents are with M/s. Nutan
Construction, who did appear but did not file say in the
present case. He was contractor and had not contested
the reference.
13.The second party relied upon the judgment
reported in 2001 (4) L.L.N. 1156, wherein it is held that,
''the non-production of muster roll comes in the way of
the management as it was the best evidence in its
possession. Adverse inference was rightly drawn by the
Labour Court.'' So far as fact brought on record by first
party no. 1 in the present case are concerned, merely non
production of documents as required by the second party
will not come in the way of management because they
have produced their muster roll wherein name of second
party is nowhere mentioned.
14.He also relied upon the judgement reported in
1988 I C.L.R. 38, wherein it is held that, in case of
abandonment of service, the employer has to give a notice
to the workman calling upon him to resume his duty and
also to hold an inquiry before terminating his service on
that ground. As it is established and proved by the first
party no. 1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. that the
second party was not employed by them. He was
employee of contractor and on shifting his job he
discontinued himself. It is not concern of first party to
issue him show cause notice or initiate disciplinary action,
as there was no employer-employee relationship. Hence,
the ratio laid down in above cited Judgment will not help
the second party.
15.He also relied upon the Judgment reported in
2010 I CLR 549. It is on the point of completion of 240
days in preceding 12 months and termination in
contravention of Section 25-F of the Act. So far as issue
referred for adjudication is concerned this court is not
supposed to go beyond the limit and scope of the issue.
It is to be find out whether second party was employed
by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., directly as it
was established that he was being paid salary till
termination by M/s. Nutan Construction-contractor. Under
these circumstances, having abandoned the services or
alleged to have been terminated, he cannot seek benefit
or retrenchement compensation from first party No. 1 -
M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The first party
no. 1 has proved that there was a contract and registered
agreement between them and M/s. Nutan Construction
to provide serivces of miscellaneous work through
Marfatia. These documents are sufficient to hold that the
second party was never employed by the first party no. 1.
16.He also relied upon the Judgment reported in
2007 I CLR 292. It is also on the point of abandonment of
services, where employer must give notice calling upon
workman to resume duty and must also hold enquiry
before terminating service. It is nothing but repeatation
of earlier citation.
17.In order to defend the Statement of Claim and to
put up their case, the first party no. I relied upon the
judgment reported in 2005 I L.L.J. 1153. It is on the point
of Delay and Laches - Though no time limit prescribed for
raising industrial dispute, stale claim, held, could not be
entertained. Looking at the facts on record, the second
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6491
party was allegedly terminated in the year 2004. He has
raised the dispute in the year 2008 and reference was
referred for adjudication in the year 2008. There was
considerable delay. By the time there was no industrial
dispute in existence at all, however the procedural part
have taken its time. The reference cannot be rejected on
the sole ground but it is held that raising of dispute by
the second party at the belated stage creating doubt about
its certainty.
18. They have also relied upon the judgement
reported in 2006 II LLJ 722, it is case between Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others v/s Umadevi and others. It
is one of the point of right of temporary employees of a
State to seek permanent status on the basis of long
service. Any recruitment to Stat service to be governed
by rules, constitutional and statutory. No doubt, the first
party no. 1 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., is a
Central Government undertaking. It has its own rules and
regulation for appointment of staff-employees. The second
party could not establish his employment by Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., directly.
19. The first party relied upon the judgment reported
in 2007 III CLR 143. It is one the point of statutory bodies
like appellant bound to implement constitutional scheme
of equality. As disclosed earlier, though the first party no.
1 is a statutory body, the employment of second party
was not as per laid down procedure. He was employed
through contractor. Hence, cannot avail the benefit of
reinstatement.
20. The first party no. 1 further relied upon the
judgment reported in 2008 (119) FLR 589. It is in respect
of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970-
workers, engaged through contractors-scope of judicial
review of reference is very limited. The ratio laid down in
the above cited judgment is fit to the present case and
circumstances, as it is proved that the second party was
employed through contractor, he cannot avail the benefit
as a regular employee of first party no. 1, as prayed.
21. The first party also relied upon the judgement
reported in 2008 (119) FLR 293. It was in respect of the
issue as to who is actual employer of the contract labourer.
So far as present case is concerned, said issue is the only
issue for adjudication and it is proved that the second
party was employed by contractor who carried out work
for first party no. 1.
22. The first party no 1 relied upon the judgment
reported in 2005 II LLJ 153. It is a famous case of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan case, where it is held that, it is
observed that the respondent had neither pleaded nor
placed any material to show that he was not gainfully
employed. It pointed out that the initial burden was on
the employee to prove the above fact.
23. First party no. 1 also replied upon the Judgement
in Writ Petition No. 1615 of 2008 delivered by High Court
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad on 08-07-2009 on the
same point that, the second party failed to establish that
he was not gainfully employed but admitted in cross
examination that he was working on daily wages and
earning Rs. 150/- as and when work was available. That
case is sufficient to reject the reference.
24. Considering the facts and circumstancnes and
evidence on record with the ratios laid down in above
cited judgments submitted by rival parties, I am of the
opinion that the second party failed to establish that he
was directly under employment of M/s. Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. The fact that he was working with them
as a office boy and carrying out certain duties as a Marfatia
through contractor does not mean he was regular
employee employed by them. Hence, I answered Issue
No.1 in the negative. Issue No. 2 does not survive and
Issue No. 3 as per final order, and proceed to pass
following award.
AWARD
1. Reference is answered in the negative.
2. Party no. 2 is not entitled for any reliefs.
3. Copies of award be sent to the Government for
publication.
Ahmednagar
R. B. CHORGHE, Presiding Officer
Dated: 07.06.2012
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2499-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ izkstDV
daLVªD'ku dkjiksjs'ku HkxoUriqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
53@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@86@2008 & vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2499.—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/Labour
Court, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Project Construction Corporation,
Bhawanathpur and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-29012/86/2008-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
6492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
In the Matter of Reference U/s10(1) (D) (2A) of
I.D. Act, 1947
Ref. No. 53 of 2008
Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Project
Construction Corporation
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT :
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES:
For the Employers
: None
(RMD/SAIL)
For M/s. P.C.C.
: Sri Arjun Singh Adv.
For the workman,
: Sri B.K. Sarma, Concerned
workman
State:-
Jharkhand
Industry:-Steel
Dated. 16/9/2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-29012/86/2008-IR-(M-I), dt. 31/10/
2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Project Construction Corporation, Bhawanathpur
Distt-Garhwa in terminating the service of Sri Vinay
Kumar Sharma, Card No. 164 C/o M/s. PCC
Bhawanathpur Distt Garhwa is just and fair? What
relief he is entitled to and from which date?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 17.11.2008. After notice, both parties appeared. The
workman files thier respective written statement on
04.12.2008, rejoinder and documents. It is seen, parties are
fighting litigation without having any result.
3. This Court after hearing both sides feel the
dismissal orders passed by the management be revoked.
The service of the workman to continue will today i.e.
8/8/13 and this date be treated as his date of premature
retirement. But the workman is not given any back wages.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case. I hold, the reference is allowed in part, the service of
the workman be continued till 8.8.2013 and the date 8.8.2013
is treated as his premature retirement and he be given no
back wages. But his retirement dues till 8.8.2013, be given
him forthwith after publication of the award in the gazette.
Implementation or non implementation of the award be
intimated to the undersigned.
This is my award.
R.K. SARMA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2500-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,;j bafM;k
ukxiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@19@92&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Air India, Nagpur and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-11012/19/92-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/76/2003
Date: 06.09.2013.
Party No. 1
: The Officer-in-charge,
Air India, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
Party No. 2
: Shri Arun C. Gote,
At & Post: Gumgaon,
District Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 6th 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 had referred the industrial
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6493
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Air India and their workman, Shri Arun C.
Gote, for adjudication, to C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur, as per letter No. L-11012/19/92-IR (Misc.) dated
nil, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of
Air India Nagpur in terminating the services of
Shri Arun C. Gote, Casual Labour w.e.f. 25.12.1991
and engaging Shri Kishore A. Ramteke as casual
workman w.e.f. 26.12.1991 is justified? If not, to
what relief he is entitled?"
Subsequently, the case was transferred to this
Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Arun Gote,
("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim and
the management of Air 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 sponsored by the local
employment exchange, as required by the party no.1 and
he was appointed as a labourer on 02.09.1991 with party
no.1, as per appointment letter No. NAG/52/101 dated
16.08.1991 and at the time of appointment, he was given
clear understanding that his appointment was on regular
job in the establishment of party no.1 and before his
appointment by party no.1, he was employed in a private
sector firm on regular employment and he resigned from
the said job and accepted the appointment of party no.1
and nothing was mentioned in the appointment order or in
the letter issued by the Employment Exchange that his
appointment was for a short period and he requested time
and again to the officer-in-charge, for issuance of regular
appointment order and was assured verbally by the officer
that the needful would be done in due course of time and
when he insisted for issuance of regular appointment order
in the last week of December, 1991, on 24.12.1991, he was
ordered not to come for duty from the next date and on
26.12.1991, party no.1 employed one Shri Kishore Asaram
Ramteke in his place and Shri Ramteke was not sponsored
by the employment exchange and the action of the party
no. 1. in terminating his services is illegal, as same was
done in violation of the principles of natural justice and
provisions of section 25 of the Act and the provisions of
Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and he is
entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and
back wages.
3. The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the workman was never appointed on the
regular post as a regular employee and from time to time
depending on the exigency of work, it requires loaders and
other employees on casual and daily wages basis and such
casual and daily wages employees are offered work as and
when required and work is offered to these persons strictly
depending on the work load and it is not incumbent upon
it to provide work to all the casual workers referred by the
employment exchange to it.
It is further pleaded by party no.1 that the workman
was working as handyman in Nagpur office, which is an
offline office having extremely limited activities and there
is no permanent post of peon/handyman in that office and
the said work is carried out that management cannot be
forced to create post to regularize the casual workers and
the workman was one such person referred by the
Employment Exchange and he was appointed strictly as a
casual daily labourer on 02.09.1991 and he was never given
any clear understanding that his appointment was on a
regular post and as there is no permanent post of handyman
existing at the office of Nagpur, the question of appointing
the workman on regular post does not arise and the
workman concealed the vital information of his working in
a private sector firm and his resignation from the said job,
deliberately, when he appeared for the interview and he
also did not inform about his appointment in a private sector
firm to the Employment Exchange, which he was bound to
do and the workman was not entitled to be referred to by
the Employment Exchange and as the workman did not
approach the management with clean hands, the reference
is liable to be dismiss on this ground.
The further case of party no.1 is that letter dated
16.08.1991 is not an appointment order, but the same is a
letter of intimation informing the workman to contract the
concerned official on a specific date and the letter dated
19.07.1997 issued by the Employment Exchange is also not
a letter of appointment, but an information about its (party
no.1) requirement of a casual labourer and to contact its
Sales Manager on the date mentioned in the same and in
the said letter, it was clearly mentioned that he would be
paid Rs. 42/- per day and it is clear from both the said
letters that it was clearly and specifically mentioned therein
that the post available was of a casual nature and not a
regular post and the workman had not put in 240 days of
continuous service during the period of 12 months as
provided under the provision of law and the workman was
never assured that needful would be done in respect of
regularizing him by any of its officers and the services of
the workman were terminated as the period of employment
ended and not because, he insisted for making him
permanent and the fact that the workman requested for
regularisation even prior to completion of 240 days of work
very eloquently proves that he was aware of the casual
nature of the employment.
The party no.1 has admitted that the workman
was discontinued from services on 24.12.1991 and
Shri Ramteke was appointed.
6494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The party no.1 has further pleaded that Shri
Ramteke was also referred by the Employment Exchange
and the termination of the workman was neither unjust
nor unfair and it did not commit any breach of legal
provisions under any Act and any unfair labour practice
as laid down in Vth Schedule of the Act or any other
provision of law and the case of the workman is not at all
a case of victimization and it is not correct to say that the
workman was terminated from services not in good faith,
but in colourable exercise of power by it and the claim of
the workman is devoid of merit and the workman is not
entitled to any relief:
4. In the rejoinder, the workman has pleaded that
the appointment of casuals on the basis of workload did
not exist in his case, because he was removed and another
person was appointed against the same position and no
fair practice permits termination of services of one person
without any reason or notice and appointing of another
person against the very vacancy and party no.1 has
violated the statutory provisions of section 25-T and
Schedule V of the Act and as such, the action of party
no.1 is a clear cut case of unfair labour practice. The rest
of the contention of the rejoinder is mostly reiteration of
the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.
5. In order to prove their respective stands, both
the parties have led oral evidence, besides placing
reliance on the documentary evidence.
The workman has only examined himself as a
witness in support of his case, one Shri Pramod
Mahadeorao has been examined as a witness from the
side of the party no.1.
The evidence of the workman in his examination-in-
chief, which is on affidavit, is in the line of the stands
taken in the statement of claim. However, in his cross-
examination, the workman has admitted that he was
appointed as a casual labourer on daily wages basis by
Air India and he started working with Air India from
02.09.1991 and was terminated from service on 24.12.1991
and he worked for 120 days in total and he was getting
Rs. 42/- as daily wages and he did not submit any written
application to the management to regularize his service.
6. The evidence of the witness examined on behalf
of the party no.1, which is on affidavit is in the line of the
stands taken in the written statement. In his cross-
examination, the witness for the party no.1 has stated
that the name of the workman was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange for his appointment and 20 to 25
persons were sponsored by the Employment Exchange
and at the time of interview of the workman, only one
casual labourer was working in the office of the Air India
and Air India had engaged 18 different casual labourer as
and when required, before the engagement of the
workman and the period of engagement of those 18 casual
labourer as and when required, before the engagement of
the workman and the duration of engagement of those 18
casual labourer was according to the need of the office
extending from one month to two months and there was
no post of class-IV in the office of the Air India and there
was work of class-IV employee in the office and after
termination of the service of the workman, Kishore
Asharam Ramteke was engaged by the office on casual
basis.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the workman was
appointed against a permanent vacancy and it is clear
from the pleadings of the Party No.1 and the admission of
the witness for the management that the name of the
workman was sponsored by the Local Employment
Exchange and his selection was made after he was
interviewed and it is also clear from the materials available
on record that 18 casual labourers were engaged by the
Party No. 1 for short periods, one after the other, prior to
the appointment of the workman and after the workman
was terminated, another person, namely Kishore Asharam
Ramteke was appointed immediately against the same
vacancy, which clearly shows that there was permanent
need of a class-IV employee and the Party No. 1 adopted
unfair labour practice and the services of the workman
were terminated without any reason and without following
the due procedure of law and as the termination of the
workman is illegal, he is entitled for reinstatement in service
with continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no. 1 that there was and is not
permanent post of peon in the office of Party No.1 and
the workman was engaged as a casual labourer on
02.09.1991 and the workman was intimated in clear terms
in the letter issued by the Party No. 1 and so also by the
Employment Exchange that his engagement was on casual
basis on daily wages of Rs. 42/- and the workman was
aware that his engagement was as a casual workman and
as the workman did not put in continuous service of 240
days in one year, there was no question of giving any
notice or retrenchment compensation to the workman and
the workman was not engaged after completion of the
specific period of his engagement and the workman has
admitted such facts in his cross-examination and as the
workman was appointed as a daily wage earner and not to
any post, he cannot claim any benefits from Party No. 1
and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of the submission, the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions
reported in (2006) 5 SCC-764 (Huda Vs. Jagmal Singh) and
(2006) 13 SCC-28 (Bhogpur Co-operative Sugur Mills Ltd.
Vs. Harmesh Kumar).
9. Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think
it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6495
Hon'ble Apex court in the decision reported in (2006) 5
SCC-764 (Supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court have held
that:—
"Labour Law-Reinstatement-with continuity in
service and back wages-Claimed by sweeper who
was appointed by appellant on daily wages-
Claim made 41/2 years after his discharge from
service (according to appellant the respondent
had left the service of his own) evidence led by
appellant before labour court to establish that
respondent had not completed 240 days' service
in any of the three years, he worked with
appellant-But still labour court decided the issue
of attendance of respondent in his favour-Held,
approach of the labour court in calculating the
statutory period of 240 days in a year was
erroneous-Moreover, repondent having been
appointed only as a daily wage earner and not
as a permanent employee, he cannot claim any
right to the post and no right accrued to him to
claim any benefits from appellant-Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, Sec. 11-A, 25-B."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated in the
above decisions, now the present case in hand is to be
considered.
10. In this case, it is clear from the evidence on record
including the admission of the workman and the documents,
Exts. W-II and W-III that the workman was appointed as a
casual labourer on daily wages and he worked with Party
No. 1 from 02.09.1991 to 24.12.1991 and he was getting
Rs. 42, as daily wages. It is also clear from the materials on
record that the workman was intimated by the Employment
Exchange vide letter, Ext. W-III that Party No. 1 was in need
of a casual daily wage worker with daily wages of Rs. 42
and the Party No. 1 also intimated the workman vide letter,
Ext. W-II that his engagement was a casual labourer.
11. It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in a string of decisions that to avail the benefits of
the provisions of section 25-F read with section 25-B of the
Act, it is necessary for the workman to prove that infact he
had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the alleged date of termination. In this case, it is
the own case of the workman that he worked from 02.09.1991
to 24.12.1991. It is clear that the workman neither worked
for 12 calendar months nor 240 days in 12 calendar months
preceding the date of the termination. So, the workman is
not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of section
25-F of the Act.
12. Admittedly, clause (5) (10) of the 5th Schedule as
given in the Act says that to employ workman as "badlis,
casuals or temporaries and to continue as such for years,
with the object of depriving them of the status and
privileges of permanent workman amounts to unfair labour
practice.
Section 25-T of the Act says that no employer or
workman or a trade union whether registered under the
Trade Unions Act, 1926 or not, shall commit any unfair
labour practice. For committing unfair labour practices,
penal provisions have been provided.
However, in this case, the workman was not
continued as a casual worker for years together. His
engagement was only for a period of four months. It is also
clear from the materials on record that the engagement or
appointment of the workman was not as a permanent
employee or against any permanent vacant post. His
appointment was only as a daily wage earner. So, applying
the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision report in (2006) 5 SCC-764 (Supra), which are
squarely applicable to the case in hand, it is found that the
workman cannot claim any benefits from the Party No. 1.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Air India Nagpur in
terminating the services of Shri Arun C. Gote, Casual Labour
w.e.f. 25.12.1991 and engaging Shri Kishore A. Ramteke as
casual workman w.e.f. 26.12.1991 is justified. The workman
is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2501.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fgjh
MksykekbV ekbUl vkWQ fHkykbZ LVhy IykaV foykliqj bafM;u ds izcaèr=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 209@96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 29012@29@96&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 209/96)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Hirri Dolomite Mines of Bhilai Steel
Plant, Distt. Bilaspur and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-29012/29/96-R (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
6496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/209/96
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Organising Secretary,
Chhattisgarh Mines Shramik Sangh,
Branch Hirri Mines,
PO Hirri Mines,
Distt. Bilaspur
......Workman/Union
Versus
The Mines Manager,
Hirri Dolomite Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant,
PO Hirri Mines,
Distt. Bilaspur
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 27-11-96 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
29012/29/96-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Hirri
dolomite Mines of Dolomite Mines of Bhilai Steel
Plant, Hirri, Bilaspur in removing Shri Nand Lal
and Smt. Dhireja Bai Ex-DPR Mazdoor from
service vide order No. OMQ/HM/Estt/PRM/4(2)/
348 dated 21-1-94 and order No. OMQ/HM/Estt/
PRM/4(2)/349 dated 21-1-94 is justified? If not, to
what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. 1st party workman failed to file statement of
claim. Workman is proceeded exparte on 16-9-09.
3. Management filed exparte Written Statement. Ilnd
party submits that on 2-5-93 Mines Manager was surrounded
by 30-35 male female workers near Mumbai temple were
shouting that Mines Manager Basak should not be spared.
CISF Security Staff advised workers let the Mines Manager
talk by sitting in the Mines Office. Said request was not
accepted by labours. The labours were demanding payment
of arrears and DA and regular services. The Mine Manager
told that DA arrears were not paid to regular employees at
the moment. The workers were shouting exhibiting to beat
the management. After the Mines Manager given
undertaking for payment of DA arrears, he was relieved.
Because of above facts chargesheet was issued to
Shri Nandlal and Smt. Dhireja Bai. After receiving reply,
Enquiry Officer V. Mahalingam Manager Personnel was
appointed. M.Z. Rahim was appointed as Prosecution
Nominee. The enquiry was conducted Hindi translation of
chargesheet was supplied to the workman. The statement of
management's witnesses were recorded. After findings of
Enquiry Officer, charges were proved. The workers were
removed from service.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
management of Hirri dolomite
In Affirmative
Mines of Dolomite Mines of Bhilai
Steel Plant, Hirri, Bilaspur in
removing Shri Nand Lal and
Smt. Dhireja Bai Ex-DPR Mazdoor
from service vide order No.
OMQ/H I M/Estt/PRM/4(2 )/348
dated 21-1-94 and order No.
OMQ/H 1M/Estt/PRM/4(2)/349
dated 21-1-94 is legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
Relief prayed by
is entitled to?"
workmen are
rejected.
REASONS
5. 1st party workman though challenged order of
their termination of service, no statement of claim is filed
by them. They failed to participate in the reference
proceeding. Management filed statement of claim giving
details of incidents occurred and enquiry conducted.
Management's witness Shri Mahadeo filed affidavit of
evidence covering details of enquiry conducted against
workman. His evidence remained unchallenged therefore
the termination of services of 1st party workman cannot be
said illegal. For above reasons I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Hirri dolomite
Mines of Dolomite Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant,
Hirri, Bilaspur in removing Shri Nand Lal and
Smt. Dhireja Bai Ex-DPR Mazdoor from service
vide order No. OMQ/HM/Estt/PRM/4(2)/348 dated
21-1-94 and order No. OMQ/HM/Estt/PRM/4(2)/
349 dated 21-1-94 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman are rejected.
7. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6497
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2502.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ xzs vk;ju
QkmUMjh tcyiqj] e/; izns'k ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 119@85½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@6@85&Mh&II ¼ch½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 119/85)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Grey Iron Foundry, Jabalpur (MP)
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-42012/6/85-D-II (B)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/119/85
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Bashir Khan,
S/o Habib Khan,
R/o Azizganj, Pasyana,
PO Anand Nagar,
Adhartal, Jabalpur (MP)
....Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Grey Iron Foundry,
VFJ Estate, Jabalpur (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of September 2013
1.
As per letter dated 2-12-1985 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012(6)/
85-D-II(B). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Grey
Iron Foundry Jabalpur (MP) in awarding
punishment of removal from service to Shri Bashir
Khan, Crane Driver B (EDG) w.e.f. 3-5-1982 is
justified? If not, to what relief is the workman
concerned entitled?"
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 13 to 23. The case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as Crane Driver "B" at Grey Iron Foundry on
6-3-74 and allotted Ticket No. 1147/264/F.S. That on
18-11-80, around 3 PM, he went out of main gate of the
factory duly searched. When he reached the cycle stand,
he was called back by Security Darban and directed to go
to rigorous search room inside the gate. He told the security
darban that he had already been searched and was going
home. There upon he was forcibly taken to rigorous search
room inside the main factory gate. Chargesheet was issued
to him under Rule 14 of CCS Rules 1965. The charges were
that 3 pieces of brass about 300 gm were found from right
shoes, nine pieces of Copper electronic 525 gm were found
from right shoe and Nineteen pieces Nickel Plated electronic
copper 625 grams were found from his left shoes.
3. It is further submitted by workman that Shri K.D.
Sanyal, Dy. Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He
was asked to submit names of three defence assistance
who should be Central Govt. employees to assist him in his
defence—Shri Sunderlal Verma, K.L. Vishwakarma &
Ram Prasad Patel on 3-1-1982. That he had pleaded not
guilty to the charge. That enquiry Officer did not inform
the Defence Asstt. in the list about the enquiry proceedings.
Consequently they could not remain present. My
predecessor has found enquiry is vitiated. On such
grounds, said order has received finality. Therefore I am
not inclined to discuss in detail the pleadings on point of
illegality of enquiry. That the date of theft in chargesheet is
shown as 18-11-80 whereas the chargeman has stated on
30-11-80 is contradictory. Other witnesses Shri J.C. Kanwar,
S.P. Sharma and P.N. Sharma have affirmed their statement
recorded on 18-11-80. For statement who recorded it is not
known neither it was disclosed before Enquiry Officer. The
contents of statement have not been disclosed before
Enquiry Officer. The workman did not get opportunity to
cross-examine to test verbosity of the witnesses. On such
grounds, it is submitted that the enquiry is not legal.
Workman suffers prejudice in his defence. He is illiterate
person and not able to defend himself. The workman prays
for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. Management filed Written Statement at Page
5 to 11. Management of IInd party submits that punishment
was imposed on the basis of proved charges of theft against
workman. Penalty is legal, proper. Workman is not entitled
to any relief prayed by him. It is further submitted that on
18-11-80, on vigorous search, brass, copper metal
pieces concealed in the shoes were recovered from the
workman. Initially he had refused for his search. When it
was brought to his notice that it was also the offence, the
search was given and metal pieces were recovered.
6498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman in his statement recorded by Officer and admitted
that he had committed similar incidents in the papst as
well. Workman was provided Hindi version of the
chargesheet. They have not submitted names of 3
employees for Defence Assistant, the enquiry was therefore
proceeded exparte. The list was submitted subsequently.
That cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was
done by the individual. The punishment was imposed after
charges against workman were proved. Ilnd party prayed
for rejection of relief prayed by workman. It is further
submitted that in the past workman was censured for
attempting theft of Govt. property on 13- 2-80, he was also
warned for misuse of LTC privilege.
5. After recording evidence by my learned
predecessor vide order dated 9-3-92 enquiry was vitiated,
management was given opportunity to prove misconduct
by evidence. The issues were framed on 28-10-86 as under
and my findings are recorded against those issues.
(i)
Whether the enquiry is
Enquiry found illegal
proper and legal?
(ii )
Whether the management
IInd party was permitted
is entitled to lead evidence to prove misconduct by
before this Tribunal?
adducing evidence
(iii)
Whether the punishment
Punishment of removal
awarded is proper and
from service of workman
legal?
is not legal
(iv) Whether the termination/
Punishment of removal
action taken against the
from service of workman
workman is justified on
is not legal
facts of the case?
(v)
Relief and costs
As per final order
REASONS
6. Issue No.1&2—As per order dated 9-3-92, my
learned predecessor has already held enquiry as vitiated.
The application filed for its review has been rejected twice.
However the management was permitted to adduce
evidence to prove the misconduct against workman. For
above reasons, Issue No.1, 2 are answered accordingly.
7. Issue No. 3,4—Management was permitted to
adduce evidence to prove the misconduct alleged against
workman. Management filed affidavit of witness
Shri J.S.Verma. Said witness of the management in his
affidavit has stated that his statement dated 18-11-80 given
to the management was in connection of theft of Govt.
property committed by Shri Bashir Khan. He confirmed
said statement given by him. On 18-11-80, he was called by
Security staff around 15.45 hours at main gate. When he
reached main gate, he saw some material pieces lying in
search room on the table in presence of orderly officer/
Foreman. He was told by Orderly Officer to examine and
identify the material when I identified to be as made of
Copper and Brass pieces and some of them were plated.
These pieces are used as electric contacts. Said Govt.
property was confiscated from Shri Bashir Khan, Ex-Crane
Driver of MT Section. In his cross- examination, the above
witness of the management says search of labour/workman
was not conducted in his presence. Thus his evidence is
completely shallow in his cross-examination. Personal search
of workman and recovery of metal articles is not known from
his evidence. As stated above, the enquiry is already vitiated.
Thus the charges/misconduct alleged against workman is
not proved. When misconduct alleged against workman is
not proved, punishment of removal from service cannot be
said legal. Therefore I record my finding on Issue No. 3,4 in
Negative.
8. Issue No.5—In view of my finding on Issue No. 3,
4, the misconduct alleged against workman is not proved,
the punishment of removal from service is not legal.
Question arises to what relief the workman is entitled?
Workman was removed from service w.e.f. 3-5-82 about
more than30 years back. The affidavit of evidence of
workman shows his age 37 years on date of filing affidavit
i.e. 17-10-95. His affidavit is silent about he was in gainful
employment or not. The management has also not pleaded
or adduced evidence that the workman Bashir Khan is in
any kind of employment. However the workman has not
explained how he is maintaining his family during such a
long period. Considering above aspects in my considered
view, the order of removal deserves to be set-aside. That
reinstatement of 1st party with 50 % back wages would be
appropriate and meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I
hold and record my finding on Issue No.5.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the management of Grey Iron
Foundry Jabalpur (MP) in awarding punishment
of removal from service to Shri Bashir Khan, Crane
Driver B (EDG) w.e.f. 3-5-1982 is illegal.
(2)
IInd party management is directed to reinstate
workman Shri Bashir Khan with 50 % back wages.
10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2503.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lsUVjy
os;j gkmflax dksjiksjs'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 90@89½
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@01@89&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6499
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputs Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 90/89)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Central Ware Housing Corporation, Bhopal
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-42012/1/89-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/90/89
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh,
S/o Shri Jagannath Singh,
Bibia Karanpur, Shitala Ganj,
Pratapgarh (UP)
...Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager,
Central Ware Housing Corporation,
Regional Office, 52-53,
Amar Niwas, New Market,
T.T.Nagar, Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of May 2013
1.
As per letter dated 2-5-1989 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012/
1/89-1R(Vividh) . The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the dismissal of Shri S.B.Singh, Ex-
chowkidar, Central Warehouse Burhanpur by the
management of Central Warehousing Corporation,
Bhopal w.e.f. 17-11-1986 is justified. If not, what
relief is the workman entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. 1st party workman filed his statement of claim
at page 9 to 15. The case of 1st party workman is that he is
ex-serviceman. He has passed H.S.C. He was appointed as
watchman from 1-12-82 with Ilnd party Central Ware House,
MP Region. That his appointment was against vacant post.
He continued to work honestly and sincerely to the
satisfaction of his superiors. That his name was sponsored
through Employment Exchange for said job as 1st party
workman has distinguished different service record. He
was found eligible as he was continuously working in the
corporation from 1-12-82. That he was interviewed on
1-1-84. He was regularized as watchman from 1- 1-84 in pay
scale Rs. 196-232. He was allowed to draw salary and other
benefits. That after 19-10-84, he was given daily wages. He
continued to work on the said post. That by subsequent
order dated 8- 7-85, he was again allowed to draw monthly
salary of permanent watchman. That he was continuously
working till 17-11-86. Thereafter he was not allowed to work,
he was not given any notice nor paid notice pay in lieu of
notice. He was discontinued without assigning reasons .
Any adverse remark were not communicated to him. His
services were illegally terminated without issuing any
chargesheet or holding enquiry. The employee junior to
him are continued, only his services are dismissed.
3. 1st party workman further submits that IInd party
is an Industry. He is a workman under provisions of I.D.
Act. He has continuously orked from 1-12-82 to 17-11-86.
He had completed 240 days during the preceding calendar
year. Dispensing his services amount to retrenchment
under Section 2(oo) of I.D.Act. he is dismissed in violation
of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D.Act. He prays for reinstatement
with consequential benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 19 to 27.
IInd party submits that 1st party workman was appointed
as watchman on daily wages w.e.f. 1-12-1982 but on
temporary basis. That 1st party workman was working as
watchman on daily rated basis was sponsored by
Employment Exchange. He was interviewed on 1-1-1984
for the post of watchman. That as per Staff Regulation
Rules 1986, the maximum age limit for post of watchman is
25 years. The date of birth of workman is 15-12-1950. He
was found overage by 6 months and 12 days after allowing
relaxation for service period in Army and giving 3 years
relaxation. However he was continued to engage on daily
wages till the matter of relaxation was decided. That on
grant of relaxation, he was given fresh offer of appointment
on 8-7-85 against regular vacancy. The 1st party workman
was reported on duty at Raigarh on 20-7-85. That his
appointment was on probation for a period of one year
w.e.f. 20-7-85 , probation period was extended for further
period of one year as per the Staff Regulations 1986. That
oral performance of 1st party during probation period was
not satisfactory therefore Competent Authority discharged
his services from 16-11-86. He was paid one month's pay in
lieu of notice.
5. IInd party management denies that workman was
confirmed in the post of Chowkidar w.e.f. 11-5-84 and he
continued on the said post till 17-11-86. The contentions
of 1st party are alleged to be baseless. That there is no
provision in regulation to communicate adverse remarks to
the probationers. It is reiterated that as services record of
6500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1st party workman are not satisfactory during probation
period, he was discharged/terminated. That as per law,
compensation was not payable to him. Provision of Section
25-G, H of I.D.Act are not applicable for termination during
the said period. Considering unsatisfactory service record
of 1st party, his services are terminated the Competent
Authority. lInd party prays for rejection of relief claimed by
the 1st party workman.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the termination of
In Negative
Shri S.B.Singh, Ex-Chowkidar,
Central Warehouse Burhanpur
by the management of Central
Warehousing Corporation,
Bhopal w.e.f. 17-11-1986 is
justified ?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Workman is entitled
workman is entitled to?"
to reinstatement with
50 % back wages.
