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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 996.—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

¼dsñ vñ C;wjks½ }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyk vkjlh&5 ¼,l½@

2011&,llhch@ ,ydsvks@,llh&III@,uMh ¼MkWñ ohñ ds vk;kZ gR;k

dk ekeyk½ vkSj vkjlh&6 ¼,l½@2011&,llhch@,ydsvks@

,llh&III@ ,uMh ¼MkWñ chñihñ flag gR;k dk ekeyk½ dk fopkj.k

l= U;k;kèh'k] y[kuÅ] mñ izñ ds U;k;ky; esa djus rFkk vihyksa@

iqujh{k.kksa ;k blls lEc) vU; ekeyksa vkSj blh laO;ogkj esa lapkyu

djus gsrq Jh ihñ pØorhZ] vfèoDrk dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds

:i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 225@56@2013&,ñohñMhñ&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2014

S.O. 996.—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 P. Chakravarty, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting trial in case No. RC 5(S)/

2011-SCB/LKO/SC-III/ND (Dr. V.K. Arya Murder Case) and

RC 6(S)/2011/SCB/LKO/SC-III/ND (Dr. B. P. Singh Murder

Case) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(C.B.I.) in the court of Sessions Judge Lucknow UP and

appeals/revisions or other matter connected therewith and

incidental thereto.

[F.No. 225/56/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 12]

ubZ fnYyh, ekpZ 16—ekpZ 22] 2014] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 25] 1935—pS=k 1] 1936

No. 12]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 16—MARCH 22, 2014, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 25, 1935—CHAITRA 1, 1936

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)

1089 GI/2014

(2595)

2596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 997.—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iVuk fLFkr iVuk mPp U;k;ky;

esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk }kjk vUosf"kr ekeyksa ;k muls mRiUu

vU; ekeyksa esa vfHk;kstu] vihyksa vkSj iqujh{k.kksa dk lapkyu djus

gsrq Jh lat; dqekj] odhy dks dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dk fo'ks"k yksd

vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 225@49@2013&,ñohñMhñ&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 997.— 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 Sanjay Kumar Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation in

the Patna High Court at Patna for conducting the

prosecution, appeals, revisions or other matters arising

out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment.

[F.No. 225/49/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 998.—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mi&èkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ubZ fnYyh fLFkr mPp U;k;ky;

esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsñ vñ C;wjks½ }kjk tkap fd, tk jgs

ekeyksa esa vfHk;kstu] vihyksa] iqujh{k.kksa ,oa muls mRiUu vU; ekeyksa

ds lapkyu gsrq loZJh latho HkaMkjh ,oa dsñ jk?kokpk;qZyw] vfèoDrkvksa

dks fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsanzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks½ ds fo'ks"k

yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 225@14@2014&,ñohñMhñ&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 998.—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 S/Shri Sanjeev Bhandari and K.

Raghavacharyulu, Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors

of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau

of Investigation) in Delhi High Court at New Delhi for

conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions or other

matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (CBI).

[F.No. 225/14/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 999.—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e lañ 25½ dh èkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, fnukad 30 vDrwcj] 2013 dh vfèlwpuk lañ MCY;w ,yoh

0713@lhvkj&261@,Q- 1 }kjk egkjk"Vª ljdkj] jktLo rFkk ou

foHkkx] eqacbZ dh lgefr ls fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu lnL;ksa dh

'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kfèdkj dk uker% fuEufyf[kr vijkèksa] tks ck?kksa

ds voSè f'kdkj] muds 'kjhj ds vaxksa ds O;kikj rFkk mi;qZDr ekeyksa

ds lacaè esa iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa rFkk "kM;a=ksa ls lacaè j[krk gks] dk

vUos"k.k djus ds fy, lEiw.kZ egkjk"Vª jkT; ij foLrkj djrh gSA

10@10

oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vfèfu;e]

esy?kkV ck?k vH;kj.;]

1972 ds vfèfu;e lañ 53 dh

vejkorh ds ou vfèdkjh

èkjk 9] 27] 29] 31] 39 rFkk 51

¼1½¼x½ ds rgr

15@24

oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vfèfu;e] iwoZ esy?kkV eaMy]

¼1972 ds vfèfu;e lañ 53½ dh

fp[kkynkjk] ftyk

èkjk 9] 39 rFkk 51¼1½¼x½ ds rgr vejkorh ds ou vfèdkjh

32@13

oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vfèfu;e]

ukxiqj esa ukxiqj ifjeaMy

¼1972 ds vfèfu;e lañ 53½ dh

ds ou vfèdkjh

èkjk 9] 39] 44] 49¼[k½] 51

rFkk 52 ds rgr

[lañ 228@1@2014&,ñohñMhñ&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 999.— 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 Maharashtra, Revenue and

Forests Department, Mumbai vide Notification Nos.

WLP 0713/CR-261/F.1 dated 30th October, 2013, hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Public Establishment to the whole of

the State of Maharashtra for investigation of offences

viz.:—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2597

10/10 under sections 9, 27, 29,

Forest Officials of

31, 39, 51(1)(C) of the

Melghat Tiger

Wild Life (Protection)

Reserve, Amravati.

Act, 1972 (Act No. 53

of 1972)

15/24 under sections 9, 39 and

Forest Officials of East

51(1)(C) Wild Life

Melghat Division,

(Protection) Act, 1972

Chikhaldara,

(Act No. 53 of 1972).

District Amravati.

32/13 under sections 9, 39, 44,

Forest Officials of Nagpur

49(B), 51 and 52 of the

ForestCircle, at Nagpur.

Wild Life (Protection)

Act, 1972 (Act No. 53

of 1972)

relating to the Tiger poaching and trade in the body parts of the

tigers and attempts, abetments and conspiration in relation to the

above mentioned cases.

[No. 228/1/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1000.— dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh

/kkjk 3 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fuEufyf[kr vijkèksa

dks fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu n~okjk vUosf"kr fd, tkus ds fy,

fofufnZ"V djrh gSA

¼d½ oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1972 ds varxZr naMuh;

vijk/k ¼1972 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 53½ vkSj

¼[k½ mi;qZDr vijk/kksa rFkk fdlh vU; vijk/k vFkok vijk/kksa ds

laca/k esa iz;kl] nq"izsj.kk rFkk "kM~;a=A

[lañ 228@1@2014&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O.1000.— In exercise of the powers conferred by

section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

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

specifies the following offences to be investigated by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:—

(a) Offences punishable under the Wild Life (Protection)

Act, 1972 (Act No. 53 of 1972) and

(b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to

or in connection with the above mentioned offence

and any other offence or offences arising out of the

same facts.

[No. 228/1/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1001.— dsUnzh; 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 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, e/; izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx ea=ky;] Hkksiky

ds fnukad 2 fnlEcj] 2013 n~okjk izkIr lgefr ls vfer lksuh ,oa

vuqjkx lksuh ds fo#) muds QeZ ,ñ;wñ deksfMVh euh gkÅl ftlus

vkosndksa ,oa cM+h ek=k esa /ku xcu ,oa dj oapu esa lafyIr O;fDr;ksa

lfgr ,elh,Dl ds lkFk xSj&dkuwuh :i ls O;kikj fd;k Fkk] ds

lacaè esa rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa iz;kl djus] nq"izsj.kk vkSj

"kM+;a=ksa ds laca/k esa ftyk Hkksiky fLFkr iqfyl LVs'ku lkboj ,aM

gkbZVSd Økbe esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e lañ

45½ dh /kkjk 420 lwpuk izkS+|ksfxdh ¼la'kks/ku½ vfèfu;e] 2008

¼2009 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 10½ dh /kkjk 66&d ,oa 66&?k ds rgr

dsl la[;k 498@2013 dh tkap djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/kdkjh {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ

e/; izns'k jkT; ij djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 228@84@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2014

S.O. 1001.— 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 Madhya Pradesh, Home Department

Mantralaya, Bhopal vide Notification No. F. 12-91/2013/B-

1/(Two) dated 2nd December, 2013, hereby extends powers

and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Madhya Pradesh for

investigation of Case No. 498/2013 under section 420 of

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

sections 66-A and 66-D of the Information Technology

(Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 10 of 2009) registered at

Police Station Cyber and Hitech Crime, District Bhopal

against Amit Soni and Anurag Soni relating to their firm

A.U. commodity Money House traded illegally with MCX

with applicants and many other people involving large scale

embezzlements of money and tax evasion and attempts,

abetments and conspiracies in relation to the above

mentioned offences.

[F. No. 228/84/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1002.—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/kfu;e]

1946] ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 3 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu

n~okjk tkap fd, tkus okys fuEufyf[kr vijk/kksa dk fo'ks"k :i ls

mYys[k djrh gS uker% :—

¼d½ lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2008] ¼o"kZ

2009 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 10½ ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k rFkk

2598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼[k½ mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijk/k ds laca/k esa rFkk vU; vijk/kksa

vFkok mlh ekeys ds nkSjku fd, x, vijk/k vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls

lacaf/kr mits vk{ksi] nq"izsj.kk,a vkSj "kM;a=A

[Qkñ lañ 228@84@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2014

S.O. 1002.— In exercise of the powers conferred by

section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

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

specifies the following offences to be investigated by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:—

(a) Offences punishable under the Information

Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 10 of

2009) and

(b) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to

or in connection with the above mentioned offence

and any other offence or offences committed in

course of the same transaction or arising out of the

same facts.

[F. No. 228/84/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1003.— dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6

lgifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, dukZVd jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx ¼dkuwu ,oa O;oLFkk½

caxykSj dh lgefr ls fnukad 18 uoEcj] 2013 ds vkns'k lañ ,pMh

98 lhvkbZMh] 2013 n~okjk djoj rFkk u, eaxykSj iksVZ VªLV eaxykSj

¼dukZVd½ ls ykSg v;Ld dk voS/k :i ls fu;kZr djus vkSj mDr

mfYyf[kr vijk/kksa ds iz;kl] nq"izs"k.k rFkk "kM~;a= dh vUos"k.k@tkap

iM+rky djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh

'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/kdkj {ks= dk ,rn~okjk laiw.kZ dukZVd jkT; ij

foLrkj djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 228@18@2014&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2014

S.O. 1003.— 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 Karnataka, Home Department (Law and

Order), Bangalore vide Order No. HD 98 CID 2013 dated

18th November, 2013, hereby extends powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Karnataka for

investigation/enquiry into the illegal export of iron ore from

Karwar and New Mangalore Port Trust, Mangalore

(Karnataka) and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in

relation to the above mentioned offences.

[F. No. 228/18/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1004.— dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh

/kkjk 6 lgifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, gfj;k.kk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] p.Mhx<+ dh lgefr

ls fnukad 5 uoEcj] 2013 ds vkns'k lañ 20@3@2012&3,pth&1 }kjk

Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 45½ dh /kkjk

406] 420] 467] 468] 471 ds lkFk ifBr iqfyl LVs'ku flfoy

ykbZu] jksgrd esa fnukad 10-05-2012 dks nk;j ,QvkbZvkj lañ 236

tks fd Hkkjr fodkl la?k] jksgrd dh lfpo] tloarh vkSj mldh iq=h

lq"kek@flEeh vkSj vU; vKkr O;fDr;ksa }kjk fd, mDr vijk/kksa ds

iz;kl] nq"izs"k.k] "kM~;a= dh vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/kdkj {ks= dk foLrkj

laiw.kZ gfj;k.kk jkT; ij djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 228@40@2012&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2014

S.O. 1004.— 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 Haryana, Home Department, Chandigarh

vide Order No. 20/3/2012-3HG-1 dated 5th November, 2013,

hereby extends powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State

of Haryana for investigation of Case FIR No. 236 dated

10.05.2012 under section 120-B read with sections 406, 420,

467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45

of 1860) registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak

relating to above offences committed by Jaswanti, Secretary

of Bharat Vikas Sangh, Rohtak, her daughter Sushma @

Simmi and other unknown persons and attempts, abetments

and conspiracies in relation to the above mentioned

offences.

[F. No. 228/40/2012-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2599

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1005.— dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&/kkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, e/; izns'k mPp U;k;ky;]

bankSj esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk }kjk vUos"k.k fd, x, ekeyksa ls

mRiUu vU; ekeys ;k vfHk;kstu vihyksa] iqujh{k.kksa dk lapkyu

djus ds fy, Jh foosd lju] odhy dks dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks ds

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

[Qkñ lañ 225@64@2012&,ñohñMhñ&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2014

S.O. 1005.—in exercise of the power 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 Vivek Sharan Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation in

the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore for conducting

the prosecution appeals, revisions or other matters arising

out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment.

[F. No. 225/64/2012-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1006.— dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh

/kkjk 6 lgifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, NÙkhlx<+ jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx ¼lh&vuqHkkx½] Mhñ dsñ

,lñ Hkou] ea=ky;] jk;iqj dh lgefr ls fnukad 19 vDrwcj] 2012

dh vf/klwpuk lañ ,Qñ 4&164@,pñlhñ@2012 }kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh

/kkjk 3 ds varxZr vijk/kksa ;k vijk/kksa dh Js.kh tks fd layXu lwph esa

mfYyf[kr gS] tks ekeys nj ekeys vk/kkj ij NÙkhlx<+ jkT; esa

dfFkr :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa] dsUnzh; lkoZtfud {ks=

ds miØeksa ds deZpkfj;ksa vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj ls tqM+s O;fDr;ksa }kjk

fd, x, gSa] ds iz;kl] nq"izs"k.k vkSj mDr vijk/kksa dh tkap&iM+rky

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

U;k;kf/kdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ NÙkhlx<+ jkT; ij djrh gSA

[lañ 228@83@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

vijk/kksa dh lwph

d- Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 45½ dh

èkjk 34] 114] 120&ch] 121] 121&,] 122] 123] 124] 124&,]

128] 129] 130] 131] 132] 133] 134] 135] 136] 138] 140] 143]

147] 148] 149] 153] 153&,] 153&ch] 161] 162] 163] 164]

165] 165&,] 166] 167] 168] 169] 170] 171&bZ] 171&,Q]

182] 186] 188] 189] 190] 193] 196] 197] 198] 199] 200]

201] 203] 204] 211] 212] 214] 216] 216&,] 217] 218] 220]

222] 223] 224] 225] 225&ch] 231] 232] 233] 234] 235] 236]

237] 238] 239] 240] 241] 242] 243] 244] 245] 246] 247]

248] 249] 250] 251] 252] 253] 254] 255] 256] 257] 258] 259]

260] 261] 262] 263] 263&,] 275] 277] 279] 283] 284] 285]

286] 287] 292] 295] 295&,] 302] 303] 304] 304&,] 304&ch]

306] 307] 308] 309] 323] 324] 325] 326] 328] 330] 331] 332]

333] 334] 336] 337] 338] 341] 342] 343] 344] 346] 347]

352] 353] 354] 355] 363] 363&,] 364] 364&,] 365] 366]

366&,] 366&ch] 367] 368] 370] 371] 372] 373] 374] 376]

376&,] 376&ch] 376&lh] 376&Mh] 377] 379] 380] 381] 382]

384] 385] 386] 387] 388] 389] 392] 393] 394] 395] 396]

397] 398] 399] 401] 402] 403] 406] 407] 408] 409] 411]

412] 413] 414] 417] 418] 419] 420] 421] 423] 424] 426]

427] 429] 431] 432] 434] 435] 436] 440] 447] 448] 449]

450] 452] 454] 456] 457] 460] 461] 465] 466] 467] 468]

469] 471] 472] 473] 474] 475] 476] 477] 477&,] 482] 483]

485] 489] 489&,] 489&ch] 489&lh] 489&Mh] 489&bZ] 495]

498&,] 499] 500] 501] 502] 504] 505] 506] 507] 509 ds

vèhu naMuh; vijk/kA

[k- dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e

ds v/khu naMuh; vijkè %—

1- ok;q;ku vf/kfu;e] 1934 ¼1934 dk vf/kfu;e la- 22½

vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu cuk, x, fu;eA

2- ;ku&gj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 ¼1982 dk vf/kfu;e

la. 65½

3- iqjko'ks"k rFkk cgqewY; dykd`fr vf/kfu;e] 1972 ¼1972

dk vf/kfu;e la- 52½

4- iqjkoLrq ¼vk;kr fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 31½ fujflr

5- vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼1959 dk vf/kfu;e la- 54½

6 ijek.kq ÅtkZ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 33½

7- csukeh laO;ogkj ¼izfr"ks/k½ vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 45½ dh /kkjk&3

2600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8- caf/kr Je i)fr ¼mRlk/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 19½

9- dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd rFkk ued vf/kfu;e] 1944 ¼1944

dk vf/kfu;e la- 1½

10- ckyd Je ¼izfr"ks/k vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e 1986 dh

/kkjk 14 ¼1½ vkSj 14 ¼3½

11- daiuh vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk vf/kfu;e la- 1½

12- izfrfyI;kf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 14½ dh /kkjk 63] 63&,] 63&ch] 65] 67] 68] 68&,

vkSj 69

13- naM dkuwu ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼1961 dk

vfèfu;e la- 23½

14- lhek 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 52½

15- ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼1961 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 28½ dh /kkjk 3 vkSj 4

16- vkS"kf/k rFkk izlk/ku lkexzh vf/kfu;e] 1940 ¼1940 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 23½

17- mRizokl vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼1983 dk vf/kfu;e la- 31½

dh /kkjk 24

18- vkikr ladV mica/k ¼tkjh½ v/;kns'k] 1946 ¼1946 dk

v/;kns'k la- 20½ ;fn dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh fdlh vkns'k

dk vfrØe.k djds dsUnzh; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa ;k

lafonkdkjksa ;k mi&lafonkdkjksa ;k muds izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk fd;k

x;k gksA

19- vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼1955 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 10½

20- foLQksVd vf/kfu;e 1884 ¼1884 dk vf/kfu;e la- 4½

21- foLQksVd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1908 ¼1908 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 6½

22- fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 1910 ¼1910 dk vf/kfu;e la- 9½

23- fons'kh vfHknk; ¼fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 49½

24- fons'kh vfHknk; ¼fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 ¼2010 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 42½

25- fonsf'k;ksa fo"k;d vf/kfu;e ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la- 31½

26- fons'kh eqnzk fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼1973 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 46½

27- lk/kkj.k chek dkjksckj ¼jk"Vªh;dj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1922

¼1922 dk vf/kfu;e la- 57½

28- nku&dj vf/kfu;e] 1958 ¼1958 dk vf/kfu;e la- 18½

29- Lo.kZ fu;a=d vf/kfu;e] 1968 ¼1968 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 45½

30- vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 ¼1961 dk vf/kfu;e la- 43½

31- vk;kr ,oa fu;kZr ¼fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 18½

32- vuSfrd O;kikj ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 104½ dh /kkjk 3] 4] 5] 8] 9 vkSj 15

33- chek vf/kfu;e] 1938 ¼1938 dk vf/kfu;e la- 4½

34- m|ksx ¼fodkl rFkk fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼1951

dk vf/kfu;e la- 65½

35- lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh vf/kfu;e 2000 ¼2000 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 21½

36- Hkkjrh; LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899

37- Hkkjrh; ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 ¼1927 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 16½

38- fd'kksj U;k; vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk 23] 24] 25 vkSj 26

39- ykVjht+ ¼fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1998 ¼1998 dk

vfèfu;e la- 17½

40- [kku vkSj [kfut ¼fodkl vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1957

¼1957 dk vf/kfu;e la- 67½

41- eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 ¼1939 dk vf/kfu;e la- 4½

42- Lokid vkS"kf/k rFkk eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985

¼1985 dk vf/kfu;e la- 61½

43- Lokid vkS"kf/k rFkk eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985

¼1985 dk vf/kfu;e la- 61½ dh /kkjk 25&,

44- ijØkE; fyf[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 ¼1881 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 26½ dh /kkjk 138

45- 'kkldh; xqIr ckr vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼1923 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 19½

46- ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1920 ¼1920 dk vf/kfu;e la- 24½

vkSj ikliksVZ fu;ekoyh] 1950 dk fu;e&6

47- ikliksVZ ¼Hkkjr esa izos'k½ fu;ekoyh] 1950 lifBr ikliksVZ

¼Hkkjr esa izos'k½ vf/kfu;e] 1920 ¼1920 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 34½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2601

48- ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1967 ¼1967 dk vf/kfu;e la- 15½

49- Mkd?kj vf/kfu;e] 1898 ¼1898 dk vf/kfu;e la- 6½

50- Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 2½

51- Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 49½

52- [kk| vifeJ.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼1954 dk

vfèfu;e la- 37½

53- yksd laifÙk uqdlku fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1984 ¼1984 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 3½

54- Lokid vkS"k/k rFkk eu% izHkkoh inkFkks± dk voS/k O;kikj

fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e la- 46½

55- jk"VªxkSjo vieku fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 69½

56- vkradokn fujks/kh v/;kns'k] 2001 ¼2001 dk la- 9½

57- vkradokn fujks/kh vf/kfu;e] 2002 ¼2002 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 15½

58- izSl vkSj iqLrd jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1867 ¼1867 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 25½

59- bukeh fpV vkSj /ku ifjpkyu Ldhe ¼ikcanh½ vf/kfu;e]

1978 ¼1978 dk vf/kfu;e la- 43½ dh /kkjk 4 vkSj 5

60- ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012

¼2012 dk vf/kfu;e la- 32½

61- yksd ijh{k.k ¼vijk/k½ vf/kfu;e] 1980 ¼1980 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 42½

62- jsy vf/kfu;e] 1890 ¼1890 dk vf/kfu;e la- 9½

63- jsy lkexzh ¼fof/k&fo#) dCtk½ vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk vf/kfu;e la- 51½

64- jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989 ¼1989 dk vf/kfu;e la- 24½

65- yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1950 ¼1950 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 43½

66- yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼1951 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 43½

67- fonsf'k;ksa dk jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1939 ¼1939 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 16½

68- Hkkjrh; izfrHkwfr vkSj fofue; cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1992 dh

/kkjk 24

69- flfoy foekuu lqj{kk fof/k fo#) dk;Z neu vf/kfu;e]

1982 ¼1982 dk vf/kfu;e la- 66½

70- /kkfeZd laLFkkuksa ¼nq#i;ksx fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1988

¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e la- 41½

71- vuqlwfpr tkfr;ka vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ka ¼vR;kpkj

fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 dh /kkjk 3 vkSj 4

72- jkT; {ks=h; lkxj&[kaM] egk}hih; eXurV Hkwfe] vuU;

vkfFkZd {ks= vkSj vU; lkeqfnzd {ks= vf/kfu;e] 1976

¼1976 dk vf/kfu;e la- 80½ dh /kkjk 11 vkSj 12

73- rkj ;a= vf/kfu;e] 1885 ¼1885 dk vf/kfu;e la- 13½

74- rkj ;a= laca/kh rkj ¼fof/k fo#) dCtk½ vf/kfu;e] 1950

¼1950 dk vf/kfu;e la- 74½

75- vkradoknh rFkk fo/oaldkjh fØ;kdyki ¼fuokj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1985 ¼1985 dk vf/kfu;e la- 31½ rFkk mlds

varxZr cuk, x, fu;e

76- vkradoknh rFkk fo/oaldkjh fØ;kdyki ¼fuokj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1987 ¼1987 dk vf/kfu;e la- 28½ rFkk mlds

varxZr cuk, x, fu;e

77- ekuo vax izR;kjksi.k vf/kfu;e] 1994 ¼1994 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 42½

78- fof/k fo#) fØ;kdyki ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1967 ¼1967

dk vf/kfu;e la- 37½

79- csrkj rkj ;kaf=dh vf/kfu;e] 1933 ¼1933 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 17½

80- /ku dj vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk vf/kfu;e la- 27½

81- oU; tho laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1972 ¼1972 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 53½ dh /kkjk 51

82- O;kikj fpg~u vf/kfu;e] 1999 ¼1999 dk vf/kfu;e la-

46½ ds v/khu lHkh laKs; vijk/k

x- jkT; vf/kfu;e ds varxZr naMuh; vijk/k

1- vle vQhe izfrcaf/kr vf/kfu;e] 1947

2- vka/kz izns'k laxfBr vijk/k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001

3- cEcbZ LVkEi vf/kfu;e] 1958

4- fcgkj rFkk mM+hlk mRikn 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1915 ¼fcgkj

rFkk mM+hlk vf/kfu;e] 1915 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½

5- ¼d½ 120&ch] 121] 147] 161] 162] 163] 164] 165]

166] 167] 168] 169] 182] 193] 197] 198] 201] 204]

211] 218] 223] 224] 231] 232] 233] 234] 235] 236]

2602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

237] 238] 239] 240] 241] 242] 243] 246] 247] 248]

249] 250] 251] 252] 253] 254] 258] 259] 260] 261]

262] 263] 263&,] 302] 304] 304&,] 306] 307] 308]

309] 323] 324] 325] 326] 328] 330] 332] 333] 336]

337] 338] 341] 342] 343] 344] 346] 347] 352] 353]

354] 355] 363] 363&,] 364] 365] 366] 367] 368]

376] 379] 380] 381] 382] 384] 385] 386] 387] 388]

389] 392] 395] 403] 406] 407] 408] 409] 411] 412]

413] 414] 417] 418] 419] 420] 427] 452] 465] 466]

467] 468] 471] 472] 473] 474] 475] 476] 477&,]

489&,] 489&ch] 489&lh] 489&Mh] 511 tEew rFkk

d'ehj jkT; j.kchj iSuy dksM laor vkSj tEew vkSj d'ehj

laor 1989 dk vf/kfu;e la- 12

¼[k½ tEew rFkk d'ehj jkT; Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e laor]

2006] ¼laor 2006 dk tEew rFkk d'ehj vf/kfu;e

la- 13½

¼x½ 1962 dk lhek 'kqYd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 132] 133] 135]

136] ¼1962 dk tEew vkSj d'ehj vf/kfu;e la- 52½

¼?k½ tEew vkSj d'ehj ljdkj }kjk tkjh laor 2005 dk ÅtkZ

lk/kd v/;kns'k

6- dukZVd laxfBr vijk/k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2000

7- dukZVd ou vf/kfu;e] 1963 ¼1964 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 5½

8- dukZVd LVkEi vf/kfu;e] 1957

9- dukZVd Hkwfe vf/kfu;e] 1991 ¼LFkkukarj.k ij izfrca/k½

10- dsjy ou vf/kfu;e 1961 ¼1962 dk vf/kfu;e la- 4½

11- egkjk"Vª laxfBr vijk/k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1999

12- e/; izns'k MdSrh vkSj vigj.k izHkkfor {ks= vf/kfu;e]

1981 ¼1981 ds e/; izns'k vf/kfu;e la- 36½ dh /kkjk 11

vkSj 13

13- ukxkySaM izfrHkwfr fofu;eu] 1962 ¼1962 dk fofu;eu

5½ dh /kkjk 7

14- iatkc fo'ks"k 'kfDr;ka ¼iszl½ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk

iatkc vf/kfu;e la- 38½

15- iatkc jkT; fuokZlu vk;ksx vf/kfu;e] 1994 ¼1994 dk

iatkc vf/kfu;e la- 19½ dh /kkjk 124

16- xksok cky vf/kfu;e] 2003 ¼xksok 2003 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 18½

17- fuos'kdksa ds fgrksa dk rfeyukMq laj{k.k ¼foÙkh; laLFkkuksa esa½

vf/kfu;e] 1997 ¼1997 dk vf/kfu;e la- XLIV½

18- rfeyukMq laifÙk ¼{kfr ,oa gkfu fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e 1992

dh /kkjk 3] 4 vkSj 5

19- fuos'kdksa ds fgrksa dk f=iqjk laj{k.k ¼foÙkh; laLFkkuksa esa½

vf/kfu;e] 2000 dh /kkjk 3 ,oa la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e] 2011

dh /kkjk 3&,

20- mÙkj izns'k Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk vf/kfu;e] 1939 ¼1939 dk

m- iz- vf/kfu;e la- 10½

21- mÙkj izns'k fxjksgcan vkSj vlkekftd dk;Zdyki ¼fuokj.k½

vf/kfu;e] 1986 ¼1986 dk m- iz- vf/kfu;e la- 7½

22- if'pe caxky lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1950 ¼1950 dk i- ca-

vf/kfu;e la- 19½ tSlk fd if'pe caxky ljdkj }kjk iqu%

vf/kfu;eu fd;k x;k ¼iqu% vf/kfu;eu rFkk oS/krk½

v/;kns'k 1966

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2014

S.O. 1006.— 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 Chhattisgarh, Home Department (C-

Section), D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur vide

Notification No. F-4-164/H.C./2012 dated 19th October,

2012, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Chhattisgarh for investigation of offences

or classes of offences notified under section 3 of the Delhi

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

mentioned in the list enclosed, alleged to have been

committed by employees of the Central Government,

Central Public Sector Undertakings and persons connected

with the affairs of Union of India within the State of

Chhattisgarh on case to case basis sand attempts,

abetments and conspiracies in relation to the above

mentioned offences.

[No. 228/83/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

LIST OF OFFENCES

A. Offences punishable under Section 34, 114, 120-B, 121,

121-A, 122, 123, 124, 124-A, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134,

135, 136, 138, 140, 143, 147, 148, 149, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 161,

162, 163, 164, 165, 165-A, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171-E, 171-

F, 182, 186, 188, 189, 190, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201,

203, 204, 211, 212, 214, 216, 216-A, 217, 218, 220, 222, 223,

224, 225, 225-B, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239,

240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252,

253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 263-A,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2603

275, 277, 279, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 292, 295, 295-A, 302,

303, 304, 304-A, 304-B, 306, 307, 308, 309, 323, 324, 325, 326,

328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344,

346, 347, 352, 353, 354, 355, 363, 363-A, 364, 364-A, 365, 366,

366-A, 366-B, 367, 368, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 376, 376-A,

376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 377, 379, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 386,

387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 401, 402,

403, 406, 407, 408 409, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420,

421, 423, 424, 426, 427, 429, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 440, 447,

448, 449, 450, 452, 454, 456, 457, 460, 461, 465, 466, 467, 468,

469, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 477-A, 482, 483, 485,

489, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E, 495, 498-A, 499, 500,

501, 502, 504, 505, 506, 507, 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(Act No. 45 of 1860).

B. CENTRAL ACTS:

Offences punishable under:—

1. Aircraft Act 1934 (Act No. 22 of 1934) and rules made

under the said Act.

2. Anti-Hijacking Act 1982 (Act No. 65 of 1982).

3. Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972 (Act No. 52

of 1972).

4. Antiquities (Export Control) Act, 1947 (Act No. 31 of

1947) Repealed.

5. Arms Act 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959).

6. Atomic Energy Act 1962 (Act No. 33 of 1962).

7. Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition)

Act 1988 (Act No. 45 of 1988).

8. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Act

No. 19 of 1976).

9. Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (Act No. 1 of 1944).

10. Sections 14(1) and 14(3) of Child Labour (Prohibition

and Regulation) Act, 1986.

11. Companies Act 1956 (Act No. 1 of 1956).

12. Sections 63, 63-A, 63-B, 65, 67, 68, 68-A and 69 of

Copy-rights Act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957).

13. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1961 (Act No. 23 of

1961).

14. Customs Act 1962 (Act No. 52 of 1962).

15. Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

(Act No. 28 of 1961).

16. Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (Act No. 23 of 1940).

17. Section 24 of Emigration Act 1983 (Act No. 31 of

1983).

18. Emergency Provisions (Continuance) Ordinance 1946

(Ordinance No. 20 of 1946) if committed by the

Employees of the Central Government of contractors

or sub-contractors or their representatives by

contravening any order issued by the Central

Government.

19. Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955).

20. Explosives Act 1884 (Act No. 4 of 1884).

21. Explosive Substances Act 1908 (Act No. 6 of 1908).

22. Electricity Act 1910 (Act No. 9 of 1910).

23. Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 (Act No.

49 of 1976).

24. Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (Act No.

42 of 2010).

25. Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act No. 31 of 1946).

26. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 (Act No. 46

of 1973).

27. General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act

1922 (Act No. 57 of 1922).

28. Gift Tax Act 1958 (Act No. 18 of 1958).

29. Gold Control Act 1968 (Act No. 45 of 1968).

30. Income Tax Act 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961).

31. Import and Export (Control) Act 1947 (Act No. 18 of

1947).

32. Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 15 of the Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956).

33. Insurance Act 1938 (Act No. 4 of 1938).

34. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951

(Act No. 65 of 1951).

35. Information Technology Act 2000 (Act No. 21 of

2000).

36. Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

37. The Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act No. 16 of 1927).

38. Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act,

2006.

39. The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 (Act No. 17 of

1998).

40. Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development)

Act 1957 (Act No. 67 of 1957).

41. Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939).

42. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985

(Act No. 61 of 1985).

43. Section 25-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substance Act 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985).

2604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

44. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881

(Act No. 6 of 1881).

45. Official Secrets Act 1923 (Act No. 19 of 1923).

46. Passport Act 1920 (Act No. 24 of 1920) and rule 6 of

Passport Rules 1950.

47. The Passport (Entry into India) Rules 1950 r/w

Passport (Entry into India) Act 1920, (Act No. 34 of

1920).

48. Passport Act 1967 (Act No. 15 of 1967).

49. Post Office Act 1898 (Act No. 6 of 1898).

50. Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Act No. 2 of 1947).

51. Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Act No. 49 of

1988).

52. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (Act No.

37 of 1954).

53. Prevention of damage to Public Property Act 1984

(Act No. 3 of 1984).

54. The Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 (Act No. 46 of

1988).

55. Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971

(Act No. 69 of 1971).

56. Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance 2001 (No. 9 of

2001).

57. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 (Act No. 15 of 2002).

58. The Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 (Act

No. 25 of 1867)

59. Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money

Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978 (Act No. 43

of 1978).

60. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(Act No. 32 of 2012)

61. Public Examination (Offences) Act, 1980 (Act No.

XLII of 1980).

62. Railways Act 1890 (Act No. 9 of 1890).

63. Railways Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act 1955 (Act

No. 51 of 1955).

64. The Railways Act 1989 (Act No. 24 of 1989).

65. Representation of the people Act 1950 (Act No. 43 of

1950).

66. Representation of the People Act 1951 (Act No. 43 of

1950).

67. Registration of Foreigners Act 1939 (Act No. 16 of

1939).

68. Section 24 of the Securities Exchange Board of India

Act 1992.

69. Suppression of Unlawful Act against Safety of Civil

Aviation Act 1982 (Act No. 66 of 1982).

70. The Religious Institutions (Prevention of misuse)

Act 1988 (Act No. 41 of 1988).

71. Section 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

72. Section 11 & 12 of the Territorial Waters Continental

Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime

Zones Act, 1976 (Act No. 80 of 1976).

73. Telegraph Act 1885 (Act No. 13 of 1885).

74. Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act 1950 (Act

No. 74 of 1950).

75. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention) Act

1985 (Act No. 31 of 1985) and Rules made thereunder.

76. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act

1987 (Act No. 28 of 1987) and Rules made thereunder.

77. Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (Act

No. 42 of 1994).

78. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (Act No.

37 of 1967).

79. Wireless and Telegraphy Act 1933 (Act No. 17 of

1933).

80. Wealth Tax Act 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957).

81. Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (Act

No. 53 of 1972).

82. All cognizable offences under the Trade Marks Act,

1999 (Act No. 46 of 1999).

C. STATE ACTS:

Offences punishable under:—

1. Assam Opium Prohibition Act 1947.

2. Andhra Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Act,

2011.

3. Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.

4. Bihar and Orissa Excise Act 1915 Bihar and Orissa

Act No. 2 of 1915.

5. (a)Section 120-B, 121, 147, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165,

166, 167, 168, 169, 182, `193, 197, 198, 201, 204, 211,

218, 223, 224, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238,

239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249,

250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263,

263-A, 302, 304, 304-A, 306, 307, 308, 309, 323, 324,

325, 326, 328, 330, 332, 333, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342,

343, 344, 346, 347, 352, 353, 354, 355, 363, 363-A, 364,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2605

365, 366, 367, 368, 376, 379, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385,

386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 395, 403, 406, 407. 408, 409,

411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420, 427, 452, 465,

466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477-A, 489-

A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 511 of Jammu and Kashmir

State Ranbir Penal Code Sambat & Jammu and

Kashmir Act No. 12 of Sambat 1989).

(b) Jammu and Kashmir State Prevention of Corruption

Act Sambat 2006 (J & K Act No. 13 of Sambat 2006).

(Jammu and Kashmir Act No. 52 of 1962).

(d) Energy Agents Ordinance of Sambat 2005 issued by

Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

6. The Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000.

7. The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Act No. 5 of 1964).

8. The Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

9. The Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act,

1991.

10. The Kerala Forest Act, 1961 Act No. 4 of 1962).

11. Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

12. Section 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti

Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981

(Madhya Pradesh Act No. XXXVI of 1981).

13. Section 7 of the Nagaland Security Regulation 1962

(Regulation 5 of 1962).

14. Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act 1956 (Punjab Act

No. 38 of 1956).

15. Section 124 of the Punjab State Election Commission

Act 1994 (Punjab Act No. 19 of 1994).

16. The Goa Children's Act, 2003 (Goa Act No. 18 of

2003).

17. The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors

(in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (Act No. XLIV

of 1997).

18. Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Tamilnadu Property

(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

19. Tripura Protection of Interests of Depositors (in

Financial Establishments) Act, 2000 (Act No. 6 of

2000) as amended by the Tripura Act, 2011.

20. Uttar Pradesh Indian Medicines Act 1939 (U.P. Act

No. 10 of 1939).

21. Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1986 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. 7 of

1986).

22. West Bengal Security Act 1950 (West Bengal Act

No. 19 of 1950) as re-enacted by the West Bengal

Security (re-enacted and validation) Ordinance 1966.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1007.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk n.M izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½

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

}kjk laLFkkfir vkjlh 1 ¼,½@2008@lhchvkbZ@,lh;w&8 ¼VSªi ekeyk½

rFkk vkjlh 1¼,½@009@lhchvkbZ@,lh;w&9@,uMh ¼dsañfjñiqñ cy HkrhZ

?kksVkyk½ ekeys esa iVuk ijh{k.k dksVZ ¼fcgkj½ rFkk vihy@iqujh{k.k

;k vU; lEc) ekeyksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks

dh vksj ls mifLFkr gksus ds fy, Jh eksñ,yñvkjñ valkjh] vf/koDrk

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

[Qkñlañ 225@59@2013&,ñohñMhñ&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O. 1007.—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 Md. L.R. Ansari, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for appearing on Behalf of Central Bureau

of Investigation in RC 1(A)/2008/CBI/ACU-VIII (Trap Case)

and RC 1 (A)/2009/CBI/ACU-IX/ND (CRPF recruitment

Scam) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(CBI) in the Trial Court of Patna (Bihar) and appeals/

revisions or other matters connected therewith and

incidental thereto.

[F. No. 225/59/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1008.—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 lgifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, jktLFkku ljdkj ds x`g ¼oxZ&V½foHkkx t;iqj dh fnukad

6 fnlEcj] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk la-,Q-19¼122½ x`g&5@2013 }kjk

izkIr lgefr ls] Jh vkse izdk'k gqMyk vkSj vU;ksa ds fo#) Hkkjrh;

naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 45½ dh /kkjk 147] 148]

149] 302 vkSj 307 vkSj 'kL= vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼vf/kfu;e] 1959

dk 54½ dh /kkjk 3¼25½ dh rgr iqfyl LVs'ku egqvk] nkSlk ftyk]

jktLFkku esa ntZ fnukad 02-12-2013 dh vijk/k la[;k 640@2013

rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/kksa ls lacaf/kr iz;kl] nq"izsj.k vkSj "kM;a= ds vUos"k.k

2606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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@85@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O. 1008.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Special Police Establishement 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 Notification No. F-19(122) Home-5/2013 dated

6th December, 2013 hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Rajasthan for

investigation of Crime No. 640/2013 dated 02.12.2013 under

sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section 3(25) of the

Arms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959) registered at Police

Station Mahuwa, District Dausa against Shri Om Prakash

Hudla and others and attempts, abetments and conspiracies

in relation to the above mentioned offences.

[No. 228/85/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1009.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~okjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

LFkkiu vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, iatkc jkT; ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx

¼LokLF;&7 'kk[kk½] p.Mhx<+ dh lgefr ls fnukad 02 fnlEcj]

2013 dh vfèlwpuk lañ 2@125@2010&4,pch@74687 ds rgr] MkWñ

eatw nqcs] rRdkyhu uksMy vf/kdkjh] jkT; Hks"kt ikS/k cksMZ] LokLF;

,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx] iatkc rFkk vU; fdlh yksd lsod ds

fo#) jk"Vªh; Hks"kt ikS/k cksMZ] vk;q"k foHkkx] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj

dY;k.k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh ls Lo;a dks yxHkx 86-23

yk[k #ñ dk voSè vkfFkZd YkkHk igqapkus ls lacaf/kr ,oa mi;qZDr

mijk/kksa ds laca/k esa iz;kl] nq"izsj.k vkSj "kM~;a= djus ds laca/k esa

Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 49½

ds varxZr ekeyk lañ [vkjlh 2 ¼,l½@2011@lhchvkbZ@,llh III/

ubZ fnYyh] dh tkap&iM+rky djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/kdkj {ks= dk foLrkj laiw.kZ

iatkc jkT; ij djrh gSA

[la- 228@21@2014&,ohMh&IZIZ]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O. 1009.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, Department of Health and Family

Welfare (Health 7 Branch) Chandigarh, vide Notification

No. 2/125/2010-4HB7/4687 dated 2nd Dec., 2013 hereby

extends powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of

Punjab for investigation of case No. [RC 2(S)/2011/CBI/

SC.III/New Delhi] under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) against Dr. Manju Dubey, the

then Nodal Officer, State Medicinal Plants Board,

Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab and any

other public servants relating to illegal pecuniary gain of

about Rs. 86.23 lakhs for themselves from the National

Medicinal Plants Board, Department of Ayush, Ministry of

Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi and

attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to the

above mentioned offences.

[No. 228/21/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=ky;

¼lhihoh izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1010.—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 ,u- ,e- v'kksd futh lfpo dks 6 ekpZ

2014 Hkkjr ds dkalqykokl nqcbZ esa lgk;d dkalqyj vf/kdkjh ds

dÙkZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[la-Vh- 4330@1@2014]

vkjñ dsñ isfjufM;k mi&lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 1010.— In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths

and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government

hereby authorize Shri N.M. Ashok, PA, in Consulate General

of India, Dubai to perform the duties of Assistant Consular

Officer with effect from 6th March, 2014.

[No. T. 4330/01/2014]

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2607

okf.kT; ,oa m|ksx ea=ky;

¼okf.kT; foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1011.—;r%] eSñ Vsaxfyu MsoyiesaV~l fyfeVsM us

dukZVd jkT; ds Xykscy fcyst] isV~Vhustsj@ekbyklkUMªk xkao] vkWQ

eSlwj jksM] vkjohlhbZ iksLV] ftyk caxykSj esa lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ,oa

lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh lefFkZr lsokvksa ds fy, ,d {ks= fof'k"V fo'ks"k

vkfFkZd tksu dh LFkkiuk gsrq fo'ks"k vkfFkZd tksu vf/kfu;e] 2005

¼2005 dk 28½] ¼ftls ,rn~i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh

/kkjk 3 ds varxZr izLrko fd;k Fkk(

vkSj ;r%] dsUnz ljdkj us fo'ks"k vkfFkZd tksu fu;e 2006 ds

fu;e 8 ds lkFk ifBr mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, okf.kT; ,oa m|ksx ea=ky; dh

vf/klwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ 1705 ¼v½ fnukad 5 vDVwcj] 2006 }kjk

mi;qZDr fo'ks"k vkfFkZd tksu esa 26-673 gsDVs;j {ks= dks vf/klwfpr

dj fn;k Fkk(

vkSj ;r%] eSñ Vsaxfyu MsoyiesaVl fyfeVsM us mDr fo'ks"k

vkfFkZd tksu esa 0-20 gsDVs;j {ks= dks 'kkfey djus dk izLrko fd;k

gS(

vr% vc] fo'ks"k vkfFkZd tksu vf/kfu;e] 2005 dh /kkjk 4

dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds nwljs iajrqd }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, vkSj fo'ks"k vkfFkZd tksu ds fu;ekoyh 2006 ds fu;e 8 ds

vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 0-20 gsDVs;j ds {ks= dks mDr

fo'ks"k vkfFkZd tksu ds Hkkx ds :i esa 'kkfey djus ds fy, vfèlwfpr

djrh gS] ftlds ifjek.kr% dqy {ks= 26-873 gsDVs;j gks tk,xk ftlesa

fuEufyf[kr rkfydk esa mfYyf[kr losZ{k.k la[;k, vkSj {ks= 'kkfey

gS vFkkZr~%µ

vfrfjDr {ks= ds fy;s rkfydk

Øe

xkao losZ uñ gsDVs;j esa

lañ

xkao isV~Vhustsj@ekbyklkUMªk xkao] vkjohlhbZ iksLV 14

0-20

dqy

0-20

mi;qZDr tksM+ ds i'pkr~ ,lbZtsM dk dqy {ks=Qy

26-873

[Qkñlañ ,Qñ 2@106@2005&,lbZtsM]

jktho vjksM+k] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2014

S.O. 1011.— Whereas M/s. Tanglin Developments

Limited had proposed under Section 3 of the Special

Economic Zones Act, 2005 (28 of 2005) hereinafter referred

to as the Act, to set up a Sector Specific SEZ for Information

Technology/Information Technology Enabled Services at

"Global Village", Pattenagere/Mylsandra Villages, Off-

Mysore Road, RVCE Post, Bangalore District in the State

of Karnataka;

And whereas the Central Government, in exercise

of the Powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of

the Act read with rule 8 of the Special Economic Zones

Rules, 2006, has notified areas of 26.673 hectares at the

above Special Economic Zone vide Ministry of Commerce

and Industry Notification S.O. 1705 (E) dated 5th October,

2006;

And whereas M/s. Tanglin Developments Limited

has now proposed to include an additional area of 0.20

hectares to the above Special Economic Zone;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the

Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and in pursuance of rule

8 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, the Central

Government hereby notifies an additional area of 0.20

hectares as part of the Special Economic Zone, thereby

making total area of the Special Economic Zone as 26.873

hectares, comprising the Survey numbers and the area

given in the Table below, namely:-

TABLE FOR ADDITIONAL AREA

Village Survey No.

Area in heactares

No.

Pattanyere Mylsandra 14

0.20

village RVCE Post

Total

0.20

Grand Total Area of SEZ after above addition

26.873

[F. No. F. 2/106/2005-SEZ]

RAJEEV ARORA, Jt. Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1012.— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e

1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vulqj.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

2608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ@

la[;k

ekg

3952979 03@06@2013

eSllZ jsyh baftu fyfeVsM]

Øki izksVSD'ku bD;wieSaV & gSaM

3906

1995

losZ uacj 278 rFkk 279] ,u ,p uacj 8]

vksijsfVM usilsd Lizs;j]

xkao uanokyk] oylkn 396035

filVu VkbZi

3953375 03@06@2013

xqtjkr dyjyke izk fyfeVsM]

oqM ikfVZdy cksMZ

3087

2005

Cykd uacj 2285@2] xkao VkMds'oj] rk ekaMoh]

¼fefM;e MSalhVh½ Qkj

lwjr 394110

tujy ijil

3953476 04@06@2013

vkse fcojsftl] losZ uacj 984] iSdh] ,l ih 115@2@2] iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

Vh ih 6] ueZnk olkgV ds ikl] ghjkck ikVhZ IykV]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

vgenkckn] fotyiqj 380015

3952878 06@06@2013

lujkbZl fcojsftl]lh uacj 1057] egenkckn jksM]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

,V xkao [kkrjst] [ksMk] egenkckn 387130

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

3954579 06@06@2013

fganqLrku bZjhxs'ku]

vuIykfLVlkbZM ihohlh ikbZi

4985

2000

vkbZ&215&ch] thvkbZMhlh] Qsl&2]

iksVscy okVj liykbZl

xkao MsfM;kluQkj] esglkuk

3954377 10@06@2013

lq[kkl ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

219] Hkkxquxj] ekrkokMh ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

,y ,p jksM] lwjr

,oa eqgjkadu

3954478 10@06@2013

f'ko'kfDr ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

yky ckx] 3 igyh jks] jk/kuiqj]

vkHkq"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ikVu 385340

,oa eqgjkadu

3962275 12@06@2013

t; vacs gSYFk ds;j]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

181] uoks eksgyks] HkhekjM xke] lwjr

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

3956583 13@06@2013

,l ih Mh ,aVjizkbZl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

tkuiFk gksVy ds lkeus] ch vkj Vh ,l Økl cl

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

LVSaM] lh Vh ,e pkj jLrk] lh Vh ,e jksM]

vgenkckn 382415

10-

3958688 13@06@2013

nso fcojsftl] IykV uacj 166@2] 167@2]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

iSdh xksMkmu] ts ds ikdZ ds ikl]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

,u ,p uacj 8] vkuan

fp[kksVjk 388320

11-

3957686 17@06@2013

t; d`".kk baMLVªht

iEil fjtSujsfVo ;k Dyh;j]

8472

1998

15] 16] T;ksfr daikmaM] fot; ,LVsV] fHk{kqd x`g jksM] dksYM okVj

vks<o] vgenkckn 382415

12-

3957888 18@06@2013

E;wu toSyl izk fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

7@2429 pkSdh LVªhV] jkeiqjk jksM] jkeiqjk isVªksy iEi

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ds ikl] lwjr

,oa eqgjkadu

13-

3958183 19@06@2013

t; d`".kk baMLVªht

vksiuoSy lceflZcy iEilSV

14220

1994

15] 16] T;ksfr daikmaM] fot; ,LVsV] fHk{kqd x`g jksM]

vks<o] vgenkckn 382415

14-

3958284 19@06@2013

vkea=.k tSEl rFkk ToSyl

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

;w&15] fjtSaV vkjdMs eky] f'ko 'kfDr LohVl ds ikl] vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

xksM MksM jksM] lwjr 395007

,oa eqgjkadu

15-

3959387 21@06@2013

lkeksj ,aVjizkbZl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

430@1] 2] 431] ,V xkao Fkkjk] culdkaVk] rk dkadjst

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

16-

3961172 25@06@2013

tsoj IykbZ rFkk cksMZ izk fyfeVsM

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

CykWd uacj] 263] 264] 325@1] dkusjk ljlk jksM]

ljlk jksM ds ikl] dkusjk] [ksMk 387540

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2609

17-

3961071 27@06@2013

tsoj IykbZ rFkk cksMZ izk fyfeVsM

IykbZoqM Qkj tujy ijil

303

1989

CykWd uacj] 263] 264] 325@1] dkusjk ljlk jksM]

ljlk jksM ds ikl] dkusjk] [ksMk 387540

18-

3962376 27@06@2013

y{eh lkxj ,aVjizkbZl]

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

6@2 e.khyky eq[kh ,LVsV] xk;=h eafnj ds ihNs]

,u ,p uacj 8] jckjh dkyksuh] vgenkckn

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%11]

MkWñ ,lñ ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 1012.— 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 date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

3952979

03/06/2013

Ralli Engine Limitd

Crop protection

3906

1995

Survey No 278 & 279, N.H. No 8,

equipment- hand-

Village Nandawala,

operated

Valsad -396035

knapsack sprayer, piston

type

3953375

03/06/2013

Gujarat Colourlam Pvt. Ltd.