REASONS
7. Ist party workman is challenging dismissal of his
services from 16-11-86. IInd party management claims that
workman was appointed on probation for a period of one
year. His service record was not satisfactory therefore
Competent Authority discharged him from service rather
terminated him from 17-11-86. Ist party workman prays that
he was engaged as chowkidar on temporary basis from
1-12-1982. Thereafter his name was sponsored through
Employment Exchange and he was interviewed on 1-1-84.
He was regularized in pay scale Rs. 196-232. He was allowed
to draw salary in said pay scale. Those averment of Ist
party workman are denied by the IInd party.
8. Exparte award was passed by my predecessor on
25-12-95 as Ist party workman failed to appear after notices.
The reference was answered in favour of the management.
The exparte award was set aside and Ist party has submitted
his statement of claim and it was opposed by the
management filing Written Statement.
9. Ist party workman filed evidence of affidavit at
Page 95/1 to 95/3. He has stated facts consistent in his
statement of claim that from 1-12-82, he was engaged on
vacant post, his name was sponsored through employment
exchange. He continuously worked till 1-1-84. After
interview, he was brought in regular scale Rs. 196-232. He
was given monthly salary as per order dated 8-7-05. That
his services were discontinued from 17-11-86. He was not
served with any notice. He was not paid one months pay in
lieu of notice, any showcause notice was not given to him.
He was given age relaxation by the Managing Director. He
had not received adverse remark.
10. Ist party workmans was not cross-examined. His
evidence remained unchallenged. IInd party management
filed affidavit of witness Shri J.V. Bendre but he was not
produced for cross-examination. Management filed affidavit
of other witness Shri Mritunjoy Kumar Verma. The said
witness has stated that Ist party workman was appointed
as watchman from 1-12-82. That his name was sponsored
through Employment Exchange. He was interviewed on
1-1-84 for the post of watchman. The officer memo/offer of
appointment dated 11-5-84 was issued.On acceptance of
terms and conditions, Ist party workman has submitted
joining report and certificate. He was found overage by
6 months and 12 days as per Staff Regulation 1986.
However he was continued on daily wages till relaxation
was granted by the Managing Director of the Corporation.
That Regional Manager provisionally originally allowed
the workman to draw wages from 1-6-84 to 31-8-84 pending
decision of relaxation of age. Othwerwise his services would
have been terminated. That as per order dated 17-10-84,
provisional appointment was cancelled. Regional Office,
Bhopal has received letter dated 15-3-85 with regard to
relaxation of age of workman. Thereafter workman was
appointed as per order dated 8-7-85 as CDR Gr. II and
posted at Raigarh. The joining report was submitted on
20-7-85. His appointment was on probation for one year.
He was found confirmed alcoholic. His service record was
unsatisfactory, he was found under influence of liquor, he
was irregular in attendance, he might have been involved
in theft of cement but escaped from police. There is no
provision to communicate adverse remark during probation
period.
11. In his cross-examination, management witness
says that it is copy of conduct report by V. Armugam, Ware
House Manager. Documents Exhibit M-9, M-10, M-9/A,
M-11, M-12 & M-13 are proved by this witness. In his
cross-examination, management witness says where it was
necessary, the workman was supplied copies of the
documents. In his presence, no copy was given to the
workman, no acknowledgement of workman is produced.
He claim ignorance whether the person whose signature
are in the document are alive or dead. That workman was
paid one months pay before discontinuance of his service.
12. Document Exhibit M-1 is appointment order dated
11-5-84 with reference to interview/regularization pay scale
Rs. 196-232. It also finds condition No. 3 relates to the
appointment on probation. Document M-2 is joining report
dated 1-6-84. Docuemnt M-3 is certificate of date of birth.
Date of birth of Ist party is 15-12-1950. Exhibit M-4 is letter
dated 11-9-84 signed by Asstt. Manager, Administration to
Personnel Manager about relaxation of age of the Ist party
workman. If age was not relaxed, his services would be
terminated without notice. Exhibit M-5 is letter given by
Regional Manager to Personnel Manager dated 21-9-84
information that Ist party workman had completed 240 days
continuous service. It was decided by office to regularise
his services. Office memorandum was issued on 11-5-84.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6501
There was reference about military services completed by
workman from 6-4-71 to 5-9-74. That overage by 6 months
12 days was recommended to be relaxed. It is to be noted
that said letter is given by Regional Manager without
awaiting its decision. The appointment letter Exhibit M-6 is
issued by the Regional Manager on 8-5-85. When Ist party
workman was working from 1-12-1985, his name was
sponsored through Employment Exchange. he was
called for interview and appointed as per Exhibit M-1 dated
11-5-84. There was no need to again issue appointment
order to the workman on 8-5-85. He is absolutely no reason
to issue such appointment order. Document M-7 is joining
report dated 20-7-85. It is filled in English, but appears not
filled in writing of workman. Exhibit M-8 is office order
dated 18-11-85 that Ist party workman was given pay scale
Rs. 196-232 was made w.e.f. 20-7-85. Exhibit M-9, 9-A are
the conduct report written by Ware House Manager,
Raigarh and Dy. Manager, Raigarh. The reports are written
on 25-6-86 & 5-1-87 after the order of his discharge was
issued. Exhibit M-13 is office order dated 4-11-86 for one
month's pay to the Ist party workman. However sanction
order document Exhibit 12-A is dated 13-1-87. Thus the
amount of notice pay appears sanctioned subsequent to
termination. No document is produced about receipt of
one months pay by the Ist party workman.
13. When IInd party management is contending that
the services of Ist party workman were discharged as his
service record was not satisfactory. The document
discussed above shows that even the IInd party
management tried to show that one months pay in liew of
notice was also paid. Thus the management of IInd party is
not consistent on its defence, it is trying to justify the
termination of Ist party workman contending that his
appointment was in probation. It also tries to contend that
one months notice pay was paid. Two appointment order
were issued. The decision about relaxation of age was
awaited. Thus the evidence of management is not
consistent. Rather I may pointout that the documents
produced by management with list dated 30-5-91, letter
from Joint Manger dated 15-3-85 shows that relaxation in
age and regularization of the Ist party workman was
accorded. Unfortunately consel for workman denied that
the document without understanding that document fully
support the claim of Ist party workman.
14. Learned counsel for IInd party management
Shri Shashi persuing his argument that services of workman
were discharged during probation period as his service
record was not satisfactory relates in Ratio held in case of
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others
Versus Zakir Hussain reported in 2005 (7) Supreme Court
Cases 447. Their Lordship dealing with Termination of
service of probationer, termination simpliciter preceded by
adverse remarks held that having been reinstated with back
wages about 15 long years ago his services directed to be
discontinued without recovering the amount already paid.
Their Lordship held in such circumstance, holding of an
enquiry before making the termination order, held was not
obligatory.
In case of Muir Mills Unit of NTC (UP) Ltd. Versus
Swayam Prakash Srivastava and another reported in 2007(1)
Supreme Court Cases 491 Their Lordship dealing with
termination of services during probation period for
unsatisfactory work held such termination is permissible
and such termination cannot be said to be stigmatic though
the termination order may refer to probationer's service as
being not satisfactory.
In case of M.V. Venugopal Versus Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India Machilipatnam and
another reported in 1994 (2) Supreme Court Cases 323. Their
Lordship dealing with Regulation 14 of LIC of India Staff
Regulations 1960 originally framed under Section 49
regarding probation of employees belonging to Class I
and II deemed to a statutory rule under Section 48(2) (cc)
relating to terms and conditions of service of the employees
and has over-riding effect over S.s(oo) and 25-F of I.D. Act
in view of the non obstante clause in S.48(2-C). It was held
that operation of Section 2(oo) of I.D. Act excluded
termination not being deemed to be retrenchment under
Section 2(oo) See.25-F not attracted.
In present case, Ist party workman had completed
240 days service. After holding interview on 1-1-84, the
appointment letter was issued in the year. 1984. There was
no reason for again issuing appointment order dated
8-7-85. The evidence adduced and documents produced
by mangement is not consistent. Therefore the ration held
in all those case cannot be aplied to the present case. For
the same reasons, ration held in case of Chaitanya Prakash
and another Vrs. H.Omkrappa reported in 2010-2-Supreme
Court Cases 623 & LIC Versus Reghavendra Seshagiri Rao
Kulkarni reported in 1997(8) Supreme Court Cases 461
cannot be applied to case at hand.
15. Ist party workman had already completed 240
days continuous service preceding his termination, his
termination without notices, without payment of one month
pay in lieu of notice, without payment of retrenchment
compensation is illegal. The termination of Ist party
workman is long back on 17-11-86. His evidence is not
clear how he and his family are surviving. His claim for full
back wages cannot be allowed. Therefore for violation of
Section 25-F. G & H of I.D. Act, termination of services of
Ist party workman is illegal. In my considered view, Ist
party is entitled for reinstatement in service with 50%
back wages. Accordingly I record my finding on Point
No. 1 & 2.
16. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Termination of Shri S.B. Singh, Ex-chowkidar,
Central Warehouse Burhanpur by the management
of Central Warehousing Corporation, Bhopal w.e.f.
17-11-1986 is illegal.
6502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) Ist party workman is entitled to reinstatement with
50% back wages.
17. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2504.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ us'kuy
feujYl MoyieSaV dksjiksjs'ku fyñ ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
178@95½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&43011@12@94&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 178/95)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of National Mineral Development Corporation
Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-43011/12/94-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/178/95
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Panna Hira Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
Hira Khadan Pariyojana,
Post Majhgawan,
Distt. Panna
....Union
Versus
General Manger,
National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,
Hira Khan Pariyojana,
Panna.
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 25th day of April 2013
As per letter dated 10-10-98 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-43011/
12/94-IR(Vividh). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the mangement of
M/s. National Mineral Development Corporation
Ltd., Diamond Mining Project, Panna, MP in
promoting Shri Santosh Kumar and Shri A.K.
Siddiqui to N-8 scale ignoring the seniority of 10
employees mentioned below while implementing
the settlement dated 7-7-89 is justified? If not, to
what relief these ten workmen are entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted Statement of claim
through Shri Gomti Prasad and 9 other employees. The
pleadings are very exhaustive with repetitions. The case of
Ist party workman is that Shri Gomti Prasad joined services
in the year 1967 as time-keeper. He was regularized on the
post of time keeper but he was not paid regular scale of
Rs. 110-181. That workman performed work and duties of
time keeper in the year 1971. There was settlement between
management and representative of the All India NMDC
Workmen Federation. On 30-10-71, the post of time keeper
was re-designated as LDC. That workman Gomti Prasad
was not designated as LDC till 1977. He was not in a position
to agitate this grievance of non-designating on the post of
LDC since 1971 because of personal family problems and
also because of heavy management pressure and their
attitude towards how paid employees. That his services
were of utmost importance looking to his starving family
members.
3. He was designated as LDC in 1977. He was
promoted in UDC on 14-08-96. That as per prevalent service
conditions, the channel for promotion was - LDC Rs. 585-
18-823, UDC- 610-22-904, and Section Officer 9 Supervisor
Rank - Rs. 720-41-1273.
4. He further submits that he was working as UDC in
August 1989, was entitled to be promoted to the post of
Asstt. In the pay scale of Rs. 720-41-1273. As per settlement
dated 16-12-89 was Rs. 1580-63-2021-70-2511 w.e.f. 1-1-89.
That qualification of departmental candidates for promotion
to the post of Asstt. was 3 years experience on the post of
UDC. No departmental test was conducted. Therefore he
was entitled to promotion as Assistant from 13-8-97. It is
alleged that the management acted malafidely, arbitrarily,
adopted, by adopting discriminatory attitude and exercise
of powers of promotion illegally promoted Mr. A.R. Siddiqui
and Shri Santosh Kumar by order dated 5-8-89 and 15-8-89
thereby superseding the applicant and 9 other employees.
That name of applicant Shri Gomti Prasad Garg was at
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6503
Sl. No. 16, name of Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Santosh Kumar
were not in seniority list of UDC. They were working as
LDC., Ist party workman further submits that in
February 1989 seniority list was displayed, his name was at
Sl. No. 13. Name of Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Santosh were at
Sl. No. 22 and 25 respectively. That Shri Siddiqui and
Santosh were junior to him. They were not entitled for
promotion. Any punishment was not imposed against the
Ist party workman. On the other hand, Mr. Siddiqui was
involved in misappropriation of amount and he was reverted
to LDC. As per settlement dated 7-7-89, new channel of
promotion was provided, junior Asstt. Grade-III, Jr. Asstt.
Gr-II and Jr. Asstt. Gr. I, Assistant having different pay
scales. Ist party workman submits that he has been
discriminated and Mr. Siddiqui and Santosh Kumar are
illegally promoted supreseding him and 9 other employees.
That he is entitled to promotion from date his juniors A.R.
Siddiqui and Santosh Kumar were promoted. Ist party
workman submits that he had submitted application dated
15-6-91 to Regional Labour Commissioner. That the matter
was taken up before conciliation Officer at different times.
However the management adopted delay in tactics and
submitted settlement dated 7-7-89 for diverting the issue
of supersession of workman. He also submitted details of
the consciliation proceedings and initially Government
refused to make reference. Therefore he had filed Writ
Petition No. 2404/95. As per the judgment dated 27-7-95,
the reference was made by the Government. It is repeatedly
submitted that Mr.Santosh Kumar and A.R. Siddiqui junior
to him were promoted, superseded Ist party workman Shri
Gomti Prasad Garg and 9 others. Ist party workman prays
promotion from the date of his supersession by the junior
employees. He also prays for promotion to the post of Sr.
Asstt. Grade-II on the basis of seniority w.e.f. 5-8-99.
5. IInd part submitted detailed Written Statement at
Page 6/1 to 6/11. IInd party submits that as per clause E(1)
and E(2) of agreeemnt, 15 years experience was necessary
for promotion therefore the reference was refused by the
Government. It is repeatedly contended that the reference
is not tenable in view of ration held in AIR 1985 SCC-915,
AIR 1985-SC-860 and settlement dated 9-7-89 providing
the promotional channel. As per clause-"J", the parties
had agreed not to raise the dispute. That the matter was
discussed at length by representative of the management
and the Union Representative before Conciliation Officer
and settlement dated 1-1-91. It is further contended that
the demands raised by Union with respect of seniority of
10 workmen who were superseded by 2 junior workmen
were submitted before the Conciliation Officer. The matter
was discussed with Management and the union and after
discussion, it was mutually agreed that the matter will be
referred and clarification sought from that Head Office as
settlement was Tripartite Settlement signed before the RLC,
Hyderabad between the management of NMDC and their
workmen represented by NMDCWF and its affiliated
Unions at Hyderabad. Subsequently on receipt of
clarification, the PHMKS Union has been informed vide
office letter dated 21-8-93.
6. IInd party management submits that as per clause
(e) of settlement dated 7-7-89, those workman who had
completed 15 years in the grades on N-3 and N-4 combined
on 7-7-89 were eligible for one time concession and such
workmen were promoted to N-8. Other employees who were
fulfilling 15 years service were not eligible for promotion.
7. IInd party management has given details of the
promotional channel as per settlement dated 7-7-89 and
duties of the respective categories. It is emphasized that
the workman did not fulfil 15 years service as per the said
settlement, hence was not eligible for the promotion. The
chart of disclosing date of appointment, qualification, date
of joining in different dates, total length of service is
submitted of all 14 employees. IInd part prays for rejection
of the demand of the Ist party workman.
8. Ist party workman submitted exhaustive rejoinder.
It is submitted that after the reference is made by Central
Government as per direction in Writ Petition. IInd party
cannot be allowed to make submissions to the contrary. He
has repeated his contentions that Mr. A.R. Siddiqui and
Shri Santosh Kumar were illegally promoted superseding
him. That the management had shown favour to Mr. A.R.
Siddiqui and Shri Santosh Kumar while giving promotions.
The action of the management is arbitrary. That Mr. A.R.
Siddiqui was revered to LDC by way of punishment for the
period from 28-8-84 to 31-12-87. Mr. A.R. Siddiqui and Shri
Santosh Kumar were not eligible for promotion. That in
case of Shri Santosh Kumar, Clause E(2) of settlement was
not followed as he did not appeared for departmental test
for promotion to N-8 scale. That seniority was not
maintained as such clause H of the agreement was violated.
9. IInd party management filed rejoinder at Page 8/1
to 8/10. For first time, IInd party submitted that Ist party
workman were engaged on muster roll or daily wage basis
were not covered under settlement dated 30-10-71. The
workman was casually appointed as LDC/typist in L-3 scale
from 12-7-77. That Mr. Gomti Prasad Garg was engaged on
daily basis and posted in time office from 19-5-67.
Shri Gomti Prasad Garg was appointed as LDC Typist
alongwith others on 12-7-77 when the post fell vacant.
That channel of promotion for clerical cadre, LDC, UDC,
shown in annexure W-2 was in existence on 14-8-86. The
workman was promoted to the post of UDC. The settlement
dated 7-7-89 provided for promotional channels-Jr. Assistant
Gr. III, II, I, Asstt. Sr. Asstt. Gr. II, I. Clause H of the settlement
provided for departmental test for promotion to pay Grade
N-8. That designation of UDC was not in existence since
7-7-89. There was no question of promoting workman to
the post of Asstt. on 16-8-89. The workman was not fulfilling
condition of 15 years service in Grade N-3 and N-4.
Therefore workman could not be promoted.
6504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. It is submitted that Shri A.R. Siddiqui joined
regular post of LDC on 25-9-70, Shri Santosh Kumar joined
on 18-12-69, they have completed more than 15 years
service. Therefore they fulfilled the eligibility, they were
promoted. The allegation of superseding the workman,
arbitrary or malafide acts are denied. The contentions of
Ist Party workman in rejoinder are denied. IInd party
management prays for rejection of claim.
11. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to
10/6. The adverse contentions of the IInd party are denied.
It is denied that Shri Gomti Prasad Garg was working on
daily wages during 1967 to 1977 is incorrect. That
Mr. Gomti Prasad Garg was engaged in time office and
actually appointed as LDC/Typist. As per pleadings of the
IInd party, That Ist party was not re-designated from
30-10-71 but he was shown as LDC from 12-7-77 instead of
1971. That post of LDC was fell vacant. Male mazdoor,
chainmen, khalasi and cap lamp room attendant were
designated as LDC immediately after settlement dated
30-10-71. Some of them joined service after Ist Party
workman Shri Gomti Prasad Garg such as Shri B.R. Tiwari,
Shri N.L. Pyasi, Shri R.K. Namdeo, Shri A.R. Siddiqui,
Shri Santosh Kumar, Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma and
Shri M.S. Jayal. That workmen who were not time keeper
ought not to have been brought as LDC and the same is in
utter disregard to the settlement dated 30-10-1971. Violation
of clause E, E-1, E-2, H of the settlement is committed by
the IInd party. That Shri A.R. Siddiqui was reverted to LDC.
He cannot be entitled to post of UDC after reversion. The
management counted 15 years on N-3, N-4 combined scales
which means LDCs, UDCs and not scales. Ist Party pray
that their demands may be allowed.
12. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative. Denial of
management of M/s National promotion to Shri Gomti
Mineral Development
Prasad Garg workman
Corporation Ltd., Diamond
No. 2 is illegal.
Mining Project, Panna, MP
in promoting Shri Santosh
Kumar and Shri A.K. Sidhiqui
to N-8 Scale ignoring the
seniority of 10 employees
mentioned below while
implementing the settlement
dated 7-7-89 is justified?
(ii) If so to what relief the work- IInd party is directed to
man is entitled to?"
give promotion to Shri
Gomti Prasad Garg from
the date of promotion of
Shri Shri A.R. Siddiqui
and Shri Santosh Kumar
to Scale N-8.
REASONS
13. The pleadings of both the parties are very
exhaustive and full of repetition. The dispute between the
parties relates to supersession of 10 employees while giving
promotion to Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Shri Santosh as per
settlement dated 7-7-89 to Scale N-8. Though names of
10 employees are shown in the schedule, except
Shri Gomti Prasad Garg other employees are not present in
the proceeding. Remaining employees have not filed
statement of claim neither laid evidence whether they are
superseded while promoting Shri A.R. Siddiqui and
Shri Santosh Kumar. Though statement of claim finds
reference of workman Mohan Singh and 9 others through
Gomti Prasad Garg, the reference is not filed by the Union.
Shri Gomti Prasad Garg has not participated as Office bearer
of Union. He has submitted statement of claim in individual
capacity. The evidence is also filed on individual. The
admitted documents are Exhibit W-1 order of promotion of
Shri A.R. Siddiqui as Asstt. in Pay Scale 720-1273 as per
order dated 5-8-89. Exhibit W-2 order of promotion of Shri
Santosh Kumar to the post of Asstt. along with other dated
15-8-89. There is no dispute about those orders. Exhibit
W-3 is seniority list of UDC as on January 1987. The name
of Shri Gomti Prasad Garg is appearing at Sl.No.16. Name of
to Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Shri Santosh are not appearing in
the said seniority list. Document Exhibit W-4 is copy of the
order dated 29-12-92 Gomti Prasad Garg was promoted as
Junior Asstt. Grade I in 1992. Document Exhibit W-5 is
copy of settlement dated 7-7-89 Clause E(1) provides
workman covered at A & B above who are minimum
graduates and have completed 15 years of service in the
scale of N-3 and N-4 (combined), subject to minimum 3
years service in N-4 Scale or 7 years service in N-4 as on
date of this settlement shall be promoted to the scale of
N-8. Exhibit W-6 is copy of order dated 25-11-94 promoting
11 employees to Junior Asstt Grade-I. By said order
Shri A.R. Siddiqui was promoted as Sr. Asstt. Grade II.
Exhibit W-8 is copy of proceeding before ALC with respect
to demands of the Union. The documents produced at
Exhibit W-9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 donot relate to grievance of
supersession of workman. Ist party workman in his affidavit
of evidence has stated in details that he was performing
work of LDC w.e.f 1971 after implementation of settlement
dated 30-10-71. The post of time keeper was re-designated
as LDC. That he was designated as LDC till 1977. That he
was promoted as UDC on 14-8-86. The channel of
promotion existing till 1989 was LDC, UDC, Asstt. Section
Officer. His further evidence is devoted about the seniority
list displayed. He was Senior to Shri A.R. Siddiqui and
Shri Santosh Kumar. He was superseded and both of them
were promoted as Asstt. in Scale N-8 and further
promotions. In cross-examination, Ist party workman Gomti
Prasad Garg submits that Union had taken his grievance
but management did nothing. That he was member of the
Panna Rashtriya Heera Khadan Sangh. That SKMS Union
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6505
is not affiliated to any Union. He denies that on 1-1-91,
there was settlement on the point of seniority. He has stated
that he should be placed in Seniority list above Shri A.R.
Siddiqui and Shri Santosh Kumar. That he was appinted on
19-5-67 as time keeper. Shri Siddiqui was appointed in 1968
as male mazdoor, Santosh Kumar was transferred from other
project in 1969. He claims ignorance on which ipost he was
appointed. That only after order dated 5-8-99 and 15-8-89,
he had come to know that Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Shri
Santosh Kumar were shown senior to him.
14. The affidavit of evidence filed by management's
witness Pradeep Saxena stated facts consistent with his
contentions in WS filed by IInd party management. It is
stated by him that Ist party workman Shri Gomti Prasad
Garg and other employees have not completed 15 years
service in N-3 & N-4 Scale. Therefore they did not fulfill
the eligibility for promotional post to No-8 scale.
Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Shri Santosh Kumar had fulfilled the
criteria of eligibility. In his cross-examination management's
witness states that he has seen all promotional rules and
settlements. That settlement dated 31-10-71 was dealing
with matter of promotion. That settlement was not applicable
to daily employees. That prior to 6-7-89, promotional rules
were different. From 7-7-89, promotional rules changed. In
para-36 of his evidence, he says that from 19-5-67, the daily
wage employees were confirmed. He admits that in 1967,
the workman was daily rated time keeper. The workman
was appointed as daily rated on 23-10-67, Shri Santosh
Kumar was working as LDC from 18-12-67. That entries are
taken in service book of promoting employees. The service
book of Shri A.R. Siddiqui, Shri Santosh Kumar and Shri
Gomti Prasad Garg are not produced. Their service books
may be in the department. He denied the suggestions that
service book are not deliberately produced. In para-39 of
his evidence, management's witness admits as per Tripartite
Settlement dated 31-10-71, time keeper is designated as
LDC. His above evidence is accepted. Ist party workman
working as time keeper was entitled to be designated as
LDC in the year 1971. However he was designated as
time keeper in 1977. He was promoted as UDC in 1986.
Shri A.R. Siddiqui was promoted as UDC subsequently it
is clear from evidence that workman Shri Gomti Prasad Garg
was senior to Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Shri Santosh Kumar
as per seniority list while giving promotion to
Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Shri Santosh Kumar, the management
did not consider that Shri Gomti Prasad was working as
time keeper since 1967. As per settlement of 1971, he should
have been designaged as LDC. No reason is explained by
the management why he was designated as LDC in the
year 1977. The seniority of Shri Gomti Prasad Garg is not
properly considered by the management of IInd party.
He is illegally superseded while giving promotion to
Shri A.R. Siddiqui and Shri Santosh Kumar. The said action
of the IInd party management is illegal. Accordingly I record
my finding on Point No. 1.
15. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,
as Ist party workman Shri Gomti Prasad Garg is illegally
suspended by giving promotion to Shri A.R. Siddiqui and
Shri Santosh Kumar, his seniority was not properly
considered. He has been designated therefore he is entitled
to promotion to Asstt. Scale N-8 from the date the junior
employees to whom were promoted. Accordingly I record
my finding on Point No. 2.
16. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the IInd party management
in promoting Shri A.R. Siddiqui and
Shri Santosh Kumar as per settlement
dated 7-7-89 and superseding Ist party workman
Shri Gomti Prasad Garg is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to give benefit of promotion
to the post of Scale N-8 Ist party workman
Shri Gomti Prasad Garg from the date 5-8-89 when
Shri A.R. Siddiqui was promoted. Ist party
workman Shri Gomti Prasad Garg also be given
further promotion considering his further
promotion to N-8 scale from 5-8-89.
17. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2505.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ cSykMhyk
vk;ju vksj ekbUl izkstDV fdjuMwy e/; izns'k ds izcaèra= ds
lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 157@96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&26012@15@95&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2505.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 157/96)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bailadila Iron Ore Project, Kirandul
(MP) and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-26012/15/95-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
6506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/157/96
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
The Secretary,
Bastar Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
Bailadila Iron Ore Project,
Post Kirandul,
Distt. Bastar (MP)
....Union/Workman
Versus
Sr. Regional Manager,
Bailadila Iron Ore Project,
Deposit-14, Kirandul (MP)
....Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 25th day of April 2013
1. As per letter dated 12-8-96 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-26012/
15/95-IR(Vividh). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the order of management of NMDC Ltd.,
BIOP Deposit-14 Kirandul in removing the
workman Shri Anura Kumar Sahu from service is
justified and legal? If not to what relief he is
entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notice issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
page 3/1 to 3/7. The case of Ist party workman is that he
was not given opportunity to defend. He was not supplied
with copy of preliminary enquiry, he was not permitted to
engage legal practitioner. He was denied copies of
documents relevant for his defence. Chargesheet was not
issued by competent person. Chargesheet was not as per
the provisions of standing orders. The enquiry is vitiated.
Enquiry was arbitrary. The Enquiry Officer was highly
prejudiced against him. He had submitted objection to
appointment of Enquiry Officer. The enquiry is vitiated.
3. He further submits that he was appointed as Khalasi
as per order dated 2-12-89 and 11-1-90. That since his entry
in employment, the management resorted to harassing him
for his bonafide union activities and baseless chargesheet
was issued to him on 31-7-93. The charge against him was to
secure appointment by false documents. That it cannot be a
misconduct. The verification of such antecedents is a
managerial function. That he had not fabricated any
documents the charge is vague. It is malafied without any
foundation. That it is a fundamental and cardinal principal of
justice that it should not only be don't but appears as being
done. That the said principle was not followed in the enquiry
conducted against him. His representations and protest
letters were not considered. He submits that he is removed
from service, it disqualified future employment, the order
and enquiry report dated 29-9-94 are illegal, void and
unauthorized. There is no punishment provided in the
certified standing orders. Removal from service, disqualifying
future employment, the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He prays for
reinstatement with back wages.
4. IInd party management submitted written statement
at page 44/1 to 44/13. IInd party management has contended
that names were called from Employment Exchange as per
letter dated 29-6-87. Names of 131 candidates were received
for post of Khalasi, the name at Sl. No. 71 of the list was of
Anurag Kumar Sahu, Physically Handicapped person, date
of birth is 15-5-1955, qualification is IX passed. It is
submitted that Anurag Kumar Sahu was brother of Ist party,
he had appeared in interview, produced experience
certificate of his work with the employees cooperative
stores, Bacheli. On its basis, after interview the said
candidate was selected. Bogus documents were submitted
in misusing the name Anura for Anurag and the Ist party
joined service as Anura Kumar Sahu. After said fact came
to notice, chargesheet were issued as per standing order
clause 29(2)(XXV), the description of charges are
reproduced. The IInd party submits that enquiry was
conducted properly giving opportunity to defend charges.
The witnesses were examined. The charges are proved from
evidence in enquiry proceeding. The material contentions
of Ist party workman that he was denied proper opportunity
in the enquiry proceeding are denied. It is submitted that
enquiry is fair and proper and conducted following
principles of natural justice. The misconduct of Ist party
workman is proved from evidence and as per the report
submitted by Enquiry Officer. Punishment of removal from
service is just and proper. IInd party prays for rejection of
relief prayed by the Ist party workman.
5. Considering the pleadings between the parties,
my learned predecessor had decided the preliminary issue—
Whether the Departmental Enquiry conducted by
management against workman is legal and proper? It is
held that the departmental enquiry is legal and proper.
6. Workman was proceeded exparte on 28-12-06, in
view of finding on preliminary issue, other issues needs to
be decided. Other issues which arise for my consideration
and determination are as under. My findings are recorded
against each of them for the reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the charges/misconduct
In Affirmative
against Ist party workman is proved
by evidence?
(ii) Whether the punishment of removal
In Affirmative
from service imposed against work-
man is proper?
(iii) If so, to what relief the workman is
In Negative
entitled?
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6507
REASONS
7. Preliminary issue is held against Ist party workman
that the enquiry is held proper. The record of Enquiry
proceedings is produced by management. Workman has
not participated in the proceedings. He is proceeded
exparte as not appeared. The evidence of management's
witness Ramaraju working as Junior Officer (Personnel) is
recorded at Page 105, 106. He was cross-examined by the
co-worker. His evidence clearly shows that Ist party
workman was working under the name Anura Kumar Sahu
where as he has produced certificate in the name of
Anurag Kumar Sahu. His evidence on the point is not
certain. The evidence of other witness K. Ramaraju is on
the point that Anura Kumar Sahu is brother of
Anurag Kumar Sahu. He claims ignorance about the
relationship. 3 witnesses were produced before the Enquiry
Officer alongwith documents. Ist party workman has
secured employment. He is producing certificate in the name
of Anuag Kumar Sahu where as his brother Anura Kumar
Sahu is working. There is sufficient evidence to support
charges It is not required to discuss evidence in detail.
For above reasons, I record my finding on Issue No. 1, in
Affirmative.
8. Issue No. 2—Ist party workman has secured
employment obtaining bogus document which were issued
in the name of his brother Anurag Kumar Sahu. It is serious
misconduct and therefore the punishment of removal from
service cannot be said shockingly disproportionate. No
interference is called for in the order of punishment. For
above reasons, I record my findings in Point No. 2 in
Affirmative and Point No. 3 Ist party workman is not entitled
to relief prayed by him.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the IInd party management is removing
Ist party workman Shri Anura Kumar Sahu from
service is legal.
(2) Reliefs prayed by Ist party workman is rejected.
10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2506.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ dkef'Zk;y
VªkaliksVZ dñ ftyk nqxZ e/; izns'k ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
222@89½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&26012@7@89&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 222/89)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunals/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Commercial Transport Co., Distt. Durg
(MP) and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-26012/7/89-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/222/89
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle
Shri Bajrang,
S/o Shri Sarju,
C/o Prasad and Co. (Project Works) Pvt. Ltd.,
Post Dallirajhara,
Distt. Durg (MP)
..........Workman
Versus
M/s Commercial Transport Co.,
Contractor, Post Dallirajhara,
Distt. Durg (MP)
........Management
AWARD
Passed on this 8th day of April, 2013
1. As per letter dated 26-10-89 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act. 1947 as per Notification No.L-26012/
7/89-IR(Misc). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Bhilai Steel Plant in
relation to their Dalli Mines in removing the name
of Shri Bajrang, S/o Sarjoo, P.No. 879941 Truck
loader of M/s Commercial Transport Co. from B
form Register and stopping his entry into the Dalli
Mines under their letter No. SOMQ (Dalli)/M.E./
87/685 dated 23/24-12-1987 is justified. If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?"
And
"Whether the action of the management of
M/s Commercial Transport Co., Transport
Contractor, Dalli Mines in terminating the services
of Shri Bajrang S/o Sarjoo, Truck Loader P.No.