Wood particle boards

3087

2005

Block No. 2285/2

(Medium density) for

Village: Tadkeshwar

general purposes

Tal: Mandvi, Surat- 394110

3953476

04/06/2013

Om Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Survey No. 984, Paiki

(other than packaged

S.P. 115/2/2, TP-6

natural mineral water)

Near Narmada Vasahat

Hiraba party Plot

Ahmadabad, Vejalpur- 380015

3952878

06/06/2013

Sunrise Beverages

Packaged drinking water

1453

2004

S.No. 1057 Mahemdabad Road

(other than packaged

At. Village: Khatraj, Kheda

natural mineral water)

Tal: Mahemdabad- 387130

3954579

06/06/2013

Hindustan irrigation

Unplasticized pvc pipes

4985

2000

1-215-B, gidc, phase-2

for potable water

Village: Dediyasan, Mehsana

supplies

3954377

10/06/2013

Sukhas Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

219, Bhagunagar

jewellery/artefacts-

Near Matawadi, L. H. Road, Surat

fineness and marking-

3954478

10/06/2013

Shivshakati jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Lal Baug, 3 First Row Radhanpur

jewellery artefacts-

Patan -385340

fineness and marking-

3962275

12/06/2013

Jay Ambe Health Care

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

181, Navo Mohollo,

(other than packaged

Bhimarad Gam, Surat

natural mineral water)

2610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3956583

13/06/2013

S.P.D. Enterprise

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Opp. Janpath Hotel, Brts Cross bus

(other than packaged

Stand, Ctm Char Rasta, Ctm road

natural mineral water)

Ahmedabad -382415

3958688

13/06/2013

Dev Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. 166/2, 167/2, Paiki Godown

(other than packaged

Near J. K Park, N.H. No. 8, Anand

natural mineral water)

Chikhotara -388320

3957686

17/06/2013

Jay Krishna Industries

Pumps-regenerative or

8472

1998

15, 16 Jyoti Compound, Vijay Estate

clear, cold water

Bhikshukh Gruh Road, Odhav

Ahmedabad -382415

3957888

18/06/2013

Muan Jewels Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

7/2429 Choki Street, Rampura Road

jewellery/artefacts-

Near Rampura Petrol pump, Surat

fineness and marking-

3958183

19/06/2013

Jay Krishna Industries

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

15, 16 Jyoti Compound, Vijay Estage

pumpsets

Ahmedabad -382415

3958284

19/06/2013

Amantran Gems and Jewels

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

U-15, Regent Arcade Mall, Near Shiv

jewellery/artefacts-

Shakti Sweets, Ghod Dod Road

fineness and marking-

Surat -395007

3959387

21/06/2013

Samor Enterprise

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

430/1, 2, 431 at Village: Thara

(other than packaged

Banas Kantha, tal: Kankrej

natural mineral water)

Gujarat

3961172

25/06/2013

Zaver Ply & Boards Pvt. Ltd.

Block boards

1659

2004

Block No. 263, 264, 325/1,

Kenera-Sarsa Road,

Kanera, kheda -387540

3961071

27/06/2013

Zaver Ply & Boards Pvt. Ltd.

Plywood for general

303

1989

Block No. 263, 264, 325/1,

purposes

Kanera-Sarsa Road,

Kenera, Kheda -387540

3962376

27/06/2013

Laxmi Sagar Enterprise

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

6/2 Manilal Mukhi Estate

Behind Gayatri Mandir N. H. No. 8

Rabari Colony, Ahmedabad

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1013.— 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%µ

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y

7024857

fQfyIl bySDVªkfuDl bafM;k fyfeVsM

gkbZ izs'kj lksfM;e osij ySEil

17@06@2013

dqjky xk¡o] tacwlj jksM] rk iknjk]

vkbZ ,l 9974% ikVZ 1 % 1981

oMksnjk &391430

3874076

Hkw feujy]

iSdstcan is;ty

19@06@2013

547] lSUVªy tsy jksM] lqHkk"k czht] lkcjerh] ¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

vgenkckn &380027

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]

MkWñ ,lñ ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2611

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 1013.— 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 licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No. Name and Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

7024857

M/s. Philips Electronics India Limited,

High pressure sodium

17/06/2013

Kural Village, Jumbusar Road, Taluka

vapour lamps

Padra, Distt: Vadodara-391430

IS 9974: Part 1: 1981

3874076

M/s. Bhoo Mineral

Packaged drinking water (other than

19/06/2013

547, Central Jail Road, Subhash

packaged natural mineral water)

Bridge, Sabarmati,

IS 14543: 2004

Ahmedabad-380027

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1014.— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;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, g®] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, g®%µ

vuqlwph

Øe ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk] o"kZ@

la[;k

ekg

3963479 02@07@2013

Mh- ,u- vksjuke®V izk- fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 3@4@9@13@14] MkWñ eulq[kyky Vkoj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

/khjt lal ds ikl] eSxk LVkslZ] vFkok ykbZul] lwjr

,oa eqgjkadu

3963580 02@07@2013

vyksdk toSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

lCth ekdsZV] o[kkfj;k gkWy ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

oylkn&396001

,oa eqgjkadu

3964077 02@07@2013

ik'okZ fcojsftl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

16] egkdkyh lkslkbVh] baæizLFk jsfM;ks fephZ jksM ds

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

lkeus] vgenkckn ostyiqj

okVj½

3963984 04@07@2013

fczfV'k lqij ,yk;l izkñ fyfeVsM]

LVhy Qkj tujy LVdpyZ

2062

2011

xk¡o buMkM] va[kksy cl LV®aM ds ikl]

ijil

dMh Nrjky jksM] esglkuk rk- dMh

3964784 10@07@2013

ds- th- xksYM xkMZu]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

138&139 v"Veaxy dkWEiysDl] igyh eafty

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

jktLFkku gksfLiVy ds ikl] 'kkghckx]

,oa eqgjkadu

vgenkckn&380004

3967184 10@07@2013

Jh cgqpjkth ,Dok]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

261] 262 izlkaruxj lkslk;Vh foHkkx&1]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

ikyuiqj tdkr ukdk ds ikl] jkansj jksM]

okVj½

lwjr&395005

3967386 15@07@2013

lwjt baMDVkseSyV izkñ fyfeVsM]

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

losZ uacj 160&161] xk¡o jktxj gsM;w] iksLV lkesrjk

buxksVl] fcysVl] Cywel

fMfLVªdV esglkuk&384001

rFkk Lyscl Qkj fjjks¯yx

baVw LVhy Qkj tujy

LVdpyZ ijil

2612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3968489 16@07@2013

vkdhZy dse izkñ fyñ]

ikyh ,Y;wfefu;e DyksjkbZM

15573

2005

iyksV uañ 3116] dsfedy tksu] lkcsjks

vkjxksfuDl ds ihNs] thvk;Mhlh ,LVsV] xkao

lkjhxke 396155] rkyqdk mejxke]

ftyk% oylkM

3967083 16@07@2013

ueZnk baftfu;¯jx

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

ch&144] ek#rh bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV] Qk;j LVs'ku

ds lkeus] ujksMk jksM] esEdks]

vgenkckn&380025

10-

3969087 16@07@2013

o#ue ,UVjizkbZl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

xzkmUM vkSj nwljk ekyk] 54] fl//ks'oj

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

lkslk;Vh] MHkksyh ldWy] osn jksM]lwjr&395004

okVj½

11-

3967790 16@07@2013

MhvksysDl dscYl izk- fy-]

ih oh lh balwysfVM dscy

694

2004

IyksV uacj 139] thvk;Mhlh] xkstjh;k

ftyk% esglkuk&382825

12-

3969693 17@07@2013

fjyk;al baMLVªht fyfeVsM]

ikyhizksihyhu jsaMe

15801

2008

jsyikbZi IykaV] xk¡o eksjk] ih vks HkkFkk] lwjr gthjk

dkikfyej ikbZIl Qkj gkV

jksM] lwjr&394510

rFkk dksYM okVj liykbZl

13-

3968994 18@07@2013

felkrw oSyMM+d;wi izk- fyfeVsM]

izs'kj jsX;wysVlZ Qkj xSl

69.1

1988

IykV uacj 1 vkSj 2] losZ uacj 2790]

flyaMj ;wlM bu oSy¯Mx]

okMuxj&foluxj] ,ijksp jksM] eglkuk]

d¯Vx rFkk fjysfVM

okMuxj&384355

izkslsfll

14-

3969491 18@07@2013

Jh lgt ,yk;l izk- fyfeVsM]

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

IykV uacj 10@9 ,oa 10@10] Qsl 1]

buxksVl] fcysVl] Cywel

th vkbZMh lh oVok] vgenkckn&382445

rFkk Lyscl Qkj fjjks¯yx

baVw LVhy Qkj tujy

LVdpyZ ijil

15-

3969592 22@07@2013

ikjl xksYM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kksi uacj 2] ds ,e dkEiysDl 77] iqfoZ

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

lkslk;Vh&2] fgjkckx] lwjr&395006

,oa eqgjkadu

16-

3974484 23@07@2013

,Mokal jcj baMLVªht]

vkVkseksfVo foghdy&

13098

2012

IykV uacj 4908@10] th vkbZ Mh lh] IykfLVd tksu]

V;wcl Qkj U;weSfVd Vk;j

lkjhxke] rk- mejxke] fMfLVªdV oylkn&396155

17-

3969794 23@07@2013

vk'khZokn jcj V;wc]

vkVkseksfVo foghdy&

13098

2012

168] th vkbZ Mh lh] jeuxkeMh iksj] oMksnjk&391243 V;wcl Qkj U;weSfVd Vk;j

18-

3971074 23@07@2013

Jh pkeqaMk vk;ju izk- fyfeVsM]

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

losZ uacj] 182] xkao dkspkok ¼tkxqnu½ rk- esglkuk

buxksVl] fcysVl] Cywel

rFkk Lyscl Qkj fjjksfyax

baVw LVhy Qkj tujy

LVdpyZ ijil

19-

3971175 24@07@2013

,dok uhj gSYFk ds;j]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV uacj- 7312@3] dekZrqj pksdM+h]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

thvkbZMhlh] vadys'oj] Hkk:p&393002

20-

3970173 24@07@2013

eku vksjuk izk- fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

170] ,e th gosyh jksM] xzkmaM ¶yksj] ekusd pkSd]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

21-

3970274 24@07@2013

vc/kh toSyl izk- fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

7] us'kuy psEcj] flVh xksYM flusek ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vkJe jksM] vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2613

22-

3981885 24&07&2013

Jhty dkaØkLV LVhy baMLVªht

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

Cykd uacj 621&622 B] 636&635] vok[ky&

buxksVl] fcysVl] Cywel

lk/kkyh jksM] ,V rFkk ih vks vok[ky] rk fluksj]

rFkk Lyscl Qkj fjjksfyax

oMksnjk]& 391250

baVw LVhy Qkj tujy

LVdpyZ ijil

23-

3971276 26&07&2013

vks ,p ,e gkbZykbZu izk- fyfeVsM]

,Y;wfefu;e daMDVlZ Qkj

398

1996

Cykd uacj] 1138 & 1139@B] ykeMkiqjk jksM]

vksojgSM Vªkalfe'ku ijil

eatwlj] oMksnjk] lkoyh &391775

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13:11]

MkWñ ,l-,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 1014.— 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 Date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standards

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

3963479 02-07-2013

D.N. Ornaments Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Shop No. 3/4/9/13/14, Dr. Mansukhlal

jewellery/artefacts-

Tower, Near Dhiraj Sons

fineness and marking

Mega Stores, Athwalines, Surat

3963580 02-07-2013

Aloka Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Subji Market, Near Vakharia Hall

jewellery/artefacts-

Valsad-396001

fineness and marking

3964077 02-07-2013

Parshwa Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

16, Mahakali Society, Opp. Indraprasth

(other than packaged

4 Radio Mirchi Road, Ahmadabad, Vejalpur

natural mineral water)

3963984 04-07-2013

British Super Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Steel for general

2062

—

2011

Village Indrad, Near Ankhol Bus Stand

structural purposes

Kadi-Chhatral Road, Mahesana, Tal:Kadi

3964784 10-07-2013

K G Gold Garden

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

138-139 Austmangal Complex, 1st Floor

jewellery/artefacts-

Near Rajasthan Hospital, Shahibaug

fineness and marking

Ahmedabad-380004

3967184 10-07-2013

Shree Bahucharaji Aqua

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

261, 262 Prashant Nagar Society

(other than packaged)

Vibhag-1, Near Palanpur Jakat Naka

natural mineral water)

Rander Road, Surat

3967386 15-07-2013

Suraj Inductomelt Pvt. Limited

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

—

2012

Survey No 160-161, Village Rajgar

ingots, billets, blooms

Hedue, Post Sametra, Dist Mehsana-

and slabs for re-rolling

384001

into steel for general

structural purposes

3968489 16-07-2013

Arkil Chem Pvt. Limited

Polyaluminium chloride

15573

—

2005

Plot No. 3116, Chemical Zone

Behind Sabero Organics, GIDC Estate

Village: Sarigam, Valsad

Tal: Umbergam-396155

3967083 16-07-2013

Narmada Engineering,

Submersible pumpsets

8034

—

2002

B-144, Maruti Industrial Estate

Opp. Fire Station, Naroda Road

Memco, Ahmedabad-380025

2614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. 3969087 16-07-2013

Varunum Enterprise

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

Ground and Sector Floor,

(other than packaged

54, Sideshwar Society,

natural mineral water)

Dabholi Circle, Ved Road, Surat-395004

11. 3967790 16-07-2013

Deolax Cables Pvt. Ltd.

PVC Insulated Cables

694

—

1990

Plot No. 139, GIDC Gozaria,

Mehsana -382825

12. 3969693 17-07-2013

Reliance Industries Limited

Polyproplene-random

15801

—

2008

Relpipe Plant, Vill. Mora, P.O. Bhatha,

copolymer pipes for hot

Surat-Hazira Road, Surat-394510

and cold water supplies

13. 3968994 18-07-2013

Misatu Weldequip Pvt. Ltd.

Pressure regulators for

6901

—

1998

Plot No. 1& 2, Survey No. 2790,

gas cylinders used in

Vadnagar-Visnagar, Approach Road

welding, cutting and

Mahesana, Vadnagar-384355

related processes

14. 3969491 18-07-2013

Shree Sahaj Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

—

2012

Plot No. 10/9 & 10/10, Phase 1,

ingots, billets, blooms

GIDC Vatva, Ahmedabad-382445

and slabs for re-rolling

into steel for general

structural purposes

15. 3969592 22-07-2013

Paras Gold

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Shop No. 2, K.M. Complex, 77 Purvi

jewellery/artefacts-

Society-2, Hirabaug, Surat-395006

fineness and marking-

16. 3974484 23-07-2013

Advance Rubber Industries

Automotive vehicles-

13098

—

2012

Plot No. 4908/9/10, G.I.D.C. Plastic Zone

tubes for pneumatic

Sarigam Taluka Umargam,

tyres

Dist. Valsad-396155

17. 3969794 23-07-2013

M/s Asshirvad Rubber Tube

Automotive vehicles-

13098

—

2012

168, GIODC Por Ramangamdi Por,

tubes for pneumatic

Por Distt: Vadodara -391243

tyres

18. 3971074 23-07-2013

Shree Chamunda Iron Pvt. Limited

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

—

2012

Survey No. 182, Village:Kochava

ingots, billets, blooms

(Jagudan) Tal; Mehsana

and slabs for re-rolling

into steel for general

structural purposes

19. 397175

24-07-2013

Aqua Neer Health Care

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

Plot No. 7312/3, Karmatur Chowkadi

(other than packaged

GIDC Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002

natural mineral water)

20. 3970173 24-07-2013

Mann Orna Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

170, M.G. Haveli Road,

jewellery/artefacts-

Ground Floor, Manek Chowk

fineness and marking

Ahmedabad-380001

21. 3970274 24-07-2013

Abdhi Jewels Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys

1417

—

1999

7, National Chambers, Near City gold

jewellery/artefacts-

Cinema, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009

fineness and marking

22. 3981885 24-07-2013

Shreejal Concast Steel Industries

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

—

2012

Block No. 621-622 B, 636-635, Awakhal-

ingots, billets, blooms

Sadhali Road, At & PO: Awakhal

ans slabs for re-rolling

Tal: Sinor, Vadodara-391250

into steel for general

structural puposes

23. 3971276 26-07-2013

OHM Highline Pvt. Ltd.

Aluminium conductors for

398

—

1996

Block No. 1138 & 1139/B, Lamdapura Road overhead transmission

Manjusar, Vadodara, Savli-391775

purposes

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2615

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1015.— 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

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y&

3811052

vat gSYFkds;j

iSdstcan is;ty

09&07&2013

ch&3] 'kadjHkkbZ iVsy ,LVsV] ,V eatwlj] ¼vnj oSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

rk lkoyh] fMfLVªDV oMksnjk

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]

MkW- ,l-,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 1015.— 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 licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process wtih relevant Indian

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence

cancelled

3811052

M/s Anj Healthcare

Packaged drinking water (other than

09-07-2013

B-3, Shankarbhai Patel Estate, at

packaged natural mineral water)

Manjusar, Tal Savli Dist. Vadodara

IS 14543: 2004

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1016.— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;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 eas fn, x, g®] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, g®%&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ

la[;k

@ekg

3974585 01&08&2013

fnylk fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

foJke x`g ds ikl] vackth gkbZos]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

nkark] ftyk % cukldkaBk&385120

okVj½

3972884 01@08@2013

es'oks iail

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

14] Hkkouk ,LVsV] ehjk bUMLVªht ds lkeus]

esEdks] ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn &380025

2616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3973482 02&08&2013

'kfDr iksyheslZ

vuIykfLVlkbZtM ih oh lh

12818

2010

Øañuañ 104@1]104@2] dqdjokMk] V…Vksnu jksM]

LØhu rFkk dsflax ikbZil

dqdjokMk]

Qkj cksj@V;wcoSy

fotkiqj ftyk % egslk.kk&382830

3973583 02&08&2013

pksdlh ykythHkkbZ gjthounkl ,.M lUl]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

pksdlh cktkj] ekaMoh

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

oMksnjk

,oa eqgjkadu

3974383 02&08&2013

dSesV oSVl rFkk Ýyksl izk fyfeVsM]

czksekMk;ksyksu vkj ch

12912

1990

IykV uacj 129@lh@2] th vkbZ Mh lh ,lVsV]

vadys'oj] Hkk:p&393002

3974686 02&08&2013

, vkbZ bLikr izk fyfeVsM

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

IykV uacj 2] losZ uacj 1076@1] foluaxj

buxksVl] fcysVl] Cywel

okMuxj jksM]

rFkk Lyscl Qkj fjjksfyax

esglkuk] foluxj&384315

baVw LVhy Qkj tujy

LVdpyZ ijil

3975789 02&08&2013

t; dsfedy bUMLVªht fyfeVsM]

bafVxzy lhesaV okVjizwfQax

2645

2003

losZ uañ 263@P b;kok&okluk] mek bUMLVªh;y

dEikmaM

,LVsV] fojexke jksM] lk.kan

vgenkckn&382110

3972783 02&08&2013

gjh/kke ekdsZfVax]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

7]8] 'kDrhuxj ghjkckx&xkS'kkyk jksM OgkbZV

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

gkml lkslk;Vh ghjkckx] ojkNk jksM] lwjr

okVj½

&395006

3974787 05&08&2013

, vkj MhtkbZUl]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

6@1634 tse ,oU;q fc¯YMx] xzkmUM ¶yksj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

tkM[kksMh pkj jkLrk] egh/kjiqjk]

,oa eqgjkadu

lwjr&395003

3974888 05&08&2013

Jhth TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

odkM fo|ky; ds lkeus lksukyh 'kks¯ix

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

lsUVj] 'kksi uacj 12] cktok ftyk%

,oa eqgjkadu

oMksnjk&391310

3975890 07&08&2013

ekMZu Qkjftaxl ,aM ,yk;l baMLVªht]

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

IykV uacj 742] th vkbZ Mh lh] eatwlj] rk

buxksVl] fcysVl] Cywel rFkk

lkoyh] oMksnjk&391775

Lyscl Qkj fjjksfyax baVw LVhy

Qkj tujy LVdpyZ ijil

3976993 07@08@2013

OgkbZV oso fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IyksV uañ 245] xzkmUM ¶yksj] usg: uxj]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

Mkaxjokyk vLirky ds ihNs] ,y ,p jksM]

okVj½

lwjr&395006

3976589 08&08&2013

g"kZ bUMLVªht

vksiuoSy lceflZcy

14220

1994

20@21] lqVs{k bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV] txUukFk

iEilSV

bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV ds lkeus] j[kh;ky] vgenkckn

3976892 08&08&2013

d#.kklkxj bUMLVªht

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002`

198] vk'khokZn bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV] izqQV ekdsZV ds

lkeus] ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn&380025

3979292 08&08&2013

;'kks MkseSfLVdks izk fyfeVsM]

FkeksZLVSVl Qkj ;wl fon

3017

1985

IykV uacj 127&ch] 'kS< uacj 1&2&3] 10

bySfDVªd okVj ghVj

lSaVªy jksM] cSad vkWIkQ cMksnk ds lkeus]

m?kuk] lwjr&394210

3977692 12&08&2013

lk{kh TosYlZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

:e uacj 1] fØ".kk psEcj] xzkmaUM ¶yksj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

#?kukFkiqjk] [kku lkgsc uks Msyks] lwjr&395003

,oa eqgjkadu

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2617

3981178 13@08@2013

,Dok fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty] ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

losZ uañ 2048@2] xoZesUV vLirky ds ikl] xkao

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

lkjlk] ftyk% vk.kan&388365

okVj

3981279 13@08@2013

tksulu dscYl

ih oh lh balwysfVM dscy

694

1990

426] MsMh;klu thvk;Mhlh Qsl 2]

esglkuk&384002

3981784 13@08@2013

enj Msjh QzwV ,.M osthVscYl izkñ fyfeVsM]

uhe cslM bZ lh daVsfuax

14300

1995

;wfuV uhe ck;kslkbZM IykUV] xkWo % tgkaxhjiqjk

vtkMkbZjkfpfVu

ok;k gkMxqM xksikyiqj] ftyk % vk.kan&88370

3979393 13@08@2013

xsysDlh iEi ¼bafM;k½

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

IykV uacj 4] ek:fr baMfLVª;y ,LVsV

fot; fey daikmaM] ujksMk jksM]

vgenkckn&380025

21 3979494 13@08@2013

vej xksYM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

2] ;ksxhjkt] IykV uacj 326@327] yfyrk ikdZ

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

lkslkbVh] dkarkjs'oj egknso eafnj ds ikl]

,oa eqgjkadu

dVVjxke] lwjr

3980479 13@08@2013

lkjFkh ,xzks dse

izksQuksQksl beyflQk;scy

15240

2002

1306@5] Qst 4] th vkbZ Mh lh] ujksMk]

dalVªsV

vgenkckn &382330

3983182 13@08@2013

ghjack baMLVªht fyfeVWsM]

Mk;Dyksjksokl

5277

1978

IykV uacj 1503] th vkbZ Mh lh] Qsl III

beyflQk;scy dalVªsV

okih] oylkn&396195

3983283 13@08@2013

ghjack baMLVªht fyfeVsM]

MSYVkeSFkfju ;w ,y oh

15227

2002

IykV uacj 1503]

th vkbZ Mh lh] Qsl III

okih] oylkn&396195

3991787 13@08@2013

lqfeVkseks dsfedYl bfUM;k izk fyfeVsM

esysfFku beyflQk;scy

2567

1978

IykV uañ lh & 5@184&185] th ih lh ch vkfQl

dalVªsV

ds ikl] us'kuy gkbZ os uañ 8] th vkbZ Mh lh]

okih] ftyk% oylkM

3977591 13@08@2013

,'k;ksj gSYFk ds;j

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

jhpMhokyk daikmaM] [kksfM;kj uxj ds ikl]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

ch vkj Vh ,l cl LVki] ,u@vks gfjvkse

okVj½

os czht] cgjkeiqjk] vgenkckn

3980580 14@08@2013

fo'kk gsYFkdsj bu]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

losZ ua 399] IyksV ua- 2] dqcsjuxj caXyks ,fj;k]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

veqy ikdZ ds ihNs] lkbZ ckck ÝysV ds ikl]

okVj½

ljnkjuxj] dqcsjuxj] vgenkckn&382340

3980681 14@08@2013

,iSDl iEil

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

72] ijes'oj ,LVsV] vksedkj fey ds lkeus]

ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn&380025

3980782 14@08@2013

vyduank fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

nr eafnj ds ikl] ,V ihvks HkkMHkwr] ftyk% Hk#p

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

okVj½

3980883 16@08@2013

fc> fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

ydh daEikmUM] Nhik lkslk;Vh ds lkeus]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

nkuhfyeMk] ukjksy] vgenkckn&380028

okVj½

3987901 16@08@2013

f'ko'kfDr cSjyl izk fyfeVsM

Mªel] yktZ fQDl ,aMl

1783

1988

xqtjkr eSVy dkLV ds lkeus] d`".kk fFk;sVj

ds ihNs] gyksy dyksy jksM] oMksnjk&389350

2618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3982887 20@08@2013

xqtjkr oqMyke izksMDVl izkbZosV fyfeVsM

esfju IykbZoqM

710

2010

CykWd ua- 232] IyksV uacj 9 ls 16 ¼A+B+C½

xkao% dkjat] rkyqdk ekaMoh ftyk% lwjr

3982988 20@08@2013

,jksoSy iEi izk fyfeVsM]

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

IykV uacj- 35] 533@ch] e;wfufliy Lye DokVj ds

lkeus] ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn 380025

3983081 21@08@2013

,p ds bLikr izk fyfeVsM

gkbZ LVªsaFk fMQkWeZM LVhy

1786

2008

vkj ,l uacj- 380] ohtyiqj jksM] xkao fpdksnjk]

cklZ rFkk ok;j Qkj dkaØhV

xks/kjk] iapegy

jsfuQkslZeSaV

3983687 21@08@2013

okyIykLV izksMDVl izk fyfeVsM

,MgSflol Qkj ;wl fon

15477

2004

losZ uacj 918@ih 13] /keZikj okih jksM] dMddksikj]

fljkfed VkbZyl rFkk

oylkn 396126

ekslsbd

3984790 21@08@2013

ykbZQ Qzs'k QwM ,.M fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

40&41] ikjs{k&3] Cyksd ua- 179&180] rrhFkh;k

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

iylk.kk- lwjr

okVj½

3986895 22@08@2013

xqtjkr ÝysolZ izk- fyfeVsM]

lSpfju] QqM xzsM

6385

1997

IyksV ua- 351&384 yhyksjk] iksLV tkjksn] ok?kksfM;k]

ftyk% oMksnjk 391510

3985085 23@08@2013

esllZ Qk;jLVkWi ,Uthuh;lZ

iksVsZcy Qk;j

15683

2006

20] vejukFk bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV iqjkuk ekusdpkSd

,DlfVaxfo'kj&

fey daikmUM bZnxkg pkSdh ds ikl]

ijQksZeSal rFkk daLVªD'ku

vgenkckn 380016

3985893 26@08@2013

f=nso baMLVªht]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IyksV ua- 2101@A] Qsl III, okVj Vsad ds lkeus]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

thvk;Mhlh] oVok] vgenkckn 382445

okVj½

3985994 26@08@2013

vklZ TosylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

G-9] ts-ds- ysUM ekdZ] cyh;kdkdk okM ds lkeus]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vk.kan 388001

,oa eqgjkadu

3986087 26@08@2013

vatyh ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

4@898] uolkjh VªsM lSaVj] e/kqerh LVªhV] uolkjh

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

,oa eqgjkadu

3986188 26@08@2013

'kkg gseardqekj Hkh[kkyky

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

1754@55] dkiM cktkj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ditoat ftyk% [ksMk 387620

,oa eqgjkadu

3988091 27@08@2013

,p ih baMLVªht

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

bZ&1] gfjlh/kk ,LVsV] QkstZ rFkk Cykoj ds lkeus]

QzwV ekdsZV ds ihNs] ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn 382330

3988293 27@08@2013

t; vacs feujYl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

45] ljnkj iVsy baMLVªh;y ,LVsV] vks<o ¯jx jksM

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

ldZy vks<o vgenkckn 382415

okVj½

3989194 27@08@2013

lh Vh ,e VSfDudy VSDlVkbZy fyfeVsM

vkbZ ,l vkbZ gSaMcqd

16008

2012

,l uacj 61@1] cq)klu] esglkuk] dMh 382445

vkWQ eSFkeSfVdy] fQlhdy]

dSfedy rFkk baftfu;fjax Vscyl

3986996 27@08@2013

vafcdk iEi baMLVªht

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

533@2 & 533@5 jke d`".ku baMfLVª;y daikmaM]

Hkkjr isVªksy iEi ds ihNs] fot; fey ds lkeus]

ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn

3991686 27@08@2013

lqferkseks dSfedYl bafM;k izk fyfeVsM]

MkbZDyksjoksl

5277

1978

IykV uacj lh&5@184&185] th ih lh ch

beyflQk;scy dalaVªsV

vkfQl ds ikl] ,u ,p uacj 8 th vkbZ

Mh lh okih] oylkn 396195

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2619

48-

3988394 29@08@2013

xksiky vk;ju rFkk LVhy dEiuh ¼xqt½ fyfeVsM

LVhy V;wcl Qkj LVdpyZ

1161

1998

uacj- 1301&2 ,e] Qsl 3] th vkbZ Mh lh oVok

ijil

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] vgenkckn&382445

49-

3989703 30@08@2013

Hkxorh ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

501] 'kqHkk Mk;eaM fcfYMax] dkeU;qVh gky ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

oklrk MsoMh jksM] dV~Vjxke] lwjr &395004

,oa eqgjkadu

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13:11]

MkWñ ,l-,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 1016.— 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 Date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

3974585 01/08/2013

Dilsha Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Near Vishram Gruh, Ambuja Highway

(other than packaged

Tal Danta Banas Kantha-385120

natural mineral water)

3972884 01/08/2013

Mesvo pumps

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

14, Bhavana Estte, Opp. Mira Industries

Memco, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025

3973482 02/08/2013

Shakti Polymers

Unplasticized pvc screen

12818

2010

Tintodan Road, Kukarwada, S.N. 104/1,

and casing pipes for bore/

104/2, Taluka Vijapur, Mahesana

tubewell

Kukarwada -382830

3973583 02/08/2013

Choksi Laljibhai Harjivandas & Sons

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Choksi Bazar, Mandvi, Vadodara

jewellery/artefacts-

fineness and marking

3974383 02/08/2013

Chemet Wets & Flows Pvt. Ltd.

Bromadiolone rb-

12912

1990

Plot No. 129/C/2, GIDC Estate, Ankleshwar,

Bharuch -393002

3974686 02/08/2013

AI Ispat Private Limited

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Plot No. 2, Survey No. 1076/1, Visnagar

ingots, billets, blooms

Vadnagar Road, Mahesana

and slabs for re-rolling

Visnagar-384315

into steel for general

structural purposes

3975789 02/08/2013

Jay Chemical Industries Ltd.

Integral cement

2645

2003

Survey No. 263/P, Iyava Vasana

waterproofing compounds

Uma Industrial Estate, Viramgam Road

Ahmadabad, Sanand -382110

3972783 02/08/2013

Haridham Marketing

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

7,8, Shaktinagar, Hirabaug-Gaushala

(other than packaged

Road, Opp. White House Society

natural mineral water)

Hirabaug, Varachha Road, Surat 395006

3974787 05/08/2013

A R Designs

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

6/1364, Jem Avenue Building, Ground

jewellery/artefacts-

Floor, Jhadakhodi Char Rasta

fineness and marking-

Mahidharpura, Surat- 395003

10.

3974888 05/08/2013

Shreeji Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Opp. Vakal Vidhyalaya Sonali Shopping

jewellery/artefacts-

Centre, Shop No. 12, Bajwa Vadodara

fineness and marking-

Ahmadabad,

2620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

3975890 07/08/2013

Modern Forgings & Alloys Industries

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Plot No. 742, GIDC, Manjusar, Tal Savli,

ingots, billets, blooms

Vadodara- 391775

and slabs for re-rolling into

steel for general structural

purposes

12.

3976993 07/08/2013

White Wave Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

245, Naheru Nagar, behind Dangarwala

(other than packaged

Hospital, L H Road, at village: Surat

natural mineral water)

City, Surat -395006

13.

3976589 08/08/2013

Harsh Industries

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

20/21 Sutex Industrial Estate,

pumpsets

Opp Jagannath Industrial Estate,

Rakhial, Ahmedabad- 380023

14.

3976892 08/08/2013

Karunasagar Industries

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

198, Ashirwad Industrial Estate Opp.

Fruit Market, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad

380025

15.

3979292 08/08/2013

Yasho Domestico Pvt. Ltd.

Thermostats for use with

3017

1985

Plot No 127-B, Shed No 1-2-3,10

electric water heaters

Central Road, Opp. Bank of Baroda, Udhna,

Surat- 394210

16.

3977692 12/08/2013

Sakshi Jewels

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Room No.1, Krishna Chambers, Ground

jewellery/artefacts-

Floor. Rughnathpura, Khan Saheb No

fineness and marking-

Delo, Surat- 395003

17.

3981178 13/08/2013

Aqua Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Near Government Hospital

(other than packaged

Vill: Sarsa, Anand -388365

natural mineral water)

18.

3981279 13/08/2013

Johnson Cables

PVC Insulated Cables

694

1990

426, Dediasan GIDC, Phase 2,

Mehsana -384002

19.

3981784 13/08/2013

Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt.

Neem based ec

14300

1995

Ltd.

containing azadirachtin-

Unit Neem Biocide Plant,Village

Jahangipura, Via Hadgud,

Post Gopalpura, Anand- 388370

20.

3979393 13/08/2013

Galaxy Pumps (India)

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

Plot No.4, Maruti Indl. Estate

Vijay Mill Compound, Naroda Road

Ahmedabad -380025

21.

3979494 13/08/2013

Amar Gold

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

2, Yogiraj, Plot No. 326/327, Lalita Park

jewellery/artefacts-

Society, Near Kantareshwar

fineness and marking-

Mahadev Mandit, Katargam, Surat

22.

3980479 13/08/2013

Sarathi Agro Chem

Profenofos emulsifiable

15240

2002

1306/5 Phase 4 GIDC, Phase 4 Naroda

concentrate-

Ahmedabad -382330

23.

3983182 13/08/2013

Heranba Industries Ltd.

Dichlorvos emulsifiable

5277

1978

Plot No 1503, GIDC, Phase III,

concentrates

Vapit Valsad-396195

24.

3983283 13/08/2013

Heranba Industries Ltd.

Deltamethrin ulv-

15227

2002

Plot No 1503, GIDC, Phase III,

Vapi Valsad- 396195

25.

3991787 13/08/2013

Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd.

Malathion emulsifiable

2567

1978

Plot No C-5/184-185, Near GPCB Office,

concentrates

N.H.No. 8, G.I.D.C. Vapi. Valsad-396195

26.

3977591 13/08/2013

Assure Health Care

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Richhdiwala Compound, NR Khodiyar

(other than packaged

Nagar, BRTS Bus Stop, N/O Hariom Way

natural mineral water)

Bridge, Baherampura, Ahmadabad

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2621

27.

3980580 14/08/2013

Visha Heal Thcare Inc

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Survey No. 399, Plot No. 2, Kubernagar

(other than packaged

Banglow Area, B/H Amul Park, Near

natural mineral water)

Sia Baba Flat, Sardarnagar,

Kubernagar, Ahmadabad- 382340

28.

3980681 14/08/2013

Apex Pumps

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

72, Parmeshwar Estate

Opp. Omkar Mill Naroda Road

Ahmedabad -380025

29.

3980782 14/08/2013

Alakananda beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Near Dutt Mandir, At. PO. Bhadbhut

(other than packaged

Bharuch, Village: Bhadbhut

natural mineral water)

30.

3980883 16/08/2013

Biiz Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Lucky Compound. Opp. Chipa Society

(other than packaged

Danilimda, Narol, Ahmedabad -380028

natural mineral water)

31.

3987901 16/08/2013

Shivshakti Barrels Pvt. Ltd.

Drums, large, fixed ends

1783

1988

Opp. Gujarat Metal Cast, B/H Krishna

Theatre, Halol Kalol Road

Vadodara -389350

32.

3982887 20/08/2013

Gujarat Woodlam Products Pvt. Ltd.

Marine plywood

710

2010

Block No 232, Plot No 9 to 16, (A+B+C)

Village Karanj, Taluka Mandvi.

Surat- 394110

33.

3982988 20/08/2013

Aerowell Pump Pvt. Ltd.

Submersible pumsets

8034

2002

Plot No. 35. 533/B, Opp. Municipal Slum

Quarters,Near Bharat Petrol

Pump Naroda Road, Ahmedabad -380025

34.

3983081 21/08/2013

H.K. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

High strength deformed

1786

2008

R.S. No. 380, Vejalpur Road,

steel bars and wires for

Vill. Chikhodra, Godhra, Panchamahal

concrete reinforcement

35.

3983687 21/08/2013

Walplast Products Pvt. Ltd.

Adhesives for use with

15477

2004

Survey No. 918/P13, Dharampar Vapi

ceramic tiles and Mosaics

Road, Kakadkopar, Valsad -396126

36.

3984790 21/08/2013

Life Fresh Food & Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

40-41 Parekh-3 Block 179-180

(other than packaged

Tatithaya Palsana, Vill-Tal: Surat

natural mineral water)

37.

3986895 22/08/2013

Gujarat Flavours Pvt. Ltd.

Saccharin, food grade

6385

1997

Plot No. 351-384, AT: Lilora, Post: Jarod

Vadodara, Tal: Waghodia -391510

38.

3985085 23/08/2013

Firestop Engineers

Portable fire

15683

2006

20, Amarnath Industrial Estate

extinhuishers-

Old Manek Chowk Mill Compound

performance and

Near Idgah Chowki, Ahmedabad 380016

Construction

39.

3985893 26/08/2013

Tridev Industries

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No.2101/A, Phase III, Opp. Water

(other than packaged

Tank, GIDC, VATVA, Ahmadabad- 382445

natural mineral water)

40.

3985994 26/08/2013

Aarsh Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1 9 9 9

G-9, J.K. Land Mark, Opp. Baliyakaka Vad,

Jewellery/artefacts-

Anand- 388001

fineness and making-

41.

3986087 26/08/2013

Anjali Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

4/898, Navsari Trade Centre,

jewellery/artefacts-

Madhumati Street, Navsari

fineness and marking-

42.

3986188 26/08/2013

Shah Hemant Kumar

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Bhikalal, 1754/55, Kapad Bazar,

jewellery/artefacts-

Kapadvanj, Kheda-387620

fineness and marking-

43.

3988091 27/08/2013

H P Industries

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

E-1, Harisidha Estate, Opp. Forge &

Blower, Behind Fruit Market

Naroda Road, Ahmedabad -382330

44.

3988293 27/08/2013

Jay Ambe Mineral Water

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

45, Sardar Patel Industrial Estate

(other than packaged

S. P. Ring Road, Odhav Circle

natural mineral water)

Ahmedabad

2622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

45.

3989194 27/08/2013

CTM Technical Textiles Ltd.

Isi handbook of

16008

2012

S. N. 61/1, Budasan, Mahesana,

mathematical, physical,

Kadi -382445

chemical and engineering

tables

46.

3986996 27/08/2013

Ambica Pump Industries

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

533/2 & 533/5 Ram Krishan Indl Compound

Behind Bharat Petrol Pump, Opp. Vijay

Mill, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad

47.

3991686 27/08/2013

Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt.Ltd.

Dichlorvos emulsifiable

5277

1978

Plot No C-5/184-185,Near GPCB Office,

concentrates

N.H. No.8,G.I.D.C. Vapi, Valsad -396195

48.

3988394 29/08/2013

Gopal Iron & Steel Co. (Guj) Ltd

Steel tubes for structural

1161

1998

Plot No. 1301-2M,Phase -3

purposes

GIDC Vatva Indl Estate

Ahmedabad -382445

49.

3989703 30/08/2013

Bhagwati Jewels

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

501, Shubh Diamond Building, Near

jewellery/artefacts-

Community Hall, Vasta Devdi Road,

fineness and marking-

Katargam, Surat- 395004

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1017.— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mi&fofu;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

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y

dksbZ ugha

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

MkW- ,l-,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2014

S.O. 1017.— 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 licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No. Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

NIL

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2623

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1018.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;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

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkk

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ

la[;k

@ekg

3990987 02@09@2013

egkohj fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

4] fouk dqat lkslk;Vh] vkj vkj f=osnh gkbZ Ldqy ds

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

ikl] lkbZckck lkslk;Vh ds lkeus] oL=kiqj jsyos Øksflax]

ostyiqj] vgenkckn&380051

3992587 02@09@2013

dyksy LVhy rFkk ,yk; izkñ fyfeVsM

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

41@ih&2] vfyanzk jksM] gyksy dyksy jksM] rk dyksy] buxksVl] fcysVl] Cywel

iapegy&389330

rFkk Lyscl Qkj fjjksfyax

baVw LVhy Qkj tujy LVdpyZ

ijil

3992688 02@09@2013

MSlh bUMLVªht

dkeu izqQM dSuol@Md

2089

1977

49@1] iSdh 2] VhEHkh] mejxkWo] ftyk % oylkM&

rFkk iksfyul ¼rkjiksfyu½

396150

3991181 05@09@2013

vkluk ,UVjizkbZt]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

23] Hkxoku ,LVsV] tykjke eafnj ds lkeus]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

lk.kan jksM] ckoyk] vgenkckn&382220

okVj½

3993589 05@09@2013

fMokbZu iEi baMLVªht

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

9] uhydaB baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] ,y ch ,l jksM]

ckiwuxj] vgenkckn

3996595 06@09@2013

Jh gjh fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

70@71A] iaMksy baMLVªh;y ,LVsV] osn jksM]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

drkjxke] lqjr

okVj½

3997496 10@09@2013

Hkxorh Liu ikbZi odsal

izhdkLV dkaØhV ikbZil

458

2003

CykWd uacj 979 vkSj 980 eqdke % juq rkyqdk %

¼fon rFkk fonkmV

iknjk ftyk % oMksnjk&382825

jsfuQkslZeSaV½

3993690 10@09@2013

fMokbZu iEi baMLVªht]

vksiuoSy lceflZcy

14220

1994

9] uhydaB baMfLVª;y ,lVsV] ,y ch ,l jksM]

iEilSV

ckiwuxj] vgenkckn

3993791 10@09@2013

Jh Hkqous'ojh TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

37@38 lh/ns'oj lkslk;Vh] Lokehukjk;u eafnj ds

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ikl MHkksyh pkj jLrk drkjxke] osn jksM

,oa eqgjkadu

10-

3992789 10@09@2013

,jkscSy iEi izk fyfeVsM

vksiuoSy lceflZcy

14220

1994

IykV uacj 35] 533@ch] E;qfufliy Lye DokVlZ ds

iEilSV

lkeus] Hkkjr isVªksy iEi ds ikl] ujksMk jksM]

vgenkckn&380025

11-

3993488 10@09@2013

ve`r baftfu;fjax izk fyfeVsM

vksiuoSy lceflZcy

14220

1994

115@1&2] th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV] dkalk jksM]

iEilSV

foluxj] esglkuk&382315

12-

3995694 10@09@2013

Mh vkbZ iEil]

vksiuoSy lceflZcy

14220

1994

76] fr:ifr ,lVsV] vacj flusek ds ihNs] eulk uh

iEilSV

efLtn ds ikl] ckiwuxj] vgenkckn&380024

2624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13-

3993993 11@09@2013

jkts'ojh TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

vktkn eSnku] ukuq vM/k] vkuan&388001

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

14-

3994086 11@09@2013

fuydaB TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

323] o"kkZ lkslk;Vh 1] ekrkokMh] ,y ,p jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

lwjr&395006

,oa eqgjkadu

15-

3994995 12@09@2013

fejkjfcanks baftfu;fjax izk fyfeVsM

lsQ fMiksflV ykdj

5244

1991

'kSM uacj 18 ls 24] IykV uacj 279] fery ,lVsV]

dSfcusV

mtkyk ldZy ds ikl] lj[kst jsyos vksoj czht

ds uhps] lj[kst] vgenkckn&382210

16-

3993892 13@09@2013

lSejksd dSfedyl ¼vkbZ½ fyfeVsM

,MgSflo Qkj ;wl fon

15477

2004

138] egk xqtjkr baMLVªh;y ,lVsV] ekSjS;k lj[kst

fljkfeDl VkbZyl rFkk

ckoyk gkbos] vgenkckn&382210

ekslsbd

17-

3997597 18@09@2013

rRo fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

losZ uañ 2308] b'ojdqat QkeZ] yokjiqj jksM]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

MHkksMk] ftyk % xka/khuxj&382355

okVj½

18-

3997601 18@09@2013

uo;qx ,yksbZl izk fyfeVsM]

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

losZ uañ 106 xkao [kk[kfj;k] rkyqdk lkoyh] lkoyh]

buxksVl] fcysVl] Cywel

ftyk % cMksnjk&391510

rFkk Lyscl Qkj fjjksfyax

baVw LVhy Qkj tujy

LVdpyZ ijil

19-

3997702 18@09@2013

Mh ,l fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IykV uacj Mh&22@15 jksM uañ 14 AA] gksthokyk

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

baMLVªh;y ,LVsV] ,V % oka>] lphu] iykl.kk jksM]

okVj½

lphu] lwjr&394230

20-

3998906 18@09@2013

us'uy baMLVªht

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

iapoVh] ,u ,p uacj 59] losZ uacj 304@2]

vgenkckn jksM] ,V dByky] [ksMk&387630

21-

3999096 18@09@2013

us'uy baMLVªht

oqMu QY'k Mksj 'kVlZ ¼lkysM

2202

1999

iapoVh] ,u ,p uacj 59]

dksj Vkbi

losZ uacj 304@2] vgenkckn

jksM] ,V dByky] [ksMk&387630

22-

2800143 18@09@2013

QkbZuj fyfeVsM

,ldkjfcd ,flM] QqM xzsM

5342

1996

184@ih] pkpjokMh] okluk] lj[kst ckoyk gkbos]

rk lkuan] vgenkckn 382110

23-

3999197 20@09@2013

lujkbZt fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

03] pUnzuxj] VkbZEl vkQ bafM;k ds ikl] oL=kiqj

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

jsyos LVs'ku ds ikl] ostyiqj vgenkckn&380015

okVj½

24-

3999201 20@09@2013

vjoh Tosyl izkñ fyñ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

1lh&1 Mh] xzkmaM Qyksj] lq;kZ dkWEiysDl] LoLrhd

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

Øksl jksM ds ikl] lh th jksM] vgenkckn&380009

,oa eqgjkadu

25-

3999302 20@09@2013

Hkokuh TosylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

th&4] y[koh js'khMsUlh] Hkokuh eanhj ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

tykyiksj jksM]

,oa eqgjkadu

uolkjh&396445

26-

3998805 20@09@2013

vVykUVk fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

l uañ 310@ih] ,V % dqdjokMk] rkyqdk % fotkiqj]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj

ftyk % esglk.kk&382865

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2625

27-

2802854 30@09@2013

egkdkyh TosylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

th@4] dyklhd dsihVy ekdZV]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vkJ; gksVy ds ikl] izlkar flusek jksM]

,oa eqgjkadu

esglk.kk&384002

28-

2802955 30@09@2013

,u ch TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

IykWV uacj 190] xzkmUM ¶yksj] larks"kh d`ik lkslk;Vh]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

drkjxke MHkksyh jksM] lwjr&395004

,oa eqgjkadu

29-

2803048 30@09@2013

'kfDr TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 13@14] lkou vikVZesUV] ,Qih uacj 17]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

Vhih uacj 8] 35ch iSdh ,&87] f=deuxj&1] cksEcs

,oa eqgjkadu

ekdsZV] lwjr&395006

30-

2805153 30@09@2013

lkjFkh ,xzks dSe]

feFkkbZy iSjkfFk;u MfLVax

8960

1978

1306@5 Qst 4] th vkbZ Mh lh ,lVsV]

ikmMj

ujksMk] vgenkckn&382330

31-

2806458 30@09@2013

';key dsfedYl izkñ fyñ]

dkil lYQsV

261

1982

IykWV uañ 6004] thvk;Mhlh] vadys'oj]

ftyk %Hk#p&393002

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13 % 11]

MkWñ ,lñ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1018.— .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 Date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

3990987

02/09/2013

Mahavir Beverages

packaged drinking water

14543

2004

4, Vinakunj Society,Near R. R. Trivedi

(other than packaged

High School, Opp. Saibaba Society

Natural mineral water)

Vastrapur Railway Crossing

Ahmedabad-380051

3992587

02/09/2013

Kalol Steel & Alloy Pvt. Ltd.

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

41/P-2, Alindra, Alindra Road, Halol-

ingots, billets, blooms

Kalol Road, Tal Kalol

and slabs for re-rolling

Pnachamahal-389330

into steel for general

structural purposes

3992688

02/09/2013

Daisy Industries

Common proofed

2089

1977

49/1 Paike 2, Timbhi

Canvas/duck and paulins

Umbergaon, Valsad

(tarpaulins)

3991181

05/09/2013

Aashna Enterprise

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

23, Bhagvan Estate, Opp. Jalaram Temple (other than packaged natural

Sanand Road, Ahmedabad, Bavla-382220

minaral water

3993589

05/09/2013

Divine Pump Industries

Submersible Pumpsets

8034

2002

9, Nilkanth Industrial Estate

L B S Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad

2626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3996595

06/09/2013

Shree Hari Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

70/71, Pandol Industrial Estate

(other than packaged

Ved Road, Katargam

natural mineral water)

At & Village: Surat

3997496

10/09/2013

Bhagwati Spun Pipe Works

Precast concrete pipes

458

2003

Block No. 979 & 980, AT Ranu,

(with and without

Tal Padra Dist. Vadodara 382825

reinforcement)

3993690

10/09/2013

Divine Pump Industries

Openwell

14220

1994

9, Nilkanth Industrial Estate

Submersible pumpsets

L B S Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad

3993791

10/09/2013

Shree Bhuvneshwari Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

37/38, Siddheshwar Society,

jewellery / artefacts -

Opp. Swaminarayan, Mandir, Dabholi

fineness and marking -

Char Rasta, katargam, Vad Road,

Surat 395004

10 3992789

10/09/2013

Aerowell Pump Pvt.Ltd.

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

Plot No. 35, 533/B, Opp. Municipal Slum pumpsets

Quarters, Near Bharat Petrol Pump

Naroda Road, Ahmedabad 380025

11 3993488

10/09/2013

Amrit Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

115/1-2, GIDC Estate, Kansa Road,

pumpsets

Visnagar, Mahesana 382315

12 3995694

10/09/2013

D.I. Pumps

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

76, Tirupati Estate, Behind Amber

pumpsets

Cinema, Near Mansa Ni Masjid,

Bapunagar, Ahmedabad 380024

13 3993993

11/09/2013

Rajeshwari Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Azad Maidan, Nanu Adadh

Jewellery / artefacts -

Anand 388001

fineness and marking -

14 3994086

11/09/2013

Nilkanth Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

323, Varsha Society-1, Matawadi L.H.