879941 w.e.f. 24-12-87 is legal and justified. If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled?"
6508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. After receipt of reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at
Page 5/1 to 5/3. The case of the Ist party workman is that
the mine run by IInd party engages the person for doing
the job of Truck Loader. The jobs are allotted to the First
party by contractor for relevant time. It is like a departmental
job. Ist party and some other persons were employed by
M/S Commercial Transport Company engaged as contractor
for receiving mine materials on behalf of Managing Director.
Bhilai Steel Plant and the Mines Manager is one of the
respectative of the Bhilai Steel Plant. That Ist party workman
was given Personal No. 879941. Provident Funds were
deposited by Bhilai Steel Plant, Gate Pass was issued
bearing No. 1167 "B" of Form No. 395/TD/51. It is submitted
that contractors were changed from time to time, the workers
remained in employment with Principal Employers of Bhilai
Steel Plant. That the name of Ist party was illegally removed
on 23-12-87 by Mine Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant. As per
letter dated 18-1-89, Ist party workman was directed for
examination of eyes with Eye Specialist. He was found fit
for the job of Truck Loader.
3. That Ist party workman was doing work of Truck
Loader since 1975. He was never chargesheeted or warned
by the Management. Vide order dated 23-12-87 name of Ist
party was removed from Form B on the ground of medically
unfit. It is further contended that his name was illegally
removed from Form B. The Medical Board was held on
7-12-87 at Main Hospital, Bhilai. The workman was not
declared medically unfit. The termination of Ist party
amounts to retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. Ist party workman got himself examined from the
Competent Officer and tried to submit certificate on 7-2-89.
The said certificate was not accepted by IInd party on the
ground that Medical Board of Bhilai Steel Plant declared
him medically unfit. That Ist party workman has never been
disclosed that how and what was the reason for declaring
medically unfit. The action of the IInd party in removing
his name from Form B is illegal. It amounts to illegal
retrenchment. Ist party prays for his reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 7/1 to
7/4. It is not disputed that M/s. Commercial Transport
Company was awarded the contract of transportation of
Iron Ore. All other contentions of workman are denied that
workman was employed by contractor and not by the IInd
party. The work of loading of Iron Ore was to be executed
in the Mine and therefore the truck loaders are required to
enter into the Mine premises. Under Mines Act and the
Rules framed thereunder, every person entering into the
mines has to record his attendance in the Attendance
Register and has to be allotted a number in the Form B
Register. Ist party workman was also allotted number in
Form B Register. Under provisions of Employees Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1954 the
employer has to pay a share towards the Provident Fund.
That M/S Commercial Transport Company being employer
had been paying contribution of employee in respect of
workman. The management of Bhilai Steel Plant has no
right to terminate his services as his employer was
Commercial Transport Company. The Medical Board found
workman unfit for job of truck loader. Therefore he could
not be allowed to work in the mine. The Mines Manager as
per letter 24-12-87 informed M/S Commerical Transport
Company about the same. IInd party had denied all other
contentions of Ist party contending that the Medical Board
found workman unfit for job of Truck Loader therefore he
could not be allowed to enter the mine. Workman is not
entitled to any relief prayed by him.
5. IInd party Contractor submitted Written Statement
at page 68/1/ to 68/3. It has contended that the management
of Bhilai Steel Plant informed it that Medical Board found
Ist party workman unfit. It has denied that workman was
illegally terminated. That as per provisions of Mines Act
and Rules, Ist party workman could not be permitted to
enter mine while loading trucks. There was no illegal
termination of services as alleged by workman, it is prayed
for rejection of his prayer.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the Bhilai
In Affirmative
Steel Plant in relation to their Dalli
Mines in removing the name of Shri
Bajranj, S/o Sarjoo, P.No. 879941
Truck Loader of M/s. Commercial
Transport Co. from B form Register
and stopping his entry into the Dalli
Mines under their letter No.
SOMQ(Dalli)M.E./87/685 dated 23/
24-12-1987 is justified. If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?
(ii)
Whether the action of the In Affirmative
management of M/s. Commercial
Transport
Co.,
Transport
Contractor, Dalli Mines in
terminating the services of Shri
Bajranj S/o Sarjoo, Truck Loader
P.No. 879941 w.e.f. 24-12-87 is legal
and justified. If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled?
(iii) If so, to what relief the workman is
Relief prayed
entitled to?"
by workman is
rejected.
REASONS
7. The dispute under reference is related to removal
of name of Ist party workman from Form B of Dalli Mines of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6509
Bhilai Steel Plant. IInd party management of Bhilai Steel
Plant contends that Ist party workman was found unfit by
Medical Board and information about it was given to the
contractors whereas workman is claiming ignorance about
report of the Medical Board. The affidavit of evidence of
Ist party workman is filed on 14-2-2011. He has stated that
he was working as Truck Loader from 5-4-75. His CPF No.
is 1863. Letter dated 23-12-87 received from management
that he was declared unfit. Consequently his services were
terminated without assigning reasons. Notice was not
issued to him. He was working for 15 years. He further
states that he was examined in Govt. Hospital at Durg. On
18-1-89, he was found fit for Truck Loader. His certificate
was not accepted by management on the gound that he
was declared unfit by Medical Board. In his cross-
examination workman says that he was of 55 years of age.
He claims ignorance about his age shown as 60 years in
the affidavit. Management filed affidavit of its witness
Mahadeo, Assistant Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant. He has
stated that Ist party workman was sent for periodical
medical examination vide letter dated 13-5-87. He was
examined on 9-6-87 by Sr. Medical Officer (Mines), Workman
was referred to Medical Board on 21-6-87. The Medical
Board met on 16-11-87 with remark "Advised to report to
next Medical Board on 7-12-87" He has stated that workman
was found unfit by Medical Board. Information about unfit
was given to M/Ss. Commercial Transport vide letter 24-
12-87. As workman was declared medically unfit on 10-12-
87 name of workman was removed from Form B with
intimation to the contractor.
8. From his evidence, in re-examination, the
documents Exhibit M-1, M-5 and M-6 are proved. In his
cross-examination, management's witness says under
Section 29 of Mines Act, management is authorized to
arrange medical examination. Clause a to c of Exhibit M-2
are blank. Thump impression on Exhibit M-2 doesnot bear
name of person putting it. In document Exhibit M-4 name
of the father of workman is not written. It is admitted that at
the time of Medical Examination, he was not present. Exhibit
M-1 doesnot bear office seal of Manager. Exhibit M-2 is
not bearing authority and office seal. On both sides of
Exhibit M-4 noted for Bajrang is not bearing the
endorsement about fitness. That document about
examination of workman by Medical Board on 7-12-87 is
not produced.
9. Careful perusal of document M-2 shows name of
workman Shri Bajrang, his photo is appearing. There is
endorsement on revese page that the visual acuity-Distant
Vision (With or without glasses) is 6/60 of both right and
left eye. It also finds endorsement of Doctor-"Unfit for
job"dated 20-6-87. Document Exhibit M-3 shows that
workman Bajrang was referred to Eye Specialist for opinion
of fitness for job. It bears endorsement-vision Right eye-6/
60 and Left eye 6/60 and referred to Dr. A.B. Deshpandey.
On reverse side, there are notes about examination of the
patient. In Exhibit M-4, workman was advised to report to
next Medical Board on 7-12-87. Document M-5 shows that
Medical Board met on 7-12-87. Name of workman appearing
at Sl. No. 6 was found unfit. The said letter is dated
10-12-87. Document Exhibit M-6 letter sent by Bhilai Mines
Manager to M/S Commercial Transport Company of
removal of name from Form B of unfit workers.
Ist party workman Bajrang was advised to surrender his
ID Card.
10. The medical standard of fitness for persons
employed are shown in Form P clause IV eye Vision should
not be less than the following standard: (1) Better eye 6/12
& (2) Worse eye 6/18. The Examination of Ist party workman
by Medical Board shown his vision was 6/60.
11. Rules 29(M) of Mines Act 1952 prohibits unfit
persons from employment. As Ist party workman was found
unfit by Medical Board, the action of IInd party cannot be
said illegal. The employment of unfit persons is prohibited
under Rule 29(m). There is no termination of services of Ist
party workman either by contractor or the management of
Bhilai Steel Plant.
12. Ist party workman has produced document with
list page 12 Original attendance sheet from1975 to 76, copy
of PF Contribution, I. Card, Medical Fitness letter, Certificate
issued by respective medical officer, District Hospital, Durg
(MP). Learned counsel for management Shri Shashi submits
that Ist party workman is declared as unfit by Medical
Board. Certificate issued by the respective Medical Officer
of District Hospital is not admissible. Rule 29(j) under Mines
Act 1952 provides for appeal for re-examination and
Appellate Medical Board is required to re-examine the
employees and decide the fitness. It is clear that certificate
issued by Medical Officer in District Hospital cannot be
accepted. For above reasons, I record my finding on Point
No. 1 and 2 in Affirmative.
13. Point No. 3-Workman is not entitled to relief
prayed by him.
14. In the result, following award is passed:—
(1) The action of the management Bhilai Steel Plant
in removing name of workman from Form B register
is legal.
(2) IInd party contractor M/s. Commercial Transport
Company was justified in not allowing workman
for working as Truck Loader is justified.
(3) Workman is not entitled to any releif prayed by
him. The claim of Ist party workman is rejected.
15. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
6510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2507.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ banzizLFkk
xSl fyñ] ubZ fnYyh ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k uañ 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 23@2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@2@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indraprastha Gas Ltd., New Delhi and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-30011/2/2010-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
PRESENT : SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,
Presiding Officer
ID No. 23/2010
The General Secretary,
Vyopar Tatha Udyog Karamchari Sangh,
118, Kishanganj Market, Old Rohtak Road,
New Delhi-110007
Versus
M/s Indraprastha Gas Ltd.
IGL Bhawan, Flat No. 04,
Community Centre, Sector 9,
R.K. Puram
New Delhi
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L-30011/2/2010-IR(M) dated
08/06/2010. referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for the adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of
Indraprastha Gas Ltd. in terminating the services
of their 25 workmen as per list enclosed w.e.f.
16.1.2009 (w.e.f. 18.1.2009 in respect of the names
mentioned at Sl. Nos. 18, 19 and 20 of the list) is
legal and justified? What relief the workmen
concerned are entitled to and from which date?"
On 19/07/2010 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D. No. 23/2010 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from
date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service workman not appeared to file the
statement of claim on 24/9/2010. He remained absent upto
17/06/2013. So fresh notice to claimant workman was issued
through registered post fixing 02/08/2013. According to
record a notice was served on workmen/claimant on
20/06/2013. Even then they didn't file the claim statement.
Which indicates that they are not interested in further
proceeding of the case. Although time limit for adjudication
of award is three months.
In this Background it is a fit case to pass no dispute
award which is accordingly passed.
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2508.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ykjlu
,.M V~;wcjks dñ fyñ pUæiqj] egkjk"Vª ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@53@99&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2000)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Chandrapur
(MS) and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-29011/53/99-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/24/2000
Date: 07.05.2013.
Party No. 1 :
Vice President,
Larsen & Toubro Ltd.,
Now-Ultratech Cement, Awarpur Cement
Works, Post-Awarpur, Tah, Kopana,
Chandrapur (MS)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6511
Versus
Party No. 2 :
The General Secretary,
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Cement Kamgar
Sangh, Post: Awarpur, Tah: Kopana,
Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 7th May, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-seciton 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 L&T Ltd. now Ultratech Cement, and their
union, "Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Cement Kamgar Sangh", for
adjudication, as per letter No.L-29011/53/99-IR (M) dated
02.02.2000, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. in not paying increase of
Rs. 890 as per 2nd national settlement, by and for
the cement workers, is legal & justified? If not, to
what relief the workmen are entitled and from
which date? What other directions are necessary
in the matter?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, "Larsen & Toubro
Ltd. Cement Kamgar Sangh" ("the union" in short), filed
the statement of claim and the management of Larsen &
Toubro/Ulratech Cement Ltd., ("Party No. 1" in short) filed
its written statement.
The case of the union as projected in the statement
of claim is that it (the union) is a registered trade union and
the National Level Workers Federation of cement
employees, known as "Indian National Cement Workers
Federation, Mumbai entered into an agreement with the
Cement Manufactures Association, in respect of revision
of wages, before the Commissioner of Labour at New Delhi
on 12.07.1996 and the said settlement was made effective
from 01.04.1996. and as per the said settlement, the
association of management agreed to increase the house
rent allowance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month and total pay
packet of wages at the rate of Rs. 890 per month and no
condition was laid down in the said settlement to deduct
house rent of Rs. 75 per month, from the empoyees, whom
accommodation was provided by the respective
management, but the party No. 1 started deducting of
Rs. 75, the amount of HRA from the monthly wages of the
employees w.e.f. 01.04.1996 and it (union) raised objection
and requested the party no. 1 not to deduct the amount of
HRA of Rs. 75 and after several discussions, during the
meeting dated 09.04.1999, party No. 1 agreed to refer the
dispute to the Conciliation Officer-cum-Asstt. Labour
Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur and accordingly the
matter was referred to the ALC (C), Chandrapur, but on
failure of the conciliation, failure report was submitted by
the ALC to the Central Government and the Central
Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal for
adjudication. It is further pleaded by the union that the
deduction of the HRA by the party No.1 was contrary to
the terms of settlement and the employees are entitled for
the full wages of Rs. 890 per month, as per the said
settlement and the action of party No. 1 is totally illegal
and unjustified and the same is liable to be quashed and
set aside. It is also pleaded by the union that other
managements of the Cement Industry paid the full wages
as per agreement dated 12.07.1996, without effecting any
deduction of HRA of Rs. 75 from their employees, even
though they had provided quarters to their employees.
The union has prayed to declare the action of party
no.1 as illegal and unjustified and to direct the party No. 1
to pay the increased amount of wages of Rs. 890 w.e.f.
01.04.1996 with interest of 18%, without deduction of HRA
of Rs. 75 per month.
3. The party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter-alia that the employees, whose names have
been enlisted in the schedule to the statement of claim are
provided with residential accommodation in the well
maintained colony situated in the vicinity of their
establishment and as such, the claim staked-up by the union
for payment of house rent allowance to the said employees
cannot be acceded to, as the claim is untenable and the
calim made by the union is misconceived and the same is
founded on erroneous interpretation of the settlement and
the claim for house rent allowance and the total pay packet
as claimed does not tally with the terms and conditions
regulating the subject in the settlement and the union has
wrongly claimed house rent allowance and the total pay
packet and they implemented the mandate of the settlement
with regard to payment of house rent allowance to all
workers, who are not provided with residential
accommodation effective from 01.04.1996 and the very
concept of payment of house rent allowance emerge only
in the cases of employees, who are not provided with
residential accommodation, which is in the nature of a
subsidy to compensate to certain extend the liability of
rental for acquiring residential accommodations from the
open market and they did not commit of any wrong in
absorbing Rs. 75 per month provided as house rent
allowance from the employees, who were provided with
accommodation, while implementing the settlement and the
demand made by the union is unjust and opposed to the
spirit of the settlement. The party No. 1 have further pleaded
that the reference is totally vague and the Central
Government has enlarged the scope of the dispute under
misconception and non-application of mind into the details
of the case, as because, out of the total increase of Rs. 890
per month, as stipulated in the settlement, one of the items
was in regard to payment of enhanced house rent allowance
6512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
at the rate of Rs. 75 per month, payable from 01.04.1996 and
house rent allowance was not admissible to the workers,
who were provided with residential accommodation and
the only dispute raise by the union before the conciliation
officer was in regard to payment of house rent allowance
of Rs. 75 per month also to the employees, who had been
provided with residential accommodation, but the schedule
to the order of reference is something entirely different
than the dispute agitated by the union and from the
schedule of reference, it appears that as if, none of the
workers employed in their establishment have been paid
the amount of Rs. 890 per month in compliance of the
settlement and the demand made by the union for payment
of house rent allowance to those workers provided with
residential accommodation is unjust and opposed to the
spirit of the settlement and their refusal to concede the
demand for payment of house rent allowance to the
employees who are provided with residential
accommodation is correct and perfectly legal and on a
reference by them, the cement manufacturers association
clarified that the agreement dated 12.07.1996 is subject to
Arbitration Award of 1983 and all the existing service
conditions of the agreement shall continue to remain in
force till revised and unless modified by another settlement,
the present practice and method of recovery of house rent
allowance prevailing in each cement unit will continue and
the said clarification issued by the cement manufacturers
association at the instance of the workers federation put at
rest the controversy in the matter and nothing remains to
the adjudicated.
Party No. 1 has further pleaded that the claim of the
union that other managements of the cement industries
have implemented the settlement dated 12.07.1996 with
appropriating the house rent allowance in respect of those
workers, who are provided with residential accommodation
is distorted, misleading and incorrect and the cement
companies, namely, Ambuja Cement, Rajshree Cement,
Dalmia Cement, Century Cement, India Cement, Shree
Digvijay Cement, Andhra Cement, Zuri Cement, J.K.
Cement, Mysore Cement, Maihav Cement and Jaypee Rewa
Cement etc. have implemented the settlement in question
with specific reference to payment of house rent allowance
in similar and same manner as implemented by them and
the union has failed to justify the claim with regard to the
workers in the list and the claim does not stand to reason
and the issue of payment of house rent allowance of Rs.75
per month to the employees, who are provided with
housing accommodation has not been made out a subject
matter in the schedule of reference and as the claim made
by the union is untenable, the reference is liable to be
answered in the negative.
4. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention
some important facts relating to the reference, which are as
follows:—
The Party No. 1 nominated one Mr. C.V. Pavaskar, a
member of the Central Executive Committee of the federation
to represent them before this Tribunal. The union raised
objection to the appearance of Shri Pavaskar by filing an
application. Vide order dated 30.07.2001, this Tribunal
disallowed the appearance of Shri Pavaskar on the ground
that he is a practicing advocate. Being aggrieved by the
order dated 30.07.2001, the Party No. 1 filed writ Petition
No. 3259/2002, before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur for redress. The Hon'ble High Court by an
interim order dated 16.12.2002, permitted Shri C.V. Pavaskar
to represent the Party No. 1 before this Tribunal. The writ
petition was finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court
on 11.11.2011, upholding the interim order dated 16.12.2002.
It is also necessary to mention that the further proceedings
of the reference had been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court
in the aforesaid writ petition and such stay was vacated
due to the final disposal of the writ application on
11.11.2011.
After receipt of the order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court in writ Petition No. 3259/2002 dated 11.11.2011, both
the parties were noticed to appear before this Tribunal to
proceed further in the reference. In response to such notice,
both parties appeared on 13.04.2012. On 13.04.2012, in
presence of both the parties, order was passed for the
cross-examination of the witness for the petitioner (union)
fixing the case to 11.05.2012. On 11.05.2012, though the
management appeared none appeared on behalf of the
union. On 29.08.2012, 08.10.2012, 02.11.2012, 20.12.2012,
24.01.2013, 11.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 12.04.2013 both the
parties remained absent.
The respective witnesses for the parties, whose
evidence were filed on affidavit also did not appear for
their cross-examination, inspite of giving of sufficient
opportunity to the parties to produce their respective
witness. Hence, the evidence was closed after expunging
their evidence. No argument was also made by the parties.
Hence, the reference was posted for award.
5. Perused the pleadings of the parties and the
available documents on record. Even though, the Central
Government has referred the dispute for adjudication with
the schedule as to whether the action of the Party No. 1 in
not paying the increase amount of Rs. 890 to the cement
workers as per 2nd National settlement is legal and justified,
it is found from the claim made by the union in the statement
of claim that the dispute is only regarding non-payment of
house rent allowance of Rs. 75 to the workers (as per list
attached to the statement of claim), who have been given
residential accommodation by Party No. 1. The demand of
payment of house rent allowance of Rs. 75 per month to
the workers, who have been allotted residential
accommodation was not been included in the reference.
From the above mentioned facts, it appears that the schedule
of reference is not proper.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6513
6. Perused the materials on record. It is the admitted
case of the parties that the 383 workers, who had not been
paid house rent allowance of Rs. 75/- per month had been
allotted with residential accommodation by Party No. 1.
There is no dispute that the very concept of payment of
house rent allowance emerges only in the case of the
employees, who have not been given residential
accommodation by the employer. So, the workers, who have
been provided with residential accommodation are not
entitled to claim house rent allowance. Hence, the claim of
the union for payment of house rent allowance to those
workers is not tenable. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Larsen & Toubro
Ltd. in not paying the entire increased amount of Rs. 890/-
as per 2nd national settlement, by and for the cement
workers, to the 383 workmen (as per list furnished with the
statement of claim) is legal & justified. The workers are not
entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2509.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh;
foekuiÙkue izkfèdj.k] ukxiqj ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@2013½
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&11011@3@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th October, 2013
S.O. 2509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 18/10/2013.
[No. L-11011/3/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXUIRE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/05/2013
Date: 26.06.2013.
Party No. 1 :
The Chairman, Airport Authority of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, SAP, N. Delhi-3
:
The Regional Executive Director,
Airports Authority of India, Western
Region Porta Cabin, CSI Airport,
Mumbai-400099.
:
The Airport Director, Airport Authority of
India, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
International Airport, Nagpur-440005.
:
The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
MIHAN India Pvt. Ltd.
India, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
International Airport, Nagpur-440005.
Party No. 2 :
The General Secretary, Indian Airports
Kamgar Union (INTUC), CHQ Office,
Qtr. No. B-173, Pocket-A, INA Colony,
New Delhi-110023.
AWARD
(Dated: 26th June, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the Industrial
Dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Airport Authority of India and their union,
"Indian Airports Kamgar Union (INTUC)", for adjudication,
as per Letter No. L-11011/3/2013-IR (M) dated 11.04.2013,
with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Airport
Authority of India through its Airport Director,
Airport Authority of India, Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar International Airport, Nagpur, in
transferring Shri S.M. Bodele, Supervisor (FS) and
Shri N.M. Bodele, Sr. Asstt. (FS) from Nagpur
Airport to Rajkot and Bhavnagar Airports
respectively vide orders dated 21.09.2012, is legal
and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled
to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement.
3. On receipt of the notices, the Managing Director,
Dr. Babasaheb International Airport, Nagpur made his
appearance through his advocate.
The two workmen, Shri S.M. Bodele and Shri N.M.
Bodele appeared personally alongwith the Joint Secretary
of the Indian Airport Kamgar Union (INTUC). The Joint
General Secretary, Shri D.B. Satpute filed the authorization
to represent both the workmen given by the General
Secretary of the union. Instead of filing any statement of
claim, the two workmen filed a pursis stating that they
have filed writ petitions Nos. 750/2013 and 751/2013 before
the Hon'ble High Court for redress in the matter and both
6514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the writ petitions have been listed for admission on
28.06.2013 and though they had requested the RLC (C),
Nagpur not to send the dispute to the Tribunal, the reference
had been made for adjudication, but they do not want to
proceed with the reference. The Joint General Secretary
also filed another pursis mentioning the same thing. Copies
of both the pursis were served on the advocate for the
management.
4. As the workmen and so also the union do not want
to proceed with the reference, the reference is liable to be
dismissed without granting of any relief to the workmen.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is dismissed as not pressed by both
the workmen and the union, without grant of any relief to
the workmen.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2510.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 283 dk 1999½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@123@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 283/1999 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s BCCL and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 25/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/123/1999-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 283 OF 1999.
PARTIES
: The Vice President,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,
Rajender Path, Dhanbad
Vs. General Manager, Sijua Area of
M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the : Mr. N.G. Arun, Rep.
workman/Union
of the workman
On behalf of the : Mr. D.K. Vermal, Ld.
Management
Advocate
State
: JHARKHAND
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th August, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
123/99-IR(C-I) dt. 16.7.1999.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Nichitpur Colliery of Sijua Area of M/s B.C.C.L. in
dismissing the service of Shri Jhari Das w.e.f.
25.4.1997 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what
reliefs the workman is entitled to?"
2. The case of the Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh
for workman Jhari Das as stated in the written statement is
that as M/Loader, he had been unblemishedly working at
Nichitpur Colliery, so in course of it, he had been suffering
from hazardous kind of disease from his underground job.
He suddenly fell ill at his native village when he had gone
to see his ailing mother. It was informed to the management
by his colleagues and other some about his sickness since
then. But after conducting an enquiry the workman was
dismissed from the service contrary to the rule of the natural
justice, as he was neither informed of the chargesheet nor
allowed full chance for his defence. The management
violates the golden rule of audi alterem pertem'. His
termination from service on the basis of the perverse enquiry
is against the law of the Land and Articles of 14 to 19 of the
Indian Constitution. Punishment should be commensurate
to the gravity of the misconduct is the established law.
Despite acceptance of the management for hearing
grievance of the workman, seeing no alternative, the
industrial despute was raised, but its failure resulted in the
reference for an adjudication. Thus, it has been alleged for
re-instatement of the workman with all back wages and
fringe benefit with retrospective effect, setting aside his
unjustified dismissal.
3. The Union in its rejoinder with specific denials to
the allegations of the O.P./Management has stated that the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6515
consent of the General Manager of Sijua Area to the
dismissal of the workman after going through the enquiry
report has deprived him of his right to file mercy petition as
per the Standing Order. The workman might have been
irregular, but not habitual, for the same common nature of
disease as all other miners used to get in course of
employment in the underground. Prior to issuance of the
chargesheet in question, no preliminary enquiry was
conducted after show cause. His dismissal only for
absentism w.e.f. 11.7.1994 does not find any place in the
law of the Land. Though the workman had explained before
the every forum about reason of his absentism, yet
unconsidered. His dismissal order was not issued by the
competent authority. He was not furnished with copies of
all statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry nor
any record and relevant documents. The attitude of the
management appears to be vindictive for the malafide and
whimsically proceeding of the Enquiry Officer and the
Disciplinary Authority. The alleged domestic enquiry seems
empty formality. Moreover, the Disciplinary Authority
violated the principle of reasonable opportunity by issuing
the second show cause, and an opportunity for proposed
punishment.
4. Whereas the O.P./Management's case as pleaded
in its written statement is that the present reference is
unmaintainable both in law and facts of the case. Workman
Jhari Das was employed as a Miner/Loader at Nichitpur
colliery. He had also absented from his duty from 25.6.1993
to 17.10.1993, and again, from 27.9.95 without leave for
which he was warned, thereafter he again unauthorizedly
absented from 19.10.96, for which he was issued the
chargesheet dt. 31.1.1997 under 26.1.1. of the Standing
Orders of the Colliery applicable to the workman. As the
reply of the workman was found not satisfactory, the
domestic enquiry was held against him by the Enquiry
Officer concerned according to the Rules of Natural Justice
in which the workman fully participated the Enquiry Officer
found the charges fully proved against the workman, and
submitted his enquiry report to the Project Officer, Nichitpur
Colliery, who after perusal of it recommended to the General
Manager for his dismissal. The General Manager also had
gone through the enquiry report and approved the dismissal
order dt. 28.3.1997. The workman was accordingly
dismissed from the service by the Manager/Project Officer
of the colliery as per order dt. 25.4.1997. The present
reference is the outcome of the Industrial Dispute. Further
it is alleged that the dismissal of the workman from his
service was quite right for his habitual absentism. Any
punishment other than dismissal would have encouraged
other workmen of the Mines to indulge in such
unauthorized absentism causing loss of the coal production,
and increasing indiscipline among the other workers. If the
domestic enquiry held unfair and improper, the management
sought for an opportunity to prove the charges levelled
against the workman in this case.
FINDING WITH REASONS
5. In the instant reference on declaring the domestic
enquiry fair and proper as per order No. 24 dt. 10.05.2006 of
the tribunal, the case came up directly for hearing, the final
argument on merits.
6. Mr. N.G. Arun, the Ld. Advocate for the Union/
workman submitted that stopping the workman form
working is illegal, and the Notesheet (Ext. M-5) does not
transpire his dismissal, so there is no order of dismissal,
and moreover, his dismissal is too harsh for his absentism.
Whereas Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P./
Management has to contend that the workman had been a
habitual absentee; his punishment of dismissal for his
voluntarily absentism was quite proportionate to his
frequent misconduct of absentism.
7. On the consideration of the materials on the case
record, I find that the workman Jhari Das, the M/Loader
accepted the charge of his unauthorized absentism from
10.10.1996 as per his statement (Ext. M.3/1), and he was
earlier twice warned for his such misconduct for his
unauthorized absentism from duty 25.6.1993 to 17.10.1993
and 2.7.95 to 28.10.1995 as evident from the present
chargesheet dt. 31.1.1997 (Ext. M.2), so undoubtedly he
appears to be a habitual unauthorized absentee; accordingly
he was dismissed by the competent authority from service
with immediate effect from 29.03.1997. Under these
circumstances, the punishment to the dismissal to the
workman seems though reasonable for his regular such
misconduct lastly having lost his lien in the service of the
Company, but in view of the permanent status as M/Loader,
sudden termination of his service without following the
provision of the Sec. 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 appears to be quite unfair and illegal.
In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby.
ORDERED
The Award is and the same be passed that
termination of Shri Jhari Das's service by the Management
of Nichitpur Colliery of Sijua Area, BCCL is neither just nor
proper nor legal. The workman in the case shall be entitled
to compensation equivalent to fifteen days average pay
for every completed year of his continuous service or any
part thereof in excess of six months, if not superannuated,
otherwise he would be entitled to re-instatement without
back wages.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2511.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ vkbZ lh ,e
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
6516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 279 dk 1999½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk
[lañ ,y&20012@87@1998&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 279/1999 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s IICM and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/87/1998-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 279 OF 1999
Parties
: The Secretary, Jharkhand Colliery
Mazdoor Union, II, CM, Ranchi Vs
Indian Institute of Coal Management,
Ranchi.
Appearances
:
On behalf of the : None
workman
On behalf of the : Mr. R.N. Ganguly, Ld.
Management
Advocate
State
: JHARKHAND
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th May, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
87/98-IR(C-I) dt. 9.7.1999.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Jharkhand Colliery
Mazdoor Union that S/Shri Subhas Chandra
Prasad and Sanjay Ram Karmakar are the direct
workmen of the I.I.C.M. is justified and legal? If
so, whether termination of services of these
employees is justified and legal? If not, what relief
they are entitled to and from which date?"
2. Neither Union Representative nor any of the
workmen S/Shri Subhas Chandra Prasad and Sanjay Ram
appeared. But Mr. D.K. Verma Ld. Advocate for the O.P./
Management appears and files his Authority along with a
petition in duplicate and the Cenrtified Copy of the Order
No. 9 dated 03.04.2003 passed by the Hon'ble High Court,
Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 322/2002, Indian Institute
of Coal Management Vs Union of India and two
Ors.(Including the Jharkhand colliery Mazdoor union), in
three sheets. Mr. Verma the Ld. Counsel for the O.P./
management submits that the Hon'ble court has been
pleased to allow the appeal set aside the judgement of Ld.
Single judge, and allow the Writ petition by quashing the
impugned Notification, and remit the proceeding to the
Central Govt. for taking a fresh decision on all aspects
including its competence within a period of four months
from the receipt of the copy of this order.
Persual of the case records reveals the pending of
this reference waiting for the order of the Hon'ble High
Court in the aforesaid L.P.A. case No. 322/2002 arising out
of CWJC No. 819/2000 in respect of (Ref. Case No. 16/2000)
by order No. 19 dated 04.11.2004, it is also evident from the
case record that Hon'ble High Court as per order No. 5
dated 13.04.2006 in L.P.A. No. 459/2004 between the
management vs. Union of India and others was pleased to
set aside the present Notification dated 9th July, 1999 of
the reference made by the Central Government, annulling
the order dated 4th May, 2004 passed by the Ld. single
Judge in CWJC No. 2541/1999(R) by observing as such:
"However, this order shall not stand in the way of
appropriate government for making such
reference, if any application is made by the
workmen or their union."
In view of the aforesaid facts on the record, it stands
clear that since the Notification dated 09.07.1999 of the
reference made by the Central Government of India has
been set aside, it is no longer for adjudication in the present
reference. Hence the case is closed and accordingly an
order is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2512.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 224 of 2001½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@232@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6517
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 224/2001 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as show in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 25/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/232/2001-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 224 OF 2001
Parties
: The Vice President,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,
Rajender Path, Dhanbad Vs General
Manager, Kusunda Area of
M/s BCCL, Kusunda, Dhanbad
Appearances
:
On behalf of the : Mr. N.G. Arun, Rep. of the Workman
workman/Union
On behalf of the : Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: JHARKHAND
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th May, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
232/2001, IR(C-I) dt. 10.08.2001.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
M/s. B.C.C.L. in not regularizing Shri Ram Surat
Singh as a Loading Munshi is fair and justified? If
not what relief is the concerned workman is
entitled and from what date?"
2. Mr. N.G. Arun, the Union Representative does not
appear nor workman Ram Surat Singh present nor any
witness for the evidence of the workman has been produced
despite several chances. But Mr. U.N. Lal, the Ld. Advocate
for the management is present.
On persual of the case record, it is quite clear that the
case has been pending for the evidence of the workman
since 25.02.2005 since then despite more than ample
opportunities for the evidence of the workman, not a single
witness in behalf of the workman has been produced. The
Union Representative of the workman by his conduct
appears to be uninterested in prosecuting the case related
to his regularization as Loading Munshi.
Union these circumstances, proceeding with the case
for uncertainty for eight years is unwarranted. It is no longer
an Industrial Dispute; hence the case is closed as no
Industrial Dispute existent. Accordingly, it is passed an
order.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2513.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 80 dk 2004½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@66@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 80/2004 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as show in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 21/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/66/2004-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 80 of 2004
Parties
: Sri Bishwanath Bhattacharjee
(Workman)
Vs. General Manager, Sijua area of
M/s. BCCl., Dhanbad
6518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances
:
On behalf of the
: Mr. N.M. Kumar, Ld. Advocate
workman/Union
On behalf of the
: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
:
JHARKHAND
Industry:
Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th August, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
66/2004, IR(C-I) dt. 28.06.2004.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Loyabad Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing
Sri Bishwanath Bhattacharjee from the services
of the Company w.e.f. 25.08.93 is fair and justified?
If not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled?"
2. The case of workman Bishwanath Bhattacharjee as
stated in his written statement is that as a permanent
employee of Loyabad Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL,
he had been working as Electric Helper since 19.12.1980,
having CMPF No. A/c C/36-411. On falling sick, he was
declared to be T.B. Patient, so he was advised to have rest.
He informed the colliery management of his illness. His
suffering from T.B. rendered him unable to perform duty, and
acute financial crisis for his treatment and maintence of family
members. At his full recovery from illness at his request
letter dt. 29.4.92, the management of Loyabad Colliery as per
the letter dt. 15.5.1992, allowed him to resume his duty, and
he worked for one year. A again at his sickness, he reported
the management of it. On declaration of his fitness by the
Doctor treating him, when he reported for his duty, he was
informed of his dismissal from service w.e.f. 25.8.93, though
he had not got any chargesheet from the management. He
was dismissed on the ex-parte enquiry without giving any
notice or an opportunity for his defence against the principle
of natural justice. He raised the Industrial Dispute under
Sec. 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947, which due to adamant attitude
of the management ended in failure, lastly it resulted in the
reference for an adjudication, so the dismissal of the workman
by the management is illegal, unjustified, liable to be set
aside. He is entitled to be re-instated with full back wages.
3. The workman in its rejoinder has categorically
denied the allegations of the management and stated that
the management was always informed of his illness through
many Registered Notices. The domestic enquiry was not
conducted fairly and properly, rather it was perfunctory
with intent to dismiss him. The punishment of dismissal for
him was harsh and disproportionate against the natural
justice.
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with specific denials is that the present
reference filed after 10 years unjustifiably is unmaintainable.
The workman was Electric Helper in Loyabad Colliery, but
he began to unauthorizedly absent from his duty w.e.f.
18.5.1990. So the chargesheet under No. 68/89 dt 20.02.91
was issued to him. He submitted his reply to it and his
representation dt. 29.04.1992. On consideration of it, he
was allowed by the management to resume his duty w.e.f.
15.05.1992. But the workman did not report for duty, and
continued to absent from duty. Another Chargesheet
bearing No. 68/294/92 dt 4.8.92 was issued by the
Superintendent of Mines, Loyabad Colliery as per the
Certified Standing Order of the Company to the workman
on his local and permanent address by registered posts.
But the workman did not submit his reply to it. Sri C.M.
Singh, the Dy. Personnel Manager of the Colliery as the
Enquiry Officer as appointed by the Manager issued several
notices to him through Regd. Post on his local and
permanent home addresses for domestic enquiry into the
chargesheet. Even then the workman did not appear before
the Enquiry Officer for his defence. Just to give a chance,
the Enquiry Officer published the notice of enquiry in the
daily news paper "AWAZ" dt. 01.07.1993, fixing the date
6.7.93 for enquiry. Finding no alternatives, the Enquiry
Officer ex-parte conducted the enquiry fairly and properly
and submitted his report, holding therein the workman
quilty of the charges. Then he was dismissed by the
management for his proved misconduct. The dismissal of
the workman is legal and justified. It has been urged to
decide the fairness of the domestic enquiry in a preliminary
hearing, and in case decision over it as unfair, to allow the
management for evidence afresh.
5. Categorically denying the allegations parawise of
the workman, the O.P./Management has stated in its
rejoinder that the workman was allowed to resume his duty
as per Order dt. 12.5.1992, but he remained absent and did
not report for duty. The Industrial Dispute after 10 years is
stale. The workman absented from his duty deliberately.
So the workman is not entitled to any relief.
FINDING WITH REASONS
6. In the instance reference, in course of the evidence
of the management, Mr. N.M. Kumar, Ld. Adv. for the
workman by filing a petition on 14.3.2012 submitted to have
accepted the fairness of the domestic enquiry, so the
Tribunal had no scope except to hold accordingly the
domestic enquiry fair, proper and in accordance with the
principle of natural justice. The present case record
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6519
transpired as per Order No. 8 dt. 22.2.2011 its restoration as
per Order following its Misc. Case having been allowed, as
it was awarded as no Industrial Dispute as per the Order dt.
2nd Feb. 2006 for default of the workman himself.
In result, it has directly come to the stage of final
hearing the argument of both the parties on merits.
7. Mr. N.M. Kumar, Ld. Advocate for the workman
has submitted that without an opportunity to the workman
for his defence, he was dismissed from his service which is
harsh to him and disproportionate to the nature of his
misconduct. Just reversely, Mr. D.M. Verma, Ld. Adv. for
the O.P./management has contended that admittedly on
the application dt. 29.4.1992 of the workman based on his
Medical Certificate, he was allowed to resume his duty
from 15.5.1992 as per the letter No. 17/96/92 dt. 12.5.1992
but he did not resume his duty till his charge sheet dt.
4.8.1992 for his unauthorized absentism (Ext. M.2); despite
Notice of Enquriy on his home and local addresses (Extt.
M. 1 & M. 3 respectively), and lastly its publication in the
daily "AWAZ" dt. 01.07.1993 when he did not appear in
the domestic enquiry, it was held ex-parte and on the
enquiry report dt. 16.8.1993 (Ext. M. 6) of the Enquiry Officer,
who held him guilty of the charges of his misconduct of
absentism, he was awarded puhishment of dismissal (Ex.
M.7) for his misconduct which was quite justified in the
eye of law.
8. On perusal and consideration of the materials
available on the case record after hearing the argument of
both the parties, the indisputable fact is found that the
workman was an old T.B. Patient, who was all along taking
leave for it as per his four representations dt. 20.5.1991,
15.06.1993, 12.05.1992 and 15.12.1992 (Ext. 1 Series) but as
per the three letters of the management dt. 4.4.1987, 4.7.1987
and 27.03.1990 (Ext. 2 series), the workman was earlier in
1987 and in 1990 directed to join his duty. Besides his Out
Door Ticket (ODT) dt. 18.5.1988 of BCCL Hospital, Blood
Exam Report dt. 30.6.1998 and Medical dt. 20.021995 issued
by Dr. S. Mukherjee of Purulia for his treatment from
18.8.1993 to 19.02.1995 (Ext. 3 Series) appear to be quite
irrelevant. But out of workman’s applications, his leave
application dt. 12.5.92 (Ext. W1/2) coincides with the same
date of the Management's letter No. 17/90/92 whereby the
workman was directed to resume his duty from 15.05.1992
on his application dt. 29.4.1992 for permission for it as
evident from the charge sheet dt. 4.8.1992 (Ext. M-2) for his
absentism. The workman has no good record of his service.
9. All the aforesaid facts clearly indicate that despite
his medical fitness as per the Medically fitness as per the
Medical Certificate dt. 25.2.1992 (Ext. M.5), and accordingly
notice of the enquiry even on his home address, the
workman did not appear in the domestic enquiry, resulting
ex-parte enquiry. The conduct of the workman appeared to
have been always his international evasion from it for his
reasons best known to him. Though the O.P./Management
appears to be adopting fair and proper leniency for the
workman for his interest. Hence, he deserves not relief
whatsoever under Sec. 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947. His dismissal in view of his habitual unauthorized
absentism was quite justified. In such circumstances, I
decline to interfere with it, as no establishment of the
Management would be able to function with such frequent
sick workman for Public Sector.
In the result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby.
ORDERED
The Award be and the same is passed that the action
of the Management of Loyabad Colliery of M/s. BCCL in
dismissing Sri Bishwanath Bhattacharjee from the service
of the Compnay w.e.f. 25.8.1993 is quite fair and justified.
The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief except
his legal dues as ordered by the Management.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2514.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 120@1993]
121@1993½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@10@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@187@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 25th October, 2013
S.O. 2514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120/
1993 & 121/1993) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in
the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 25/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/187/1991-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 120 of 1993.
Parties
: Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha,
Kusunda, Dhanbad
6520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vs Chief Gen. Manager, P.B. Area of
M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
Appearances:
On behalf of the : Mr. Shekhar Sharma, Ld. Advocate
workman/Union
On behalf of the : Late H. Nath, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th Sept., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
187/91-I.R. (Coal-I) dt. 06.09.1993.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Mazdoor
Sabha that Shri Jimedar Prasad and 16 others ever
worked as Blacksmith in Bhagabandh Colliery is
justified? If so, whether they should be treated as
employees of M/s. BCCL or not."
Name of the 16 workmen
1. Jimedar Prasad, 2. Deo Nandan Prasad, 3. Bachan
Sharma, 4. Nandlal Sharma, 5. Rajesh Pd. Sharma, 6. Umesh
Sharma, 7. Suraj Paswan, 8. Ajay Kumar Mahato, 9. Badal
Kumar, 10. Somit Majumdar, 11. Adhir Kumar, 12. Ram
Keshar Vishwakarma, 13. Bhanu Mukherjee, 14. Ram Lakhan
Vishwakarma, 15. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 16. Pradeep
Sao, 17. Dwarika Bhuiya.
WITH
REFERENCE NO. 121 OF 1993
PARTIES
: Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha,
Kusunda, Dhanbad
Vs Chief Gen. Manager, P.B. Area of
M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the : Mr. Shekhar Sharma, Ld. Advocate
workman/Union
On behalf of the : Late H. Nath, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
187/91-I.R. (Coal-I) dt. 06.09.1993.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Mazdoor
Sabha that Shri Kedar Paswan and 14 others even
worked in Bhagabandh Colliery of M/s. BCCL as
Black Smith and that they should be treated as
BCCL employees is justified? If so, from what date
and to what relief they are entitled for such
employment?
Name of the 14 workmen
1. Kedar Paswan, 2 Bahgwan Paswan, 3. Ramesh Pd.
Sharma, 4. Ashok Kumar Gupta, 5. Arvind Singh, 6. Ramesh
Paswan, 7. Lakhindra Paswan, 8. Binod Paswan, 9. Arjun
Sharma, 10 Arjun Paswan, 11. Dipak Paswan, 12. Banaras
Paswan, 13. Dilip Paswan, 14. Dinesh Chouhan, 15. Rajesh
Paswan.
2. The case of sponsoring Union Bihar Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh, Kendua, Dhanbad for 17 (seventeen)
workmen as named in the Schedule to the reference is that
the workmen had been working as Tub repair Fabrication
of winding cages and other miscellaneous Blacksmith work
in Bhagabandh Colliery during the period from 1981 to
1985 under alleged contractor Mahadoe Sharma. They
worked under the supervision of the Fireman and the
Engineer of the Management. They were supplied all the
materials and tools by the Management for their work. They
were paid daily the pittance Rs.15/- as labour charges only
per day as contrastated with Rs. 60/- per day inclusive
allowances paid to regular workers per head as Ct. IV wages.
The management of the Colliery engaged them through
the contractor in various blacksmith jobs underground as
well as on the surface, but the alleged contrctor neither
was registered nor had any valid licence under the Contract
Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1973. Though all the
aforesaid works perennial in nature were prohibited to be
done through the contractor. The engagement of the
workmen in the said jobs of Tub repair etc. through the
contractor intermediary was a camouflage based on the
paper transaction of the management with intent to deprive
them of the genuine privileges of employer—employee
relationship and the benefits of the regular workers. At
raising the fact of their regularization by the Union, these
workmen were stopped from working in the year 1986.
When the dispute was raised by the Union for their
regularization employment before the ALC©, Dhanbad, the
plea of the management that Sri Mahadeo Sharma was a
supplier was false and untenable. It resulted in the reference
for an adjudication.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6521
3. The Union in its rejoinder categorically denying all
the allegations of the O.P./Management, and repeated the
aforesaid case of the workmen.
4. Whereas with specific denials, the contra case of
the O.P./Management is that the question of employment of
the alleged workman did not arise, as they have never worked
at Baghabandh Colliery in any capacity as also submitted
before the ALC©., Dhanbad.They were never employed by
the management or by any contractor. So there was no Master
and Servant relationship between the workman and the
management .The case of the Union completely lacking the
ultimate test of hire and fire about the master and servant
relationship was untenable M/s. Bharat Coking Coal India
Ltd., as a Public Sector Undertaking requires to follow the
Central Government rules for filling up of the posts also
those of SCs/STs though Employment Exchange. Giving
employment to a contractor's workers amount to their entry
into the service of the Principal Employer through backdoor
in contravention of the rule and provisions of Employment
for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates.
Equal opportunities for employment should be given to all
seeking employment. Employment by the contractor
employed by the Undertaking would not get preferential
claim of the employment which is uncondiserble as an
Industrial /Dispute u/s 2K of the I.D.Act.Regulation will
deprive several eligible qualified and deserving candidates
of competing for posts in violation to the Articles 14, 16 & 19
of the Constitution of India. Contract labours employed do
not become the direct employees of the Principal Employer.
They have no claim for regularization from employers. The
Contract Labour & Regulations & Abolition Act does not
provide for total abolition of contract labour.The dispute
was raised by the Secretary for the Union as per letter
dt.27.8.1990 for the first time after nine years. So the demand
of the union for regularization is baseless.
5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder refuting
allegations of the Union has stated that the alleged workman
were never employed by the Management in any regular
and job of perennial nature which are prohibited through a
contractor.
6. The case of the Union and O.P./Management as
pleaded in the Ref.CaseNo.121/1993 are replica of their
pleaded case in the instant reference .So the latter reference
being between the same parties for same cause of action has
been amalgamated with the instant Reference under an
adjudication analogously.
7. In the instant reference No.120/1993,WW1 Nand
Lal Sharma, one of the workmen for the Union, and MW1
Uma Shankar Singh, the Personnel Manager, and MW2
S.N.P.Yadav,the Superintendent Engineer for the
Management Bhagabandh Colliery have been examined
respectively.
But not a single witness produced or examined on
behalf of the same union in the Ref.Case No.121/1993 in
respect of S/Shri Kedar Paswan and 14 others as named in
the schedule which involves the same O.P./Management for
the same cause, i.e., for regularization based on the similar
facts of both parties as pleaded respectively.
8. In this reference, the solemn statement of WW1
Nand Lal Sharma, under Sl.No.4 one of the 16 workmen
reveals that they used to work/perform the job of blacksmith
with the equipments supplied by the management under the
supervision of the management inside and on surface of the
colliery area from 1981; their job was of continuous nature;
they used to perform their job for 240 days in one calendar
year as per Attendance Register (Xerox copy) under the
signature of Pal Saheb (Ext.W.1); they used to get their wages
Rs.15 per day per capita which was not at par with the wages
of the permanent staff. But despite their several
representations ,the management neither regularized them
nor served upon them any notice nor paid any retrenchment
compensation prior to stopping them from working; so they
claimed for their regularization as the employee of BCCL.But
the admission of the workman witness (WW1) evidently
indicates none of them to have got any appointment, any
bonus paper, a pay-slip, or any like paper. He (WW1) denied
their never any such employment, continuous work or
stoppage of work by the management.
9. Adversely to it, MW 1 Uma Shankar Singh as
Personnel Manager at Bhagabandh Colliery has affirmed
that the colliery had about 20 blacksmiths in the year 1981
and 1985,but the management used to utilize contractual
services on lowest tender ,the contractor used to appoint
various people and pay them their wages, so there was no
relationship of employer and employee in such cases of
contractual services. MW2 S.N.P.Yadav as the
Superintendent Engineer of the Colliery since 1981 appears
to have clarified the stand of the management that Mahadev,
one of the enlisted contractors of the BCCL, who was
entrusted with repairing work of cage etc. at Chanak No.6 for
temporary period for which the contractor used to engage
his own men, and to pay them their wages, as such the
management had right neither to engage or disengage the
workers of the contractor. He (MW2) in his cross examination
has also affirmed the fact that the repair of the cage was a
continuous process in the colliery; the BCCL being a Public
Sector Undertaking invited tender quotation for the repair
etc,. though the necessity of registration of contractor
Mahadeb Sharma as a contractor by the RLC© under the
Rules,and any paper related to engagement of the workmen
by the contractor were beyond his knowledge.He (MW2)
has specifically denied the necessity of 32 workers (total
numbers of the both the References under adjudication)as
Blacksmiths in the colliery just as denied alleged termination
of the workmen by the managment.
10.On perusal and consideration of the materials
available on the records of the both cases,I find that the
Xerox copies of the Attendance Register for the year 1983
(Ext.W.1 series) undoubtedly proves that out of 60 persons
noted in the Register, S/Shri Kedar Paswan & 14 others under
Sl.No. 1 to 15 and S/Shri Jimedar Prasad and 16 others under
Sl.No. 16 to 28,30,33 to 34 as referred in the Schedules to the
Reference Nos.121/93 and 120/1993 respectively worked as
6522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Blacksmith under contractor Mahadeo during the year 1993
not continuously. Even if it is treated as their continuously
working in the year 1983, it clearly stands not their continuous
service during the period of twelve calendar months
proceeding to the dates, i.e., 3rd Sept.,1993 with both
the references to which calculation is to be made under
Sec. 23 B (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act., 1947 for their
actually working under the Employer.
The question of their working under the Employer
does not arise, because the aforesaid documentary proof of
their Attendance Register for the year 1983 itself disproves
the case of the workmen to have worked directly under the
management of Bhagabandh Colliery. Factually the
management of the Colliery was not the employer of the
workmen concerned, rather they were unrebuttably workers
of aforesaid contractor Mahadeb,under whom they worked
and they were paid their wages by him for their work of
repair of the colliery Tub etc. carried on contractual basis.
Thus no relationship of employer-employee ever existed
between the workmen and the management of the colliery
even for a single moment.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussed facts and the
circumstances, it is, hereby in response to the terms of the
both the References hereby:
ORDERED
Let the Award be and the same is passed that the
demand of Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha that Shri Jimedar
Prasad and 16 others in the schedule to the present reference
No.120/93 ever worked as Blacksmith in Bhagabandh Colliery
is not at all legally justified. They should never be treated as
employees of M/s BCCL.
Accordingly the demand of the said union that
Shri Kedar Paswan and 14 others as referred in the Schedule
to the Reference No.121/1993 (analogous to the present
reference) ever worked in Bhagabandh colliery of M/s. BCCL
as Blacksmith and they should be treated as BCCL employee
is legally quite unjustified. They are not at all entitled to any
relief from any date.
Let the copies— one soft and one hard — of the
Award be sent to the Ministry, Labour and Employment,
Government of India, New Delhi for its publication in the
Gazette of India. The Award passed in the present reference
shall be binding upon the parties of its analogous Reference
No.121/93 as well.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2515.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 260 dk 2001½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@218@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2013
S.O. 2515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 260/2001)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
28/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/218/2001-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 260 of 2001.
PARTIES
: The Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Jharnapara, Dhanbad,
Vs. Gen. Manager, Mugma Area of
M/s. ECL, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
: Mr. K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate
workman/Union
On behalf of the
: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 6th Sept., 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-20012/
218/2001-IR(C-I) dt.18.09.2001.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s.
E.C.L. in not regularizing Sri Laul Ojha as Loading
Clerk is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled and from what date?"
2. Neither the Union Representatives for Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union, Hirapur, Dhanbad nor workman Laul Ojha
nor any witness for the workman appeared, but Mr. D.K.
Verma, the Ld. Counsel for the O.P./management is present.
On the persual of the case record, I find that the case
of the workman was already closed as per the Order No. 16
dt. 3.5.2006 on account on non-production of any witness
for the workman as well as the inability of the Union
representative for the workman to examine any witness
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6523
despite ample opportunities for it since 05.08.2005; as such
the evidence of the management since thereafter is
unwarranted. The Union Representative and the workman
by their conducts clearly appear to be their disinterested in
pursuing the Reference which is related to the regularization
of the workman as a Loading Clerk. Under these
circumstances, the case is closed as no Industrial Dispute
existent, and accordingly it is passed an order.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2516.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k @Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 330 dk 1999) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y& 20012@355@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 28th October, 2013
S.O. 2516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 330/1999)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of BCCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Govenment on 28/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/355/1999-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMTN 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. 330 OF 1999
PARTIES
: The Vice President,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Singh,
Rajender Path, Dhanbad
V/s The chief Gen. Manager, Sijua
Area of M/BCCL., Sijua, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
: Mr. N.G. Arun, Rep. of the Union
workman/union
On behalf of the
: Late. H. Nath, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd Sept., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act. 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
355/99(C-I) dt. 2.12.1999.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Bansudeopur Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s.
BCCL to terminate Sri Lal Muni Nonia from the
services of the Company is proper and justified? If
not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
2. Neither Representative for Rastriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh, Rajender Path, Dhanbad nor workman
Lalmuni Nonia appeared nor any appeared for the O.P./
Management of Basudevpur Colliery nor any witness on
bahalf of the O.P. produced.
Perused the case record, it is evident from it that none
appeared for the Union or the workman despite Regd.
Notices for the proper representation of the workman,
because the case has been pending for the evidence of the
management since 19.7.2005, through Mr. H. Nath had
produced later on one witness Dinanath Singh. But thereafter
despite Regd. notices to the both parties for their proper
representation in proceeding the case, none of the parties
appeared in this case which is related to the termination of
the workman. It is the oldest case of the year 1999. Under
these circumstances, the Union representative and the
workman by their conduct clearly appear to be disinterested
in pursuing the case. In result, the case is closed as no
Industrial Dispute existent; and accordingly an order is
passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2517.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53 dk 1998½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-10-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@457@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 28 October, 2013
S.O. 2517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/1998)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 28.10.2013.
[No. L-20012/457/1996-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
6524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 53 OF 1998.
PARTIES
: The Vice President,
Janta Sharmik Sangh, Fatka,
Nirsachatty, Dhanbad,
V/s. The General Manager, Barora Area
I, Nawagarh, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
: Mr. A.K. Sinha, Ld. Advocate
workman/Union
On behalf of the
: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: JHARKHAND
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th Sept., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
457/96-IR(C-I) dt. 20.02/11.03.1998 & 27.09.2012 respectively.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Union for the
enrolment/absorption of S/Shri Kamlesh Prasad
Singh and others (as per list enclosed) of the
Ghutway Colliery/Fire Clay Mine is justified? If so,
to what relief the concerned workmen entitled to?"
2. The case of sponsoring Union Janta Shramik Sangh,
Nirsachatti, Dhanbad for 236 workmen Kamlesh Pd./Singh
and, others (as per list enclosed, now replaced with the new
list as per corrigendum dt. 27th Sept., 2012) is that formerly
the proprietor Jai Kumar Ojha had been wining (Mining an
ore) coal as well as fire clay even by open casting from the
Ghutway Colliery, a composite one since long. His mining
lease from the state of Bihar through District Mining Officer,
Hazaribagh on 22.2.1971 in respect of the working of coal
and fire clay in 698.78 acre of land at Mouza, Ghutway
Colliery was granted and recognized. He submitted his
several Return in form I under the Coal Mines Regulation
1957 to the Chief Inspectors of Mines in India. The Central
Government of India also issued him the Factory licence for
running the said Colliery. Several letters were written to him;
and several inspection were made by the Directorate of Mines
in regard to safety of Mines. though the Ghutway Colliery
was neither taken over by the Central Government on
31.01.1973 or on 01.05.1973, at the objection of the Central
Government to winning of Coal from the Mines, the Proprietor
filed a Special Leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India against the state of Bihar and others wherein he was
allowed to extract fire clay but not coal, from the colliery. The
workmen concerned were all along engaged in the extraction
of coal and fire clay since prior to 1980 until their
unengagement by the BCCL. The operation of the said
colliery and several Mines by Proprietor was to the full
knowledge of the BCCL and other government Officials.
The Ghutway colliery vested in M/s. BCCL in the year 1986
while the workmen were working therein, but the BCCL forced
them to leave their service. Even after the takeover of the
said colliery by the Management of BCCL in the year 1995,
in course of their employment in the colliery, there was a
relationship of employer-employee between the BCCL and
the workmen, as they had worked prior to 1973 till 1995 until
the stoppage of their work by the BCCL. Neither they can be
alleged as the workmen of a private colliery nor their services/
relationship of employer-employee in the year 1995 are
deniable nor the Management of BCCL can escape from its
liability for their regularization in the colliery, so it is alleged
the demand of the union for the employment/absorption of
the workmen on the ground of their continuous employment
of the colliery as justified.
3. The workman Kamlesh Pd. Singh for the Union in
his rejoinder categorically denied the allegations of O.P./
management, and stated that the reference is legally
maintainable; inclines of Mines are still existing and being
used by the management. Initially the Ghutway colliery was
being operated by the private colliery owners who continued
to work in the Mines 1980. Fire clay is removed from the
surface for which inlets are made. Possible engagement of
some persons/workmen by the Private colliery owners to
remove fire clay is an admitted fact of the management. All
the workmen were removed from the colliery. The
management deployed other persons in place of present
workmen for working at the colliery. The workmen have
worked in it even after the enactment of Coal Mines
Nationalization Act, 1971 and other subsequent Acts.
4. Whereas with specific denials, the contra case of
the O.P. management is that no employer-employee
relationship ever existed between the management and the
persons concerned. The persons as job seekers have got
together to get themselves absorbed in the service of M/s.
BCCL with the help of litigation through the Union. The
Ghutway Colliery had virgin coal seams and it had neither an
opening as inclines nor a pit as an exit routes for the working
of the workers or for forcing fresh air and obnoxious air
inside the Mine. The existence of the colliery in lack of pits
and inclines is beyond imagination. The private owner could
not operate the coal seams as per the provision of Coal
Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 read with the Amendment
1976. In course of winning and removal of fire clay, the private
owner having the lease incidentally and surreptitiously
committed theft of coal by engaging a few workmen, and
according the private owners and some interested persons
tried to disturb the management of the M/s. BCCL in the
initiation of any plan for winning coal from the colliery as per
the notice to the Office of the DGMS under the Mines Act
1952 for commencement of civil construction of inclines for
coal mining underground. After much difficulty, the
management opened the Mine after 1995 and deployed its
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6525
own specilized workers for construction jobs, driving of
incline and opening of the Mines etc., and thereafter such
specialized workers started development work in the Mine.
But the persons concerned were never engaged by the
management in any of the said jobs including Mining. The
management had already surplus manpower, so providing
employment to the outsiders persons was beyond
imagination. At the enforcement of Coal Mines
Nationalization (Mines Act) 1986, since 15.12.1986 and
after retrospectively repealment of its Sec. 14 of the said
Mines Nationalization Act, 73 w.e.f. 31.1.1973, workmen of
private employers cannot demand for their absorption under
the management. The Management has no concern with
the winning fireclay by the private owner for winning fire
clay through his considered/chosen genuine workers from
the colliery with open casting working thereof as per the
terms & conditions of his lease Deed. Thus the demand of
the Union is meritless.
5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder categorically
denying the allegations of the Union has stated that though
the management was unaware of all particulars of the lease
Deed of private owner Jay Kumar Ojha, the coal seam was
never exploited by constructing any mine and the mining
operator was purely confined to region of fireclay only.
The persons concerned are not entitled to any relief.
FINDING WITH REASONS
6. In the instant Reference WWI Mikashar (Nishakar)
Pandey (unnamed in the New List as per the Ministry's
Letter dt. 27th Sept., 2012 WW2) Jai Kumar Ojha, the Owner
of Ghutway Colliery for the Union concerned, and MWI
Jageshwar Narayan Gupta, the Manager of Damoda Colliery
including Ghutway Colliery one as it Section under him, for
the O.P./Management have been examined respectively.
Mr. A.K. Sinha, Ldl. adv. for the Union/workmen has
vociferously submitted that both the letters dt. 16.2.1973
and 10.02.1973 issued by the custodian, Coal Mines
Authority (C.M.A.), Madhuban Group to Ghutway Colliery
Co. and Shri Jay Kumar Ojha, owner of the Colliery (Extt.W.2
& 3) respectively proved the status of Mr. Ojha as the
owner thereof, who was thereby, directed to hand over the
books of Accounts, Register and other documents to the
Custodian as per Sec.5(3) of the Coal Mines (taking over
the management). Ordinance 1973, which provides for the
vesting of the charge of the management of the Coal Mines
in the custodian on his appointment; formerly M/s
Ghutway Colliery, Kaman and Dist. Hazaribagh was granted
the Licence No. L/2(1)/-468/71-LC dt.27th July 1971 (Ext.
W.4/1) for carrying on business licence for production of
coal from the Colliery in the state of Bihar (now in
Jharkhand) to the capacity of 15,000 tones per annumn
which was amended to 10,000 Tonnes accordingly as per
the Government of India's Letter 17.03.1973 (Ext. W.4), but
as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dt. 18.10.1980
passed in the Writ Pet. No. 1652/80(Ext. W4), passed in the
writ Pet. No. 1652/80(Ext. W1), Mr. J.K. Jha, the owner was
allowed to mine and remove only fireclay without in any
way touching any scam or deposits of Coal.
7. Further Mr. Sinha also submitted that all the
workmen also per the statements of both witnesses of the
Union (WWs 1 and 2) were the employees of the private
owner Jai Kumar Ojha (WW2 himself); it is an admitted fact
that Sec. 14 of the Nationalization Act 1973 laid down the
continuation of the Private Owner's employees but it was
replealed by the Amendment Act., 1996, so the workmen
claimed not under said section of the said Act, rather demand
for their services of retrenched workmen under Section
25 H bearing Heading "Re-Employment of Retrenched
workmen under the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947". The
existence of the said colliery at the relevant time is also an
admission of MWI, as also its existence at Sl.No. 94 under
the Schedule to the Coal Nationalization Act., 1973. Besides,
it is submission on the part of the Owner/workmen that the
Union/workmen that the failure of the O.P./management to
provide a notice or any compensation to the workmen as
required mandatorily under the Sec. 25 F of the I.D. Act.,
1947 and the settled law of the Hon'ble Court reported in
(1978) 2 SCC & AIR 2001 SC 1994 that The management
started Mines Operation in the year 1995 at the same are at
Ghutway Colliery where concerned workmen were working
and the management has taken over the assets of the colliery
and workmen are also assets of the colliery are the vital
points in favour of the workmen as quite deserving and
entitled to have employment in the BCCL as per the
provision under Section 25 H of the I.D. Act.
8. Whereas the point wise contention of Mr. D.K.
Verma, Learned Counsel for the O.P./management is the
substitution of the 1st list by the 2nd list of alleged workmen
as per corrigendum of the Ministry concerned dt. 27th Sept.,
2012 out of which neither refers to the age of the workmen
that the Ext. W.4/1, the Order dt. 27.07.1971 of the Central
Ministry of Industrial Development refers to application
dt. 16th April, 1966 of the M/s Ghutway Colliery, Company
for a licence; but evident admission of the WW2 Jai Kumar
Ojha, the alleged owner of the Ghutway Colliery himself,
that he possesses not any paper/document as a proof for
the engagement of the aleged workmen by him or for all the
papers and Registers including their employment submitted
by him to the custodian concerned, or payment of their
wages, or about any papers to show the Form B Register of
the workmen to have been taken by the BCCL.
It is mandatory duty of the owner to maintain Form-
B Register for 1996 as Sec. 48 of the Mines Act prescribed
that no workman is allowed to enter the Mines without
entry of his name, age and all particulars in the Form B
Register as also no employment of a person in the Mines
who is below 18 years of age. In the present case, the
Union concernd for the workmen is silent at the point of
their factual age. Further it has been contended by
6526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mr. Verma, the Ld.Counsel for the O.P./Management that
the points of retrenchment neither pleaded nor applicable
to the present case as its nature appears, and that there is
no provision for the enrolment of such alleged workmen
having no relationship with the BCCL. Mr. Verma, also has
to contend that none of the both rulings cited on behalf of
the workmen is applicable as the case of the Union stands
without any basis.
9. On the perusal and due consideration of the
materials available on the case record. I find that it is
indisputable facts that the workmen or the Union or
Mr. Jay Kumar Ojha, the alleged owner of the then Ghutway
Colliery has no proof of the Master & Servant relationship
between the workmen and him just as it appears no such
relationship ever existed between the workmen and the
Management of Barora Area No. 1 of M/s BCCL, Nawagarh
(Dhanbad) for a single moment. Under these circumstances,
it is hereby in the terms of Reference.
ORDERED
The Award be and the same is passed that the
demand of the Union for enrolment/absorption of S/Shri
Kamlesh Pd. Singh & others as per corrigendum dt.