Jewellery / artefacts -

Raod, Surat 395006

fineness and marking -

15 3994995

12/09/2013

Mirabindo Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Safe deposit locker

5244

1991

Shed No. 18 to 24, Plot No. 279, Mittal

cabinets

Estate, Near Ujala Circle, Under

Sarkhej Rly. Over Bridge, Sarkhej

Ahmedabad 382210

16 3993892

13/09/2013

Samrock Chemicals (I) Limited

Adhesives for use with

15477

2004

138, Maha Gujarat Industrial Estate,

ceramic tiles and

Moraiya Sarkhej, Bawla Highway,

mosaics

Ahmedabad 382210

17 3997597

18/09/2013

Tatva Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Survey No. 2308, "Ishwarkunj"

(other than packaged

Lavarpur-Dabhoda Road, AT: Dabhoda,

natural mineral water)

Gandhinagar 382355

18 3997601

18/09/2013

Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Survey No. 106, Vill:Khakhriya

ingots, billets, blooms

Taluka: Savali, Vadodara 391510

and slabs for re-rolling into

steel for general structural

purposes

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2627

19 3997702

18/09/2013

D.S. Beverages,

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. D-22/15, Hojiwala, Industrial

(other than packaged

Estate, Raod No. 13, AT:Vanz

natural mineral water)

Sachin-Palsana Road, Surat

20 3998906

18/09/2013

National Industries,

Block Boards

1659

2004

Panchwati, N. H. No. 59,

Survey No. 304/2, Ahmedabad Road,

AT:Kathlal, Kheda-387630

21 399096

18/09/2013

National Industries

Wooden flush door

2202

1999

Panchwati, N. H. No. 59,

shutters (solid core

Survey No. 304/2, Ahmedabad Road,

type)

AT:Kathlal, Kheda-387630

22 2800143

18/09/2013

Finar Limited,

Ascorbic acid, food grade

5342

1996

184/P, Chacharwali, Vasna

Sarkhej-Bavla Highway,

Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad-382110

23 3999197

20/09/2013

Sunrise Beverages,

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

03, Chandranagar, Near Times of India

(other than packaged

Road, Near Vastrapur, Railway Station,

natural mineral water)

Vejalpur, Ahmedabad-380015

24 3999201

20/09/2013

Arvi Jewels Private Limited,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

1C-1D, Ground Floor, Surya Complex,

Jewellery / artefacts -

Near Swastik Cross Roads, C.G. Road,

fineness and marking -

Ahmedabad-380009

25 3999302

20/09/2013

Bhavani Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

G-4, Laghavi, Residency, Near Bhavani

jewellery / artefacts -

Mandir, Jalalpore Road, Navsari-396445

fineness and marking -

26 3998805

20/09/2013

Atlanta Beverages,

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Survey No. 310/P, AT:Kukarwada,

(other than packaged

Tal: Vijapur, Mahesana -382865

natural mineral water)

27 2802854

30/09/2013

Mahakali Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

G/4 Classic Capital Market,

jewellery / artefacts -

Near Aashray Hotel, Preshant Cinema

fineness and marking -

Road, Mahesana-384002

28 2802955

30/09/2013

N.B. Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Plot No. 190, Ground Floor, Santohsi

jewellery / artefacts -

Krupa Society, Katargam, Dabholi Road,

fineness and marking -

Surat-395004

29 2803048

30/09/2013

Shakti Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Shop No. 13/14, Savan Appartment

jewellery / artefacts -

FP No. 17, TP No. 8,35B, Paiki A-87

fineness and marking -

Trikamnagar-1, Bombay Market,

Surat-395006

30 2805153

30/09/2013

Sarathi Agro Chem,

Methyl parathion dusting

8960

1978

1306/5, Phase 4, GIDC Estate,

powders

Naroda, Ahmedabad-382330

31 2806458

30/09/2013

Shyam Chemical Pvt. Ltd.,

Copper Sulphate

261

1982

Plot No. 6004, GIDC, Ankleshwar,

Bharuch-393002

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

2628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1019.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;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 jí @ LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y

7902984

panu dscYl

ih oh lh balwysfVM ¼gSoh M~;wVh½ bYkSfDVªd

02@09@2013

12&13&14 yhykHkkbZ ,LVsV] ekr`Nk;k

dscy

fo|ky; ds ikl] jckjh dkyksuh]

vkbZ ,l 1554 % ikVZ 1 % 1988

ftyk % vgenkckn

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

MkW- ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1019.—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 that the licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No. Name and Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

7902984

M/s. Chandan Cables

PVC insulated (heavy duty) electric cables:

02/09/2012

12-13-14 Lilabhai Estate, Near Matru

IS 1554: Part : 1988

Chhaya Vidyalay Rabari Colony,

Ahmedabad

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1020.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;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, gS] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%µ

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkk

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ@

la[;k

ekg

2806357 01@10@2013

fnO;k QqM ,.M fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

losZ uañ 222@2] /kkenkph QkVd ds ikl] HkkFkk

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

Qfy;k] oylkM

okVj½

2803553 01@10@2013

egs'k baMLVªht]

,fefVax ikbZi flLVe

13488

2008

IykV uacj 500] jksM uacj 13] Qsl&II] vks<o

fjax jksM ds ikl] thvkbZMhlh] dkBokMk]

vgenkckn&382430

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2629

2804959 01@10@2013

vtark fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

15] HkkX;ksn; ,LVsV] VsfyQksu ,Dlpsat ds ikl]

iSdsTM uspqjy feujy

iquk&dqaHkkjh;k jksM] ekxksc] ftyk % lwjr&394210

okVj½

2805052 01@10@2013

,e ts fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

37&ch] 'kadj ,LVsV] xkao % eatqlj] rkyqdk % lkoyh] iSdsTM uspqjy feujy

ftyk % oMkSnjk

okVj½

2806559 07@10@2013

Jh jk/kk d`".kk TosylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

vth LVªhV] ekyslj uolkjh

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

2807359 07@10@2013

,l vkj ,UVjizkbZl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

CykWd uañ 253] IykWV ua 171 ls 175] ikVZ&1] ,V

iSdsTM uspqjy feujy

eudkuk] dkejst] lwjr&394325

okVj½

2811653 15@10@2013

ckykth okVj]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

Mh&2@96] Hkxorhuxj ,LVsV] m/kuk lphu jksM]

iSdsTM uspqjy feujy

Hkslru] lqjr&395010

okVj½

2810247 15@10@2013

d.kkZorh fouh;lZ izkñ fyfeVsM]

oqMu QY'k Mksj 'kVlZ ¼lkysM

2202

1999

Cykd uacj 409] xkao vksjku] ,V rFkk iksLV&rktiqj

dksj VkbZi½

dq;bZ] ,u,p uacj 8] rk izkafrt] lkcjdkaVk&382305

2809060 15@10@2013

lj[kst LVhy baMLVªht izkñ fyfeVsM]

LVhy Qkj tujy LVDpyZ

2062

2011

lj[kst lkuan Økl jksM+ Jh th os czht ds

ijil

lkeus] ,u,p jksM uacj 8 lh] lj[kst]

vgenkckn&382210

10-

2810146 17@10@2013

d.kkZorh fouh;lZ izkñ fyfeVsM]

IykbZoqM Qkj tujy ijil

303

1989

CykWd uacj 409] xkao vksjku] ,V rFkk iksLV %

rktiqj dq;bZ] ,u,p uacj 8] rk izkafrt]

lkcjdkaVk&382305

11-

2810348 17@10@2013

d.kkZorhZ fouh;lZ izkñ fyfeVsM]

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

Cykd uacj 409] xkao vksjku] ,V rFkk iksLV %

rktiqj dq;bZ] ,u,p uacj 8] rk izkafrt]

lkcjdkaVk&382305

12-

2812352 17@10@2013

okVjesu baMLVªht izkñ fyfeVsM

vksiuoSy lceflZcy

14420

1994

407] U;w barkl QkekZ ds lkeus] lj[kst ckoyk

iEilSV

gkbos] pkaxksnj] eksjS;k] vgenkckn&382213

13-

2808967 17@10@2013

egs'k baMLVªht]

vuIykfLVlkbZTM ihohlh

4985

2000

IykV uacj 500] jksM uacj 13

ikbZIl Qkj iksVscy okVj

Qsl&II] vks<o fjax jksM ds ikl] thvkbZMh

lIykbZl

lh] dkBokMk] vgenkckn&382430

14-

2810449 18@10@2013

fl)h fouk;d ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

pksd'kh cktkj lksuh pdyk] tacwlj] Hkk#p&392150

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

15-

2810651 18@10@2013

dUgS;kyky t;panHkkbZ toSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

xzkmaM Qyksj 1] vkJ; Vkoj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

jkensouxj] vkuanuxj ØkljksM ds ikl] lSVsykbZV]

,oa eqgjkadu

vgenkckn&380015

16-

2810752 18@10@2013

f'koe vksjukeSaVl izkñ fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

364@,Q,Q vtqZu dkWEiySDl] xq'kk ikjs[k iksy] ,e

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

th gosyh jksM] ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

17-

2810853 18@10@2013

Jh fo'kky xksYM iSysl]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

,&1] jked`".kk dkyksuh] jk/ks d`".kk lkslkbVh ds lkeus] vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

bluiqj] vgenkckn&380043

,oa eqgjkadu

2630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18-

2811350 18@10@2013

Jh egkohj jksy VSd fyfeVsM]

gkbZ LVSaFk fMQkeMZ LVhy

1786

2008

IykV uacj ,,@79&,] ch Cykd uacj 124] gksthokyk

cklZ rFkk ok;lZ Qkj

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] ikylkuk jksM] iksiMk] lwjr

dkaØhV jsfuQkslZeSaV

19-

2812554 22@10@2013

ljLorh ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

6] dYiuk 'kkWfiax lSaVj] lksuk gksVy ds ikl] ikyuiqj

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ikfV;k] lwjr&395009

,oa eqgjkadu

20-

2812655 22@10@2013

Jh ts Mh psUl]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

1208] ohjpan nhipan ubZ gosyh] ,e th gosyh jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

21-

2812756 22@10@2013

izeq[k ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

23] ,Qhy Vkoj] ,y,p jksM] lwjr&395006

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu

22-

2812857 22@10@2013

ftatwokfM;k rFkk dEiuh]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

gfj}kj ,uDyso] d`".kkckx Økl jksM ds ikl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

e.khuxj] vgenkckn&380008

,oa eqgjkadu

23-

2812958 22@10@2013

/kqux`g ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

'kkWi uacj 2 fiz;kac vikVZeSaV] HkkbZpan uxj lkslkbVh]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ek/kokuan vkJe ds lkeus] lCth ekdsZV ds lkeus]

,oa eqgjkadu

dVjxke njoktk] lwjr&395004

24-

2813051 22@10@2013

Lusg psu izkñ fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

67] /kkufpl iksy] ,eth gosyh jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

25-

2813152 22@10@2013

lqjs'k cnzlZ ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

tSu nsjklj gkml ds lkeus] gkml 991@1] e/kqerh]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

uolkjh&396445

,oa eqgjkadu

26-

2814962 28@10@2013

tSu ToSylZ izkñ fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

1265 yqgkj iksy dkuZj] ,e th gosyh jksM] ekusd

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

27-

2815055 28@10@2013

ToSy oMZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

6] ckykth gkbZV~l] Lokxr Økl jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

lhth jksM] vgenkckn&380009

,oa eqgjkadu

28-

2815358 28@10@2013

okbZczsaV bZjhxs'ku izkñ fyfeVsM]

bZjhxs'ku bD;wieSaV&

12786

1989

Cykd uacj 279] IykV uacj 2] ,V rFkk ihvks

ikyhFkyhu ikbZIl Qkj

gkthiqj] lkcjdkaVk] rk fgEeruxj&383120

bZjhxs'ku ysVjy

29-

2815863 30@10@2013

ek dkyh psu jksfM;e rFkk fxySV oDlZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

60] lSyj] Hkkouxjh pSEclZ]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

'ksFkl iksy] jru iksy]

,oa eqgjkadu

vgenkckn&380001

30-

2815964 30@10@2013

lqo.kkZ eafnj]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

103] ekf"r lDan] dSQs dkQh Ms 'kkWi ds lkeus]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vkuan fo|kuxj jksM] vkuan&388001

,oa eqgjkadu

31-

2816057 30@10@2013

tkW; vywdkl bafM;k izkñ fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

vkj lh th Iyktk] iapoVh 5 jkLrk]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ifjey xkMZu ds lkeus] vgenkckn&380006

,oa eqgjkadu

32-

2816158 30@10@2013

tkW;vywdkl bafM;k izk- fyfeVsM]

pkWnh rFkk pkWnh /kkrqvksa ds

2112

2003

vkjlhth Iyktk] iapoVh 5 jkLrk]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ifjey xkMZu ds lkeus] vgenkckn&380006

,oa eqgjkadu

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2631

33-

2816259 30@10@2013

tksa;vywdkl bafM;k izk- fyfeVsM]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

lq[ke dkEiySDl[ vkj lh nÙk jksM] fl)kFkZ

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

dkEiySDl ds lkeus] vydkiqjh] oMksnjk&390007

,oa eqgjkadu

34-

2816360 30@10@2013

tksa;vywdkl bafM;k izk- fyfeVsM]

pkWnh rFkk pkWnh /kkrqvksa ds

2112

2003

lq[ke dkEiySDl] vkj lh nÙk jksM] fl)kFkZ

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

dkEiySDl ds lkeus] vydkiqjh] oMksnjk&390007

,oa eqgjkadu

35-

2816461 30@10@2013

nkW xksYM ekdZ]

pkanh rFkk pkanh /kkrqvksa ds

2112

2003

4@5] ikVhnkj ftu dkEiySDl] LVs'ku jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ihvks ckjMksyh] lwjr&394602

,oa eqgjkadu

36-

2816966 30@10@2013

okbZczsV bZjhxs'ku izkñ fyfeVsM]

,fefVax ikbZi flLVe

13488

2008

Cykd uacj 279] IykV uacj 2] ,V rFkk ihvks

gkthiqj] lkcjdkaVk] rk% fgEeruxj&383120

37-

2817059 30@10@2013

xq#d`ik baftfu;fjax oDlZ]

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

41- egkdkyh ,lVsV] jckjh dkyksuh] vejkbZokMh jksM]

xkaVh LVSaM ds ihNs] vgenkckn&380026

38-

2817463 30@10@2013

gfj'k dqekj t;arhyky pksdlh]

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

jktka'kq ihj xka/kh pkSd] iknjk] pkSdlh cktkj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

oMksnjk&391440

,oa eqgjkadu

39-

2817665 30@10@2013

xSydks bySDVªkfuDl izk- fyfeVsM]

ihohlh balwysfVM dscy

694

1990

Cykd uacj 142] ,V rFkk iksLV dkjksyh] tykjke

fljkfeDl ds lkFk esa] [krjkt pkSdM+h ds ikl

xka/khuxj&382721

40-

2816865 31@10@2013

vk'kqrks'k okVj VSadl izk- fyfeVsM]

jksVs'kuy eksyfMM

12701

1999

IykV uacj 3] losZ uacj 325] tykjke lk fey ds

ikyhFkfyu okVj LVksjst

ihNs] dqatM] vgenkckn 382430

VSad

[la- lh ,e Mh 13% 11]

MkWñ ,l- ,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1020.—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 Date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

2806357

01/10/2013

Divya Food & Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Survey No. 222/2, beside Dhamdachi

(other than packaged

Fatak, Bhatha Faliya, At &Vill. Valsad

natural mineral water)

2803553

01/10/2013

Mahesh Industries

Emitting pipes system

13488

2008

Plot No. 500, Road No. 13

Phase-II, Near Odhav Ring Road

GIDC Kathwada, Ahmedabad-382430

2632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2804959

01/10/2013

Ajanta Beverages,

Pakaged drinking water

14543

2004

15, Bhagyoday Estate

(other than packaged

Near Telephone Exchange

natural mineral water)

Puna-Kumbhariya Road

Magob, Vill. & TA: Surat-394210

2805052

01/10/2013

M.J. Beverages,

Packaged drinking water

1543

2004

37-B, Shankar Estate, Manjusar

(other than packaged

Tal:Savli, Vadodara, Village:Manjusar

natural mineral water)

2806559

07/10/2013

Shree Radha Krishna Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Ajit Street Malesar, Navsari.

jewellery/artefact-

fineness and marking-

2807359

07/10/2013

S.R. Enterprises,

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Block No. 253, Plot No. 171 to 175,

(other than packaged

Part 1, at Mankana Kamrej,

natural mineral water)

Surat City, Surat-394325

2811653

15/10/2003

Balaji Water,

Paackaged drinking water

14543

2004

D-2/96, Bhagwati Nagar Asset

(other than packaged

Udhna Sachin Road, Bhestan

natural mineral water)

Surat-395010

2810247

15/10/2013

Karnavati Veneers Pvt. Ltd.,

Wooden flush door

2202

1999

Block No. 409, Village Oran

shutters (solid core

At & Post:Tajpur Kui, NH No. 8

type)

Tal: Prantij, Sabharkantha-382305

2809060

15/10/2013

Sarkhej Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Steel for general

2062

2011

Sarkhej-Sanand Cross Road,

structural purposes

Opp. Shreeji Weigh Bridge,

N H Road No. 8C, Sarkhej,

Ahmedabad-382210

10.

2810146

17/10/2013

Karnavati Veneers Pvt. Ltd.,

Plywood for general

303

1989

Block No. 409, Village: Oran

purposes

At & Post: Tajpur Kui, N H No. 8

Tal: Prantij, Sabarkantha-382305

11.

2810348

17/10/2013

Karnavati Veneers Pvt. Ltd.,

Black Boards

1659

2004

Block No. 409, Village : Oran, At & Post:

Tajpur Kui, N H No. 8, Tal:Prantij

Sabarkantha-382305

12.

2812352

17/10/2013

Waterman Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

407, Opp. New Insat Pharma

pumpsets

Sarkhej Bavlahighway

Changodar, Moraiya, Ahmedabad-382213

13.

2808967

17/10/2013

Mahesh Industries,

Unplasticized pvc pipes

4985

2000

Plot No. 500, Road No. 13

for portable water

Phase-II, Near Odhav Ring Road

supplies

Kathwada GIDC Ahmedabad-382430

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2633

14.

2810449

18/10/2013

Siddhi Vinayak Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Chokshi Bazar Soni Chakla,

jewellery/artefacts-

Jambusar, Bharuch-392150

fineness and marking-

15.

2810651

18/10/2013

Kanaiyalal Jechandbhai Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Ground Floor 1, Aashray Tower,

jewellery/artefacts-

Ramdevnagar, Near Anandnagar

fineness and marking-

Cross Road, Satellite Amhadabad-380015

16.

2810752

18/10/2013

Shivam Oranments Private Limited,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

364/FF Arjun Complex, Gusha Parekhs

jewellery/artefacts-

Pole, M.G. Haveli Road, Manekchowk,

fineness and marking-

Ahmadabad-380001

17.

2810853

18/10/2013

Shree Vishal Gold Place,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

A-1 Ramkrishna Colony, Opp. Radhe

jewellery/artefacts-

Krishna Society, Isanpur.

fineness and marking-

Ahmadabad-380043

18.

2811350

18/10/2013

Shree Mahavir Roll Tech. Limited,

High stength deformed

1786

2008

Plot No. AA/79-A, B-Block No. 124,

steel bars and wires for

Hojiwala Industrial Estate

concrete reinforcement

Palsana Road, Popda, Surat

19.

2812554

22/10/2013

Saraswati Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

6, Kalpana shopping Centre, Near sona

jewellery/artefacts-

Hotel, Palanpur Patia, Surat-395009

fineness and marking-

20.

2812655

22/10/2013

Shree J. D. Chains,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

1208, Virchand Deepchand Ni Haveli,

jewellery/artefacts-

M.G. Haveli Road, Manekchowk.

fineness and marking-

Ahmedabad-380001

21.

2812756

22/10/2013

Pramukh Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

23, Affil Tower, L.H. Road,

jewellery/artefacts-

Surat-395006

fineness and marking-

22.

2812857

22/10/2013

Zinzuwadia and Co.,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Haridwar Envlave, NR. Krishnsbaug

jewellery/artefacts-

Cross Road, Maninagar

fineness and marking-

Ahmadabad-380008

23.

2812958

22/10/2013

Ghunghru Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Shop No. 2 Priyank Appt.

jewellery/artefacts-

Bhaichandnagar Soc., Opp Madhvanand

fineness and marking-

Ashram, Opp. Veg Market. Katargam

Darwaja, Surat-395004

24.

2813051

22/10/2013

Sneh Chain Pvt. Ltd.,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

67, Ghanchis Pole, M.G. Haveli Road,

jewellery/artefacts-

Manekchowk, Ahmadabad-380001

Fineness and marking-

25.

2813152

22/10/2013

Suresh Brothers Jewellers,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Opp. Jain Derasar House,

jewellery/artefacts-

9/1/1, Madhumati, Navsari-396445

Fineness and marking-

26.

2814962

28/10/2013

Jain Jewellers Private Limited,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

1265 Luhar Pole Corner,

jewellery/artefacts-

M.G. Haveli Road, Manechowk,

fineness and marking-

Ahmedabad-380001

2634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27.

2815055

28/10/2013

Jewel World,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

5, Balaji Heights, Swagat Cross Road,

jewellery/artefacts-

C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380009

fineness and marking-

28.

2815358

28/10/2013

Vibrant Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.,

Irrigation Equipment-

12786

1989

Block No. 279, Plot No. 2,

Polyethylene pipes for

At & PO: Hajipur Sabarkantha,

irrigation laterals

Tal:Himatnagar-383120

29.

2815863

30/10/2013

Maa Kali Chain Rodium and Gilet Works

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

60, Celler, Bhavnagari Chambers,

jewellery/artefacts-

Sheths Pole, Ratan Pole,

fineness and marking-

Ahmedabad 380001

30.

2815964

30/10/2013

Suvarna Mandir,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

103, Maruti Skand, Opp. Cafe Coffee Day

jewellery/artefacts-

Shop, Anand Vidhyanagar Road.

fineness and marking-

Anand-388001

31.

2816057

30/10/2013

Joyallukkas India P. Ltd.,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

RCG Plaza, Panchavatti 5, Rastha,

jewellery/artefacts-

Opp. Parimal Garden, Ahmedabad-380006

fineness and marking-

32.

2816158

30/10/2013

Joyalukkas India P. Ltd.,

Silver and silver alloys,

2112

2003

RCG Plaza, Panchatti 5, Rastha,

jewellery/artefacts-

Opp. Parimal Garden Ahmedabad-380006

fineness and marking-

33.

2816259

30/10/2013

Joyalukkas India P. Ltd.,

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Sukham Complex RC Dutt Road, Opp.

jewellery/artefacts-

Siddarth Complex, Alkapuri

fineness and marking-

Vadodara-390007

34.

2816360

30/10/2013

Joyalukkas India P. Ltd.,

Silver and silver alloys,

2112

2003

Sukham complex RC Dutt Road, Opp.

jewellery/artefacts-

Siddarth Complex, Alkapuri

fineness and marking-

Vadodara-390007

35.

2816461

30/10/2013

The Gold Mark,

Silver and silver alloys,

2112

2003

4/5, Patidar Jin Complex, Station Road,

jewellery/artefacts-

P O. Bardoli, Surat-394602

fineness and marking-

36.

281966

30/10/2013

Vibrant Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.,

Emitting pipe system

13488

2008

Block No. 279, Plot No. 2

AT & PO: Hajipur Sabarkantha

Tal: Himatnagar-383120

37.

2817059

30/10/2013

Gurukrupa Engineering Works,

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

41, Mahakali Estate, Rabari Colony,

Amraiwadi Road, B/H Ganti Stand,

Ahmedabad-380026

38.

2817463

30/10/2013

Harishkumar Jayantilal Chokshi,

gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Rajanshu Peer, Gandhichowk, Padra

jewellery / artefacts -

Choxi Bazzar, Vadodara-391440

fineness and making -

39.

2817665

30/10/2013

Gelco Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

PVC insulated cables

694

1990

Block No. 142, AT & Post Karoli,

Beside Jalaram Ceramic, Near Khatraj

Chokadi, Gandhinagar-382721

40.

2816865

31/10/2013

Ashutosh Water Tanks Private Limited,

Rotational moulded

12701

1996

Plot No. 3, Survey No. 325, Behind

ployethylene water

Jalaram Saw Mills, Kunjad,

storage tanks

Ahmedabad-382430

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2635

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1021.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ¼5½ ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks vf/klwfpr

djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jí @ LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS%&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y

3614252

HkkfxjFkh eSU;wQSDpfjax daiuh]

iSdstcan is;ty

07@10@2013

,V rFkk ihvks] ekthxke] fp[kyh]

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

fMfLVªDV uolkjh&396521

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13 % 13]

MkWñ ,lñ ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1021.—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 licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No. Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

3614252

M/s. Bhagirathi MFG Co.

Packaged drinking water (other than

07/10/2013

AT and PO, Majigam, Chikhli

packaged natural mineral water)

Distt: Navsari-396521

IS 14543: 2004

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1022.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;jks ,rn~}kjk

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

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ

la[;k

@ekg

2823054 01@11@2013

gksuSLV ,yk; izk fyfeVsM

LVhy dkj tujy

2062

2011

IykV uacj- 53@54] th vkbZ Mh lh jkuklu]

LVdpjyZ ijil

rk fotkiqj] esglkuk&382870

2636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2824359 04@11@2013

dsbZlh bUVjus'kuy fyfeVsM ¼dscy fMfotu½

Økl fyadM ikyhFkyhu

7098

1993

IykV uacj] 803 ls 805] 828 ls 830] xkao

balwysfVM FkeksZIykfLVd

lkefy;k] rkñ lkoyh ftyk% oMksnjk&391520

'khFkM dscy

2819366 11@11@2013

bZLV bafM;k Mªe rFkk cSjyl eSU;wQSdpfjax dEiuh

fcVweu Mªe

3575

1993

IykV uacj] 734@1 2]40 'ksM ,fj;k

th vkbZ Mh lh] okih] oylkn&396195

2819467 11@11@2013

bZLV bafM;k Mªe rFkk cSjyl eSU;wQSdpfjax dEiuh

Mªe yktZ vksiu VkWi

13997

1994

IykV uacj - 734@1 2]40 'ksM ,fj;k

th vkbZ Mh lh] okih] oylkn

2819568 11@11@2013

bZLV bafM;k Mªe rFkk cSjyl eSU;wQSdpfjax dEiuh

Mªel yktZ fQDlM ,aMl

1783

1993

IykV uacj] 734@1 2]40 'ksM ,fj;k

th vkbZ Mh lh] okih] oylkn&396195

2819669 11@11@2013

bZLV bafM;k Mªe rFkk cSjyl eSU;wQSdpfjax dEiuh

Mªel yktZ fQDlM ,aMl

1783

1988

IykV uacj] 734@1 2]40 'ksM ,fj;k

th vkbZ Mh lh] okih] oylkn&39619

2819972 11@11@2013

lsQoYMZ flLVEl izkñ fyfeVsM

uku ijdksysfVax

636

1988

IyksV uañ 65] flf//k fouk;d ,LVsV] lkarst

QySfdlcy Qk;j QkbfVax

rkyqdk dyksy ftyk% xka/khuxj

fMyhojh gkt

2820755 13@11@2013

olkuh iksyhelZ izkbZosV fyehVsM

vuiyfLVlkbtM ih oh lh

4985

2000

losZ uacj 488@ih&519@ih th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV

ikbZi; Qkj iksVscy okVj

ryksn ftyk% lkcjdkaBk&383215

liykbZl

2821555 13@11@2013

dkcjk Tosyl izk fy]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

16] us'kuy IykKk] yky caXyks ds lkeus] lh th

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

jksM] vgenkckn&380006

,oa eqgjkadu

10-

2821656 15@11@2013

Qksj lh TosYl

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

54@55] oksMZ uacj 6@858] eksVk cktkj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

uclkjh&396445

,oa eqgjkadu

11-

2822254 15@11@2013

ukxs'oj VªsMlZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

272@,Q@3] :ik lqjpan uh iksy] ,e th gosyh jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

12-

2823357 19@11@2013

xk;=h TosylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

9] ljnkj 'kksfiax lsUVj] nsrjkst] jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

dMh] ftyk % esglk.kk&382715

,oa eqgjkadu

13-

2824056 19@11@2013

,Dl izksVSDVk

QyseizqQ ,udykstlZ Qkj

2148

2004

;wfuV 2] 2006@8 and 9, th vkbZ Mh lh foBBy

bySfDVªd ,ijsVl

m|ksx uxj] vkuan&388121

14-

2823761 20@11@2013

vkbZ I;ksj QqM ,.M fcojthl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IyksV ua 303] th vk; Mh lh] xkao ryksn] rkyqdk

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

ryksn] ftyk % lkcjdkaBk&383215

15-

2823559 21@11@2013

udksMk vksukesUVl

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

15@ch] igyh eafty] gcsyh psEclZ] ,e th gosyh

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

jksM] ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

16-

2824157 22@11@2013

gsjhVst iksbaV izk fy]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

101] ckykth eksy] fo'odekZ eafnj ds ikl] folr

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

isVªksy iai ds ihNs] vgenkckn xka/khuxj gkbZos]

,oa eqgjkadu

eksVsjk] vgenkckn&382424

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2637

17-

2824258 22@11@2013

vafcdk TosylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

1 uonqxkZ dksEiys{k] xka/kh jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

cktok] ftyk % oMkSnjk&391310

,oa eqgjkadu

18-

2825361 25@11@2013

Jh gsYFk budkjiksjs'ku

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

IyksV ua 490] Jh ikVhZ IyksV ds ihNs] Øh"uk gkVZ

iSdstM uspqjy feujy

vLirky jksM] ?kqek]

okVj½

vgenkckn&380058

19-

2825462 25@11@2013

ojuhjkt fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

Mh@20] ;ksxhuxj lkslkbVh]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

iwuk flekMk jksM] lwjr

20-

2827567 25@11@2013

osxk e'khujhl izkñ fyñ]

vksiuoSy lceflZcy

14220

1994

IyksV uañ 11] ek#rh bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV] 4] ujksMk

iEilSV

Qk;j LVs'ku ds lkeus] ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn &

380025

21-

2825664 26@11@2013

Jh v:u TosylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

HkkoljokM] pksdlh cktkj

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ufM;kn] ftyk % [ksMk

,oa eqgjkadu

22-

2825866 26@11@2013

,l ,l xksYM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

2] 'yksd ,Udyso xFkkeu xsV ds ikl] xYlZ

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

xojesUV Ldwy ds lkeus] ikyuiqj&385001

,oa eqgjkadu

23-

2825967 27@11@2013

xksYMu LVkj MhtkbZuj izk fy]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

,&301] VkbZe Ldos;j fcYMhax] jrue fcYMhax ds

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ikl] lh th jksM] vgenkckn&380009

,oa eqgjkadu

24-

2829672 28@11@2013

osxk e'khujhl izkñ fyñ]

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

IyksV uañ 11] ek#rh bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV] 4] ujksMk

Qk;j LVs'ku ds lkeus] ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn &

380005

25-

2827971 28@11@2013

ds ,l baMLVªht]

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

133@1@1] lksekHkkbZ iVsy ,LVsV] ;equk ,LVsV ds ihNs]

ujksMk vgenkckn&380002

26-

2828670 29@11@2013

lsQSDl baftfu;lZ izk fyfeVsM

,Dliyksflo ,VekslfQ;lZ

60079

2007

IykV uacj 1404] Qsl 3] th vkbZ Mh lh] oVok]

ikVZ 1 bd;wieSaV izksVSD'ku

vgenkckn&382445

ck; QyseizqQ ,udykstlZ ^^Mh**

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13 % 11]

MkWñ ,lñ ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1022.—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 Date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

2823054

01/11/2013

Honest Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Steelfor general structural

2062

—

2011

Plot No. 53/54, GIDC Ranasan,

purposes

TA: Vijapur, Mahesana-382870

2638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2824359

04/11/2013

KEC International Ltd. (Cable Division)

Cross-linked polyethylene

7098

—

1993

Plot No. 803 to 805 and 828 to 830,

insulated thermoplastic

Village Samlaya, Tal Savli.