27.07.2012 of Ghutway Colliery/Fire Clay Mine is totally
unjustified and illegal. Therefore, the concerned workmen
are not entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
List of workmen Ghutway colliery/fire clay mines as
per ministry's corrigendum file No. L-20012/457/
1996-IR(C-I) dt. 27th September, 2012
Sl.
Name
Father's Name
1.
Kamlesh Pd. Singh
Late Ghanshyam Singh
2.
Rajesh Kumar Singh
Late Jagdayal Pandey
3.
Rajesh Kumar Singh
Kamlesh Pd. Singh
4.
Deepak Kr. Singh
Kamlesh Pd. Singh
5.
Sanup Kumar Jha
Jai Kumar Jha
6.
Dinesh Pd. Mahato
Rashu Mahato
7.
Raj Kumar
Late Gopal Moryen
8.
Satrughan Gope
Hari Gope
9.
Rajesh Ram
Baleshwar Ram
10.
Bhuneshwar Kewat
Arjun Kewat
11.
Anand Kumar
Sachin
12.
Dhirendra Prasad
Prabhu Chand
13.
Barun Chakraborty
Hemendra Chakraborty
14.
Bhuli Kewat
Mangra Kewat
15.
Dinesh Prasad
Rameshwar Prasad
16.
Dulendra
Rukram
17.
Bharat Lal Tondon
Hiralal Tondon
18.
Sujeet Kumar
Raj Kumar Prasad
19.
Ranveer Kumar
Gajanand Singh
20.
Nitesh Kumar
Ravi Shankar Singh
21.
Akash Kumar
Ram Pravesh Singh
22.
Shiv Ranjan Kumar
Mahendra Kumar
23.
Hiralal Kewat
Late Chuttu Kewat
24.
Deepak Kumar Lala
Gokul Pd. Lala
25.
Bharat Mahato
Late Bijya Mahato
26.
Banshi Gope
Gala Gope
27.
Sanjay Singh
Prem Chand Singh
28.
Sarek Pd. Singh
Late Puneet Singh
29.
Pramod Singh
Late Puneet Singh
30.
Ramadhin Singh
Late Puneet Singh
31.
Hemlal Banerjee
Chhali Ram Banerjee
32.
Nepal Banerjee
Chhali Ram Banerjee
33.
Bhuneshwar
Mahedkar
34.
Prabhakar Jha
Akhil Jha
35.
Rakesh Jha
Dilip Jha
36.
Surendra Kumar
Bhuneshwar Mallah
37.
Kanhaiya
Sonaw
38.
Vijaya Kumar Jha
Jay Kr. Jha
39.
Prasun Banerjee
Ashim Kumar Banerjee
40.
Anup Kr. Jha
Jay Kumar Jha
41.
Manoj Kumar
Upendra Prasad
42.
Pursotam Kumar Kewat
Ramchandra Kewat
43.
Kirpal Kumar Kewat
Ramchandra Kewat
44.
Bharat Lal Sahu
Chandra Sahu
45.
Kishor Kumar Manhar
Gendalal Manhar
46.
Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj
Pukram Bhardwaj
47.
Rajat Nishad
Devnandan Nishad
48.
Sanjay Kumar
Rameshwar Nishad
49.
Krishna Kumar
Ramchatitra Prasad
50.
Tinku Prabhakar
Lakhan Sahani
51.
Munil Kumar
Shivandan Kewat
52.
Soumitra Goswami
Subot Chandra Goswami
53.
Chhotu Kumar Rewani
Dinesh Rawani
54.
Rajendra Kumar
Sukram
55.
Dipak Sharma
Dinesh Kumar
56.
Dinesh Kumar
Devraj Mallah
57.
Suraj
Bhusan Sahay
58.
Mita Chakraborty
Umesh Chakraborty
59.
Rimil Ghosh
Sailesh Ghosh
60.
Arun Chakrabory
Hemendra Chakraborty
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6527
Sl.
Name
Father's Name
61.
Satish Kumar Dubey
Late Shiv Narayan
Dubey
62.
Janardan Kumar Dubey
Satish
63.
Tapas Kumar Sen
Ishwar Chandra Sen
64.
Urmila Devi
W/o Suresh Yadav
65.
Raju Yadav
Somar Gope
66.
Sanjay Yadav
Laldhari Gope
67.
Suresh Yadav
Phutu Gope
68.
Bindo Yadav
Sukar Gope
69.
Raju Nisad
Late Bhudha Nishad
70.
Raju Yadav
Baidnath Yadav
71.
Yijay Yadav
Late Lalu Gope
72.
Shuklendra Kumar Sinha
Birendra Prasad
73.
Nem Chandra Yadav
Gorey Yadav
74.
Suresh Yadav
Sukar Gope
75.
Nehal Yadav
Kailesh Gope
76.
Manish Chandra Gope
Tileshwar Gope
77.
Ravi Kumar Yadav
Roshan Lal Yadav
78.
Lalan Rajak
Bhaijhan Rajak
79.
Binod Yadav
Phutu Gope
80.
Raju Sahu
Samru Sahu
81.
Akhileshwar Prajapati
Kailash Parjapati
82.
Ranjay Kumar
Suresh Kumar
83.
Sanjay Kumar
Late Devnandan Kewat
84.
Anil Kumar
Shiv Ram Kumar
85.
Balwant Kumar
Sudesh Kumar
86.
Kumar Gurav
Bihari Kumar
87.
Ganesh
Jagdish
88.
Dharamraj
Dhannjay Kumar
89.
Rajeev Kumar
Patru Kumar
90.
Mitrunjay Kumar
Late Basudev Kumar
91.
Ranjan Kumar
Jagdev Kumar
92.
Prakash Kumar
Magdev Kumar
93.
Mirtunjay Kumar
Late Narsingh Kumar
94.
Dharan Kumar
Raj Mohan Kumar
95.
Suraj Bhusan Sahay
Mangal Bhushan Sahay
96.
Kunal Kumar Chauhan
Fulchand Chauhan
97.
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar
Krishna Kumar
98.
Birendra Kumar
Rajeshwar Kumar
99.
Dhananjay Kumar
Rajeewar Kumar
100.
Anand Shankar
Shyam Sundar Prasad
101.
Arun Kumar
Rajeshwar Kumar
Sl.
Name
Father's Name
102.
Rohit Kumar
Tarkeshwar Mallah
103.
Raju Singh
Jageshwar Singh
104.
Gopal Pd. Sahu
Sampat Lal Sahu
105.
Jagatpal Sahu
Rameshwar Sahu
106.
Sohan Lal Sahu
Gandhar Sahu
107.
Chhannu Lal Sahu
Gangadhar Sahu
108.
Lochan Sahu
Jagdish Sidhar
109.
Amit Kewat
Ramlal Kewat
110.
Ravi Gope
Bhushan Gope
111.
Sanju Barat
Tijram Barat
112.
Dhirendra Kumar
Sahdev Pandey
113.
Om Prakash Prasad
Khub Lal Ram
114.
Lakhan Nishad
Janki Nishad
115.
Vijay Kumar Kewat
Madan Nishad
116.
Ajay Kumar
Jagdish Nishad
117.
Akash Kumar
Bhagwan Lal
118.
Amerjeet Mallah
Basudev Mallah
119.
Manoj Kr. Mahato
Jiwadhan Mahato
120.
Rajesh Kumar Mahato
Murri Mahato
121.
Arun Kumar Mahato
Nikhant Mahato
122.
Jitendra Ram
Late Kishun Ram
123.
Ramesh Choudhari
Niranjan Choudhary
124.
Vikash Kumar
Kameshwar Kumar
125.
Prakash Nishad
Shyam Lal Nishad
126.
Kausal Kishor
Surendra Kumar
127.
Sanjeev Kumar
Ram Tiwkia
128.
Falendra Singh
Dharamnath Singh
129.
Chandradeep Pasi
Naresh Pasi
130.
Yugesh Bharti
Anadesh Bharti
131.
Amit Kumar
Rajendra Kumar
132.
Sudhir Kumar
Krishna Kumar
133.
Shambhu Kumar Paswan
Late Deepnarayan
Paswan
134.
Dinesh Singh
Basudev Singh
135.
Tarkeshwar Thakur
Banarsi Thakur
136.
Gurav Kumar
Rambaran Thakur
137.
Sarmendra Kumar
Satya Narayan
138.
Pila Ram Sahu
Ajit Ram Sahu
139.
Ram Kumar Sahu
Resham Lal Sahu
140.
Mohan Lal Sahu
Bhuj Ram Sahu
141.
Sanjay Kumar
Sri Saw
142.
Rupnarayan Sahu
Premlal Sahu
143
Nityanand Kumar
Laxman Mallah
6528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
144.
Jagat Ram
Dhani Ram
145.
Ram Niwas
Sonaw
146.
Karan Thapa
Ganesh Thapa
147. Gend Lal
Gayaram Sahu
148.
Parwez Alam
Md. Rafique
149.
Mulchand
Deo Ram
150.
Santosh
Het Ram
151.
Dharam
Kunjal
152.
Guddu Kumar
Laxman Mallah
153.
Agardas Khute
Teej Ram Khute
154.
Nand Kishor Kumar
Rajeshwar Kumar
155.
Haldar Laxme
Jageshwar Laxme
156.
Pramod Bharti
Bhuru Ram Bharti
157.
Ganesh Lakshme
Guha Ram Lakshme
158.
Raj Kumar Lakshme
Jageshwar Lakshme
159.
Ishwar Lakshme
Ghasiya Lakshme
160.
Manoranjan Pal
Paritosh Pal
161.
Jitendra Sahni
Faritosh Pal
162.
Manoj Kumar
Krishan Deo Mallah
163.
Radhyashyam Khute
Kali Ram Khute
164.
Santosh Kumar
Hiralal
165.
Kishan
Bhuvan
166.
Hari Sankha
Lochan
167.
Kashmiri
Sarwan Kumar
168.
Lalan Kr. Choudhary
Late Girija Chaudhary
169.
Ravindra Kumar
Chhedi Lal
170.
Anup Chakraborty
Parimal Chakraborty
171.
Jitendra Kumar
Chhedi Lal
172.
Ramesh
Rewa Ram
173.
Kushal Pandit
Dwarika Rathore
174.
Om Prakash Sharma
Bachulal Thakur
175.
Dilip Kumar
Madan Nishad
176.
Kanyaiya Lal Thakur
Vijay Thakur
177.
Toshan Pandit Tandon
Resham Lal Tendon
178.
Bhim Yadav
Achay Ram
179.
Prem Chand Kumar
Devinandan Mallah
180.
Sarwan Kumar
Arjun Ram
181.
Sanjay Kr. Gupta
Vijay Kr. Gupta
182.
Sarita Sinha
W/o Late Ajay Kr. Sinha
183.
Raj Kumar Saw
Shiv Saw
184.
Smt. Amrat Tondan
W/o Vijay Kr. Tondon
185
Dilip Baidh
Baithnath Baidh
186.
Lalit Mallah
Arjun Mallah
187.
Niraj Kumar
Rajesh Kumar
188.
Jitendra Kumar
Narsingh Kumar
189.
Ram Pd. Mallah
Ishwarya Mallah
190.
Rinku Pd. Nishad
Late Tulsi Mallah
191.
Vijay Kumar Paswan
Shiv Narayan Paswan
192.
Dhananjay Kr. Saw
Vijay Kumar Saw
193.
Mahanjay Kr. Saw
Vijay Kumar Saw
194.
Bhola Kumar Paswan
Late Deep Narayan
Paswan
195.
Manoj Prasad
Baijnath Prasad
196.
Rupesh Kumar
Indra Mallah
197.
Janak Kumar Kewat
Ramkishun Kewat
198
Mithlesh Kumar Sahani
Rameshwar Nishad
199.
Vishwanath Sahani
Jogindra Nishad
200.
Anil Kumar
Suresh Gorai
201.
Ambika Nayak
Ramchandra Nayank
202.
Jayprakesh Nishad
Sandhu Nishad
203.
Ramadhar Kumar
Bindam Mallah
204.
Dashrath
Late Biral
205.
Shyama Charan
Bhod Ram Tondon
206.
Sundar Mani
Gore Lal
207.
Shiv Chakraborty
Jagdish Chakraborty
208.
Nripati Sahu
Rameshwar
209.
Niranjan Sahu
Ram Singh
210.
Arvind Kumar Karsh
Loknath
211.
Tabrej Alam
Md. Rafique
212.
Dinesh Kumar
Vijay Kumar
213.
Dinanath Khute
Bhaiya Ram Khute
214.
Ganesh Kumar
Ramjanam Mallah
215.
Rajesh Ware
Akant Kumar Ware
216.
Devendra Kumar
Saryu Pandit Singh
217.
Avinash Kumar
Kaushal Kumar Singh
218.
Rakesh Kumar
Nand Kumar
219.
Ramesh Kumar Suman
Ram Sewak Singh
220.
Manish Kumar
Rambilash Singh
221.
Saroj Kumar
Deep Nayan Kumar
222.
Sanoj
Laljeet Mallah
223.
Vipin Kumar
Kalyan Singh
224.
Vikash Kumar Dubey
Ajay Kumar Dubey
225.
Tapas Chakraborty
Hemendra Chakraborty
226.
Bhola Bhattacharya
Monindra Kr.
Bhattacharya
Sl.
Name
Father's Name
Sl.
Name
Father's Name
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6529
227.
Sushil Kumar
Bindeshwar Mallah
228.
Ankar Nishad
Tulsi Mallah
229.
Sunil Saw
Shiv Saw
230.
Prabhakar Kumar
Jaheer Kumar
231.
Sapan Kumar Jha
Sarwan Kr. Jha
232.
Pawan Kr. Jha
Sarwan Kr. Jha
233.
Uttam Kumar Jha
Dilip Kumar Jha
234.
Awadesh Kumar Jha
Jay Kumar Jha
235.
Mukesh Kumar Sinha
Madan Prasad
236.
Raj Kumar
Ashok Kumar
ubZ fnYyh] 1 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2518.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dkse csVk
,fo,s'ku izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 87@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
27@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@4@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 1st November, 2013
S.O. 2518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 87/2012 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Channai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. Cambata Aviation P. Ltd. and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
27/10/2013.
[No. L-11012/4/2012-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 23rd September, 2013
Present : K. P. Prasanna Kumar, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 87/2011
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between
the Management of Cambata Aviation P. Ltd. and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri P. Nityanandam
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Airport Manager
: 2nd Party/
Respondent
M/s Cambata Aviation P. Ltd.
12-A/14, IInd Floor, Departure
Anna International Airport,
Chennai International Airport
Chennai-600027
APPEARANCE :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Sri K. Sudalaikannu,
Advocate
For the 2nd Party/
: M/s T. S. Gopalan & Co.,
Management
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/4/2013 dated
16.11.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
2. The I D has been referred to this Court with the
following schedule and has been numbered as I D 87/2012:
"Whether the action of the Management of Cambata
Aviation P. Ltd., Chennai in denying the Statutory
Airport Entry Pass to Sri P. Nityanandam, to gain
entry inside the Airport, thereby causing a forced
termination from service is legal and justified? To
what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"
3. The First Party has entered appearance in the matter.
He has engaged a counsel for him also. However the First
Party as well as his counsel have been continuously absent.
Even though the case was repeatedly posted for filing Claim
Statement, there was no response from the side of the First
Party. He seems to be not interested in prosecuting the
case.
4. In the above circumstances, the petition is
dismissed. The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 23rd September, 2013)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: None
For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Sl.
Name
Father's Name
6530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
On the Management's side
N/A
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2519.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dh 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 274 dk 1999½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@323@1995&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2013
S.O. 2519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 274/1999)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s CCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
27/10/2013.
[No. L-20012/323/1995-IR(C-I]
M.K. SINGH, 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 Sec. 10(1)
(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE No. 274 OF 1999
PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of
Jarandih Colliery of M/s CCL and their
workmen.
APPEARANCE :
On behalf of the workmen: Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Adv.
On behalf of the management: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Adv.
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated:
Dhanbad, 28th March, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section
10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal vide their order No. L-20012/323/
95-IR(C-I) dated 15.7.1999.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of United Coal worker's Union
to regularise the job of Shri Moin and 25 other
workmen engaged in pipe fitting works in Jarangdhi
Colliery of C.C. Ltd. Management and to provide
wages and other benefits as per N.C.W.A. IV is proper
and justified? If yes, what relief they are entitled to
and from which date?"
At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that
consequent upon the recalling of the suo-motto Award dt.
15.10. 2002, the Reference came for hearing on merits as per
Order No. 5 dt. 28.5.2003 of the Tribunal.
2. The case of the United Coal Workers Union for
workers Moin and 25 others (as per list enclosed) is that all
the workers (as per the Annexure List) have been
performing the job of fitting, maintaining the pipes for
stowing and other purpose inside the mine of Jarandih
Colliery for more than tears since their employment by the
management through their intermediaries working more than
240 days yearly. The work of pipe fitting is permanent,
perennial in nature and incidental to the work in the mine.
The work of pipe laying/fitting and its regular maintenance
is done according to instruction and direct supervision of
the management for which short training for safely etc. to
work inside the mines is given. These are skilled works and
are done by the workers as per specifications of the
management. In flux of time contract labour system was
abolished as per the Central Government's Notification
published in the Gazette, but the management deployed
them through intermediaries/contractors in order to deprive
them of all legal benefits and claims.
3. Further it is alleged that the workmen remained
hopeful for their treatment as the employees of the
management eventually, but the management of CCL is not
regularising their services. So the Union raised an industrial
dispute in the year 1994 for regularisation of their services
and for equal payment of their wages as per NCWA-IV
directly the management. The workmen working for longest
period have been the senior most employees as pipe fitting
mazdoors, so they are entitled to their absorption in regular
employment. The management is supplying them all tools
for execution of the job, though intermediaries are being
changed. The management is also guilty of unfair labour
practice for their acts of omissions and commissions in
depriving the workmen of their legal right to livelihood by
not giving them the status of regular employees in the eye
of law. The abolition of contract labour system resulting in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6531
removal from regularisation under the Act has created direct
relationship of employer and employees between the
principal employer and the workmen.
4. With specific denials in the rejoinder of the
workmen, it is alleged that the workmen concerned have
been regularly working, but not temporarily. The
management has been preparing perfect paper arrangement
to comonflage the real issue. The NCWA is applicable to
the workmen of the Coal Industry, to which the Minimum
Wages Act does not apply, so the payment of alleged wages
as per the latter Act is ipso fact illegal.
5. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that the present
case is unmaintainable, as no employer employee
relationship exists between the workmen concerned and
the management. One person named Md. Hussain was
awarded the contract for the job of pipe fitting concerning
lay out of stowing range in different panels at different
time intermittently as per the requirement. Some of the
concerned workmen had worked as temporary workers
under the contractor there was no scope for engagement
of the workmen throughout the year on the job on the jobs
of pipe fitting of stowing range. The nature of the work
involved not more than 15 persons at a time, no question
arises as to engagement of 26 persons. The coal scam of
Jarangdih Colliery is being extracted through inclines by
underground mining operations in conjuction with
hydraulic sand stawing in the form of panels. Whenever a
new panel is opened, fitting of a pipe range requires for
enabling the management to transport the sand by
hydraulic pressure, and to staw the void created after
extraction of coal with the sand so transported by hydraulic
pressure through the pipe range.
6. Further it is alleged on behalf ot the management
that the extraction of coal from the pillars available in a
particular panel lasts for six months to one year. A new
panel is opened after completion of the coal extraction.
Thus the work of pipe fitting for setting up a stawing range
is carried on intermittently once or twice a year. Such work
is not regularly done by the management. The management
has sufficient numbers of stawing gangs to carry on day to
day stawing, operation, and to carry on repair and
maintenance of stawing range as well. The aforesaid
contractor engaged the workmen on purely temporary basis
to execute the contract job, after completion of which, he
submitted his bills and received the payment of its from the
management. He supervised the works carried on his
workmen, and paid them their wages as per the agreement
between him and the workmen as also under the Minimum
Wages Act. The contractor exercised full control over his
workmen and their job, so not in any circumstances any
relationship between the management of CCL and the
contractor's workers could be established. The union has
made out its pretended case the persons concerned as the
Contractor's workers and same job seekers malafide to
induce them into the employment of the Public Sector
Undertaking through the litigation. The contractor-workers
are not entitled to regularisation under the Principal
Employer in the non-existence of the employer-employee
relationship. Thus they can not demand the payment of
their wages as per NCWA IV.
7. The Management in its rejoinder has alleged that
most of the persons included in the list are strangers and
job seekers in addition to the aforesaid contractor's
workmen. It is wrong to suggest more then 10 years to
have elapsed from the date of raising the dispute before
the the ALC. Contractor Labours can not demand for their
absorption under the principal employer. As such the
persons concerned are not at all entitled to any relief.
FINDING WITH REASONING
8. In this reference, WWI Md. Moin, one of the
workmen for the Union and MWI M.K. Mukherjee, Dy.
Manager (Pers), Jarandih Colliery, CCL for the management
have been examined.
According to the statement of WWI Md. Moin for
the sake of his colleagues, all the workmen have been
performing the job of fitting and laying the pipes inside the
Mine under the supervision of the management since 1992;
the management supplies them the tools as the eight
photocopies Cap Lamp Issue Register (Extt. W. 2 series)
maintained under signature of Mr. S. Thakur, the Under
Manager. The management gives them their salary in its
office as per the weekly wages Register under the signature
of Mr. B.K. Rathour, the Personnel Manager of which the
photocopies in thirteen sheets as Extt. 3 series. To him
(WW1), the workmen were put under training as per the
order of Sri Balram Singh, the Manager of Jarandhi Colliery
(the photocopies as Extt. 1 and 1/1), Prior to their assignment
for the work inside the mine. As to the authenticity of the
documents, the witness (WWI) failed to assert who got it
wherefrom, though he stated the Union to have filed the
documents. The WWI has in equivocally admitted that
they have got neither any appointment letter nor identity
card nor any payslip from the management, and that they
have not any certificate for Pipe Fitting etc. Training. He
has denied to be workers of their contractor Md. Kudus
who maintained the aforesaid wages Register, but striking
his name off it, it was filed by them.
9. Where as the MWI M.K. Mukhopadhyay
(Mukherjee), the Dy. Manager (Pers.), Jarandhi Colliery for
the management by mere oral statement has stated that a
contract was given by the management to the contractor
Md. Hussain for sitting up the pipe fitting inside the Mine
of the Colliery which was not of perennial in nature. He has
flatly denied any engagement of Md. Mudduin and 25
others by the Management for the work. Expressing
ignorance of whether colliery by the workmen for the Cap
Lamp Register, floating of a tender for job of pipe fitting
6532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
through a contractor, the management witness has accepted
the maintinance of the V.T.C. (Vocational Training Centre)
by the Management as per Mines Vocational Training Rules
and of a Register of Cap Lamps for permanent worker but
he is not sure of the workmen having been given such
training. To him, no licence is required for the contractor
for a work concering 8-10 persons, though Registration
Certificate of the Contractor was there, yet uncertain of it
was filed.
10. Mr. D. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate for the Union/
workmen submits that the workmen as per oral and
documentary evidences of WWI Md. Moin have
unchallengedly proved that they have been working as
Pipe Fitting Mazdoor in the underground of the Mine since
1992 under the direct control and supervision of the
management, whereas the management failed to produce
and documents of any intermediary contractor Md. Hussain
engaged by the management for the job of pipe fitting, so
they as skilled workers are entitled to their absorption in
the colliery as per the Rule 28(3) of the Mines Vocational
Training Rules 1966.
In support of the argument, Mr. Mukherji the Ld.
Counsel for the Union, has put absolute reliance on these
authorities in photocopies as under:
1999(2) L.L.N. 612(SC)(DB), Secretary, Haryana State
Electricity Board Vs. Suresh & Others with reference to
Sec. 10 of the Central Labour (R&A) Act 1970 concerning
the concept of Contract Labour and its effect. The fact of it
is that Haryana Electricity Board in order to keep its plans
and stations clean and hygenic awarded a contract for the
work, not of seasonal nature, under the stipulation for
engagement of number of employees for it. Overall control
of working of Contract Labour including Admn. remained
with the Board, but the Board neither registered as Principal
Contractor. Held, on lifting the veil' it's clean that there was
no contract system with the Board, as the work was of
perennial nature. Contractor has to be kept out; so called
contract system was only a comon flage. Employer-
employee relationship is easily visulised, employees who
have worked for more than 240 days in a year are entitled to
be absorbed permanently in the Board (Para 10, 13, 18).
Secondly, F.L.R. 1990 Vol. 60 page 20 (SC (DB),
Shankar Mukhiyajee & Ors. Vs. Union of India & ors.-Sec.
10 of the contra Labour (R & A) Act 1970-it was held the
Notification concerned issued by the Govt. of West Bengal
prohibiting employment of Contract Labour in cleaning,
stocking and other allied jobs except loading and unloading
of bricks from wagons and trucks-this exception was
discriminating violative of Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution,
so workmen doing such job should be treated at par with
and the clause was struck down.
Thirdly, 2002 LLR 449 (SC)(DB), M/s. Indian Farmers
Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal,
Allahabad & Ors, wherein 88 workmen in question were
employees of appellant or of contractor; it was held that
the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and High Court that
they were employees of appellant were right, so not
interferences with it. (Para 5 & 6)
Fourthly, SCLJ Vol 15—101, Royal Talkies, Hyderabad
& Ors Vs. Employee State Insurance Regarding Employee
State Insurance Act, 1948, Sec. 2(9) 75, about Employee in
connection with the work of establishment, where keeping
cycle stand and running canteen are incidental or adjunct
to primary purpose of the theatre, so owner of Cinema
Theatre was held liable to contribute in respect of persons
employed in canteen and cycle stand.
Fifthly, 2003(99) FLR 5 (SC) (DB), Mishra Dhatu
Nigam Ltd. etc. Vs. M. Venkataiah & Ors, as to provisions
of Factories Act, 1948, where in discharge of a statutory
obligation of maintaining a canteen upon them under the
mandatory provision of Factories Act in the establishment,
the principal employer availed the services of a 'contractor,'
the Courts have held that the Contract Labour would indeed
be the employees of the principal employer and that such
cases do not relate to or depend upon abolition of contract
labour (Para 7).
Sixthly, 2000 (87) FLR 7 (SC) (DB), G. B. Pant University
of Agriculture & Tech. Vs. State of U.P. the appellant was
established under the U.P. Agriculture University Act, 1958.
It was a residential university. It had about 14 hostels for
accommodating of the students and Cafetaria for food
service to the residents of the hostels and others. About
170 employees working in these Cafeteria claimed for their
regularisation of the services as regular employees of the
University. which was negated by the University Authority,
it resulted in reference of the two disputes U/S 4(k) of the
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act. The Labour Court
awarded for their regularisation with same salary as of the
regular ones. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld it, stating
that democratic socialism aims to end poverty, ignorance
and inequality of opportunity the socialistic concept of
the society laid down in Part II and IV of the Constitution
ought to be implemented in the true sprit of the Constitution
(Para 10).
Seventhly, LLR 1994 SC 634, R. K. Panda & Ors. Vs.
Steel Authority of India & Ors. whether the contract
labourers have been the employees of the principal
employer in course of time and whether the engagement
and employment through a contractor is a mere camouflage
and a smoke screen is a question of fact, and has to be
established by the Contract Labour on the basis of the
requisite material. In all such cases, the labourers are initially
employed and engaged by the contractos, so at that point
of time a direct link is established between the contract
labourer and the principal employer, eliminating the
contractor from the scene, is matter to be established on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6533
material produced before the Labour Court and the Industrial
Tribunal, the Competent Forum, is to adjudicate under the
I.D. Act, It is not possible for the High Court while exercising
Writ jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such question
only on the basis of the affidavits (Para 6).
Eightly, (2005 (105) FLR 1067 (SC)(CB), Manager, RBI
Bangalore
Vs.
S. Mani & Ors.
I.D. Act 1947—Sec. 25 F Effect of Provision of to be
completed with—If workman had completed 240 days of
service—workman at their evidence had to state specifically
that they had worked for 240 days—Have to prove-
Pleadings are no substitute for proof.
(Para 12)
Ninethly, F.L.R. 1990 Vol. 60 at page 20 (SC) (DR)
Shankar Mukherjee & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
In reference to Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour (R &
A) Act, 1970, it has held the Notification concerned issued
by the Government of West Bengal prohibiting employment
of contract labour in cleaning, stocking and other allied
jobs except loading and unloading of bricks from wagons
and trucks. This exception was discriminatory, violative of
Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution, so worken doing such
job should be treated at par with, and the clause was struck
down.
Tenthly, 2008 AIR SCW 3996 (DB) (C), GM, ONGC,
Shilcher Vs. O.N.G.C., Contractual Workers Union In respect
of Reference U/S 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, pleadings of
parties and evidence produced wording of reference
showed that dispute was as top regularisation of service
of contractual workers, whereas pleadings, however,
showed that core issue before Tribunal was with regard to
status to workers as employees of principal employers;
there was relevant for determinnig real scope of dispute, it
was held that award of Tribunal holding workers to be
employees of principal employer and granting relief of
regularisation was not outside to jurisdiction.
(Para 16, 18)
Eleventhly 2011 LLR 1079(SC)(DB), Bhilwara Dugdh
Utpadak Sahakari Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kr. Sharma Dead by LR &
Ors at Employer-Employee Relationship.
The Labour Court had held that the respondents
were not the contractor's employees but were the employees
of the Appellant as upheld by the High Court that there
was implicitly subterfuge by the appellant to avoid the
liabilities under various labour statutes. The Hon'ble Apex
Court held no informity in the impugned judgement of the
High Court (Para 6).
Twelvethly 2008 LLR 509 SC (DB) Hindalco Industries
Ltd. Vs. Association of Engineers Workers.
It relates to the case of 27 canteen workers working
for many years through the contractors who were changing
but the workers remained the same, and the canteen was
required to be run U/S 47 of the Factories Act, 1948;
complaint for unfair labour practice on behalf of the canteen
workers accepted by the Industrial Court, Hon'ble High
Court confired the order since the canteen had been a
statutory part of establishment of the management and the
workers in canteen were carrying on the work of perennial
nature; so the respondents workers were held in fact the
workmen of the Appellant Management.
(Para 16, 18, 22, 26)
Thirteenly 2008 (118) FLR 1176 (Cal HC) (DB) - Eastern
Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. CGIT & Ors. - Wherein Respondents
workers were taken by Colliery as Clay Cartridge makers
who claimed for their absorption. Tribunal held them
entitled to be absorbed in regular pay roll and to be
considered for regular appointment in compassionate
category. They were discharging perennial duty under
control and supervision of the management, enjoying the
same service benefits. The Hon'ble High Court upheld it.
(Para 17)
Fourteenthly, Photocopy of Award dt. 3rd Oct, 1996
(18 pages) passed by Sri Tarkeshwar Pd., then P.O., CGIT
No. 1, Dhanbad related to absorption of contract labourers.
It related to the case that the workmen were engaged
by the contract for removal of slurry in order to make
briquetter and to load the same on trucks by using
ingenunity and paper Pransations for personal gain and
loss of the workmen, It was awarded by the Tribunal for
their regularisation which was upheld by the Hon'ble High
Court concerned in C.W.J.C.No. 199/97 (A) as also in its
L.O.A.No. 214 of 1999 (R) and the same was upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court (C.B.) in the case of Steel Authority
of India Ltd. & Ors Vs. National Union Water Front workers
& Ors reported in 2001 LLR 962 Para 128.
It is remarkable to note that every ratio decidendi
acts upon factum of a particular case and its marits.
11.Whereas Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld. Counsel has
argued on behalf of the Management that factual position
is that no relationship of Employer and Employee exists
between the management and the alleged workmen as they
temporarily but intermittently worked for pipe fitting with
lay-out of storing range in different penal and different
time as per requirement under the contractor Md. Hussain.
6534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It has further submitted for the management that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
V.N.V. Water Front Workers reported in Lab I.C. 2001 at
Page 3656 held that contractor workers are not entitled to
regularisation in the services of principal employer, just as
held in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3)
reported in 2006 SLC (L &S) 753 that absorption, casual
daily wagers or adhoc employees appointed/recruited
dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment
on issuance of such directions by court, therefore the
issuance of such directions amounting to creation of
another mode of public appointment is not permissible.
The verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi Case as
binding upon all the Courts and Tribunals was upheld by
the Hon'ble Self Court in the case of the Official Liquidator
Vs. Dayanand & other reported in (2009) (1) SCC (L & S)
943. Mr. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the management has also
reposed in the case of Pinaki Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. Union
of India & Ors reported in 2009 (2) SCC (L & S) 259, wherein
as held by the Supreme Court in view of the law laid down
in Uma Devi Case that no recruitment could be made
contrary to statutory requirement rules and in violation of
Articles 16 & 14 of the Indian Constitution; thus the claim
for regularisation on basis of engagement as daily rated
casual labourers is not maintainable.
12.An adjudication in the present reference requires
consideration of vital two factors:
First whether there is any relationship of employer
and employee between the both the parties.
At this point, I find that the straitway denial of Md.
Moin (WWI) in his Para 11 about their ever working under
any contractor as contrasted with their written statement
under para 7 about their deployment through intermediaries
itself stands disproved, as their Extt. W. 1 and 1/1
(photocopies of the documents for Training from 20th &
13th Dec, 1996 respectively) establish only 18 of the 11 to
26 workmen contract workers to have been put to Training
at the V.T.O. prior to their assignment Ext. W2/7, the
photocopy of the Cap Lamp Issue Register, bearing the
name of ''Md. Hussain'' proves the case of the management
about their working under contractor Hussain, and it
amounts to the irreputable admission of the workmen to
that effect. The first document has one Basant and the
second one has three persons Gulam Haider, Kudan and
Saroj beyond the list of the workman. Moreover, the Union
Representative has failed to establish the crucial point at
which point of time as direct link is established between
both the contract labourers and the principal employer in
view of Hon'ble Court's Verdict in the aforesaid case of
R.K. Panda (Supra). The aspect of employer-employee
relationship stands adjudicated negative.
Secondly the factor is whether the workmen have
rendered continuous service for 190 or 240 days below
ground in the Mine or in any other case u/s 25 B (2)(1)(i) or
(ii) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 respectively.
In the instant case, as per the Factory Register
(Fourteen Sheets photocopies thereof-Extt.W.3 Series) is
the weekly wages Register which factually denotes the
number of the working days of a few workmen, not all of
them for total 87 days from 15th Sept., to 27th Dec., 1997
and 9 days from 1st to 9th Jan, 1998. The documents of
Weekly Wages as written on them have also unlisted 14
persons Saib Ali, Md. Gufram, Md. Akhatar Ansari,
Naimuddinm Mathur Thakur, Md. Saraj, Rafique, Md.
Basarat, Gulam Haidar, Ali Mohammed, Md. Kalam and
Gulam Shabre. It is remarkable to note that out of the listed
workmen, Sl. No. 1 Moin to Sl. No. 8 Mustaque appeared to
worked for 63 to 69 days, S. No. O Abdul Hamid to the rest
for 4 to 44 days during the said period of 1997-1998.
Likewise the eight photocopies of the Cap Lamp
Issuances of No. 5 incline (Extt. W.2 Series) reveal that out
of the listed workmen Sl. No. 1 Moin to Sl. No. 12 Md.
Shaffique (except Sl. No. 7 Lal Mohammad—Nil, and Sl.
No. 11 Md. Nayaur were not) were issued Cap Lamps 7 to
15 days i.e. roughly 2, 8 and 3 days during the period i.e. in
July 12 and Oct. 4, 1995, 1997 and on July, 17, Sept. 13 and
Dec. 25, 1998 respectively. Out of the rest workmen, Sl. No.
17 Gulsharif, Sl. No.18 Ainul, Sl. No. 20 Imamul Haque and
Sl. No. 22 Ravindra Kumar Das were Nil, and rest workmen
were issued Cap Lamps 01-05 days only. As such it stands
evident that none of the enlisted twenty-six workmen had
completed their continuous service of pipe fitting for 190
or 240 days below the Mine or in any other case respectively
defined under the said provision of the law. The Union has
no proof of the workmen still working the job under the
management rather it is clear they were casual contract
labourers casually for a limited period.
In view of the aforesaid material available on the
case record, I find that the argument of Mr. Verma, the
Learned Counsel for the Management preponderates that
of Mr. Mukherjee Learned Advocate for the Union. Hence,
in the terms of the reference, it is responded as such:
ORDERED
That the Award is and the same be passed that the
demand of the United Coal Wokers Union for regularisation
of the job of Sri Moin and 25 other workmen engaged in
Pipe Fitting work in Jarangdih Colliery of C.C.L. Ltd.
Management and for providing wages and other benefits
as per N.C.W.A. IV is totally improper and unjustified, as
well as baseless. Hence, they are not entitled to any relief
from any date.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6535
ANNEXURE-1
List of the workmen engaged in pipe fitting job in
Jarangdih Colliery
1.
Moin
2.
Shabir
3.
Md. Tahir
4.
Md. Imamuddin
5.
Md. Salim
6.
Alimuddin
7.
Lal Mohammad
8.
Mustaque
9.
Abdul Hamid
10. Mumtaz
11. Md. Nayum
12. Md. Shafique
13. Md. Sayeed
14. Md. Mayumuddin
15. Kaum
16. Sadique Ansari
17. Gulsharif
18. Ainul
19. Sayee
20. Imamul Haque
21. Abidin
22. Ravindra Kumar Das
23. Md. Kasim
24. Mohassin
25. Md. Hadish
26. Md. Shaukaf
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2520.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25 of 2001½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012~@418@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 25/2001 of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
08/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/418/2000-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, 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(I)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
REFERENCE NO. 25 OF 2001.
PARTIES
: General Secretary,
Dhanbad Colliery
Karmchari Sangh, Dhanbad
Vs General Manager, P.B.
Area of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the
Workman/Union
: Mr P.M. Prasad, Ld.
Advocate
On behalf of the
Management
: None
State
: JHARKHAND
INDUSTRY
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th Sept., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
418/2000(C-I) dt. 25.01.2000.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Kenduadih Colliery BCCL in not accepeting 05.10.1946,
the date of birth of Shri Arjun Prasad Singh, Zamindari
Supervisor and superannuating him from service with effect
from 01.11.1999 is correct and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?
2. The case of workman Arjun Prasad Singh as
sponsored by the Dhanbad Colliodery Karmchari Sangh,
Hirapur, Dhanbad is that he was employed on 07.08.1963 in
6536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Kenduadih Colliery. His date of birth (DOB) was recorded
as 05.10.1946 with his other details as required for the
purpose of Form B under the Mines act, 1952. His aforesaid
date of birth was accordingly recorded in his Except Form
B and his Identity Card No., 57233 as issued to him by the
Management, striking out any other, if written. In the year
1987 at the issuance of service excerpt under form B issued
by the Management of the colliery to their workers, the
birth date of the workman was recorded as 14.5.1942 and
5.10.1946 was his personal details in his aforesaid service
excerpt. As per the Chart dt. 21.04.1997 issued by the EDP
Section of the M/s BCCL based on the service details of
the employees in Form B mentioned under the Mines Act,
1952 of hte colliery bearing under Sl. No. 44, the date of
birth of the workman was recorded as 5.10.1946 as also
noted in his Pay Slip for the payment of his salary for Sept.,
1990. The same date of his birth was recorded as 05.10.1946
in the Certificate No. 134 as per his Matriculation
Examination (Praveshika Pariksha) conducted by Hindi
Vidyapith, Deoghar, (Bihar) in the year 1962 earlier than his
employment in 1963. Despite all these facts, he was served
with the retirement notice Ref. No. KP/99/27 dt. 10/12.04.1999
by the Management but after its cancellation, it was replaced
by another notice Ref. No. KP/99/61 dt. 23.4.1993/03.05.1999
to the workman informing him of his release from the service
of the Company on account of his retirement w.e.f.
01.11.1999 which was incorrect and unjustified. The
retirement notice was uncalled for and without any
reasonable cause, and was immature as per his age recorded
in the document; the workman was to retire on 05.10.2006
after completing his age of 60 years. The management was
not accpeting his Date of Birth as 05.10.1946 nor complying
with the Implementation Institution (1.1) No. 76 of the
National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) III as
communicated to the coal industries vide Ref. No. CIL/
NCWAIII/1.1. No. 76/88/185 dt. 25th April, 1988 prior to the
date of his employment. The Union sought for a direction
to the management for taking the workman in employment
immediately with all consequential benefits.
3. Categorically denying all the allegations of the
O.P./ management, the Union in it rejoinder has stated that
the date 7.6.1963 as the date of joining of the workman was
accepted. His valid date of birth as recorded in his Form B
was 14.5.1942. By striking off his date of birth as 1.11.1939
the management replaced with it 14.5.1942 in the service
Excerpt. The question of raising an objection by the
employee, therefore, unexpected before the issuance of
his aforesaid Retirement Scheme. On receipt of his
Retirement Notice, the objection to it as raised before the
Director (Pers) on 8.11.1999 went unresponded by the
Management, then the Union raised the industrial dispute
before the ALC© Dhanbad; hence the present reference.
Besides the Identity Card No. 57233 issued by the
Management to him bears his date of birth 5.10.1946, but
not as 1.11.1939. The case of the workman in such
differences in his documents ought to have been referred
to the Medical Board for the correct assessment of his
Date of Birth as per the direction of the JBCCI. The issuance
of his Service Excerpt in the year 1987 was accepted, so his
date of birth was corrected as 5.10.1946 by the Management
therein. Therefore, the action of the O.P./management in
that regard is unjustified.
4. Whereas with specific denials, the contra pleaded
case of the O.P./Management is that workman Arjun Pd.
Singh joined Kenduadih colliery on 7.8.1963. His date of
birth as recorded in the colliery statutory Register Form
"B".I/D Register and Service Excerpt issued (in 1987) was
1.11.1939. During the tenure of long period 7.8.1963 till the
date of issuance of Retirement Notice on 23/5th May, 1999,
he never protested nor raised the I.D. before the A.LC© for
correction of his date of birth which has no meaning at all.
His date of birth as 1.11.1939 recorded in the Form B Register
of the Colliery as signed by him as a token of acceptance/
correction of the entries under Section 48(1) of the Mines
act, 1952. The aforesaid statutory Register and the
management had no cutting or overwriting. The
management had fully followed the instruction No. 76
formulated by the JBCCI in the case. He was issued the
Identity Card long back after takeover and nationalization
of the colliery by the Government of India in which all the
particulars including date of birth of each workman was
entered, and if any wrong entry was made, he had
liberty to raise an objection, but he did not do it as its
column "14" meant for any objection. The decision of the
Management of kenduadih to issue superannuation notice
to Shri Arjun Pd., Singh to superannuate him, w.e.f. 1.11.1999
was quite justified. He is not entitled to any relief. The
BCCL is a Government Company u/s 161 of the Company
Act, being financed by the central government, so its
employees are public servant as under Sec. 21(12) of the
I.P.C.
5. The O.P./management in its rejoinder categorically
denied all the allegation of the union/workman, and stated
that the workman rightly already retired on 1.1.1999, being
so, there is no relationship of employer-employee
relationship existent in the present case. Shri Arjun Pd.
Singh passed Praveshika Parikesha from Hindu Vidyapith,
Deoghar, in which his date of birth was recorded as
5.10.1946, but he never raised any issue of I.D. for its
correction during the long tenure of his service from 1963
to 1999. He was matriculate and signed his name in the
Form B, the Statutory Register under Sec. 48 of the Mines
Act, 1952 as acceptance of it. So at his 60 years of age, he
rightly retired on 01.11.1999.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6537
FINDING WITH REASONS
6. In the instant reference case, WWI Arjun Pd. Singh,
the himself for the Union, and MWI Sitaram Prasad, the
Personnel Manager, Gopalichak Group of Mines for the
O.P./management have been respectively examined.
According to the statement of the workman, Arjun
Pd. Singh (WWI) as per his original certificate of the
Matriculation Examination passed from the Deoghar
Vidyapith in the year 1962 (Ext. W. 1) bearing his date of
birth (DOB) as 5.10.1946, his said date of birth was recorded
in the official record at the time of his appointment as
General Mazdoor on 7.8.1963 as also recroded in his I.D.
(Identity Card-Ext. W. 2). In the year 1987, when his service
excerpt (in carbon copy-Ext. W.3) issued by the
management mentioned his date of birth as 14.5.1942, he
though objected to it by personally striking down his date
of birth recorded by the management, yet did not know
which age of his was recorded in the Form B Register by
the Management, But the workman in his chief itself
admitted not to have raised in any objection related to the
wrongly recorded his date of birth in the Original excerpt
he had handed order to the management. Even then the
workman claimed for entitlement to his superannuation
according to his date of birth as recorded in his
Matriculation certificate, as he was illegally superannuated
w.e.f., 1.11.1999. The workman further stated to have
submitted his dateless application/representation to the
management in the year 1988 for the correction of his date
of birth as 5.10.1946. The photocopy of his Mark sheet
issued by the Bihar School Examination Board for
Matriculation examination held in the year 1962 as admitted
by the workman-marked as Ext. M. 2 (issued on 31.5.1999)
Proved Arjun Pd Singh (Non-Matric), Roll Dhanbad No.
84" as failure. It clearly disproves the fact of his success in
second Division in Praveshika Examination as per his
Praveshika Praman Patra dt. 22.9.1962 (Ext. W.1). But the
workman has also proved his two retirement notices (dt.
10.4.99 and 23.4./3.5.1999) as Ext.4 and 4/1 series respectively
on behalf of the O.P./management.
7. Whereas the statement of WWI Sitaram Prasad as
the Personnel Manager for the O.P./management appears
to have affirmed the birth date of the workman Arjun Pd.
Singh S/o Late M.D. Singh under Sl. No. 57233 at page 49
of the Form B Original Register of Kenduadih colliery was
recorded as 1.11.1939 under his signature (Ext. M-5), though
his date of birth has a cutting/overwirting 14.5.1942 as his
correct date of birth without any initial over it under the
column. To him (MWI), though as per his Matric passed
from Vidyapith, the workman claimed his date of birth as
5.10.1946, he got entered his date of birth as 01.11.39 at the
time of his entry of the service as also approved and
accordingly recommended by the Dy. Chief Personnel
Manager. P. B Area's letter to the Project Officer concerned
to treat it so (Ext. M. 6). The pension papers of the workman
also bears his date of birth, accordingly his retirement, as
the claim of the workman was wrong, The witness for the
management (MWI) has tangibly established that the
Identity card No. 57233 of the workman issued by the
management carries his date of birth as 5.10.46 but not
written in the pen as his I.D, was written. His service excerpt
has two dates of birth one 14.5.42 and another 5.10.1946,
out of which the former replaced by the latter by striking
out without an initial.
8. Mr. P.M. Prasad, the Ld, Advocate for the union/
workman underlining the implementation Institute No. 76
of NCWA III has submitted that the workman had passed
the Matriculation examination (Praveshika Pariksha) from
Deoghar Vidyapith in the year 1962 prior to his entry in the
employment in Kenduadih colliery in 1963, so his date of
birth 5.10.1946 as recorded in his aforesaid Matriculation
would prevail over the differences in the documents of the
O.P./Management in respect of it as per the Implementation
Institution; as such the action of the management in
immaturely superannuating him w.e.f. 01.11.1999 is quite
unjustified, malafide and illegal, so the workman is entitled
for reinstatement of his service since then with all
consequential benefits.
9. On perusal and consideration of the materials as
adduced on behalf of the both the parties there is no dispute
as to the date of workman's employment/joining on 7.8.1963.
But his date of birth 5.10.1946 as recorded in his "Praveshika
Praman Patra" dt. 22.9.62 issued by the Hindu Vidyapith.
Deoghar, Bihar (Ext. W.1) appears to be undoutedly false
for the two reasons, firstly the aforesaid certificate bears
his success, in the second division whereas his admitted
copy of Mark sheet dt. 31.5.1990 issued by the Bihar School
Examination Board, Patna (Ext. M.2) proves his failure
secondly the factual age of the workman on subtraction of
his date of birth as 05.10.1946 against his date of joining
07.08.1963 comes 16 years 10 moths on the date of his
employment. Not any law of the Law permits an employment
of a minor anywhere.
Besides, the I.D. Card No. 57 233 of the workman
(Ext. W. 2) similarly bears 05.10.1946 as his date of birth
fairly written in the bigger digits in bold blue pen then in
normal ones/letters. The workman seems to put in it as
second factor in support of his claim which is quite baseless.
10. In fact, as per the firstly Retirement Notice dt. 10/
12.04.1999 by the Project Officer (Ext. M.4), then workman
was proposed of his superannuation from 14.5.1999, as his
date of birth as 14.5.1939. But at the second Notice of the
retirement dt. 23.4./3.5.1999 by the Project Officer concerned
(Ext. M. 4/1) cancelling his first Notice as per the letter no.
1231 dt. 20.4.1999 of the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager P.B.
Area, (Ext. M.6) communicated to the workman the approval
of the competent authority for his date of birth as 01.11.1939
as final being the original entry in old 'B' Form register of
kenduadih Colliery, the workman was to retire w.e.f.
6538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
01.11.1999 with a direction to avail of his leave and legal
dues. There is not any doubt about the existence of the
workman's date of birth as 01.11.1939 entered in the old
"B" Form Register of Kenduadih Colliery.
In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby.
ORDERED
The Award be and the same is passed that the action
of the management of Kenduadih Colliery, BCCL in not
accepting the date of birth of Shri Arjun Prasad Singh as
05.10.46 and in superannuating him from service from
01.11.1999 is quite just and legal. The workman is not entitled
to any relief. Let the copies-one soft and one hard-of the
Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Government of India, New Delhi for its publication in the
Gazette of India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2521.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkecsVk ,fo,'ku
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
75@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@62@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2000)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s
Combata Aviations Ltd., and their workman, received by
the Central Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L-11012/62/2000-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL:
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:—SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,
Presiding Officer
ID No. 75/2000
Sh. Vikram Singh,
S/o. Sh. Jeet Bahadur,
R/o. 1: 78, Mangol Puri,
Delhi-110085
Versus
The Chairman/Managing Director,
M/s. Cambata Aviations Limited, IGI, Terminal-II,
New Delhi.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No. L-11012/62/2000 (C-I) dated
30/06/2000, referred the following industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for the adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the Management of Cambata
S/o Sh. Jeet Bahadur, Utility hand-cum-sweeper vide order
dated 29.10.98 is just and legal? If not, to what relief is the
said workman entitled?"
On 01/08/2000 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D. No. 75/2000 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from
date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant appeared
and filed claim statement on 09/11/2000. Wherein the
submitted as follows:—
1. That the Labour/Claimant was appointed as U/H-
cum-Sweeper in Cambata Aviations Limited, w.e.f. 22.5.1992
and on the basis of his satisfactory work, he was confirmed
on the said post in due course.
2. That during the course of his employment. Labour/
Claimant discharged his duties towards the management
with complete devotion and single-mindedness and there
was no cause of conern to him.
3. That in the month of April, 1998, it was alleged
against him by the management that on 5.4.1998 when the
Labour/Claimant was on duty from 2200 hours to 0700 hours
at Gulf Air flight in the area of departure hall at 1st floor,
Terminal-II, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, at about 0400 hours,
the Labour/Claimant was noticed by the officers loitering
in the Arrival Hall, Terminal-II, Ground floor and
approaching to the Thomas Cook Currency Desk. It was
further alleged that since it was not permissible to be
loitering in the said area because the Labour/Claimant was
not on duty i.e. on the Arrival Hall at Ground floor, he was
questioned by the officer of the management and on the
suspicion, the Labour/Claimant was interrogated. It was
further alleged by the management that on questioning the
Labour/Claimant took out a single currency note of 50
Yugoslav Dinar from his pocket and as such he was found
in possession of the foreign currency. The said allegations
were summed up in the charge-sheet dated 12.05.1998 in
the following manner:—
(I) That an act which is prejudicial or is likely to be
prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the
management.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6539
(II) Failure to observe the Air Safety Rules.
(III) Negligence and beach of duty.
4. That on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet
and the management appointed Shri S.P. Chaudhary,
Advocate as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and
later on he submitted his findings, thereby proving the
charges against the Labour/Claimant.
5. That during the course of the enquiry, the
management filed a list of witnesses and documents. In the
list of witnesses three persons viz. Capt. S.K. Bhaskar
(Business Manager), Shri V.S. Khandari (Manager) and
Shri Madan Lal (Driver), whereas the management produce
only two witnesses and the management intentionally and
with malafide intentions did not call the Driver. Shri Madan
Lal, the third witness, to depose before the Enquiry Officer.
6. That the witnesses so produced by the
management in the enquiry gave statement contradictory
to each other in respect of the facts and circumstances of
the cases.
7. That after the examination of the said two
witnesses, the management did not produce the third
witness, who was the eye-witness of the alleged incidence.
The Labour Claimant then submitted an application dated
24-7-1998 therein that the third witness Shri Madan Pal,
driver may be produced to give statement for finding out
truth in the allegations levelled by the management but the
management did not produce the said third witness, the
driver Shri Madan Lal for the reason that the statement
might not support the allegations so levelled against the
Labour/Claimant. It is submitted here that the Labour/
Claimant is searched by the Vigilance Supervisors (Shri
Vishwajeet and Shri Gopal Krishan) but nothing
incriminating found. The management had intentionally
withheld them to give evidence before enquiry officer nor
Enquiry Officer said in his report regarding the same.
8. That it is important to note that the Enquiry Officer
rejected the application of the Labour/Claimant, and thereby
failed to impart the Justice to the Labour/Claimant. During
the course of enquiry proceedings.
9. That the Labour/Claimant examined himself as RW-
1 and submitted that on 4/5th April, 1998 at about 3.30 a.m.
while he was returning after having tea in the arrival hall
near Thomas Cook Counter, the Labour/Claimant found a
foreign currency and then he went to the counter to enquiry,
if the note had fallen from the counter, the person at the
Thomas Cook counter told him that currency note did not
belong to them. The Labour/Claimant further stated that
on refusal from the Thomas Cook Counter, the Labour/
Claimant gave the said currency note to officers Shri V.S.
Khandari and Shri Bhaskar for onward deposit. At the
request of Labour/Claimant, the officers prepared a note a
search memo, which the Labour Claimant requested before
the Enquiry Officer to produce the same but the
management did not produce the same. It is further
submitted that the Labour/Claimant is on duty from 10 p.m.
to 7 a.m. in the intervening night of 4/5.4.1998. The Labour/
Claimant firstly done duty at the ground floor for handling
the Lufthansa Flight. After flight Lufthansa Airways left
the Airport at about 2.20 a.m. and the next duty of the
Labour/Claimant is to handle the next flight of Gulf Air
which starts from 4 a.m. in the morning. The same fact is
proved by the allocation registered as supplied by the
management. The Enquiry Officer has not taken into
consideration this fact. It is further submitted that where
the alleged incidence took place that place does not come
under the prohibited area. The prohibited area at the airport
terminal is call Security Hold Area (S.H.A.) whereas this
fact is well within the knowledge of the management but
they intentionally and deliberately given the wrong facts
in order to prove the contents of their charge-sheet.
10. That the Enquiry Officer acted in a malafide and
arbitrary manner and against the principles of natural
justice and not allows the Labour/Claimant to file the written
arguments. The Labour/Claimant moved an application to
this respect on 27.8.1998, but the same was not allowed by
the Enquiry Officer.
11. That after submission of the findings by the
Enquiry Officer, the Labour/Claimant received a termination
order vide No. CAL/PER/421/98 dated 29.10.1998 signed
by Shri N. Pocha, General Manager, Airports, thereby
imposing on the Labour/Claimant penalty of removal from
the service from the management with immediate effect.
12. That the enquiry held against the Labour/Claimant
and the termination from service based on such illegal
enquiry are totally illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against
the principles of natural jutice. Besides, the same are
contrary to the fact on records.
13. That enquiry is initiated on the single score that
the management intentionally and with malafide motives
did not produce Shri Madan Pal, driver even after putting
him as a Management witness. The said witness Shri Madan
Pal was the only independent eye witness to the said
incidence and the management knows that nothing illegal
and recovered from the person of the Labour/Claimant and
this fact could have been revealed by the said Shri Madan
Pal had he been examined by the Enquiry Officer. He could
have been in a position to give the true fact of the incidence
which is going against the story of management that is
why they have intentionally and deliberately withheld him
from appearing before the Enquiry Officer did not say any
thing about the non production of the important witness
which create doubt about his impartiality and truthfulness.
14. That the enquiry as well as the termination order
are vitiated and deserved to quash on the score that the
show cause notice dated 6.4.1998, it has been alleged
6540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
against the Labour/Claimant that on 5.4.1998, at around
0400 hours, you were apprehended by Shri Bhaskar
(Manager-Internal Vigilance) and by Shri Khandari
(Manager-Ramp Services), while you were trying to
exchange Foreign Currency at Thomas Cook Counter at
the Departure Levelling of I.G.I. Airport. In the entire
enquiry proceedings and the statements made by the
witnesses it has been alleged that the Labour/Claimant
was loitering around inside the Arrival Hall of the I.G.I.
Airport.
15. That it is a fact and matter of record that in the
enquiry proceedings that both the witnesses examined by
the Enquiry Officer, stated that nothing illegal and
recovered from the person of the Labour/Claimant, but still
the Enquiry Officer proved the charges against the Labour/
Claimant which is totally perverse. It is further submitted
that the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the fact that the
charge-sheet is always based on the contents of the show-
cause notice and in the show-cause notice the presence of
the Labour/Claimant is shown in the Department Hall,
whereas the enquiry conducted on the allegation that the
Labour/Claimant was in the Arrival Hall.
16. That the enquiry has been conducted with
malafide intention in as much as the management wants to
throw out the Labour/Claimant for the single reason that
the Labour/Claimant had played an active role in the
formation of union at Delhi Airport and therefore, he became
the sore of management. It is the fact the management has
since its incorporation not allowed the employees to form
a union for the purpose of their welfare, thus the enquiry in
a way is only an eye-wash and the finding of the enquiry is
perverse and is based on surmises and conjecture which
deserves to be set aside and so is the Termination Order
that follows the enquiry.
17. That it is submitted here that the management
has withheld his dues and told him that the dues will be
given after the enquiry is over but even after the enquiry
proceedings over, the management did not release the dues
of the Labour/Claimant and finally the Labour/Claimant
sent a legal notice dated 7.6.1999 through his counsel for
release of his dues. After receiving the above noted the
managment released the part dues and Withheld the
remaining dues including the bonus etc. which the Labour/
Claimant is entitled for.
18. That the enquiry has been conducted in the most
flimsy manner and against the principles of natural justice
and as well as the Labour/Claimant has not been given a
fair opportunity to put his defence before Enquiry Officer.
The Labour/Claimant has not been given a fair opportunity
to put his defence before Enquiry Officer. The Labour/
Claimant was not allowed to submit his written arguments,
nor the Labour/Claimant was given any fair opportunity to
summon the independent witness who ought to have
revealed the truth.
19. That the disciplinary authority has not at all
appreciated the evidence on record and without applying
its mind has passed the termination order which deserves
to be set aside/quashed.
20. That the Labour/Claimant has filed the claim
statement before the Reconciliation Officer for adjudication
there also the management adopted a very rigid approach
and the Reconciliation Officer left with no other option but
to refer the dispute to this Hon'ble Court for adjudication,
hence the present petition.
On the basis of contents mentioned in aforesaid
paragraphs Labour/Claimant prayed that the charge-sheet
dated 12.5.1998 bearing Ref. No. CAL/PER/421/98, finding
given by the Enquiry Officer in Enquiry report dated
11.9.1998, as well as the impugned Termination Order dated
29.10.1998 may kindly be queshed/set aside and the Labour/
Claimant may kindly be reinstated in service with all
consequential benefits.
Management in reply to aforesaid claim statement
filed WS on 2/1/2001. Wherein Management denied the
allegations of Claim statement and also mentioned
additional grounds on the basis of which management
prayed as follows:— "Without prejudice to the above and
subject to the rights of the Management. It is submitted
that in case for any reasons whatsoever, the honorable
court came to the conclusion that there is a denial of
reasonable opportunity or the enquire has been conducted
against the principles of the natural justice, in that event, it
is respectfully submitted that the Management may be
given an opportunity to lead the evidence before his
honorable court in support of the charges levelled against
the claimant and to sustain the order of termination".
Workman/Claimant filed rejoinder in reply of WS.
Through which he denied the allegations of WS and
clarified his claim.
On basis of pleadings of parties following issues
have been framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 11.7.2002:—
1. Whether the enquiry was fair and legal?
2. Whether the punishment was disproportionate?
3. As per reference.
Issue No. 1 was decided by my Ld. Predecessor as
preliminary issue on13/5/2013. Which was decided in favour
of Management and against the Claimant/Workman.
Against which no remedy is sought by workman
Claimant. Hence order dated 23/5/2013 has become final.
In support of his case Workman/Claimant filed his
affidavit in evidence and produce himself for cross-
examination.
Management in support of its case filed afidavit of
Captain Sh. S.K. Bhaskar and also produce him for cross-
examination.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6541
Ld. AR's of the parties confined their arguments on
the point of proprotionality of punishment.
I have heard the oral argument of Ld AR's for the
parties on 8/8/2013.
Ld AR's also filed written arguments which are kept
on file.
Ld AR's for Labour/Claimant filed photo-copy of two
rulings. Through which he placed reliance on principles
laid down on the point of punishment in the following
rulings:—
I. Andhra Scientific Company Ltd.
Versus
Seshagiri Rao & Anr. (1987) II SC 117
Punishment-Jurisdiction of the labour to interfere with
the punishment given by the management Charges against
the concerned workman alleged to be misconduct under
the standing orders, held by the labour court as not proved-
charges, not amounting to misconduct under the provisions
of the standing orders found proved-Labour court, in the
circumstances, if could consider the quantum of
punishment and award punitive suspension instead of the
punishment of dismissal given by the management-
Misconduct-Habitual negligence—What is:
2. Colour Chemical Limited
Versus
AIR 1998 SC Pg. 948
(a) Interpretation of statutes-Labour welfare
legislation-Liberal construction.
(b) Meaning of Victimization-Delinquents found
sleeping in wee hours of night shift in plant kept machine
in running condition without inserting raw material therin
Imposition of punishment of dismissal of them. Would be
disproportionate and amounts to unfair labour practice
being an instance of legal victimization.
(c) Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), S. 11A, Sch.
2. Item 3. Reinstatement Punishment of dismissal.
Shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against
the delinquents. Ordering reinstatement of workmen with
continuity of service Proper. However reduction in back
wages directed.
Ld AR's for the Management counter contended that
the penalty of termination of service is neither harsh nor
disproportionate but under the circumstances is just and
proper.
Any interference in the matter would be detrimental
to the interest of the Management and shall have far
reaching consequences. It will send a wrong signal to other
co-employees to indulge in such type of illegal activities
thereby the very business of the Management of providing
Ground Handling Services shall be adversely affected. It
will be a wrong signal to other co-employees to the effect
that any act of thefts and omissions like in the present
case, which is having wider impact would be dealt with
leniently by the Management. It will also amount to
rewarding workman for having committed misconduct.
CASE LAWS
The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Bhagirathmal
Rainwa and the Judge Industrial Tribunal (1995[1]1.1.1960)
held that imapct of the delinquency on the workmen has to
be taken into consideration by the court so as to arrive at a
conclusion whether the decision taken by the Management
is just or not and only thereafter the court can upset the
punishment imposed by the employer.
The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of
Management of KPV Shaik Mohmmad and P. Govindarajulu
& Anr. (Page 111, para 7 and 13) has held that the Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to convert penalty into reward by
exercising the powers U/S 11A of the I.D. Act 1996 (2) LL.J-
to 113.
In LIC of India V.T.G. Marathe (19981[1] LLL.-967).
The Bombay High Court held that the imposition of
punishment was truly to be left to the Disciplinary Authority
who on the one hand, was required to maintain discipline
among the employees and to see that the morale of others
employees is kept up and on the other, while taking
disciplianry action, signal should not be sent out to the
effect that any unruly behavior having wider impact would
be dealt with leniently.
In Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. and A. Unikrishnan
& Anr. (1994[11] LLJ. 888 Para 7), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court depreciated misplaced sympathy generosity and
private benevolence. The Hon'ble Court took the view that
it is essential to maintain integrity of legal reasoning and
the legitimacy of its conclusion. Expensive Judicial mood
of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expenses of
legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually
irreconcilable situation and denude the judicial process of
its dignity, authority, respectability.
In B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. U.O.I. (1995[6] SCC 749, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 observed as under:—
"18.......The High Court/Tribunal while exercising the
power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its
won conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.
If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority
or the appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the
High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately would the
relief, either directing the disciplinary authority/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten
the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,
impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof."
6542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ïn V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R. TC. & Ors. (JT 2005 [8] SC
134) Hon'ble Supreme Court once again has held that the
court would not interfere with administrator's decision
unless it was illogical or suffered from propriety or was
shocking to the conscience of the court in the sense that it
was in defence of logic or moral standard. Only if the
punsihment is shockingly disproportionate it would be
appropriate for the court of direct the disciplinary authority
or the appellate to reconsider the punishment. Since High
Court's decision did not suffer any infirmity if called for no
interference.
In Karnataka S.T.R.C. and B.S. Hullikatti (2001[1] LLJ.
725 paras 65 to 67) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
awarding the lesser punishment will be misplaced sympathy.
Plea that the workman was not gainfully employed
during the period for which back wages is claimed the onus
to prove the plea falls on the workman.
In the present case workman has neither pleaded in
the statement of claim nor proved that he was not gainfully
employed hence in any view of the matter workman is not
entitled to reinstatement with back wages (U.P. State
Brassware Corporation Ltd. V/s. Udai Narain Pandey
2006[1]SCC 479).
In the light of contentions and counter contentions
I perused the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence
of parties and principles laid down in cited rulings.
Perusal of contents of statement of claim shows that
workman/Claimant has not pleaded in it that he was not
gainfully employed nor proved that he was gainfully
employed hence as per settled Law of Hon'ble Supreme
Court workman claimant is not entitled to reinstatement
with back wages.