Sheathed cables

Vadodara-391520

2819366

11/11/2013

East India Drums & Barrels

Bitumen drums

3575

—

1993

Manufacturing Company

Plot No. 734/1 & 2,40 Shed Area,

GIDC, VAPI, Valsad-396195

2819467

11/11/2013

East India Drums & Barrels

Drums large open top

13997

—

1994

Manufacturing Company

Plot No. 734/1 & 2,40 Shed Area,

GIDC, VAPI, Valsad-396195

2819568

11/11/2013

East India Drums & Barrels

Drums, large, fixed ends

1783

—

1993

Manufacturing Company

Plot No. 734/1 & 2,40 Shed Area,

GIDC,VAPI, Valsad-396195

2819669

11/11/2013

East India Drums & Barrels

Drums, large, fixed ends

1783

—

1988

Manufacturing Company

Plot No. 734/1 & 2,40 Shed Area,

GIDC, VAPI, Valsad-396195

2819972

11/11/2013

Safeworld Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Non-percolating flexible

636

—

1988

Plot No. 65, Siddhi Vinayak Estate,

fire fighting delivery hose

Santej, Tal : Kalol,

(third revision)

Gandhi Nagar

2820755

13/11/2013

Vasani Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Unplasticized pvc pipes for

4985

—

2000

Survey No. 488/P-519/P,

potable water supplies-

GIDC Estate, Talod.

Sabarkantha-383215

2821555

13/11/2013

Kabra jewels Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

16, National Plaza, Opp. Lal Bunglow,

Jewellery/artefacts -

C G Road,

fineness and marking -

Ahmadabad-380006

10.

2821656

15/11/2013

Four 4 C Jewels

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

54/55, Ward No. 6/858

Jewellery/artefacts -

Mota Bazar, Navsari-396445

fineness and marking -

11.

2822254

15/11/2013

Nageshwar Traders

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

272/F/3, Opp. Rupa Surchand Ni Pole,

Jewellery/artefacts -

M.G. Haveli Road, Manek Chowk

fineness and marking -

Ahmedabad-380001

12.

2823357

19/11/2013

Gayatri Jwellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

9, Sardar Shopping Center,

Jewellery/artefacts -

Detroj Road, Kadi Ta kadi,

fineness and marking -

Mahesana-382715

13.

2824056

19/11/2013

Ex-Protecta

Flameproof enclosures for

2148

—

2004

Unit 2

Electrical apparatus

2006/8 & 9, GIDC Vithal Udyog Nagar,

Anand-388121

14.

2823761

20/11/2013

1 Pure Foods and Beverages

Pacakaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

Plot No. 303, GIDC Talod,

(other than packaged

Sabarkantha-383215

natural mineral water)

2823559

21/11/2013

Nakoda Ornaments

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

15/B, Ist Floor,

jewellery/artefacts -

Haveli Chambers, M.G. Haveli Road,

fineness and marking -

Manekchowk, Ambedabad-80001

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2639

2824157

22/11/2013

Heritage Pointe Pvt Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

101, Balaji Mall

jewellery/artefacts -

Nr. Vishwkarma, Temple, B/H.

fineness and marking -

Visat petrol pump, Ahmedabad

Gandhinagar Highway, motera,

Ahmedabad-382424

2824258

22/11/2013

Ambica Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

I Navdurga Complex,

jewellery/artefacts -

Gandhi Road Bajva,

fineness and marking -

Vadodara-391310

2825361

25/11/2013

Shree Health Incorporation

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot no. 490, B/H Shree Party

(other than packaged)

Plot, Krishna Heart Hospital Road

natural mineral water)

Ghuma, Ahmedabad-380058

2825462

25/11/2013

Varniraj Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

D/20, Yogi Nagar Society,

(other than packaged)

Puna-Simada Road, Surat City

natural mineral water)

Surat

2827567

25/11/2013

Vega Machineries Pvt Ltd.

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

Plot No. 11,

pumpsets

Maruti Industrial Estate,

Opp Naroda Fire Station

Naroda Road Ahmedabad-380025

2825664

26/11/2013

Shree Arun Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Bhavsarwad, Choksi Bazar,

jewellery/artefacts -

Nadiad Dist Kheda, Nadiad

fineness and marking -

2825866

26/11/2013

S.S. Gold

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

2, Shilok Enclave, near Gathaman

jewellery/artefacts -

Gate, opp Girls Government School

fineness and marking -

Banas Kantha, Palanpur-385001

2825967

27/11/2013

Golden Star Designer Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

A-301, time squar building,

jewellery/artefacts -

Nr. Ratnam

fineness and marking -

building, C.G. Road

Ahmedabad-380009

2829672

28/11/2013

Vega Machineries Pvt. Ltd.

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

Plot no. 11, Maruti Industrial

Estate, Opp Naroda Fire Station

Naroda Road Ahmedabad-380025

2827971

28/11/2013

K.S. Industries 133/1//1,

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

Somabhai Patel Estate

B/h Yamuna Estate, Naroda,

Ahmadabad-380002

2828670

29/11/2013

Safex Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Explosive atmosphers

60079

2007

Plot No. 1404 Phase 3,

part 1 equipment

Gidc, Vatva, Ahmadabad-382445

protection by flameproof

enclosure "d"

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

2640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1023.—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

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y

N.A.

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13 % 13]

MkWñ ,lñ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O.1023.— 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 licences particulars of which are given below

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

Sl.

Licences No. Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

N.A.

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1024.— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;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

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k la[;k

dh frfFk o"kZ@

la[;k

ekg

2828771 02@12@2013

ek#fr iEi baMLVªht

vksiuoSy lceflZcy iEilSV

14220

1994

8@6] Jethoh ,lVsV] vkj Mh

fo|ky; ds lkeus jf[k;ky]

vgenkckn

2829975 04@12@2013

ruh'kk ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

,Q ,Q 111] 'kkfgy dkEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

fxfj'k dksYM fMªad ds ikl] uojaxiqjk]

eqgjkadu

lh th jksM vgenkckn&390009

2830253 04@12@2013

lkyklj baMLVªht

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

112] rstsanzk baMfLVª;y ,lVsV]] lh ,e lh fey]

lksuh uh pky] vks<o jksM] vgenkckn

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2641

283054

04@12@2013

vehnhi ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

nwljh eafty] vehnhi lSaVj] flekMk ukdk]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

ojkNk jksM] ch ih lh ,y isVªksy iEi ds ikl]

eqgjkadu

lwjr&395006

2831053 09@12@2013

lkbZ fcjjsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu½

14543

2004

losZ uacj 457@1@2] IykV uacj 43] LVs'ku jksM]

iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

xkao jf[k;ky] rk nsgxke] fM xka/khuxj&382315

2831356 09@12@2013

'kaxkj ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

13@60 gSih gkse 'kkWfix lSaVj] 'kkL=h uxj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

ukjk;.kiqjk] vgenkckn&380013

eqgjkadu

2831475 09@12@2013

,l vkj psu

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

th ,Q@1276 eksoh uh [kkndh] guqekuth

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

eafnj ds il] ,e th gosyh jksM]

eqgjkadu

ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

2832257 10@12@2013

iksyhdsc ok;j izk fyfeVsM

ih oh lh balwusfMV dscy

694

1990

;wfuV&;w ,p 3] IykV uacj 65] uwjiqjk rFkk

32@2@33@34 jkeiqjk] rk gyksy]

iapegy&389350

2831861 11@12@2013

,oj,dl lsQVSd baMLVªht izk fyfeVsM

iksVsZcy Qkj ,DlfVaxof'kj&

15683

2006

131&132 vkj ts Mh VSDlVkbzy ikdZ] bPNkiqj

ijQksZesal rFkk daLVªd'ku

dsuky ds ikl] vnktu gthjk jksM]

bPNkiqj] lwjr&394510

2833663 11@12@2013

mfe;k eSVyl izk fyfeVsM

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

losZ uacj 922@1] th vkbZ Mh lh ds lkeus

buxksVl] fcysV] Cywel rFkk

jkuklu] fotkiqj] esglkuk 382870

`Lyscl Qkj fj&jksfyax baVª

LVhy Qkj tujy LVdpjy

ijil

2832459 12@12@2013

;'k eSVy

MkseSfLVd izs'kj dqdj

2347

2006

IykV uacj 4244] jksM uacj] 42] th vkbZ Mh lh]

lfpu] lwjr

12-

2833966 12@12@2013

'kfDr baMLVªht

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

61-62 ijes'o baMfLVª;y ,lVsV] vksedkj

fey ds lkeus] eSedks ujksMk jksM] vgenkckn&380025

13-

2833360 13@12@2013

turk fcojsftl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj

14543

2004

524&ih] 'ksyk Vsyo Økl jksM] rsyo cl LVki

nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy

ds ikl] rk lkuan] vgenkckn&382110

okVj½

14-

2833461 16@12@2013

vnsljk t;arhyky 'kkafryky toSylZ izk fyfeVsM -

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ èkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

2]3 igyh eafty] gosyh pSEclZ] ,e th gosyh

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

jksM] ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

15-

2834059 16@12@2013

ekusd iIe baMLVªht]

lceflZcy iEilSV

8034

2002

5@6 vlkjok baMfLVª;y ,lVsV] VkVk xksMkmu ds

ikl] pkeqaMk fczt ds ikl] vlkjok] vgenkckn

2834261 16@12@2013

,f'k;u feyl izkñ fyfeVsM

LVhy V;wc Qkj LVdpjy

1161

1988

IykV uacj 1] th vkbZ Mh lh] Qsl&I] Nrjky] rk

ijil

dyksy] xkaèhuxj&382729

2642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17-

2833865 16@12@2013

fjySDl baMLVªht

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj

14543

2004

losZ uacj 204] ,@4@3 jktho uxj] ih

nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy

Vh 2] jsyos ykbZu ds ikl] ostyiqj]

okVj½

vgenkckn&380051

18-

2833764 17@12@2013

f'koxaxk feujy okVj

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj

14543

2004

101] y{ehfuokl] lh ,u th iEi ds

nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy

lkeus] oklrk nsoMh jksM]

okVj½

dVVjxke] lwjr

19-

2834968 17@12@2013

iwue baMLVªht

bZjhxs'ku bD;wie®V&LVsuj

12785

1994

,@1&14] oVok thvkbZ Mh lh] oVok iksLV

VkbZi fQyVlZ

vkfQl jksM] Qsl II] oVok] vgenkckn&382445

20-

2835468 17@12@2013

fdlku fMªi bjhxs'ku izk fyfeVsM

bZjhxs'ku bD;wie®V&ikyhFkyhi

12786

1989

750,&2@,&4 th vkbZ Mh lh ,lVsVedjiqjk]

ikbZi Qkj bjhxs'ku ysVjy

oMksnjk&390010

21-

2835566 17@12@2013

fdlku fMªi bjhxs'ku izkñ fyfeVsM

bZjhxs'ku bD;wie®V&,;hVlZ

13487

1992

750,&2@,&4 th vkbZ Mh lh ,lVsVedjiqjk]

oMksnjk&390010

22-

2836871 17@12@2013

Jhth IykLV ekVZ

vuiyfLVlkbtM ih oh lh

4985

2000

losZ uacj 3@338] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k] ,V tkd]

ikbZi Qkj iksVsZcy okVj

xkaèhuxj] nsgxcke&382011

liykbZl

23-

2834362 18@12@2013

fnO;q'k baMLVªht fyfeVsM

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj

14543

2004

,&7] tkosjh baMfLVª;y ,lVsV

nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy

dkBokMk] th vkbZ Mh lh]

okVj½

vgenkckn&380430

24-

2835667 19@12@2013

'kqHke vksjuke®V

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ èkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

272@,Q ,Q@2] èkuph uh iksy ds ihNs]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

lqFkkj egktu fMli®uljh ds ikl] ,e

,oa eqgjkadu

th gosyh jksM] ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

25-

2835768 19@12@2013

foiqy toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ èkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

4@15@129@64&16 ch lw;kZ dkEiySDl] ,l Vh

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

odZ 'kkWi jksM] esglkuk&384002

,oa eqgjkadu

26-

2837772 20@12@2013

;'k jcj baMLVªht

bZjhxs'ku bD;wie®V&ikyhFkyhi

12786

1989

losZ uacj 25] ,V HksVkyh] lkcjdkaBk] bMkj

ikbZi Qkj bjhxs'ku ysVjy

27-

2836467 23@12@2013

,l D;w ldohtj izkñ fyfeVsM

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj

14543

2004

IykV uacj 230@2] thvkbZMhlkh mejxkao]

nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy

oylkn&396171

okVj½

28-

2837873 24@12@2013

;'k jcj baMLVªht

gkbZ M®flVh ikyhFkyhu ikbZi

4984

1995

losZ uacj 25] ,V HksVkyh] lkcjdkaBk] bMkj

Qkj iksVsZcy okVj liykbZl

29-

2837065 24@12@2013

fdlku fMªi bjhxs'ku izkñ fyfeVsM

bZjhxs'ku bD;wie®V Lizhadyj

14151

2008

750 ,&2@,&4 th vkbZ Mh lh ,lVsVedjiqjk]

ikbZi

oMksnjk&390010

30-

2837267 24@12@2013

iwue baMLVªht

bZjhxs'ku bD;wie®V&

14743

1999

,&1]&14] oVok thvkbZMhlh] oVok iksLV vkfQl

gkbZMªkslkbdyksu fQyVlZ

jksM] Qsl II] oVok] vgenkckn&382445

31-

2837368 24@12@2013

'kkg iYi rFkk isij feyl fyfeVsM

jkbZfVax rFkk fizafVax isij

1848

2007

IykV uacj 97] flyoklk jksM] th vkbZ Mh

lh] okih oylkn&396195

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2643

32-

2837469 24@12@2013

'kkg isij feYl fyfeVsM

jkbZfVax rFkk fiazfVax isij

1848

2007

IykV uacj 792@793 40 'kSM ,fj;k] th vkbZ Mh

lh] oylkn&396195

33-

2837570 30@12@2013

fd'kksjdqekj 'kkafryky pksdlh ¼toSylZ½

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ èkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

7&8 lQk;j dkEiySDl] lh th jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

vgenkckn&380006

eqgjkadu

34-

28377671 30@12@2013

fdj.k toSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ èkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

14 Øq".k dqat lkslkbVh] ekyiqj jksM]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk ,oa

eksMklk] fM lkcjdkaVk&383315

eqgjkadu

35-

2841460 30@12@2013

LV®MMZ iSfLVlkbZM izk fyfeVsM

ykecMk&lkbZgkyksFkzhu MCy;w

14510

1997

;wfuV uacj] II] ,1&47@6 th vkbZ Mh lh

,lVsV uansljh] oMksnjk&391340

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13 % 11]

MkWñ ,l-,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2014

S.O.1024.— 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 Date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

2828771

02.12.2013

Maruti Pump Industries

Openwell submersible

14220

1994

8/6, Sharamjivi Estate

pumpsets

Opp. R D Vidyalaya

Rakhial, Ahmedabad

2829975

04.12.2013

Tanisha Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

FF, 111, Shail Complex,

Jewellery/artefacts-

Near Girish Cold Drink,

fineness and marking-

Navrangpura C.G. Road

Ahmedabad-390009

2830253

04.12.2013

Salasar Industries

Submersible pumpsets

8034

2002

112, Tejendra Industrial Estate,

Opp: CMC Mill, Soni Ni Chawl,

Odhav Road

Ahmedabad

2830354

04.12.2013

Amideep Jewels

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Second Floor, Amideep Center,

Jewellery/artefacts-

Simada Naka, Varchha Road,

fineness and marking-

Near BPCL Petrol Pump

Surat-395006

2831053

9.12.2013

Sai Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

Survey No. 457/1/2, Plot No. 43,

(other than packaged

Station Road, Village Rakhial,

natural mineral water)

Tal Dehgam, Distt. Gandhinagar-382315

2644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2831356

9.12.2013

Shangar Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

13/60, Happy Home Shopping Center,

jewellery/artefacts-

Shastri Nagar Narangpura,

fineness and marking-

Ahmedabad-380013

2831457

9.12.2013

S.R. Chain

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

GF/1276, Mochi Ni Khadaki, Near

jewellery/artefacts-

Hanumanji Temple, M.G. Haveli Road,

fineness and marking-

Manek Chowk, Ahmedabad-380001

2832257

10.12.2013

Polycab Wire Pvt. Ltd.

PVC Insulated Cables

694

—

1990

Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd. Unit-UH 3

Plot No. 65, Noorpura & 32/2/33/34

Rampura, Tal: Halol Panchamahal-389350

2831861

11.12.2013

Everex Safetech Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Portable fire extinguishers-

15683

—

2006

131-132, RJD Textile Park,

performance and

Near Ichhapore Canal

construction

Adajan Hazira Road, Ichchapore

Surat-394510

2833663

11.12.2013

Umiya Meatals Pvt. Ltd.

Carbon Steel Cast Billet

2830

—

2012

Survey No. 922/1,

ingots, billets, blooms and

Opp. GIDC, Ranasan Vill. Ranasan,

slabs for re-rolling into steel

Vijapur, Mahesana-382870

for general structural

purposes

2832459

12.12.2013

Yash Metal

Domestic pressure cookers

2347

—

2006

Plot No. 4244, Road No. 42,

GIDC Sachin Surat

2833966

12.12.2013

Shakti Industries

Submersible pumpsets

8034

—

2002

61-62 Parmeshwar Indl Estate

Opp. Omkar Mill,

Memco Naroda Road

Ahmedabad-380025

283360

13.12.2013

Janta Beverages

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

524-P, Setla Telav Cross Road,

(other than packaged

Near Telav Bus Stop,

natural mineral water)

Tal Sanand Ahmedabad-382110

2833461

16.12.2013

Adesara Jayantilal Shantilal

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

—

1999

Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

jewellery/artefacts-

2-3, Fist Floor, Haveli Chambers,

fineness and marking-

M.G. Haveli Road, Manek Chowk

Ahmedabad-380001

2834059

16.12.2013

Manek Pump Industries

Submersible pumpsets

8034

—

2002

5/6, Awasra Industrial Estate

Near Tata Godown

Near Chamunda Bridge

Asarwa, Ahmedabad

2834261

16.12.2013

Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Steel tubes for structural

1161

—

1988

Plot No. 1, GIDC, Phase-I, Chhatral, Tal: purposes

Kalol Gandhinagar-382729

2833865

16.12.2013

Relax Industries

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

Survey No. 204, A/4/3, Rajiv Nagar,

(other than packaged

PT 2, NR Railway Line, Vejalpur

natural mineral water)

Ahmedabad-380051

2833764

17.12.2013

Shivganga Mineral Water

Packaged drinking water

14543

—

2004

101, Laxmi Nivas

(other than packaged

Opp. CNG Pump, Vasta Devdi Road,

natural mineral water)

Katargam, Surat

2834968

17.12.2013

Poonam Industries

Irrigation equipment-

12785

—

1994

A/1-14, VATVA GIDC, VATVA Post Office strainer-type filters

Road, Phase-II, Vatva, Ahmadabad-382445

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2645

20.

2835468

17.12.2013

Kisan Drip Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.

Irrigation equipment-

12786

—

1989

750, A-2/A-4,GIDC Estate

polyethylene pipes for

Makarpura, Vadodara-390010

irrigation laterals

21.

2835566

17.12.2013

Kisan Drip Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.

Irrigation equipment-

13487

—

1992

750/A-2 & 750/A-4, GIDC

emitters-

Makarpura, Vadodara-390010

22.

2836871

17.12.2013

Shreeji Plast Mart

Unplasticized pvc pipes for

4985

2000

Survey No. 3/338, Industrial Area,

potable water supplies

At Zak, Gandhinagar, Dehgam-

382011

23.

2834362

18.12.2013

Divyesh Industries Ltd.

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

A-7, Zaveri Industrial Estate

(other than packaged

Kathwada, GIDC Ahmadabad-

natural mineral water)

380430.

24.

2835667

19.12.2013

Shubham Ornaments

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

272/FF/2, B/H Ghanchi Ni Pole

jewellery/artefacts-

Near Suthar Mahajan Dispensry

fineness and marking-

M.G. Haveli Road, Manek Chowk

Ahmedabad-380001

25.

2835768

19.12.2013

Vipul Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

4/15/129/64-16 B Surya Complex,

jewellery/artefacts-

S T Work Shop Road,

fineness and marking-

Mehsana-384002

26.

2837772

20.12.2013

Yash Rubber Industries

Irrigation equipment-

12786

1989

Survey No. 25

polyethylene pipes for

At: Bhetali, Sabarkantha, IDAR

irrigation laterals

27.

2836467

23.12.2013

SQ Squeezers Pvt. Ltd.

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

Plot No. 230/2,

(other than packaged

GIDC, Umergaon

natural mineral water)

Valsad-396171

28.

2837873

24.12.2013

Yash Rubber Industries

High density polyethylene

4984

1995

Survey No. 25

pipes for potable water

At: Bhetali, Sabarkantha, IDAR

supplies

29.

2837065

24.122013

Kisan Drip Irrigation Pvt. Ltd.

Irrigation equipment-

14151

2008

Shed No. 750/A-2 & A-4

sprinkler pipes

GIDC Estate

Makarpura Vadodara-390010

30.

2837267

24.12.2013

Poonam Industries

Irrigation equipment-

14743

1999

A/1-14, Vatva GIDC, Vatva Post

hydrocyclone filters-

Office Road, Phase II, Ahmadabad-

382445

31.

2837368

24.12.2013

Shah Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd

Writing and printing paper

1848

2007

Plot No. 97, Silvassa Road,

GIDC Vapi, Valsad-396195

32.

2837469

24.12.2013

Shah Paper Mills Limited

Writing and printing paper

1848

2007

Plot No 792/793 40 Shed Area

GIDC Valsad-396195

33.

2837570

30.12.2013

Kishor Kumar Shantilal Choksi

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

(Jewellers)

jewellery/artefacts-

7-8 Sapphire Complex,

fineness and marking-

C.G. Road, Ahmedabad,

Ahmadabad-380006

34.

2837671

30.12.2013

Kiran Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

14, Krushn Kunj Society,

jewellery/artefacts-

Malpur Road,

fineness and marking-

Modasa, Dist Sabarkantha-383315

2646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

35.

2841460

30.12.2013

Standard Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.

Lambda-cyhalothrin wp-

14510

1997

Unit No. II, A1-47/6 GIDC Estate

Nandesari, Vadodara 391340

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F'& Head

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1025.— Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e ¼5½ ds mi&fofu;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

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la[;k

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

lh,e@,y&

7057670

,e ch ,p iEi ¼xqt½ izk fyfeVsM

bySfDVªd eksukslSV iEil Qkj Dyh;j]

02@12@2013

;wfuV 2] IykV uacj 14] th vkbZ Mh lh

dksYM okVj Qkj ,xzhdYpyZ rFkk

baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] ujksMk] vgenkckn&382330

okVj lIykbZl ijil

vkbZ ,l 9079 % 2002

7851286

okbczsaV MSdksj ¼bafM;k½ izk fyfeVsM

MSdksjsfVo FkeksZlsfVax flaFkSfVd jsflu

23@12@2013

fnO;/kke lj[kst ckoyk ¼jktdksV½

ckafMM ysfeusfVM 'khV

gkbos ds ikl] pkaxksnj] vgenkckn

vkbZ ,l 2046 % 1995

[lañ lh ,e Mh@13%13]

MkW- ,l-,y- ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2014

S.O. 1025.— 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 licences particulars of which are given below

have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No. Name and Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

7057670

M/s. MBH Pumps (Guj) Pvt. Ltd.