Perusal of evidence on record shows that case of
workman/claimant does not come within the ambit of minor
punishment.
As case of workman/claimant comes within the ambit
of major punishment so it is to be looked into whether
punishment awarded to workman/claimant by management
is shockingly disproportionate.
In the instant case punishment awarded to workman/
claimant is of dismissal. Which is admittedly extreme
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary authority on
workman/claimant.
Which appears to be shockingly disproportionate
hence this tribunal itself is empowered to impose
appropriate punishment to shorten the litigation with
Cogent reasons in support thereof.
Case of workman/claimant comes within the ambit of
major punishment.
In the instant case there is single act of misconduct.
Which is some what less likely to justify dismissal of a
workman than is a persistent pattern of misconduct.
Discharge as punishment is milder than the extreme
punishment of dismissal though like dismissal, it also puts
the contract of service to an end. In case of dismissal, the
employee losses a number of benefits whereas in case of
discharge only the contract of service is terminated from a
particular date and the employee losses a number of benefits
whereas in case of discharge only the contract of service is
terminated from a particular date and the employee is not
deprived of the benefits occurring to him upto that date.
In the instant case if punishment of workman/
claimant is modified from dismissal to discharge that will
serve the ends of justice.
Therefore in the interest of justice punishment of
workman/claimant Vikram Singh Modified from dismissal
of discharge.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated: 30/09/2013
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2522.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj jkW;y ,;jost
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac} fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
149 of 2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@52@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 149/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Royal Airways
Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L-11012/52/2003-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6543
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena, Presiding Officer
ID No. 149/2003
Sh. Shukla Nand Samwal
Versus
Royal Airways
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notilication No L-11012/52'/2003-IR(C-I) dated 14/11/
2003 referred the following industrial Dispute to this tribunal
for the adjudication :—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Royal
Airways Limited (Formerly known as Modiluft Limited) in
terminating the services of Shri Shukla Nand Samwal
S/o Shri Maya Ram, Ex-Helper/Peon with effect from 5.5.1997
is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled and from which date?"
On 17/12/2003 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D. No. 149/2003 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days from
date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim
statement on 15/04/2004. Wherein he stated as follows:—
1. That the above-mentioned Industrial dispute has
been referred to this Hon'ble Court by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central). Office of the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,
B-3/E-3, Curzon Road, Barracks, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001 vide order dated 14.11.2003 over the
matter of termination of the services of the workman and
the terms of reference therein is "Whether the action of the
management of M/s. Royal Airways Limited (Formerly
known as Modiluft Limited) in terminating the services of
Shri Shukla Nand Samwal, S/o Shri Maya Ram, Ex-Helper/
Peon with effect from 5.5.1997 is just, fair and legal? If not,
to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?"
2. That the workman was employed as a helper/peon
in the company of the Management.
3. That the workman had joined the management
company on 4.10.1995 and at the time his services were
terminated illegally, he was drawing the salary of
Rs. 2,121 per month.
4. That the workman worked regularly, sincerely in
the Management Establishment upto 05.051997. During the
period of his service, the workman did not give a single
chance of grievance. The workman worked in the
dedication. He was devoted to his commitments.
5. That on 05.05.1997 the workman was on duty, while
performing his duties, the management approached the
workman and asked him not to come on duty after 06.051997,
without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or any valid
reason and further assured the workman to come and resume
duty after 15 days. When after 15 days the workman
approached to the management and asked them to allow
him to resume his duty, but the management further asked
the workman to come after 6 months.
6. That in the month of November, 1997, the workman
again approached to the management, asked them to
resume the day, at this juncture of time, the management
said that they will send the workman a letter then he should
come and resume duty. But after this, the Management on
one pretext or another adjourned the demand of the
workman. On workman's every personal visits no sound
response was given by the management.
7. That the management has violated the mandatory
provision of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 and in accordance
with the same, the management was mandatorily required
to give amonth's notice or a month's salary in lieu thereof
and retrenchment compensation, but the management has
violated the provisions of law with the sense of impunity.
8. That the workman during the tenure or his service
was never charge sheeted and the management has failed
to spell out any reason and muchless any reason for
terminating the services or the workman.
9. That the management while terminating the services
of the workman did not comply with the mandatory
provisions of section 25-F of I.D. Act.
10. That the action or the Management is malafide
and comes within the ambit of unfair Labour practice.
11. That the workman is unemployed and has not
been able to find any job till date in spite of the best efforts.
12. That a notice dated 4/10/2000 was sent to the
Management under Registered A.D. Cover, but the
management has failed to comply with the same.
13. That another employee Mr. Prem Parkash,
received a letter from the Management M/s. Modiluft
Limited, dated 14th October, 1998 to the effect that Modiluft
Limited is likely to relaunch operations very soon under
the name or Royal Airways (the New Name Management)
at No. 2 of the Management/respondent in the title, and
further that a policy decision has been taken, to make a
First offer of employment to the former employees of
Modiluft Limited, subject to send the Biodata with a letter
signifying his willingness to be considered for this job if
required and further required him to get a clearance
certificate on the enclosed paper wherein he is required to
6544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
certify that he has no claim against the company in respect
of any statutory and other dues relating to Provident Fund,
ESI. TDS etc.
In the enclosed certificate the certificate has been
sought from the workman to the effect that he worked in
Modilluft as from 04.10.95 to 05.08.97 and further that "I
hereby declare that having voluntarily given up my job I
have no claim whatsoever on Modiluft and further declare
that I have neither filed any complaint or suit against
Modilult nor have authorized any one to do so on my
behalf'. My resume is enclosed."
It has been revealed that the other employees who
submitted their said willingness and proforma clearance
certificate giving up their rights, have been appointed by
the New Management, but the workman has not been
appointed so far till date.
14. That no clear reason was explained before the
Conciliation Officer and he was not taken on job.
15. That the act or the management is illegal,
unjustified and against the provisions Industrial dispute.
16. That the workman is unemployed ever since his
illegal termination by the Management and could not get
any gainful employment despite search.
On the basis of which he prayed as follows:—
(i) the workman may kindly be reinstated alongwith
full back wages and continuity of service;
( ii) That the workman may be given the interest at
the rate or 24% p.a. on the amount due from the
management till payment.
(iii ) the workman may also he awarded with bonus,
overtime and other allowance.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems
fit and proper in the circumstance of the case may also he
awarded to the workman in the interest of justice.
Against Statement of Claim Management filed Written
Statement on 31/08/2005. Wherein Management denied
allegation a workman as follows:—
I. That the contents of para 1 of the statement of
claim is a matter of record and need to reply. However, it is
denied that the terms a reference pertains to determination
of fairness of legality of the termination of the workman. It
is also denied that the workman is entitled to any relief as
alleged or at all. It is submitted that the workman was not
terminated by the Management but he abandoned the
employment with management in the Month of May, 1997
and never reported for duty thereafter.
2. That the contents of para 2 of the statement of
claims is a matter of record and need no reply.
3. That the contents of para 3 of the statement of
claims are wrong and denied. It is denied that the services
of the workman were terminated. It is submitted that the
workman was appointed to the post or Helper Peon. It is
further submitted that in the year 1996, the workman was
drawing a basic salary or Rs. 1200 and net salary or
1657 per month.
4. That the contents of para 4 of the statement of
claims are wrong and denied. It is denied that the workman
worked regularly, sincerely in the Management upto
05.051997. It is further denied that the workman did not
give a single chance of grievance and that he worked with
dedication.
5. That the contents of para 5 of the statement claim
are wrong and vehemently denied. It is denied that on
05.05.1997, the management approached the workman
during the course of his duty as alleged or during any
other time and asked the workman to stop coming to duty
after 06.05.1997. It is denied that any assurance, as alleged,
was extended to the workman to come and resume duty
after 15 days. It is further denied that workman ever
approached the Management after the expiry of' the alleged
period of 15 days or that he was asked, as alleged, to come
back again after six months. It is submitted that workman
abandoned his employment in the month of' May, 1997 and
never reported on duty thereafter. The workman is making
false statements and allegations merely to cover his laches
in filing his fictitious claims before this Hon'ble Court. It is
also submitted that there is no question of serving any
notice, charge sheet or holding any enquiry against the
workman as the services of the Workman were never
terminated by the Management but he voluntarily
abandoned his services with the management.
6.That the contents of para 6 of the statement of
claims are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
Management ever assured to the Workman as alleged that
the Management will send a letter to the workman for
resumption of his duties. It is further denied that the
Workman ever approached the management as alleged or
made the alleged personal visits. It is submitted that the
workman is making absolutely false allegation against the
Management and the workman should be put to strict proof
of his allegations. It is pertinent to note that when the
Workman abandoned the services without informing the
Management, there is no question of giving any assurances
to the Workman.
7. That the contents of para 7 of the statement of
claims are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F'
of the Industrial Disputes Act, ("Act"). It is submitted that
the Workman voluntarily abandoned his services with the
Management in May 1997 and such abandonment do not
constitute termination of services For the entitlement of
retrenchment compensation as provided in Section 25-F of
the Act and therefore there is no violation of Section 25-F
of the Act and accordingly there is no occasion for the
Workman to claim retrenchment compensation as alleged.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6545
8. That the contents of para 8 of the statement of
claims are wrong and denied. It is submitted that there is
no question of framing a charge sheet against the workman
as the workman abandoned his service with the
Management. Since there was no termination of services,
the Management is not liable to state any reason; rather,
workman is alone responsible for the consequences
following abandonment of services with the Management.
9. That the contents of para 9 of the statement of
claims are wrong and vehemently denied. It is denied that
the Management terminated the services of the workman.
It is submitted that there is no question of compliance with
Section 25-F of the Industrial Act, 1947 as the workman
abandoned the services of the Management and such
abandonment is not envisaged under section 25-F of the
Act.
10. That the contents of para 10 of the statement of
claims and wrong and denied. There is no malafide or unfair
labour practices on the part of the management.
I 1. That the contents of para 11 of the statement of
claims are wrong and denied and the workman should be
put to strict proof thereof. It is submitted that the
Management has learnt that the workman after voluntarily
abandoning, the servings of the Management started
gainful employment somewhere else.
12. That the contents of para 12 of the Statement of
Claims are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
management ever received the alleged legal notice. It is
submitted that the Workman has not furnished copy of the
alleged notice to the Management.
13. That the contents of para 13 of the statement of
claims are not denied to the extent that letter dated 14.10.1998
was issued to earlier/former employees of the Management.
Rest of the contents of para 13 are wrong and denied. It is
denied that the other employees who submitted their said
willingness and Proforma clearance certificate giving up
their rights, have been appointed by the New Management
and the workman has not been appointed. It is submitted
that at the time of issuing the said letter, the Management
was anticipating restart of the operations and though not
legally obliged to do so, it was a gesture on the part or the
Management to send a letter to all such earlier employees
to give them an opportunity to be a part or such relaunching
operations. However, the fact of' the matter is that the
Management could not restart its operations at that point
of time. Moreover the said letter itself reveals that it was
merely a letter seeking expression or interest from the lormer
workmen and was not an appointment letter. As per the
said letter the former workmen had to send biodata,
certificate and a letter signifying his willingness to be
considered for the job. The applications were to be
considered on merits and the appointments were to be
made afresh. It is further submitted that the workman in the
present dispute is making unsuccessful desperate attempts
to make the Management liable for his own faults. The
workman is trying to build up a fictitious case where he is
seeking to bind the company for violation of his imaginary
rights. It is further submitted that the bonafides of the
Management can be seen form workman's own submission
that applications from former employees are taken afresh
by the Management and the same would be considered
depending upon the requirement of the Management,
outcome of the interviews, tests etc. discussions and based
upon the requirement of the Management. However the
Management cannot be asked to employ the workman who
had himself abandoned. the services or the Management
and approached the court after delay of more than three
years.
14. That the contents of para 14 of the statement of
claim are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the
Management has filed detailed submission before the
conciliation officer.
15. That the contents of para 15 of the statement of
claim are wrong and denied. The workman should be put to
strict proof of his allegation of alleged violation the Act.
16. That the contents of para 16 of the statement of
claim are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the
Management has learnt that the workman after voluntarily
abandoning the services of the Management started gainlul
employment somewhere else.
On the basis of contents of aforesaid paragraph of
Written Statement Management prayed that the claim of
statement is liable to dismissed with heavy cost.
Against written statement workman filed for
replication on 07/11/2005. Wherein workman denied the
allegation of written statement and prayed that statement
of claim be allowed workman be reinstated with back full
wages and continuity of service and the interest at the rate
of 24% on the amount till payment be awarded. The
workman may also be awarded the bonus, overtime and
other allowances as envisaged under the law.
On the basis of pleadings following issues have been
framed by I.d predecessor on 08/03/2007.
(i) Whether this dispute is not maintainable as the
workman has abandoned the services of the
management in the year 1977 as alleged in para 1
of the preliminary objections of the written
statement? OPM
(ii) Whether the dispute is barred by lachcs/time?
OPM
(iii) As per terms of reference.
(iv) Relief.
Workman in support of its case filed his affidavit in
his evidence alongwith certain documents. On 13/05/2007.
6546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman was cross-examined on 05/11/2008 by
management.
Management in support of its case filed affidavit of
Sh. Sanjay Sharma on 07/01/2009. He was cross-examined
by Ld A/R of' Workman on 24/02/2009.
Ld A/R of the parties filed written arguments.
Written arguments on behalf of the workman are as
follows:—
1. That the workman was appointed as a Helper/
Peon in the Management company and he joined the
management company on 04.10.1995. At the time his
services were terminate illegally, he was drawing the salary
of Rs. 2121 per month. His salary slip is Exh. WW. 1/2.
2. That the workman worked regularly, sincerely in
the Management company upto 05.051997. During the
period of his service, the workman did not give a single
chance of complaint. The workman worked in the
Management with a sense of dedication. He has devoted
to his commitments.
3. That on 05.05.1997, the workman was on duty.
While performing his duty the Management approached
the workman and asked him not to come on duty 06.05.1997,
without any notice, charge sheet,
enquiry or any valid
reason and further assured the workman to come and resume
duty after 15 days. When after 15 days, the workman
approached the Management and asked the Management
to allow him to resume his duty, but the management asked
the workman to come after six months.
4. That in the month of November, 1997 i.e. after
6 months, as per assurances of the Management, the
workman again approached to the Management, and
requested the Management to allow him to resume the
duty. At this juncture of the time, the management told that
they will send the workman a letter and only then the
workman should come and resume duty. Thereafter on
workman's every personal visits no sound response was
given by the management.
5. That the workman received a letter dated
14th October, 1998 from the Management, which is Exh.
WW. 1/6 informing that Modiluft Limited is likely to
relaunch operation very soon under the name of Royal
Airways (New name of the Management ) at S.No. 2 of the
Managements/respondent in the title, and further stated
that:
"A policy decision has been taken to make a first
offer of employment to the former employees of Modiluft
Ltd. For this purpose, your detailed BIODATA alongwith a
letter signifying your willingness to be considered for this
job, is required. We also required a clearance Certificate as
enclosed wherein you are required to certify that you have
no claim against the company in respect of any statutory
and other dues relating to Provident Fund, ESI,T.D.S. etc.
Thanking you, Sd/- (G.M. Hard)".
6. That the workman did not send any reply to the
Management since he did not receive any dues from the
Management for the period of his Service.
7. That as per letter dated 14.10.1998, the
Management, did not relaunch under the name of "ROYAL.
AIRWAYS" till 22.05.2005.
8. That the workman sent a demand notice dated
04/10/2000 under Regd. AD post to the Management, which
is Exh.WW.I/3 which was duly received by the
Management. The Ack. due Card is Exh.W.1/5. No reply to
the notice was sent by the Management so far.
9. That thereafter the workman approached to the
Hon'ble Assistance Labour Commissioner alongwith his
statement of claim. The learned Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Offices of the Labour
Commissioner (Central), Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,
made a reference to the following effect:—
"Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. Royal Airways Ltd. (formerly) known as Modiluft, in
terminating, the service of Sh. Shukla Nand Samwal son of
Maya Ram, Ex-Helper/Peon with effect from 05.05.1997 is
just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled and from which date."
10. That the Management filed its written statement
to the statement of claim of the workman taking the
following grounds:—
(i) The claim of workman is not maintainable in as
much as the workman abandoned the job/service of the
Management in the year 1997 and thereafter never joined
the services of the Management.
(ii) That without admitting anything stated in the
statement of claim, it is submitted that the claim of the
workman is barred by latches in as much as admittedly the
workman ceased to be in employment of the management
in May, 1997.
11. That the Management denied all the averments
submitted by the workman and did not file any document
at that time as well as while leading the evidence.
12. That from pleadings of the parties, the following
issued were framed by the Hon'ble Tribunal:—
(i) Whether dispute is not maintainable as workman
has abandoned his service in 1997?
(ii)Whether dispute is barred by latches/time?
(iii) As per terms of Reference.
(iv) Relief.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6547
13. That the workman has examined himself in support
of his claim. Sh. Sanjay Sharma entered in the witness box
to testify facts on behalf of the management. No other
witness was examined by either of the parties.
The following citation is applicable to the facts of
the present cases:—
(1) 1988 (1) RLR PAGE: 340 PUNJAB & HARYANA
HIGH COURT, wherein has been held that "Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) Section 10 (4) Refer-Tribunal
cannot Travel outside the terms of reference".
(2) AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1626, wherein it has
been held that "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
S.10(4) Reference Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Tribunal
cannot travel outside, terms of reference.
(3) 1LLJ SUPREME COURT CASE, page 423 in case:
Civil Appeal Nos. 2100 to 2102 of 1966, Delhi Cloths &
General Mills Company Ltd. Vs. their Workman and Others,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Industrial
Dispute Act, S. 10 (d)- Reference under-Scope and ambit of
Dispute- Tribunal cannot widen the Scope of the enquiry
beyond the terms of reference- Parties cannot be allowed
to challenge the very basis of the issues, set fourth in the
order of reference."
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether dispute is not maintainable as workman has
abandoned his service in 1997?
The witness of Management admitted at the time of
cross-examination that the Management closed its business/
workman in the year 1996 and once the workman had
abandoned the service, it is admitted fact that workman
was working, till 5/05/1997 with the Management Company
and never abandoned his Service of his own. The
Management did not issue a single letter as well as charge
sheet to the workman for his abandoning the job and his
name struck off from the Muster Roll. Please sheet:
1993 S.C. PAGE 259 CASE: D.Y. Yadav....Vs.... J.N. A.
INDUSTRIAL LTD. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held "A Labour-Law- Termination of Service-Nature
Justice- Right of Private employer to terminate Service under
Standing Orders- Certified Standing Orders have statutory
force and therefore same must be in consonance with
principles of nature justice and mandates of Arts.14 and
21/Automatic termination under Certified Standing order
on absence without or beyond the period of Sanctioned
leave for more than 8 days- Principles of nature justice and
duty to act read into the Standing Orders. Hence termination
under the Standing Orders without holding any domestic
enquiry or affording any opportunity to the workman, help
violative of principles of nature justices, Act. 14 and 21 of
the Constitution and S.25-F of I.D. Act- Relief reinstatement
with 50 per cent back wages order on facts-Administrative
Law --Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 21- Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, S. 25- F."
(ii) VIII 2000 SLT 361, S.C. Cases:
M/s. SCOOTER INDIA LTD... Vs.. MOHD. YAQUB
& ORS.
Wherein it has been held that:
"LABOUR LAW: Retrenchment: Provisions of Law
not followed: Standing, Order 9.03.12 could not be used for
Terminating Services: Principles of Natural Justice to be
Complied with- Labour Court in its award accepted
respondent's case that he had not been allowed to join
duty- Respondent in his evidence stated that even though
he personally met Chief Personnel Officer, he was not
allowed to enter premises- Inspite of slip he was prevented
from joining duty- This showed respondent had reported
for work- As against this appellant had not led any evidence
to show that respondent had not reported for duty-
Evidence of Senior Time Keeper of appellant established
that workman had worked for more than 240 days within
period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding date
of termination of service-Labour Court came to conclusion
that there was retrenchment without following provisions
of Law-As workman not allowed to join duty, Standing
Order 09.03.12 could not be used for terminating his service-
Decisions of Labour Court and High Court correct-Upheld."
(iii) 2010(117) DRJ 433 DELHI HIGH COURT CASE:
ANIL CHUTLANI.. VS.. OIL & NATURAL GAS
CORPORATION.
ISSUE NO. 2
Whether dispute is barred by laches/time?
Article 137 of Schedule to Limitation Act not
applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act.
(i) CA NO. 2157/99, 08.04.1994 LLJ SC page 1260.
(ii) LLJ 2000 page 1080SC.
Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section 25-F Termination
of Services-Termination in violation of Mandatory
retirement of law.
The workman/claimant served the company upto the
end of May, 1997 and raised demand for reinstatement in
service on 04.10.2000. Therefore, out of these facts, it is
apparent that after about 3 years, claimant came out of
slumber and made a demand for reinstatement in services.
At the cost of repletion, it is said that no period of limitation
is proved in the Act to raise a dispute before the
Conciliation Officer. Appropriate Government is supposed
to consider the case on its merits and then to refer the same
adjudication. Undoubtedly period of 3 years was spent by
the claimant in hibernation but period would not prevent
him from seeking redressal of his grievance.
6548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUE NO. 3
As per terms of reference.
ISSUE NO. 4
Relief:
It is prayed that the workman be allowed the
reinstatement alongwith entire back wages under
provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prevalent from
time to time as per judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in
the case titled as Swami Nath Mehto. Vs. The Management
of Hotel Kanishka and another, decided on 10.03.2010
W.P(C) No. 7600/2000.
In reply to aforesaid written Argument of the
workman management also filed written arguments as
follows:
1. The present statement of claim is not maintainable
as the workman himself abandoned the services of
Management in the year 1997 and thereafter never joined
the services of the management and the Management has
learnt that workman after voluntarily abandoning the
services of the Management started gainful employment
elsewhere.
2. It is submitted that the workman was appointed
as a 'Helper peon' by the earlier management i.e.
M/s. Modiluft Ltd. vide letter of intent dated 25.09.1998
w.e.f. 04.10.1995. It is submitted that the workman did not
report for his duty from the month of May, 1997 onwards
and thus, voluntarily abandoned his services. It is
submitted that the background pertaining to the present
case needs to be specified in order to appreciate the issue
of abandonment. It is submitted that from November, 1996
the operations of the flights of the earlier Management
i.e. M/s. Modiluft Ltd. were suspended due to non renewal
of the No Objection Certificate by the Ministry of Civil
Aviation. Accordingly, a number of employees including
the claimant herein, fearing that the company would be
closed down, started looking for alternative employment
and thus during this period the company experienced
may of its employees abandoning the services. It is
submitted that as the abandonment of services by some
of its employees did not have any adverse effect on the
management and as in fact the management respected
the right of the workman to look for greener pastures, the
management did not initiate any action.
3. Employer not obligated to give any notice or
conduct any enquiry with respect to an abandoned
workman.
(i) It is submitted that the employer is not obligated
to hold an enquiry into the abandonment of the services
by the workman and on the contrary it is the workmen
which is required to prove that his services were terminated
by the employer for some reason or without assigning any
reason. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Court has also held that
if the employer does not consider the abandonment of
service or leaving, the service by a workman as a
misconduct, the law cannot force the employer to consider
such abandonment as a misconduct and hold an enquiry.
In this regard, kindly refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court passed in the case of Diamond Toys Co.
(P) Ltd. Vs. Toofani Ram and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble
High Court has held as follows:
"6. It is commonly known that a person, who is
working in the industry, keeps on trying for better jobs and
better opportunities. The moment he gets better job, he is
free to leave his previous employer. The industrial law does
not require him to pay any compensation to the employer
while leaving his job, as the industrial laws require an
employer to pay retrenchment compensation when
employer wants to terminate the workman. Thus, there are
no fetters on the workman on leaving the job while there
are fetters on the employer in terminating the service of an
employee. If a workman leaves his job all of a sudden and
stops attending the workplace of the employer, Industrial
Dispute Act does not put any obligation on the employer
to call back the workman and request him to come and join
his duties. Such a request can be made by the employer
only when employer considers that a useful workman
should not leave the job or where a workman is governed
by certain rules and regulations under State employment
and the employer is supposed to hold an enquiry under
the service rule before termination of service of an
employee. Where the workman is free to leave and join
another employer without even a notice and without
obtaining a no objection from his employer, the employer
cannot be compelled to call such a workman for joining the
duties or to conduct an enquiry into the absence of the
workman and then terminate his services. Leaving the
services of an employer by the workman is a valid mode of
his abandonment and there is no illegality attached to a
workman leaving the services of his previous employer
and joining another employer. If the employer does not
employer and joining another employer. If the employer
does not consider the abandonment of service or leaving
the service by a workman as a misconduct, the law cannot
force the employer to consider such abandonment as a
misconduct and hold an enquiry. Misconduct of an
employee is the one which an employer considers as the
misconduct. An enquiry is required to be held only where
an employer intends to impose punishment on the
employee for an alleged misconduct. If an employer does
not intend to impose any punishment on the employee and
considers that if the employee has left his service, let it be
so, the law cannot the compel employer to hold an enquiry
and punish an employee for the misconduct.
7. I consider that it was not necessary for the
employer to hold an enquiry into the abandonment of the
service by the respondent. It was for the respondent to
prove that his services were terminated for some reasons
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6549
by the employer or without any reason by the employer.
The respondent has taken a stand which was found to be
false. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court's
conclusion that it was a case of retrenchment is perverse.
Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE: A is
a copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Diamond Toys Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Toofani Ram and
Anr.
It is thus amply clear that it is the workman which is
required to show that his services have been terminated as
alleged. However, in the present case the workman has not
placed on record a single document to show that his
services were terminated by the Management. Furthermore,
the workman had never raised any issue of termination
prior to raising the claim before the Conciliation Officer. It
may be noted that the Claimant has also failed to provide
any documents on record to show that he has raised issue
of termination before the Management Company prior to
making the claim before the Conciliation Officer. It may
also be noted that the claim before the Conciliation Officer
was made 3.5 years after the alleged termination of service.
(ii) Furthermore, it may also be mentioned that the
Claimant in his claim before this Hon'ble Tribunal has stated
that the management on 05.05.1997 had approached the
workman and asked him not to come on duty after 06.05.1997
and assured the workman that he can come and resume
duties after 15 days. However, in his cross-examination the
workman has admitted to the contrary wherein he has stated
that the he was not asked by the management to come and
resume the duties after 15 days. Thus, there is clear
contradiction in the stand taken by the Claimant which fact
clearly goes to show that the present claim raised by the
workman is malafide and based on falsehood.
(iii) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Ram Jatan Tripathi Vs. The Management of Universal
Security and Detective has held that while deciding the
issue of termination, the issue of abandonment cannot be
escaped. The court further held that the workmen alleges
that his services were terminated he has to show that the
employer did not allow him to perform his dusty without
giving him any written termination order.
The Court also observed that it is not uncommon
that a workman who abandons his job also takes a stand
that his services were terminated by the employer. The
relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
"7.1 consider while deciding, the issue of termination,
the issue of abandonment cannot be escaped. The
termination is a deliberate act on the part of employer by
which services of an employee are brought to an end. The
services of an employee also come to an end if he stops
reporting for duty. Despite stopping to attend his duties
he can take the stand that his services were terminated. In
such a case a workman has to show that the employer did
not allow him to perform his duty without giving him any
written termination order. If the stand was taken by the
employer is that he had not terminated the services and it
was the workman who, abandoned the service and if the
workman alleges oral termination by the employer or alleges
that he was not allowed to join the duties, the Tribunal
cannot in order to decide the issue of termination in that
context will have to decide whether the employer refused
duties to the workman and did not allow the workman to
join the duties or it was the workman who did not report for
duty. It is not uncommon that a workman who abandons
his job also takes the stand that his services were terminated
by the employer. I consider a Tribunal cannot close its
eyes to such facts while deciding the issue of termination
and the Tribunal while deciding legality or illegality of the
termination can come to a conclusion that there was no
termination at all and it was the workman, who had
abandoned the service. In the present case, while the
workman had taken the stand that he was terminated, the
employer placed on record the letters written by him to
workman and also addressed to Labour Commissioner
offering the workman to join his duties but the workman
failed to join the service. The Tribunal after considering
entire evidence came to conclusion that it was a case of
abandonment of service. In my opinion the issue of
termination included the issue of abandonment of services
by the workman. Abandonment of service is one of the
facets of termination.
Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE B is a
copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Ram Jatan Tripathi Vs. The Management of
Universal Security and Detective.
4. The Falsity of the claim is evident from the
unreasonable delay in initiating the same.
It is submitted that admittedly the Claimant has not
been in the service of the Respondent Company since May,
1997. However, the Claimant for the first time alleged the
issue of termination at the time of raising the claim before
the Conciliation Officer in December, 1997 i.e. after a period
of more than 3.5 years. In this regard, kindly refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case
of Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs. Keshava Rao (D) by
LRs. JT 2005 (3) SC 451 (At Paras 2, 4-6, 11 & 15), wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that delay of even a
period of one year and five months for asserting the factum
of termination does not appear to be reasonable.
Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE C is a
copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in case of Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs. Keshava
Rao (D) by LRs. JT 2005 (3) SC 451.
5. It is submitted that the Claimant has also sought
to erroneously place reliance the letter dated 14.10.1998. It
is submitted that the said letter was issued by the
Management as the management was anticipating the
6550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
restart of its operations and though not legally obliged to
do so, as a gesture of goodwill, the management sent a
letter to its earlier employees to give them an opportunity
to be part of the relaunching operations. As is evident from
the perusal of the letter, the said letter was merely a letter
seeking expression of interest from the workman and was
not an appointment letter. As per the said letter former
workman had to send biodata, certificate and a letter
signifying his willingness to be considered for the job and
the management was to consider the applications on merit
and accordingly decide. It is submitted that the said letter
was only a gesture of goodwill and was not a legal or
contractual obligation which can be enforced against the
management. Furthermore, the Claimant admittedly never
replied in accordance with this letter.
6. It is submitted that as the workman himself
abandoned the services of the management, there is no
question of compliance with the provisions of section
25-F of the industrial Disputes Act. 1947 pertaining to
retrenchment. Further, there is also no question of services
with back wages or any other relief as allegedly claimed.
After written argument Ld A/R of the parties also
orally argued.
Question of determination in the instant case is
whether provision of Section 25-F Industrial Dispute Act
has been complied with or not because this section applies
to ad hoc temporary employees also, if they have worked
more than 240 days in a year continuously immediately
preceding the order of termination of service.
Provision Section 25-F Industrial Dispute Act is
applicable eveing to a daily rated workman.
Illegality of, are irregularity in, the making of
appointment cannot be ground to refuse to follow the
provision of Section 25-F Industrial Dispute Act.
It is proved fact that workman/claimant Sh. Shukla
Nand Samwal remained in continuous service of
management since 4.10.95 to 05.05.1997.
Thus about 18 years had lapsed since termination of
workman/claimant without compliance with 25-F Industrial
Dispute Act.
So, workman/claimant is entitled for monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement because the Lord-
ship of Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement in case of Rolston
John Vs. Industrial Tribunal Court/Labour Court 1995 SCC
(L&S) 142.
Aforesaid principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court applies with Full force in the instant case.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of
considered view that present Industrial dispute is
maintainable as workman/Claimant has not abandoned his
service.
His dispute is not barred by latches/time. So reference
made to this Tribunal is decided in favour of workman/
claimant and against the Management M/s. Royal Airways
Limited (Formerly known as Modiluft Limited).
I am also of considered view that payment of a sum
of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) by way of damages as
compensation to the workman/claimant by the
Management after expiry of period of limitation of available
remedy against Award. That will meet the ends of Justice.
Dated : 08/10/2013
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2523.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 09 dk 2008½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@157@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2008)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanban as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute
between the management of E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/157/2007-IR (CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of
I.D. Act. 1947.
Reference No. 09 of 2008
Employer in relation to the management of E.J. Area of
M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6551
PRESENT : SRI R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearance :
For the Employers :- Sri U.N. Lal, Advocate.
For the Workman :- Sri M.N. Rewani, Advocate.
State:Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal.
23/9/2013
AWARD
By Order No. L 20012/157/2007-IR (CM-I) dt,
03-03-2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of
Sub-section(1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra
(N) UG Mines of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the service
of Shri Rakhohari Bouri, M/Loader w.e.f. 07/06/2005
is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?"
1. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. They filed their respective claim statements,
rejoinder, documents. It is a case of dismissal and
departmental enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer held
fair and proper, by this court. The charges against the
workman is that he remained absent continuously in duty
and was worked. But the practice continued. Seeing the
condition of the workman, observing the under ground
mining hazardous, this Tribunal feels that one more chance
to be given to the workman.
2. Therefore, the workman be taken into service as if
that his appointment is fresh appointment. The workman
be given fresh appointment within three months from the
date of publication of Award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2524.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29 dk 2009½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@30@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2009)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute
between the management of E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/30/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)(2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 29 of 2009
Employers in relation to the management of E.J. Area,
M/s. B.C.C.L. and
Their workmen.
Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers :
Sri U.N. Lal, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Sri N.M. Kumar, Rep.