Electric monoset pumps for clear, cold

02/12/2013

Unit 2, Plot No. 14, GIDC Industrial Estate,

water for agricultural and water supply

Naroda, Distt: Ahmadabad 382330

purposes

IS 9079: 2002

7851286

M/s. Vibrant Decor (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Decorative thermosetting Synthetic

23/12/2013

NR Divyadham Sarkhej-Bavla

resin bonded laminated sheets

(Rajkot) Highway,

IS 2046 : 1995

Changodar Distt. Ahmadabad

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist 'F' & Head

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2647

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1026.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fu;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, g®] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, g®%&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkk

vuq

o"kZ

la-

dh frfFk o"kZ@

la[;k

ekg

2840761 01-01-2014

lkcj ih oh lh ikbZi baMLVªht

vuiyfLVlkbTM ih oh lh

4985

2000

losZ uacj 32] IykV uacj 09]10]11]

ikbZIl Qkj iksVscy okVj

njxkg /kka/kk ds lkeus] fgEeruxj]

lIykbZl

lkcjdkaVk&383001

2837974 02-01-2014

Jhjke IykfLVlsdl

VSDlVkbZy & rkjiksfyu esM

7903

2011

377&378] th vkbZ Mh lh baMfLVª;y

Qzke gkbZ MSuflVh ikyfFkyhu

,lVsV] iksj&jkeuxkeMh]

oksou QScfjd

oMksnjk&391243

2840054 06-01-2014

izrhd ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

34] flVh losZ 1338] lksuh cktkj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

/kkjuh/kkj dkEiySDl] U;w Mhlk]

,oa eqgjkadu

okMh jksM] culdkaVk&385535

2841662 06-01-2014

;'k jcj baMLVªht

bZjhxs'ku bD;wie®V

14151

2008

losZ uacj&25 ,V% Hksrkyh] lkcjdkaVk]

Lizhdyj ikbZi

bMj

2841258 09-01-2014

dLrwjpan Mksykth ToSylZ]

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

;w th&1 ls 5] 15 ls 17] es/k e;wj]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

Iyktk] tSu Qjlk.k ds lkeus] ikjys

,oa eqgjkadu

ikabZV] lwjr&395007

2841359 09-01-2014

ikfju vksjuk izk fyfeVsM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

ikfju gkml] 168] MsMdk uh iksy

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ds lkeus] ,e th gosyh jksM]

,oa eqgjkadu

ekusd pkSd] vgenkckn&380001

2842866 15-01-2014

t;nso ,aVjizkbZl]

izs'kj lsaflfVo ,MgSflo

7809

1986

'ksM uacj ,&2@26] IykV uacj 557@,

balwysfVax VsIl Qkj

¼100 'ksM½] thvkbZMhlh okih]

bySfDVªdy ijil

oylkn&396195

2842765 16-01-2014

Øq.kky gSYFk ds;j

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

59] th vkbZ Mh lh] ekrj [ksMk

iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj½

2843767 20-10-2014

v'kksd ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

10] th ,Q 24] dsjsV dkEiySDl]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

jkeuxj] lkcjerh] vgenkckn&380005

,oa eqgjkadu

10-

2844971 20-01-2014

ysfol flxuspj isuy izkñ fyfeVsM

oqM ikfVZdy cksMZ ¼fefM;e

3087

2005

xk¡o vukjk] dkfB;y ckyfluksj jksM]

M®flVh½ Qkj tujy ijil

vukjk] dkByky] [ksMk

11-

2845064 20-01-2014

ysfol flxuspj isuy izk- fyfeVsM

oqM izksMDVl&izhysfeusfVM

12823

1990

xk¡o vukjk] dkfB;ky ckyfluksj jksM]

ikfVZdy cksMZ

vukjk] dkByky] [ksMk

2648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12-

2846167 23-01-2014

vat gSYFkds;j

iSdstcan is;ty ¼vnj nSu

14543

2004

ch&3] 'kadjHkkbZ ,lVsV] ,V eatwlj]

iSdsTM uspqjy feujy

rk lkoyh] oMksnjk

okVj½

13-

2846268 23-01-2014

vksiVSy eSVYl izkñ fyfeVsM

dkcZu LVhu dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

losZ uacj 573] ,V rFkk ih vks uokuxj]

buxksV~l] fcysV] CywEl rFkk

v.kiw.kkZ gksVy ds lkeus] rk fgEeruxj]

Lyscl Qkj fj&jksfyax baVw

¼uokuxj ikfV;k½] fgEeruxj&

LVhy Qkj tujy

fotkiqj gkbZos] lkcjdkaVk] uokuxj

LVdpjyZ ijil

2846470 23@01@2014

ohjs'oj vk;ju rFkk LVhy izkñ fyfeVsM

dkcZu LVhy dkLV fcysV

2830

2012

,Q&205] Mkeksnj dkEiySDl] nwljh eafty]

buxksV~l] fcysV] CywEl rFkk

nsuk cSad ds ihNs] bMkj] lkcjdkaVk&383430

Lyscl Qkj fj&jksfyax baVw

LVhy Qkj tujy

LVdpjyZ ijil

2846571 24@01@2014

ukjk;.k ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

15]16 voarh pSEclZ] ,Dlizsl gksVy ds

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

ihNs] vkj lh nr jksM] vydkiqjh] oMksnjk&390007

,oa eqgjkadu

2846672 24@01@2014

uVwHkkbZ lksuh rFkk lUl

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

10@943] lksuh Qkfy;k esu jksM

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

xzkmaM Ýyksj] ?kkfjokyk uks [kkapks]

,oa eqgjkadu

lwjr 395003

2847068 29@01@2014

ekbZdk baMLVªht fyfeVsM

ekbZYM LVhy ok;lZ] QkseMZ

3975

1999

IykV uacj 508] 509] 510 'kSM uacj ,1] 34] 35

ok;lZ rFkk VsIl Qkj

vkSj vkbZ ch 135] 136] 100 'kSM ,fj;k Qsl 2]

vkjefjax vkQ dscy

th vkbZ Mh lh

nsgxke jksM] oylkn] okih

2848070 29@01@2014

vkfnukFk ToSylZ

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

13] dkBokMk jksM] iksLV vkfQl ds ihNs]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

E;wfufliy 'kkWfiax lSaVj] ujksMk] vgenkckn&382330

,oa eqgjkadu

2848373 30@01@2014

okeu baMLVªht izk- fyfeVsM

,Y;wfefu;e daMDVlZ Qkj

398

1996

losZ uacj 118@24] xkao rFkk iksLV /kkulj&

vksojgSM Vªkalfe'ku ijil

ewokMh iapegy] gyksy 389350

2848474 30@01@2014

okeu baMLVªht izk- fyfeVsM

,Y;wfefu;e daMDVlZ Qkj

398

1992

losZ uacj 118@24] xkao rFkk iksLV /kkulj&

vksojgSM Vªkalfe'ku ijil

ewokMh iapegy]

gyksy&389350

2848878 31@01@2014

,jks ikojVSd izk- fyfeVsM

,lh LVsfVd okVgkoj ehVj]

13779

1999

23] th vkbZ Mh lh] edjiqjk] oMksnjk&390010

Dykl 1 rFkk Dykl 2

2849173 31@01@2014

ukscy ySfeusV izk- fyfeVsM-

MSdksjsfVo FkeksZlSfVax fluFkSfVd

2046

1995

Cykd uacj] 451&452] ,u ,p uacj&8

jsflu cksafMM ySfeusfVM 'khVl

xkao panjkyk] xka/khuxj

2850057 31@01@2014

Jh jk/ks Mk;aeaM~l

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

4] jktnhi 27] uwru Hkkjr lkslkbVh] vydkiqjh]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq}rk

oMksnjk&390007

,oa eqgjkadu

2850158 31@01@2014

ok?ks'ojh xksYM

Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /kkrqvksa ds

1417

1999

24] ohik Hkou] Qrg HkkbZ uh gosyh] jru iksy]

vkHkw"k.kksa f'kYidkjh 'kq)rk

vgenkckn&380001

,oa eqgjkadu

[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]

MkWñ ,lñ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2649

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2014

S.O.1026.— 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 Date

Name & Address of the party

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec

Year

No. No.

2840761

01/01/2014

Sabar PVC Pipe Industries

Unplasticized pvc pipes for

4985

2000

Survey No. 32, Plot No 09,10,11,

potable water supplies

Opp. Dargah Dhandha, Himatnagar.

Sabarkantha - 383001

2837974

02/01/2014

Shree Ram Plastisacks

Textiles-tarpaulins made

7903

2011

377-378, GIDC Industrial Estate

fromhigh density

Por-Ramangamdi, Vadodara-391243

polyethylene woven fabric

2840054

06/01/2014

Pratik Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

34, Sitisarve 1338, Soni Bazar,

jewellery/artefacts-

Dharnidhar Complex, New Deesa,

fineness and marking

Wadi Road, Banas Kantha-385535

2841662

06/01/2014

Yash rubber Industries

Irrigation equipment-

14151

2008

Survey No. 25 At: Bhetali,

sprinkler pipes

Sabarkantha, Idar

2841258

09/01/2014

Kasturchand Dolaji IS Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

UG-1 to 5, 15 to 17, Megh Mayur Plaza,

jewellery/artefacts-

Opp Jane Farshan, Parle Point Surat,

fineness and marking

Surat - 395007

2841359

09/01/2014

Parin Orna Pvt. Ltd.

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

Parin House 168, Opp. Dedka Ni Pole,

jewellery/artefacts-

M.G. Haveli Road, Manekchowk,

fineness and marking

Ahmedabad-380001

2842866

15/01/2014

Jaidev Entreprises

Pressure sensitive adhesive

7809

1986

Shad No. A-2/26, Plot No. 557/A

insulating tapes

(100 Shade), GIDC VAPI. Valsad-396195

for electrical purposes

2842765

16/01/2014

Krunal Health Care

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

59, GIDC Matar Kheda

(other than packaged

natural mineral water)

2843767

20/01/2014

Ashok Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

10, GF 24, Carat Complex,

jewellery/artefacts-

Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad 380005 fineness and marking-

2844971

20/01/2014

Lavis Signature Panel P. Ltd

Wood particle boards

3087

2005

Village Anara, Kathial Balsinor Road,

(medium density) for

Anara, Kathlal Kheda

general purposes

2845064

20/01/2014

Lavis Signature Panel P. Ltd.

Wook products-

12823

1990

Village Anara, Kathial

prelaminated particle boards

Balsinor Road, Anara, Kathlal, Kheda

2846167

23/01/2014

ANJ Healhthcare

Packaged drinking water

14543

2004

B-3, Shankarbhai Estate

(other than packaged)

AT: Manjusar Tal: Savli

natural mineral water)

Vadodara

2846268

23/01/2014

Optel Metals Pvt Ltd

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Survey No. 573, AT & PO: Navanagar

ingots, billets, blooms

Opp. Anapurna Hotel, Tal: Himatnagar

and slabs for re-rolling into

(Navanagar Patia), Himatnagar-Vijapur

steel for general

Highway Sabarkantha, Navanagar

structural purpose

2846470

23/01/2014

Vireshvar Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

F-205, Damodar Complex, 2nd Floor,

ingots, billets, blooms

Behind Dena Bank. Idar, Sabarkantha-

and slabs for re-rolling into

383430

steel for general

structural purpose

2650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2846571

24/01/2014

Narayan Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

15,16 Avanti Chambers,

jewellery/artefacts-

Behind Express Hotel, R.C. Dutt Road,

fineness and marking-

Alkapuri Vadodara-390007

2846672

24/01/2014

Nathubhai Soni and Sons

Gold and gold alloys

1417

1999

10/1943, Soni Falia Main Road,

jewellery/artefacts-

Ground Floor,Ghariwala No Khancho,

fineness and marking-

Surat-395003

2847068

29/01/2014

Mica Industries Ltd

Mild steel wires, formed

3975

1999

Plot No. 508 509,

wires and tapes for

510 Shed No.A1, 34, 35 & IB135,

armouring of cables

136 100 Shed Area Phase 2, GIDC,

Degam Road Valsad, Vapi

2848070

29/01/2014

Adinath Jewellers

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

13, Kathwada Road, B/H Post Office,

jewellery/artefacts-

Municipal Shopping Centre,

fineness and marking-

Naroda. Ahmedabad. 382330

2848373

30/01/2014

Vaman Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Aluminium conductors for

398

1996

Survey No. 118/24

overhead tansmission

Village & Post:

purposes

Ghansar-Muvadi Panchamahal

Halol-389350

2848474

30/01/2014

Vaman Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Aluminium conductors for

398

1992

Survey No. 118/24 Village & Post.

overhead transmission

Ghansar-Muvadi, Panchamahal,

purposes

Halol-389350

2848878

31/01/2014

Arrow Powertech Pvt .Ltd.

Ac static watthour meters,

13779

1999

23,G.I.D.C. Makarpura, Vadodara-390010 class 1 and 2

2849173

31/01/2014

Noble Laminates Pvt.Ltd.

Decorative thermosetting

2046

1995

Block No. 451-452, N.H. No.8,

synthetic resin

Village: Chandrala, Gandhinagar

bonded laminated sheets

2850057

31/01/2014

Shree Radhe Diamonds

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

4, Rajdeep 27, Nutan Bharat Soc.

jewellery/artefacts-

Alkapuri Vadodara-390007

fineness and marking-

2850158

31/01/2014

Vagheswari Gold

Gold and gold alloys,

1417

1999

24, Vipa Bhavan, Fateh

jewellery/artefacts-

Bhai Ni Haveli, Ratan Pole.

fineness and marking-

Ahmedabad-380001

[No. CMD/13:11]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist-'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1027.— 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-

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

jn~n djus dh frfFk

la-

lh,e@,y

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

3827471

gkbMªks VSd LohV okVj

iSdstcan is;ty

20@01@2014

IykV uacj 245@2] ,V vky?kkV] rk- egwok]

¼vnj nSu iSdstM uspqjy feujy okVj½

xkao egwok lwjr] vky?kkV 395009

vkbZ ,l 14543%2004

0500222

;s'kk bySfDVªdyl izk- fyfeVsM

'kaV dsisLVlZ vkQ uku lSYQ

31@01@2014

lh&2@18] baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] xksjok jksM]

ghfyax VkbZi Qkj ,lh ikoj flLVe

oMksnjk&390016

vkbZ ,l 13585% ikVZ 1% 1994

[lañ lh ,e Mh@ 13%13 ]

MkWñ ,lñ,yñ ikydj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2651

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2014

S.O.1027.— 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 licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences No. Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of Cancellation

No.

CM/L-

Standards covered by the licence cancelled

3827471

M/s Hydro Tech Sweet Water

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged

20/01/2014

Plot No 245/2, at Alghat, TA Mahuva,

natural mineral water)

Village Mahuva, Dist Surat.,

IS 14543:2004

ALGHAT 395009

0500222

M/s Yesha Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Shunt capacitors of non self healing type for ac

31/01/2014

C-2/18, Industrial Estate, Gorwa Road,

power systems

Distt: Vadodara 390016

IS 13585: Part 1: 1994

[No. CMD/13:13]

Dr. S.L. PALKAR, Scientist- 'F' & Head

¼[kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1028.— 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 miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky; ¼[kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx½ ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu dsUnzh;

HkaMkj.k fuxe ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks jkti=

esa vf/klwfpr djrh gS%&

HkkaMkxkj izca/kd]

dsUnzh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsUnzh; HkkaMkxkj] f'kokth uxj]

daVsuj izsQV LVs'ku&nzks.kkfxjh uksM]

vejkorh&444603

uoh eqEcbZ

HkkaMkxkj izca/kd]

dsUnzh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsUnzh; HkkaMkxkj] ns'keq[k Qkby]

daVsuj izsQV LVs'ku&fMLVªhikdZ]

vdksyk&444001

uoh eqEcbZ

HkkaMkxkj izca/kd]

dsUnzh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsUnzh; HkkaMkxkj] xksafn;k&1]

daVsuj izsQV LVs'ku&dkyEcksyh

ftyk&HkaMkjk&441601

uoh eqEcbZ

HkkaMkxkj izca/kd]

dsUnzh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsUnzh; HkkaMkxkj] o/kZeku uxj]

daVsuj izsQV LVs'ku&bEisDl ikdZ]

ukxiqj&440008

uoh eqEcbZ

HkkaMkxkj izca/kd]

10-

dsUnzh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsUnzh; HkkaMkxkj] fu;j vkWDVªk; psd iksLV]

daVsuj izsQV LVs'ku&ykWftfLVd ikdZ]

/kkeuxkao ekxZ] ;oreky&445001

uoh eqEcbZ

[lañ bZ&11011@1@2008&fgUnh]

iz'kkar f=osnh] la;qDr lfpo

2652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2014

S.O.1028.— In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union)

Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of Food Corporation of India under the administrative

control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food & Public Distribution), where of

more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

Warehouse Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehousing,

Container Freight Station, Dronagiri

Shivaji Nagar, Amarawati-444603

Node, Navi Mumbai.

Warehouse Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehousing,

Container Freight Station, District

Deshmukh File, Akola-444001

Park, Navi Mumbai.

Warehouse Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehousing, Gondia-1,

Container Freight Station,

Distt-Bhandara-441601

Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai.

Warehouse Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehousing,

Container Freight Station, Impex

Vardhman Nagar, Nagpur-440008

Park, Navi Mumbai.

Warehouse Manager,

10.

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehousing, Near Octroi

Container Freight Station, Logistic

Check Post, Dhamangaon Marg,

Park, Navi Mumbai.

Yavatmal-445001

[No.E.-11011/1/2008-Hindi]

PRASHANT TRIVEDI, Jt. Secy.

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1029.— dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu

vkSj fodkl½] vf/kfu;e 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/

kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/

klwpuk la[;kad dkñvkñ 184] rkjh[k 21 tqykbZ] 2013] }kjk tks Hkkjr

ds jkti=] ¼lkIrkfgd½ Hkkx II [kaM 3] mi&[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k 20

tuojh&26 tuojh] 2013 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk ls

mikc) vuqlwph esa ;Fkk of.kZr 500-00 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1235-00

,dM+ eki okyh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij lHkh vf/kdkj ds vtZu djus ds

vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh(

vkSj] l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds vuqlj.k

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS(

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds

i'pkr~ vkSj vle ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku gks

x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa ;Fkk of.kZr 500-00 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 1235-00 ,dM+ eki okyh Hkwfe esa vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkjksa

dk vtZu fd;k tkuk pkfg,(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e 1957 dh /kkjk 9

dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd blls laXyu vuqlwph esa ;Fkk o£.kr 500-00 gsDVj

¼yxHkx½ ;k 1235-00 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh mDr Hkwfe esa vkSj

ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu djrh gS A

bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k

losZ@,evkjth@13@122] rkjh[k 5 twu] 2013 dk fujh{k.k mik;qDr]

ftyk frulqfd;k] vle] ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] dkmafly

gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k egk izcU/kd] ukFkZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l] dksy bafM;k fyfeVsM] ekj?ksfjVk] ftyk&frulqfd;k]

vle&786181 ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

tkxqu dks;yk [kuu CykWd

ftyk&frulqfd;k ¼vle½

vuqlwph

¼js[kkad la[;k losZ@,evkjth@13@122] rkjh[k 5 twu] 2013½

Øe

vkjf{kr

Fkkuk

ftyk

{ks= ¼,dM+

{ks=

fVIif.k;ka

la-

ou* dk

esa½

¼gsDVj

uke

esa½

ukeQkbZ

tkxqu

frulqfd;k

543-00

220-00

Hkkx

fVadksikuh

tkxqu

frulqfd;k

692-00

280-00

Hkkx

dqy%

1235-00

500-00

*jktLo vkSj ou vfHkys[k ds vuqlkjA

dqy% 500-00 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½

1235-00 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2653

lhek o.kZu%

^^d**&^^[k**%

js[kk ^^d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj tkxqu&fe;kvks

lM+d ds iwoZ fn'kk esa lekukarj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq

^^[k** ij ukefpd unh ds fudV feyrh gSA

^^[k**&^^x**%

js[kk if'pe dh vksj ukefpd unh ¼izokg ds

foijhr fn'kk esa½ ds fdukjs ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq

^^x** ij feyrh gSA

^^x**&^^?k**%

js[kk nf{k.k dh vksj ukeQkbZ vkjf{kr ou ls gksdj

ukefpd unh ds fdukjs ls xqtjrh gS vkSj ^^?k** ij

fVadksikuh vkjf{kr ou ij feyrh gSA

^^M+**&^^p**%

js[kk fVadksikuh vkjf{kr ou ds ek/;e ls if'pe

dh vksj ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcanq ^^p** ij feyrh gSA

^^p**&^^d**%

js[kk mRrj dh vksj ls xqtjrh gS vkSj tkxqu&fe;kvks

lM+d ds ikl fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gSA

[Qk-la- 43015@7@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1]

nksfefud MaqxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2014

S.O.1029.— Whereas, by the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O.

184, dated the 21st January, 2013, issued under sub-section

(1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred

to as the said Act), and published in the Gazette of India

(weekly) Part II, Sections, Sub-section (ii), dated the January

20-January 26, 2013, the Central Government gave notice

of its intention to acquire the land measuring 500.00

hectares (approximately) or 1235.00 acres (approximately)

and all rights in or over the said land in the locality specified

in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And, whereas the competent authority in pursuance

of section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the

Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government after

considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the

Government of Assam, is satisfied that the lands measuring

500.00 hectares (approximately) or 1235.00 acres

(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands

described in the Schedule appended hereto should be

acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the land measuring 500.00

hectares (approximately) or 1235.00 acres (approximately)

and all rights in or over the said lands described in the

Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number SURVEY/MRG/13/122,

dated the 5th June, 2013 of the area covered by this

notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector,

District Tinsukia, Assam, or in the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001, or in

the office of the General Manager, North Eastern Coalfields,

Coal India Limited, Margherita, District-Tinsukia, Assam-

786181.

Jagun Coal Mining Block

District-Tinsukia (Assam)

SCHEDULE

[plan bearing number SURVEY/MRG/13/122, dated the 5th

June, 2013]

Sl.

Name of

Thana

District

Area (in

Remarks

No. Reserve

acres)

hectares)

Forest*

Namphai

Jagun

Tinsukia 543.00

220.00

Part

Tinkopani Jagun

Tinsukia 692.00

280.00

Part

Total

1235.00

500.00

*as per Revenue and Forest records.

Total: 500.00 hectares (approximately)

1235.00 acres (approximately)

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from 'A' passes towards East parallel to

the Jagun-Miao road and meets at points 'B' near

Namchik river.

B-C

Line passes along the bank of Namchik river

(upstream) towards West and meets at point 'C'.

C-D

Line passes along the bank of Namchik river towards

South through Namphai reserve forest and meets

further South at point 'D' Tinkopani reserve forest.

E-F

Line passes towards West though Tinkopani reserve

forest and meets at point 'F'.

F-A

Line passes towards North and meets at point 'A'

near the Jagun-Miao road.

[F. No. 43015/7/2011-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 fnlEcj] 2013

dk- vk- 1030.— vkS|ksfxdh fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfQlj dekafMax

fnYyh dSaV ds izca/kr= ds lac} fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

2654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; lañ&1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 95@1999½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@12@2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&14012@73@98&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2013

S.O.1030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 95/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court

No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The Officer Commanding, Delhi Cantt., New

Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 26/12/13.

[No. L-14012/73/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 95/1999

Shri Virender Kumar Yadav,

C/o Sh. M.A. Khan, 5/385,

Trilokpuri, Delhi-110 091.

....Workman

Versus

The Officer Commanding,

226, COY ASC (SUP) Type G,

Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-10

....Management

AWARD

Casual labours were engaged by the Officer

Commanding 226, COY Army Supply Corps, Delhi Cantt.,

New Delhi from time to time. Casual labour, who rendered

atleast 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing

five day week), is to be granted temporary status in view of

office memorandum No. 49014/2/86-Estt (C) dated

07.06.1988. Subsequently, a scheme for grant of temporary

status was formulated, which is known as 'Casual Labourers

(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of

Government of India, 1993'. When Officer Commanding,

instead of granting temporary status, terminated services

of Shri Virender Kumar Yadav, engaged as a casual labour,

he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Commanding Officer contested his claim, as such

conciliation proceedings failed. On submission of failure

report, the appropriate Government formed an opinion that

an industrial dispute was in existence and referred that

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L-

14012/73/98/IR(DU), New Delhi, dated 01.03.1999, with

following terms:

"Whether action of Officer Commanding, 226, COY

ASC (Sup.), Type G, Delhi Cantt., in terminating

services of Shri Virender Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Shakul

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

is entitled?"

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Virender Kumar

Yadav, pleading therein that he was engaged as a casual

labour by Officer Commanding in the month of May 1993.

He had worked for the Officer Commanding in godown or

storage or as watchman for about 5 years. He rendered

duties from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He made a demand for

regularization of his services. Instead of regularizing his

services, his services were dispensed with on 31.10.1997

orally, without giving any notice or pay in lieu thereof and

retrenchment compensation. His wages for the month of

September and October 1997 were also not paid. He claimed

reinstatement in service of the Management, with

continuity and full back wages.

3. Claim was demurred by and on behalf of the

Commanding Officer, pleading that there existed no

relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

However, it has been claimed that the claimant was engaged

as a casual labour. Guidelines for recruitment of persons

on daily wage basis were issued by Central Government

vide office memorandum No. 49014/2/86-Estt(C) dated

07.06.1988, which are being followed. Temporary status

would be conferred on a casual labour when he renders

atleast 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing five

day week) continuous service in a calendar year. Since the

claimant had not rendered continuous service of 240 days

in any calendar year, he was not entitled for grant of

temporary status. It was claimed that his claim statement

may be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

4. Claimant opted not to enter the witness box to

testify facts. The management also followed suit. Thus, no

evidence was adduced by the parties, to substantiate their

respective case.