State:-Jharkhand
Industry:-Coal
Dated. 17/9/2013
AWARD
"By Order No. L-20012/30/2009-IR-(CM-I),
dt. 13/05/2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih
Shaft Mines under E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL in
dismissing Shri Alakh Bhuia M/Loader from the
services of the company w.e.f. 03/09/2004 is justified
and legal? To what relief is the workman concerned
entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 19.05.2009. After notice, both parties appeared. The
Sponsoring Union/workman files their respective written
statement on 06.04.2010, counter and their documents also filed.
3. While hearing the case preliminarily, it is seen the
workman has been dismissed on the ground of continuous
absence from duty. The work under the mines hazardous,
therefore it is felt to employ the workman as a fresh
workman. His claim for continuous employment and back
wages is denied hereby.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I hold that the workman Sri Alakh Bhuia M/Loader,
be taken in service as fresh workman within 30 days after
6552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
publication of award in the gazette Implementation or non
implementation of the award be intimated to the
undersigned.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2525.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch ch lh ,y ds
izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 121 dk 2001½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@55@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 121/2001 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/55/2001-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 121 of 2001
Employers in relation to the management of Katras Area
of M/S. B.C.C.L.
AND.
Their workmen.
Present:- SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers.
:- None
For the Workman.:
:- None
State :- Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal.
Dated 30/9/2013
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/55/2001-(C-I), dated 22/05/2001,
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Keshalpur
Colliery of M/s. BCCL, in dismissing Sri Murtaja Ansari,
M/s. Loader from the service of the company w.e.f. 01.07.91
is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears
subsequently, case remain pending, it is felt that the dispute
between the parties have been resolved in the meantime.
Hence "No dispute" award is passed communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2526.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch ch lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40 of 2010½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@89@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 40/2010 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Mugma Area of M/s.
ECL, P.O.-Mugma, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/89/2009-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 40 of 2010
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6553
Employers in relation to the management of Mugma
Area, M/s. E.C.L.
AND.
Their workmen.
Present:- SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers.:- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman. :- Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State:- Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal.
Dated. 16/9/2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/89/2009-IR-(CM-I), dated
24/06/2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Shyampur
"A" Colliery of M/s. ECL, in dismissing Sri Badri Pandey
from the services of the company w.e.f. 22.04.1996 is legal
and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 05.07.2010. After notice both parties appeared, the
workman files their respective written statement on
21.07.2010, counter and their documents filed.
3. It is a case of dismissal and in the departmental
enquiry, the delinquent's charges were not proved. But the
authority dismissed the workman. In the meantime the
workman has been retired. Since the delinquent charges
have not been proved, it is ordered by this Tribunal that
has dismissal is improper.
4. Considering the facts and circumstance of this
case, I hold that the action of the management of Shyampur
"A" Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri Badri Pandey
from the services of company w.e.f. 22.4.1996 is not legal
and justified. Hence the workman be reinstated in service
with 25% (twenty five percent) back wages. Implementation
or non implementation of the award be intimated to the
undersigned.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2527.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch ch lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20 dk 2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@5@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I)]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 20/2007 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Bastacblla Area of
M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/5/2007-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (d) (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 20 of 2007
Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Area,
M/s. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen.
Present:- Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers.:- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Workman.:- Sri U.P. Sinha, Advocate
State:- Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal.
Dated. 24/9/2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/5/2007-(CM-I), dated 26/8/2007,
the Central Govt. 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:
6554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Burragarh
Colliery of M/S BECL, in dismissing Bsarika Singh, Security
Guard from the service of the company w.e.f. 22.04.2003 is
justified & legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?"
1. After receipt of the reference both parties are
noticed. They filed their respective claim statement and
rejoinder. It is case of dismissal and the, preliminary enquiry
conducted by the enquiry officer held fair and proper.
2. It is argued by the management counsel that the
workman, impersonated, in the name of another employee
and worked, and after detection and enquiry, the workman
was dismissed, on the other hand the learned cousel for
the workman, submitted that it was not proved, as to whom
the workman impersonated. After all the workman remained
absent during the enquiry proceeding by the department.
3. On query learned cousel for the management
submitted that the workman already rendered twenty years
of service with unblemished carrier. In the meantime the
workman has already crossed his retirement age. Therefore
the date of dismissal of the workman be treated his
premature retirement and he be given required benefits
that accrued, to him.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2528.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi èkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 fnlEcj] 2013 dks
ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds micaè
rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo xk¡o
d`".kfxjh ftys esa
1- voyiyyh
gkslj rkyqd
2- psékklafnje
ckxyqj]
3- theaxye
ds ifjlhek {ks=
4- dkyLrhiqje
5- uYywj
[lañ ,l&38013@73@2013&,lñ,lñ 1]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2528.—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 December, 2013 as the date on
which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44
and 45 which have already been brought into force) and
Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and
Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought
into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the
following areas in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely:—
CENTRE
AREA COMPRISING THE REVENUE
VILLAGES OF
Peripherial areas
1. Avalapalli
of Bagalur,
2. Chennasandiram
Hosur Taluk,
3. Jeemangalam
Krishnagiri
4. Kalasthipuram
District
5. Nallur
[No. S-38013/73/2013-S.S. I]
GEORGEKUTTY T.L,. Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2529.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 fnlEcj] 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk&¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds micaè
rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo
xk¡o
¯nMqDdy ftyk
1- fuyDdksV~VS
fuyDdksV~aVS ,oa i"kuh rkyqd
2- ,fRryk<q
esa fuyDdksV~aVS
3- foykEiV~Vh
4- fln~nZxG uRre
5- iYyiV~Vh
6- eV~VIikjS
7- flyqDdqokjiV~Vh
8- dksMkafxuk;DdUiV~Vh
9- lsaxV~VkEiV~Vh
10- eqlqouwRrq
11- dYyfMiV~Vh
12- lsoqxEiV~Vh
13- uwRrqykiqje
fuyDdksV~aVS rkyqd
14- flRrjsoq
15- rkIiaiV~Vh ik"kuh rkyqd
[lañ ,l&38013@74@2013&,lñ,lñ 1]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6555
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2529.—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 December, 2013 as the date on
which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44
and 45 which have already been brought into force) and
Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and
Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought
into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the
following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:—
CENTRE
AREA COMPRISING THE
REVENUE VILLAGES OF
Nilakottai,
1. Nilakottai
Palani & Nilakottai
2. Ethilodu
Taluk, Dindigul
3. Vilampatty
District
4. Sithargalnatham
5. Pallapatty
6. Mattaparai
7. Silukkuvarpatty
8. Kodanginaickenpatty
9. Sengattampatty
10. Musuvanoothu
11. Kalladipatty
12. Sevugampatty
13. Noothulapuram Nilkottai Taluk
14. Sitharevu
15. Thoppampatty Palani Taluk
[No. S-38013/74/2013-S.S. I]
GEORGEKUTTY T.L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2530.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
2@31@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@10@2013
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y& 11012@123@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cental
Govenment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 2/31/2000)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.
2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Air India Limited and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/11/2013.
[No. L-11012/123/1999-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT: K.B. Katake, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-2131 of 2000
Employers in relation to the management of Air India
Limited
The Managing Director
Air India Ltd.
Air India Building
Nariman Point
Mumbai-400021.
AND
Their workman
Mr. D.N. Vinjuda
B-18, Mahalaxmi
B.N. Rathod Marg
Tulsiwadi
Mumbai-400 034.
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer
: Mr. L.L. D'Souza,
Representative.
For the Workman
: In person.
Mumbai, dated the 15thJuly, 2013
Award Part-I
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-11012/123/99 -IR (C-I) dated
07/03/2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the
following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Air India
Ltd., Mumbai in dismissing the services of Mr. D.N.Winjuda,
Sr. Handyman w.e.f. 11.12.1997 is legal and justified? If not
to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice the second
party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-9.
6556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
According to the workman he is permanent employee of
the first party recruited on 12/10/1982 as a Sweeper, Inflight
Service Department, Mumbai. In 1990 he was promoted as
Sr. Handyman (Safai) and was confirmed in the post. On
27/10/1993 he had gone to Dubai as a passenger by
purchasing regular ticket to purchase a colour TV and
clothes. After three days he returned back. He collected
the amount by encashing his savings certificate and
pledging ornaments of his wife and some amount out of
his savings. He returned on 31/10/1993. He paid customs
duty on the goods he had imported. Same day evening at
about 6.00 p.m. some officers from AIU came to his house
and started questing him. They became violent and started
assaulting him in presence of wife and children. They then
took him to the customs office and obtained his signature
on the documents. They had also brough Mr. Solanki with
them. They had taken search of his house. Nil Panchnama
was prepared. They had obtained signature of his wife
without reading the contents. Nothing was recovered from
his house. However they have falsely shown that some
gold bars were found in the cupboard. Three days thereafter
the workman was arrested under some false charges. The
workman was put under suspension by order dt.12/11/1993
with immediate effect. A charge sheet was issued to him
dated 23/02/1994 alleging that during search in presence of
Mr. L.R.Solanki, 92 gold bars of different makings were
found in the locker of steel cupboard. It was alleged that
the workman had concealed the gold bars in commode of
first class and was charged for misconduct for breach of law,
dishonesty with employers business and for act of subversive
of discipline. He requested the first party not to initiate inquiry
until he received the copies of the papers from Customs
Department. However his request was turned down.
3. According to him the joint inquiry was commenced
against he himself Shri Godambe, Assistant Cabin
Supervisor, and Shri L.R. Solanki, Handyman. He filed his
reply. However kept his right to file a detailed reply after
receipt of papers from Customs Office. The committee
refused to bring the panch witnesses Mr.Shrivatsan lyengar
and Surendra Chouhan and bring their own witnesses. E.C.
under the guise of clarification helped the management
story by knocking out favourable answers from the
witnesses. According to him Mr. Solanki and he told before
the Inquiry Committee that the panchnama was prepared
in the office and no gold bar was recovered from his house.
He has not brought any gold from Dubai and no gold was
recovered from house. There was no first class toilet in the
airbus he had travelled. There was no report of contraband
rules in aircraft. The inquiry conducted was an empty
formality. It was not conducted as per the rules and
regulations. The inquiry was not conducted with open mind
and EC sought clarification from the witnesses before cross
examination. The panchnama is a fabricated document.
There is violation of natural justice in conducting the
inquiry. The findings of the Inquiry officer are perverse.
There is no evidence that the gold bars were found in the
house of the workman. The inquiry is not fair and proper
and findings of the IO are perverse. On the basis of report of
IO the workman was dismissed from service. Therefore
workman has raised the industrial dispute before ALC (C).
As conciliation failed, on the basis of the report of ALC(C),
the Labour Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal.
The workman therefore prays that the inquiry be declared
not fair and proper. The findings of the IO be declared
perverse. His punishment of termination be set aside and he
be directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages.
4. The first party resisted the statement of claim of
the workman vide its Written statement at Ex-11. According
to them the Customs Intelligence Officers with search
warrant took search of residence of the workman in presence
of two panchas. During search, in the cupboard locker the
customs officers recovered two cloth bundles. On
examination thereof they found 92 gold bars of 10 tolas
each weighing totally
10,727.2 grams valued at
Rs.38,56,421/- in international monetary value and
Rs. 48,70,140/- in local monetary value. The gold was seized
under panchnama. The workman confessed to have given
the gold bars by Shri L.R.Solanki and Mr. S.V. Godambe
working in the catering/cabin service of the Airline. The
workman has travelled as passenger and smuggled the
gold into India. Therefore he was arrested alongwith others
and apart from criminal case, departmental inquiry was
initiated against them. The workman was allowed to
represent by defence counsel of his choice. He was given
full and fair opportunity to defend his case. He was also
offered an opportunity to lead evidence in his defence.
The committee found the workman guilty of all the charges
leveled against him as they were based on evidence
adduced by the Inquiry Committee. The punishment is
proportionate to the misconduct which is grave and
sensitive in nature. According to them the contents in the
statement of claim are false. The reference is devoid of
merit. They denied all the allegations in the statement of
claim and submitted that the workman is not entitled to any
relief prayed for and therefore prays that the reference be
dismissed with cost.
5. The workman filed his rejoinder at Ex-12. He denied
the contents in the written statement and reiterated his
case put up in the statement of claim.
6. Following are the preliminary issues for my
determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons
to follow:
Sr.
Issues
Findings
No.
1.
Whether the domestic inquiry held
Yes
against the workman was as per the
Principles of Natural Justice?
2.
Whether the findings of the Inquiry
No.
Officer are perverse?
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6557
Reasons
Issue No.1:—
7. Both the parties herein have not led any evidence.
The main objection raised on behalf of the second party
workman is that in the departmental inquiry, the Panchas,
in whose presence the gold bars were seized and the
panchanama was drawn were not examined. It is also
contended in the statement of claim that an application
was given on behalf of the workman to call these witnesses
and to examine them. lnspite of that in departmental inquiry
neither these witnesses were examined nor the panchanama
was duly proved. According to the workman without
examining the material panch witnesses and offering them
for cross-examination, the IO has violated the principles of
natural justice. In this respect I would like to point out that
the option was with the Presenting Officer whom to examine
to prove the charges. When the panch witnesses were not
called and not examined, question of making them available
for cross examination does not arise. Therefore non-
examination of two panch witnesses or any other witness
does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
In this respect I would like to point out that it is also not
necessary either to examine all the witnesses or to prove
the seizure panchnama as it is required in criminal cases. 92
gold bars were found in the safe of cupboard of the workman
when search was taken. The fact is deposed before the
Inquiry Officer by the witnesses examined before the
Inquiry Officer. Furthermore the Commissioner of Customs,
Sahar Airport has also confiscated 92 gold bars worth of
Rs.38,56,421/- under Section 3 (d) & (1) of the Customs
Act, 1962. He also imposed penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- each
on Mr. L.R. Solanki, S.V.Godambe and the present workman
D.N.Vinjuda under Section 112 (a) & (b) of Customs Act,
1962. The said order is on record with list Ex-35/1.
8. In this respect I would like to point out that, non-
examination of some witnesses may affect the finding of
the Inquiry Officer. However it does not amount to violation
of principles of natural justice. Therefore inquiry cannot
be called unjust and unfair. On the other hand from the
inquiry proceedings and pleadings in the written statement
of the first party it is revealed that the charges were explained
to the workman in clear terms. The inquiry was conducted
in his presence. All the witnesses were examined in his
presence and full opportunity was given to the workman
to cross examine all the witnesses. An opportunity was
also given to the workman to examine his witnesses
including himself. Copies of all the documents were given
to the workman. After giving full hearing in the light of the
evidence of witnesses IO has reached to the conclusion
that, the workman was guilty of the charges of misconduct
leveled against him. The copy of the report was served on
the workman with show-cause notice. After receiving his
say and after hearing him, the competent authority has
awarded the punishment. In the circumstances it is clear
that the IO has followed the due procedure for conducting
the inquiry. On the point Apex Court ruling can be resorted
to in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. V/s. Their
Workmen 1963 II LLJ 367 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
laid down the following conditions for fair and proper
domestic inquiry. They are:
(1)
The employee proceeded against has been
informed clearly of the charges leveled against
him;
(2)
The witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the
presence of the employee in respect of the
charges;
(3)
The employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-
examine witnesses;
(4)
He is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses
including himself in his defence if he so wishes
on any relevant matter; and
(5)
The inquiry officer records his findings with
reasons for the same in his report.
9. In the light of guidelines of the Apex Court all the
points were complied with by the Inquiry Officer. In the
circumstances I come to the conclusion that the inquiry
was fair and proper. Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in
the affirmative.
Issue No.2:—
10. In respect of findings the main objection raised
on behalf of the workman in his statement of claim is that
the two panchas on the seizure panchanama were not
examined and the panchanama was not duly proved. Inspite
of that the IO relied on the seizure of 92 gold bars from the
house of the workman. In this respect I would like to point
out that to prove the seizure and recovery in departmental
inquiry, the panchanama need not be proved. The fact of
recovery and seizure can be proved by examining other
witnesses who were present at the relevant time. In this
respect I would like to point out that the standard of proof
in Departmental inquiry is altogether different than the
standard of proof required in the criminal cases. In criminal
cases charges are required to be proved beyond all
reasonable doubts whereas in the departmental inquiry
preponderance of probability suffices the purpose. On the
point Apex Court ruling can be resorted to in Suresh Pathrela
V/s. Orient Bank of Commerce 2007 2 SCT 715 wherein
Apex Court observed that;
"It is well settled principle of law that the yardstick
and standard of proof in criminal case is different from the
disciplinary proceeding. While the standard of proof in a
criminal case is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the
proof in departmental proceeding is preponderance of
probability."
11. In the case at hand though the panchas were not
examined Inquiry Officer examined other witnesses in
6558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
whose presence the Customs Officers have recovered the
92 gold bars and they were seized from the house of the
workman. Besides that the statement of workman and other
two co-accused were recorded by the customs officials
under Section 108 of Customs Act. In that statement
workman and two others have admitted their involvement
in smuggling the gold bars. The workman has admitted
that Mr. Jahangir and Javed are the persons for whom he
had smuggled the gold bars and had concealed the
consignment in the toilet. The statement recorded by
Customs official under Section 108 is admissible even in
the criminal trial so also in the departmental proceeding.
On the point the ld. adv. for the first party resorted to Apex
Court ruling in Naresh J. Sukhwani V/s. Union of India AIR
1996 SC 522 where in the Hon'ble Court in para 5 of the
judgment observed that;
"It must be remembered that the statement made
before the customs officials is not a statement recorded
under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Therefore, it is a material piece of evidence collected by
customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
The material incriminates the petitioner in culpating him in
the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act.
The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner
in the contravention in as much as Mr. Dudani's statement
clearly implicates not only himself but also the petitioner. It
can therefore be as substantive evidence connecting the
petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign
currency out of India."
12. In the case at hand the statement of the workman
as well as the other two accused were recorded by the
customs officials in which they have admitted the charge
of sumggling. The customs offcials have also seized 92
gold bars from the house of the workman. Findings of the
Inquiry Officer to that effect are based on substantial
evidence on record. Thus I hold that the findings are not
perverse. Accordingly I decide this issue on. 2 in the
negative.
ORDER
(i) The inquiry is held fair and proper.
(ii) Findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse.
(iii) The parties are directed to argue/lead evidence on
the point of quantum of punishment.
Date: 15.07.2013
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2531.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lgkjk ,vj
ykbZUl] tSV ,vjost fyfeVsM] tSV ykbZV fyfeVsM] lgkjk ifjokj]
Msdksj Msil ,fo,s'ku lfoZl ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
69@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2013
dks izkIrq gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@45@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e &I½ ]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 69/2011) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of M/s. Sahara Airlines Limited, M/s Jet
Airways Limited, M/s. Jet Lite (India) Limited, M/s. Sahara
Pariwar, M/s Decor Drapes Aviation Services, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/11/2013.
[No. L-11012/45/2010-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 10th October, 2013
PRESENT : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 69/2011
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the
Management of Sahara Airlines Ltd., M/s Decor Drapes
Aviation Ltd. And M/s Jet Lite (India) Ltd. and their
workman)
BETWEEN
Sri R Balaji
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. M/s Sahara Airlines Ltd.,
: 2nd Party/1st Respondent
New Delhi
2. M/s Jet Lite (India) Ltd.,
: 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Chennai-27
3. M/s Jet Airways Ltd.,
: 2nd Party/3rd Respondent
Mumbai-59
4. M/s Sahara Pariwar,
: 2nd Party/4th Respondent
Lucknow-226010
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6559
5. M/s Decor Drapes
: 2nd Party/5th Respondent
Aviation Services,
Bangalore-560017
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. Muthupandian,
Advocate
For the 1st Party/
: Ex-parte
Respondent
For the 2nd & 3rd Party/
: M/s. Gupta & Ravi,
Respondent
Advocates
For the 4th Respondent
: Sri Devraj Authorized
Representative
For the 5th Respondent
: M/s Sai Raaj Associates,
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/45/2010-IR (CM-I)
dated 05.08.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Management of the
erstwhile M/s Sahara Airlines Ltd. now represented by
Sahara India Parivar, its erstwhile contractor viz. Decor
Drapes Aviation Ltd. and M/s Jet Lite (India) Ltd. in denying
employment to Sri R. Balaji, an Ex-loader is legal and justified?
What the concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 69/2011 and issued notice to both
sides. The First Party has entered appearance and filed
Claim Statement. The Second Party has filed Counter
Statement also.
3. When the case came up for hearing on this date
(09.10.2013), the counsel for the First Party has reported
that he has no instruction from the First Party and has
made endorsement to this effect in the Vakalat. The
petitioner has been called absent in the absence of any
material other than the Claim Statement the claim is not
subtantiated. The claim is only to be closed.
4. In the result the ID is closed. Thus the reference is
answered against the First Party.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 10th October, 2013)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked on Petitioner &
-
Nil
Management sides
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2532.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 67
dk 2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@2@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½ ]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 67/2007) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2,
Dhanbad shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/2/2007-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, 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. 67 of 2007
PARTIES
:
Jt. General Secretary,
E.J. Area of M/s BCCL, Bhowra,
Dhanbad
Vs General Manager, E.J. Area,
Bhowra, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the :
None
workman/Union
On behalf of the :
Mr. S. Shekhar, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
:
Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 13th Sept., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
6560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
2/2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 2.11.2007.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra
(S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL in terminating Shri Dharmendra
Singh, M/Loader, w.e.f. 07.02.2005 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"
2. Niether Mr. R.R. Ram, the Union Representative/
Advocate for the Union Bahujan Mazdoor Union nor the
workman Dharmendra Singh appeared nor his rejoinder or
any document filed. Mr. S. Shekhar, the Ld. Advocate for
the O.P./management of Bhowra(s) Colliery of BCCL did
not appear.
From the perusal of the case record, I find the case
has been pending for the rejoinder of the workman for
appearance of both the parties and also for filling a rejoinder
of the workman from 27.2.2013, for which several Regd.
Notices lastly dt. 28.4.2013 and even thereafter as a last
chance were given to the Union concerned on its address
as noted in the reference itself, but neither the Union
representative nor the workman responded to any of the
notices issued by the Tribunal. The Union Representative
and the workman by their negligent conducts appeared to
be disinterested in pursuing the case for its final
adjudication in the Reference related to an issue of
termination of the workman, M/Loader w.e.f. 07.02.2005. In
result, the case is closed as no Industrial Dispute existent;
and accordingly, it is passed the order.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2533.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51 dk 2007½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@88@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-labour Court No. 2,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Sijua Area of M/s.
BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/88/2007-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, 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. 51 OF 2007
PARTIES
: Shri Tirath Raj Kumar, workman,
sponsored by Janta Mazdoor
Sangh, Dhanbad
Vs. General Manager, Sijua Area
of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the
: None
workman/Union
On behalf of the
: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State
: Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th May, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
88/2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 09.08.2007.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Sendra
Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying regularization
as PR Trammer to Shri Tirath Raj Kumar, M/loader, is
justified and legal? If not to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled and from which date?"
2. Not any Representative for Janta Mazdoor Union,
Bihar building, Jharia, Dhanbad nor workman Tirath Raj
Kumar appeared nor any witness for the evidence of the
workman produced. But Mr. D.K. Verma the Ld. Advocate
for the O.P./management of Sijua Area, BCCL is present.
On perusal of the case record it stands clear that the
case has been pending for the evidence of the workman
since 18.06.2012. Though neither rejoinder nor any
documents were filed on behalf of the workman since
29.06.2011, despite three registered notices dt. 8.11.2010,
18.1.2012 and 15.3.2012 having been issued to the vice
president of the union on his address, as noted in the
reference itself, yet neither the union representative nor
the workman responded it nor any witness on his behalf
Mm
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6561
for it. It is apparent from the conduct of the union
representative and the workman that they are not interested
or willing to fight the case for its finality. The present
reference relates to an issue reguarding regularization of
the workman as P.R. Trammer.
In view of the aforesaid facts of disinterestedness of
the union representative and the workman concerned, it is
no longer an industrial dispute in existence. Hence, the
case is closed and accordingly an order of the 'No Industrial
Dispute' is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2534.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] èuckn] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 97 dk 2005½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@110@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
18/11/2013.
[No. L-20012/110/2005-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) DHANBAD
PRESENT SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an industrial dispute under Sec. 10(1) (d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO 97 OF 2005
Parties
: Late Dularwa Bhuini, work woman
and her petitioner Sri Bhuneshwar
Bhuia represented by Janta
Mazdor Sangh
Vs. Chief General Manager,
Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL,
Dhanbad.
Appearances
:
On behalf of the
: Mr. K.N. Singh, Ld. Advocate
workmen/union
On behalf of the O.P./ : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Adv.
Management
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated: Dhanbad, the 29th May, 2013.
AWARD
The government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on them under section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/110/05-IR (C-I) dt: 2.11.2005.
SCHEDULE
Whether the action of the management of Raipur
Open Caste Project under Kustore Are of M/s. BCCL in not
providing employment to Shri Bhuneshwar Bhuia, the
husband of Late Dularwa Bhuini under the provisions of
NCWA is justified? If not, to what relief is Shri Bhuneshwar
Bhuia entitled?"
2. Neither any Representative for Janata Mazdoor
Sangh, Bihar building, Jharia, not petitioner Sri Bhuneshwar
Bhuiya nor any witness the evidence of the petitioner
appeared despite Regd. notices having been issued to then
Union. Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the O.P./
Management of Kustore Area, BCCL is present.
Persual of the case record reveals its pending for the
evidence of the petitioner workman since 22.2.2012, for
which Regd. notices dt. 22.2.2012 and 24.4.2012 were issued
to the Vice President of the Union on his address as noted
in the reference, yet neither the Union nor the petitioner
responded to the notice. The present reference relates to
an issue concerning with the employment to be provided
to the petitioner Shri Bhuneshwar Bhuia, the husband of
Late Dularwa Bhuini, under the provisions of the NCWA.
The Union and the petitioner by their conducts appear to
be prime facie uninterested in pursuing the case for its
finality.
Under these circumstances, proceeding with the case
for uncertainty is unwarranted. Hence the case is closed as
no industrial dispute existent. Accordingly Award of No
Industrial Dispute is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2535.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izcaèra= baMks
tkiku ,vj lfoZl izkbZosV fyfeVsM ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
6562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@15@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2013
S.O. 2535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/13) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Indo
Japan Air Services Pct. Ltd., and their workmen, received
by the Central Government 19/11/2013.
[No. L-11012/15/2012-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID No 07/2013
The General Secretary,
All India General Kamgar Union,
U-90, Shakar Pur,
New Delhi-110092
Versus
The Chairman,
M/s. Indo Japan Air Services Pvt. Ltd.,
36, Janpath, Chander Lok Building,
New Delhi-110001
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
vide notification No L-11012/15/2012-IR(CM-I) dated
15/01/2013, referred the following industrial Dispute to this
tribunal for the adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Indo
Japan Air Services Pvt. Ltd. in not granting annual
increments to Shri Amarjeet and 3 others as demanded by
All India General Kamgar Union is legal and justified? To
what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"
On 05/02/2013 reference was received in this tribunal.
Which was register as I.D. No. 7/2013. and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days. After
service of notice workmen filed claim statement they prayed
as follows:—In view of the above it is humbly prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an Award in
favour of the workmen at the against the management to
make payment of annual increment to the workmen at
minimum rate of Rs. 2500/- per month for the years 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 in the interest of
justice.
Managemnt in reply to claim statement filed no WS.
On 21/08/2013 joint application for passing of award
in terms of settlement has been filed with which following
documents has been attached:—
1. Receipt-Cum Declaration of full and final
settlement copy of Amarjeet and photo copy of cheque
amounting Rs. 450000/-.
2. Receipt-Cum Declaration of full and final
settlement copy of Dhanpat Ram and photo copy of cheque
amounting Rs. 450000/-.
3. Receipt-Cum Declaration of full and final
settlement copy of Sunil Sethi and photo copy of cheque
amounting Rs. 450000/-.
4. Receipt-Cum Declaration of full and final
settlement copy of Pramod Kumar and photo copy of
cheque amounting Rs. 450000/-.
In court original cheques were given to aforesaid
workmen which were received in court by them. They signed
after making endorsements of receiving the cheques on
ordersheet.
On the basis of aforesaid discussions only no dispute
award can be passed.Which is accordingly passed.
Dated-22/08/2013
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2536.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 fnlEcj] 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk&¼1½ vkSj èkjk &77] 78]
79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè
NÙkhlx<+ jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
^^ftyk fcykliqj dh rglhy fcYgk esa fLFkr jktLo
xzke&fcYgk] fgjhZ] isaMjok] fuifu;k] èkSjkHkkWBk] ikSljh] ,Bqydkaik]
MksM+dh]HksalcksM+] iRFkj[kku] dslyk] HkVXkkWo] ijlnk] nsofdjkjh]
fdjkjhxks<+h] xks<+h] mVxu] vesjh vdcjh] lEcyiqjh] [kUrgk] nxksjh]
>yQk] gjnh] is.M~Mhg] eksgHkV~Bk] jgaxh] cksnjh rFkk rglhy fcYgk]
ftyk fcykliqj dh lhekvksa ds varxZr vkus okys lHkh {ks=A**
[lañ ,l&38013@75@2013&,l-,l-1]
tktZdqVh Vh- ,y-] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2013@vxzgk;.k 9] 1935
6563
New Delhi, the 20th November, 2013
S.O. 2536.—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 December, 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 Bilha, Hirri, Pendarwa, Nipaniya,
Dhaurabhata, Paunsari, Ethulkapa, Dodki, Bhainsbod,
Pattharkhan, Kesla, Bhatagaon, Parsada, Devkirari,
Kirarigodhi, Godhi, Utgan, Ameri Akbari, Sambalpuri,
Khantaha, Dagori, Jhalpha, Hardi, Pandridih, Mohbhattha,
Rahangi, Bodari and the areas falling within the Tehsil Bilha,
District Bilaspur".
[No. S-38013/75/2013-S.S. I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2537.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi èkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 fnlEcj] 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè mM+hlk
jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
^^ftyk dVd dh vkBx<+ rglhy esa jeisb] [kqUVq.kh] ?kaVh[kky]
fuèhiqj] ekèciqj] lqfuvkeqga] dqLiaxh] vuUriqj] uqvk'kklu] dksrj]
xq:Mh>kfVvk] figwjk] ckyh] cmy] ckeuiqj] ckã.kcLr] jkgkaxksy
,oa cjgeiqj ds jktLo xkao**A
[lañ ,l&38013@76@2013&,l-,l- I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th November, 2013
S.O. 2537.—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 December, 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 Section 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 RAMPEI, KHUNTUNI, GHANTIKHAL,
NIDHIPUR, MADHABPUR, SUNIAMUHAN, KUSPANGI,
ANANTAPUR, NUASASAN, KOTAR, GURUDIJHATIA,
PIHURA,
BALI,
BAULA,
BAMANPUR,
BRAHMANBASTA, RAHANGOL AND BERHAMPUR in
the Tahasil of Athagarh, in the district of Cuttack.
[No. S- 38013/76/2013-S.S. I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2538.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi èkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2014 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi èkjk&¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè
dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
Øe jktLo xzke dk
gkscyh
rkyqd
ftyk
lañ
uke
1-
gyorhZ
dksiky
dksiky
dksiky
2-
fgjsdlud fdUM+h
ghUVy
dksiky
dksiky
3-
dlwudUM+h
ghUVy
dksiky
dksiky
4-
dqfudsjs
dksiky
dksiky
dksiky
5-
:nzkiwj
dksiky
dksiky
dksiky
6-
fpdcxuy
dksiky
dksiky
dksiky
7-
cxuy foyst
dksiky
dksiky
dksiky
[lañ ,l&38013@77@2013&,lñ,lñ I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th November, 2013
S.O. 2538.—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 January, 2014 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 Section 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been
brought into force] of the said Act shall come into
force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka
namely:—
6564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sl.
Name of the Rev.
Hobli
Taluk
District
No. Village or Municipal
Limits
1.
Halavarthy
Koppal
Koppal Koppal
2.
Hirekasankakindi
Hintal
Koppal Koppal
3.
Kasunakandi
Hintal
Koppal Koppal
4.
Kunikere
Koppal
Koppal Koppal
5.
Rudrapur
Koppal
Koppal Koppal
6.
Chikbaganal
Koppal
Koppal Koppal
7.
Baganal Village
Koppal
Koppal Koppal
[No. S-38013/77/2013-S.S. I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2539.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi èkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2014 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds
v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [èkjk&76 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk&77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè
rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo xkao
fr:o..keyS ftys esa
1- ps¸;kj
ps¸;kj rkyqd ds
2- ekFkqj
ps¸;kj {ks=
3- eaxy
4- psYyis:iqfyesMq
[lañ ,l&38013@78@2013&,lñ,lñ I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th November, 2013
S.O. 2539.—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 January, 2014 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 Tamilnadu namely:—
Centre
Area comprising the revenue
Villages of
Cheyyar area
1. Cheyyar
Cheyyar Taluk,
2. Mathur
Tiruvanamalai District
3. Mangal
4. Chellaperumpulimedu
[No. S-38013/78/2013-S.S. I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo xkao
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.