5. After hearing the parties, an award dated 07.05.2004

was handed down by the Tribunal on the strength of which

dispute raised by the claimant, besides disputes of 39 other

workmen of his category, was answered against him. The

award was assailed before the High Court of Delhi by way

of writ petition, which came to be disposed off on 10.05.2013.

The High Court remanded the matter back to this Tribunal

for adjudication on the issue as to whether the claimant

had rendered continuous service of 240 days in or any of

the calendar years, when he worked with the management.

For sake of convenience, the order passed by the High

Court of is reproduced thus:

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2655

"In the light of the aforesaid dispute, I am inclined to

remand the reference back to CGIT concerned only

for the limited purpose of examining the records of

the respondent in respect of each of the 35 petitioners

herein to ascertain whether or not they or any of

them had served for 240 days either in the year

preceding their termination, or in any of the years

during which they served the respondent. The said

computation shall be made in accordance with section

25-B of the Act.

For the said purpose, the respondent shall produce

its records for scrutiny by the Labour Court and the

petitioner shall also be entitled to inspection of the

same.

It is made clear that no other issue shall be permitted

to be raised by either of the parties.

The impugned Award is set aside to the aforesaid

extent only and the CGIT shall, after recording its

findings in respect of each of the 35 petitioners,

proceed to pass consequential orders."

6. When matter was taken up for consideration by

the Tribunal, after its remittance by the High Court, an

application was moved by and on behalf of the claimant

seeking production of muster rolls. The application was

disposed off vide order dated 05.08.2013, directing the

management to produce muster rolls in respect of the

claimant before the Tribunal. For convenience, said order

is reproduced thus:

"Shri Saini moves an application praying therein that

the respondent may be directed to produce muster

rolls pertaining to the claimant. Notice of the

application is given to Shri Tyagi, who had replied

the application orally. I have gone through the order

dated 10.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi,

wherein following directions were issued:

"In the light of the aforesaid dispute, I am inclined

to remand the reference back to the CGIT

concerned only for the limited purpose of

examining the records of the respondent in respect

of each of the 35 petitioners herein to ascertain

whether, or not, they or any of them had served

for 240 days either in the year preceding their

termination, or in any of the years during which

they served the respondent. The said computation

shall be made in accordance with Section 25B of

the Act.

For the said purpose, the respondent shall

produce its records for scrutiny by the Labour

Court and the petitioner shall also be entitled to

inspection of the same."

In the light of the above orders passed by the High

Court of Delhi, it is expedient to announce that the

management is under an obligation to produce

records relating to attendance of the claimants while

in service of the respondent, including muster rolls.

Resultantly, application is granted. Management shall

produce muster rolls in respect of the claimants on

the next date of hearing positively."

7. Instead of producing muster rolls, management

moved an application seeking exemption from filing the

muster rolls for the years 1983-1998, claiming that the same

stood destroyed. The management projected that the

muster rolls are no more in their possession, since it has

been destroyed. On account of destruction of muster rolls,

it cannot be produced, pursuant to order dated 05.08.2013,

pleads the management. Attendance registers have been

produced, claims the management.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Sudeep Raj

Saini, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the claimant. Shri Brij Bhushan Tyagi, authorized

representative, presented facts on behalf of the

management. I have given my careful considerations to

the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:

9. At the outset, Shri Tyagi argued that muster rolls

have been destroyed pursuant to decision taken by Board

of Officers in October 2011. In support of his contention,

he had filed photocopies of the documents relating to

meetings of Board of Officer, wherein decision for

destruction of the documents was taken and the documents

were destroyed by way of burning. Certificate from

Commandant, 226 Company ASC, has been annexed

wherein it has been certified that the documents/files

mentioned in Board's proceedings were not required as per

para 592 of Regulation for the Army, 1987 and were

recommended for destruction. A declaration to that effect

was issued by the Commandant wherein he has declared

that the documents, which were to be destroyed, do not

contain any paper of following subjects:

(a) Papers containing decision on important matters of

departmental policy,

(b) Maps and plans relating to operation,

(d) War diaries,

(e) Financial documents (to be retained for 10 years),

(f) Regiment long roll and

(g) Documents of historical and archival value

10. Certificate issued by the Board of Officers,

counter signed by the Commandant, 226 Company ASC,

has also been annexed. It has been certified therein that

old records have been destroyed by way of burning with

2656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

effect from 15.10.2011 and subsequent dates. Records,

which have been burnt, pertain to Payment VR Supply &

Services from 01.02.1971 to 31.12.2000, Payment Vouchers

of Regiment from 01.01.1998 to 31.12.1998, Payment Voucher

Regiment Fund Account from 12.08.1970 to 30.07.2001,

Black Cheque Regiment Fund Account from 01.04.1976 to

31.03.1992, Red Cheque from 01.04.1973 to 31.03.1992,

Payment Voucher CSE from 01.04.1990 to 31.03.2001, Receipt

Voucher CSD Canteen from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.2001, CSD

Canteen Account Columnar Cash Book from 01.08.1971 to

31.05.1984, Red Cheque from 01.04.1969 to 31.03.1992, FD

Imprest Account 01.09.1984 to 31.08.2001, Payment Voucher

File FD Imprest from 01.01.1984 to 31.03.1992, Payment

Voucher Public Fund Accounts from 01.08.1990 to

31.03.1998, Payment Voucher JCO Mess 01.04.1994 to

31.03.1999, Receipt Voucher JCO Mess from 01.04.1995 to

31.03.2001, Receipt Voucher LPG Account from 01.07.1990

to 31.03.1998, Payment Voucher Soda Water Account from

01.06.1997 to 31.12.2001, Receipt Voucher Soda Water

Account from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1994. Payment Voucher

RIS Accounts from 01.03.1993 to 31.03.2001, Payment

Voucher LPG Payment Accounts from 01.02.1999 to

30.04.2001, Quarterly Surprise Check Correspondence from

01.10.1988 to 30.06.1989, Postage Service Level

Correspondence from 01.04.1975 to 31.07.1989,

Correspondence Files from 01.03.1991 to 31.05.1992, 90%

payment - M/s. MS Oberoi & Bros from 01.02.1980 to

15.05.1987, Handling/Taking Over Correspondence from

15.09.1983 to 30.06.1989, Pay and Allowance JCOs

Correspondence from 21.08.1990 to 15.04.1992, ETG

Correspondence from 01.04.1975 to 05.09.1989, IAFA 175

Receipt for cash/Cheque Regiment Account from 01.01.1962

to 30.03.1977, IAFA 175 Receipt of cash CSE canteen

account from 01.07.1977 to 30.03.1992, IAFA 175 Receipt

for Cash/Cheque Public Fund from 10.04.1963 to November

1985, Labour Imprest accounts - Cash Book from 01.12.1965

to 01.07.1970, Public Fund Account Columnar Cash Book

from 01.03.1956 to 30.09.1984, Regiment Fund Account

Columnar Cash Book from 12.08.1970 to 18.01.1986, CSE

Canteen Account Columnar Cash Book 01.08.1971 to

31.05.1984, IAFA - Black Cheque from 01.04.1978 to

31.03.1991, IAFA - Red Cheque 01.01.1977 to 31.03.1991,

IAFA 176 Black Cheque FD Imprest Account from 01.04.1972

to 31.03.1992, IAFA 177 - Red Cheque FD Imp Account

from 01.04.1972 to 31.03.1992, IAFA 176 Black Cheque Public

Fund Accounts from 01.04.1971 to 31.03.1992 and IAFA

177 (Red cheque) Public Fund Accounts from 01.04.1971 to

31.03.1992.

11. During the course of arguments Shri Saini opted

not to comment anything on the proposition as to whether

above records were destroyed or not. It came to light that

the claimant has nothing to say that the above records

were destroyed by the management. When claimant does

not question the fact that the above records stood

destroyed, facts emerging out of above certificate, issued

by the Board of Officers and counter signed by the

Commandant, are to be accepted. Resultantly, it is concluded

that above records were destroyed by the management.

12. A claim has been made by the management that

muster rolls were records of payment and hence kept as

payment vouchers. Muster rolls, being financial documents,

are to be retained for a period of ten years only. Shri Tyagi

presents that muster rolls, for the periods for which the

claimant worked with the management, were more than ten

years old in October 2011, hence were destroyed as per

para 592-596 of Regulation for the Army. Shri Saini opted

not to raise an eyebrow on the proposition that the muster

rolls, kept as payment vouchers, were destroyed. Thus it is

clear that the claimant has nothing to say on the count of

destruction of muster rolls by the management. Therefore,

it is crystal clear that the management had destroyed muster

rolls in October 2011 and as such, rightly seeks exemption

from filing those documents for consideration of this

Tribunal. Mere non-production of muster rolls for a

particular period per se without any plea of suppression

by the claimant will not be a ground for the Tribunal to

draw an adeverse inference against the management, as

held by the Apex Court in Range Forest Officer [2002 (3)

SSC 25]. Since non-production of muster rolls was on

account of destruction of the records, no case has been

shown to the effect that adverse inference may be drawn

against the management.

13. An employer may discharge a portion of his labour

force as surplusage in a running or continuing business

for variety of reasons, e.g., for economy, convenience,

rationalization in industry, installation of a new labour saving

machinery etc. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act) defines "termination by the employer of the service

of a workman for any reasons whatsoever", except the

categories exempted in sub-section 2(oo), to be

retrenchment. The definition of the term "retrenchment",

as enacted by the Act, is extracted thus:

"(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman

concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;

(bb)

termination of the services of the workman as a

result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation in

that behalf contained therein; or

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2657

ground of continued ill-health".

14. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of a

workman by the employer "for any reason whatsoever"

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement of

workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill-health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

15. Section 25-F of the Act lays down conditions

pre-requisite to retrenchment, which are as follows:

(i)

There should be one month's notice in writing to

the workman concerned.

(ii)

The notice should specify the reasons for

retrenchment.

(iii)

The period of one months's notice should have

expired before retrenchment is enforced, or the

workman has been paid in lieu of such notice the

wages for the period.

(iv)

The workman has been paid retrenchment

compensation which should be equivalent to

15 days' average pay for every one years' service

or any part thereof provided it exceeds six months.

(v)

The notice is also given to the appropriate

Government.

16. For seeking protection under Section 25-F of the

Act an employee should be in continuous service under

an employer for not less than one year. Continuous service

for a period of one year may include period of interruption

on account of sickness or authorized leave or accident or

strike, which is not illegal or lockout or cessation of work

which is not due to any fault on the part of the workmen, as

enacted by provisions of sub -section (1) of Section 25-B

of the Act. Sub-section (2) of the said section introduces a

fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in

"continuous service" within the meaning of clause (1) for

a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to in

continuous service for that period under an employer if he

has actually worked for the days specified in clauses (a)

and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968 Lab. I.C. 1180)

it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub-

section (2) furnished a unit of measure and if during that

unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by

the workman is 240 days, thaen he can be considered to

have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose

of the section. The idea is that if within a unit period of one

year a person has put in at least 240 days of service, then

he must get the benefit conferred by the Act. Consequently,

an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman

actually worked for not less than 240 days during the period

12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

17. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306], Apex

Court announced that when a workman renders continuous

service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar months, he

is deemed to have completed one years' service in the

industry . It would be expedient to reproduce observations

made by the Apex Court in that regard, which are extracted

thus:

"Under Section 25-B a workman who during the

period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in

an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed

to have completed One year's service in the industry.

Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out

whether the workman had actually worked for not

less than, 240 days during period of 12 calendar

months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

These provisions of law do not show that a workman

after satisfying the test under Section 25-B has further

to show that he has worked during all the period he

has been in the service of the employer for 240 days

in the year".

18. Interruption of service occurred during the

course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services.

Fiction under Section 25-B of the Act will operate if workman

has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The

explanation appended to Section 25-B of the Act

specifically includes the days on which workman was laid

off under an agreement or he has been on leave with full

wages, or he has been absent due to temporary disablement

caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his

employment and in the case of a female, maternity leave,

under the expression 'actually worked' used under sub-

section (2) of section 25-B of the Act. Question for

consideration would be as to whether the words 'actually

worked' would not include holidays, Sundays and

Saturdays for which full wages are paid. The Apex Court

was confronted with such a proposition in American Express

Banking Corporation [1985 (2) LLJ 539], wherein it was

ruled that the expression 'actually worked under the

employer', cannot mean those days only when the workman

worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but must necessarily

comprehend all those days during which he was in the

employment of the employer and for which he had been

paid wages either under express or implied contract of

2658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

service or by compulsion of statute, standing orders etc.

The Court ruled that Sundays and other holidays, would

be comprehended in the words ‘‘actually worked" and it

countenanced the contention of the employer that only

days which are mentioned in the explanation should be

taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number

of days on which the workman had actually worked though

he had not so worked and no other days. The Court

observed that the explanation is only clarificatory, as all

explanations are, and cannot be used to limit the expanse

of the main provision. Precedent in Lalappa Lingappa [1981

(1) LJ 308] was distinguished by the Apex Court in the case

referred above. The precedent was followed in Standard

Motor Products of India Ltd. [1986 (1) LLJ 34]. Thus, it is

crystal clear from the law laid above that Sundays and

holidays shall be included in computing continuous service

under Section 25-B of the Act.

19. The Tribunal has been saddled with a

responsibility to scrutinize the records of the management

to ascertain as to whether the claimant has rendered

continuous service of 240 days in any calendar year.

Pursuant to the directions, the management had filed

attendance registers from May 1983 to December 1998,

wherein attendance of the claimant has been recorded.

Attendance recorded in the registers have been checked

and verified by the Officer Commanding, who had given

certificate that the attendance recorded in the registers

were verified with the muster rolls and thereafter payments

were released in favour of the casual workers. Registers,

so produced, are documents which the Tribunal is

supposed to examine in the light of missives given by the

High Court of Delhi. On examination of aforesaid registers,

it came to light that the claimant last served the management

in September 1997. Therefore, for reckoning continuous

service for the period of 240 days in preceding 12 months

from the date when services of the claimant were dispensed

with, the Tribunal had to count service rendered by the

claimant from September 1997 to October 1996, September

1996 to October 1995, September 1995 to October 1994,

September 1994 to October 1993 and so on. On careful

examination of the attendance registers, it came to light

that Shri Virender Kumar Yadav served for 25 days from

September 1997 to October 1996, 57 days from September

1996 to October 1995, 50 days from September 1995 to

October 1994, 157 days from September 1994 to October

1993 and 62 days from September 1993 to May 1993.

20. Period of service rendered by the claimant, as

detailed above, nowhere includes Sundays and holidays.

In a year, an employee may get 52 weekly offs, besides

three national holidays. In case 52 weekly offs and three

national holidays are added to the periods referred above,

in none of the years, he reaches notional figure of 240

days, to claim continuous service for a period of one year.

Resultantly it is obvious that the claimant has not been

able to project that he rendered continuous service of 240

days to avail benefit of provisions of Section 25F of the

Act.

21. In the claim statement, it has been pleaded that

the claimant continuously worked for a period of 5 years,

with the management. At the outset the management denied

that the claimant was engaged at all in service. But in the

subsequent breath, it was pleaded that he was engaged as

a casual employee at intermittent periods. However, no

specific denial was made to the effect that the claimant had

not rendered continuous service for a period of 5 years as

claimed by him. Evasive reply given by the management

was not taken as admission of fact by the Tribunal.

22. It is a settled proposition of law that facts

admitted by a party need not be proved. However, there is

discretion available to Courts/Tribunals to require a party

to prove facts admitted, otherwise than by such admission.

While using that discretion, the Tribunal called upon the

claimant to enter the witness box, the establish that he

rendered continuous service for a period of 240 days in a

calendar year of every year in which he served the

management. As pointed out above, the claimant had not

adduced any evidence to establish that he served the

management for a period of one year, as contemplated by

Section 25B of the Act. Burden to prove that he had rendered

continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year lies on

the claimant. To discharge that burden, he had to lead

cogent evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240

days in a year preceding his terminaiton. To discharge that

onus, the claimant had not produced any evidence to prove

the fact that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year.

No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or

order in that regard was produced to establish that he had

rendered continuous service for a period fo 240 days in a

calendar year. The claimant opted not to examine a co-

worker or to produce any document to contradict facts

recorded in the attendance registers, produced by the

management before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is crystal

clear that the claimant has not been able to prove that he

had rendered continuous service of 240 days in any

calendar year, to entitle him for protection of Section 25F of

the Act.

23. Since case of the claimant does not fall within the

four corners of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act,

protection laid therein does not come for his rescue. He

cannot claim that 'one months' notice or pay in liue thereof

would have been given before termination of his service.

Right to claim retrenchment compensation has also not

accrued in his favour. No evidence was brought forward

by the claimant to project that a person junior to him was

retained, when his service were dispensed with. He also

could not highlight that after termination of his service

management employed some other person in the cagegory

in which he was employed. Therefore, provision of Section

25-G and 25-H of the Act have no application.

24. In view of the reasons detailed above, it is

concluded that action of the management in terminating

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2659

services of the claimant is in consonance with provisions

of the Act. No illegality or unjustifiability has been brought

over the record. Claimant is not entitled to any relief. An

award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 01.11.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1031.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; fcgkj

xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 150@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS ] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@16@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanabad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/16/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 150 OF 2013

PARTIES

The Gen. Secretary,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

Employees Association, Bhojpur

(Bihar).

Vs. The Chairman,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna

(Bihar).

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Union Representative

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

Management's Representative

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd Feb., 2014

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-

12011/16/2013-IR (B-I) dt 28.05.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank was justified in terminating the

services of the workman who worked as part time

sweeper in the branch of the bank for more than 13

years. If not, what relief they are entitled for?"

2. Neither any Representative for the Madhya Bihar

Gramin Bank Employees, Association, Ara, Dist: Bojpur

(Bihar) nor any one of the O.P./Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna, appeared nor any written

statement issued with any document filed on behalf of the

Union concerned despite Regd. notice dt. 30.10.2013 issued

to both the parties. But the perusal of the case rerecord

reveals the fact that as per a petition dt. 03.10.13 under the

signature of General Secretary Arun Kumar Singh duly seen

by the Authority concerned of the O.P./Management, it

has been urged for the closure of this Industrial Dispute

on the ground that the workman does not intend to contest

it, and that an application under Sec. 2 A (1 & 2) of the

Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 was filed before

the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, following the failure of

conciliation proceeding. The present reference relates to

an issue about termination of services of the workman

(unnamed) who worked as a Part Time Sweeper in the

Branch of the Bank for more than 13 years.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as no

Industrial dispute existent in the present reference, and

accordingly an order of No Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1032.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; fcgkj

xzkehu cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

2660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 122@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@19@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O.1032.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industiral dispute between the management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the

Central Govenrment on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/19/2013-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 122 OF 2013

PARTIES

The Gen. Secretary,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

Employees Association, Bhojpur

(Bihar).

Vs.

The Chairman,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna

(Bihar).

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Union Representative

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Management's Representative

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 03rd Feb., 2014

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-

12011/19/2013-IR (B-I) dt 20.05.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank was justified in terminating the

services of the workman who worked as part time

sweeper in the branch of the bank for more than 13

years. If not, what relief they are entitled for?"

2. Neither any Representative for the Madhya Bihar

Gramin Bank Employees' Association, Ara, Dist: Bhojpur

(Bihar) nor any one of the O.P./Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna, appeared nor any written

statement issued with any document filed on behalf of the

Union concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it is clear that Mr. R.K.

Srivastava, the Manager (H.R.D.) has all along been present

for the Management, but on the Regd. Notice having been

issued to both the parties earlier on 9th July, 2013, a petition

dt. 03.10.13 under the signature of General Secretary Arun

Kumar Singh was filed on 31.10.13 duly seen by the

Authority concerned of the O.P./Management, over which

it was ordered to put on the fixed date. By the petition on

behalf of the General Secretary, it has been submitted for

the closure of the case, as the workman does not intend to

contest the dispute before the Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad,

and an application under Sec.2 A (1 & 2) of the Industrial

Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 was filed before the

Industrial Tribunal, Patna, after the failure of conciliation

proceeding. The present Reference relates to an issue about

termination of the services of the workman (unnamed) who

worked as a Part Time Sweeper in the Branch of the Bank

for more than 13 years.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as no

Industrial dispute existent in the present reference, and

accordingly an order of No Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1033-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; fcgkj

xzkehu cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 151@2013½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@13@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2661

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O.1033.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.151/2013)

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

2, Dhanabad as shown in Annexure, in the industiral

dispute between the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Govenrment on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/13/2013-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 150 OF 2013

PARTIES

The Gen. Secretary,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

Employees Association, Bhojpur

(Bihar).

Vs.

The Chairman,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna

(Bihar).

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Union Representative

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Management's Representative

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 03rd Feb., 2014

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-

12011/13/2013-IR (B-I) dt 30.05.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank was justified in terminating the

services of the workman who worked as part time

sweeper in the branch of the bank for more than 13

years. If not, what relief they are entitled for?"

2. Neither any Representative for the Madhya Bihar

Gramin Bank Employees' Association, Ara, Dist: Bojpur

(Bihar) nor any one of the O.P./Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna, appeared nor any written

statement with any document filed on behalf of the Union

concerned despite Regd. notice dt. 30.10.13 issued to the

both the parties. But the perusal of the case recorded reveals

the fact that as per petition dt. 03.10.13 under the signature

of General Secretary Arun Kumar Singh duly seen by the

Authority concerned of the O.P./Management, it has been

urged for the closure of this Industrial Dispute on the

ground that the workman does not intend to contest it and

that an application under Sec. 2 A (1&2) of the Industrial

Dispute (Amendment) Act 2010 was filed before the

Industrial Tribunal, Patna, following the failure of

conciliation proceeding. The present reference relates to

an issue about termination of service of the workman

(unnamed) who worked as a Part Time Sweeper in the

branch of the Bank for more than 13 years.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as no

Industrial dispute existent in the present reference, and

accordingly an order of No Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1034.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; fcgkj

xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 152@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@11@2013&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O.1034.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 152/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, No. 2, Dhanabad as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the management of

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/11/2013-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

2662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[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. 152 OF 2013

PARTIES

The Gen. Secretary,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

Employees Association, Bhojpur

(Bihar).

Vs.

The Chairman,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna

(Bihar).

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Union Representative

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Management's Representative

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 03rd Feb., 2014

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-12011/

11/2013-IR(B-I) dt. 31.05.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Action of the Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank was justified in terminating the

services of the workman who worked as part time

sweeper in the branch of the bank for more than 13

years. If not, what relief they are entitled for?"

2. Neither any Representative for the Madhya Bihar

Gramin Bank Employees' Association, Ara, Dist: Bojpur

(Bihar) nor any one of the O.P./Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank Patna, appeared nor any written

statement with any document filed on behalf of the Union

concerned despite Regd. notice issued to the both the

parties on 31.10.2013. But the perusal of the case rerecord

reveals the fact that as per a petition dated 03.10.13 under

the signature of General Secretary Arun Kumar Singh duly

seen by the Authority concerned of the O.P./Management,

it has been urged for the closure of this industrial Dispute

on the ground that the workman does not intend to contest

it, and that an application under Sec. 2A(1&2) of the

industrial Dispute (Amendment Act) 2010 was filed before

the industrial Tribunal, Patna, following the failure of

conciliation proceeding. The present reference relates to

an issue about termination of service of the workman

(unnamed) who worked as a Part Time Sweeper in the

Branch of the Bank for more than 13 years.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as no

industrial dispute existent in the present reference, and

accordingly an order of No Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1035.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; fcgkj

xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vfèdj.k] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 153@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@17@2013&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.153/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, No. 2, Dhanabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/17/2013-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2663

REFERENCE NO. 153 OF 2013

PARTIES

The Gen. Secretary,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

Employees Association, Bhojpur

(Bihar).

Vs.

The Chairman,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna

(Bihar).

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the

Union Representative

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Management's Representative

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 03rd Feb., 2014

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-12011/

17/2013-IR(B-I) dt. 31.05.2013

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Action of the Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank was justified in terminating the

services of the workman who worked as part time

sweeper in the branch of the bank for more than 13

years. If not, what relief they are entitled for?"

2. Neither any Representative for the Madhya Bihar

Gramin Bank Employees' Association, Ara, Dist: Bojpur

(Bihar) nor any one of the O.P./Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank Patna, appeared nor any written

statement with any document filed on behalf of the Union

concerned despite Regd. notice dt. 30.10.2013 issued to

both the parties. But the perusal of the case rerecord reveals

the fact that as per a petition dated 03.10.13 under the

signature of General Secretary Arun Kumar Singh duly seen

by the Authority concerned of the O.P./Management, it

has been urged for the closure of this Industrial Dispute

on the ground that the workman does not intend to contest

it, and that an application under Sec. 2A(1&2) of the

Industrial Dispute (Amendment Act) 2010 was filed before

the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, following the failure of

conciliation proceeding. The present reference relates to

an issue about termination of service of the workman

(unnamed) who worked as a Part Time Sweeper in the

Branch of the Bank for more than 13 years.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as no

industrial dispute existent in the present reference, and

accordingly an order of No Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1036.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj QsMjy cSad fyñ

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

v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@80@2009&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O.1036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 14/2010) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Federal Bank Limited and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/80/2009-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: Shri Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 31st day of January, 2014/11th Magha, 1935)

ID 14/2010

Workman

Shri Santy Joseph

S/o late K J Joseph

Kannampadathil

Nazarath Hill PO

Kuravilangad (Kerala)

By M/s. H B Shenoy Associates

Management

The Chairman

Federal Bank Limited

Regd. Office: Federal Towers

Post Bag No. 103

Aluva-683101

By M/s. B S Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 23.01.2014

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.01.2014 passed

the following:

2664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947), referred this

industrial dispute for adjudication to this tribunal as per

Order No. L-12012/80/2009-IR(B-I) dated 21.01.2010.

2. The dispute is:

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of Federal

Bank Limited in imposing the penalty of compulsory

retirement with superannuation benefits on Shri Santy

Joseph, Ex-Clerk w.e.f. 26-11-2007 is justified? If not, what

relief he is entitled to?’’

3. The workman herein was employed as a clerk in

the Kuruvilagad branch of the management bank. Based

on a complaint of a customer as to his misbehavior towards

him he was placed under suspension as per order dated

13.11.2006, After having an investigation the management

bank by its order dated 09.01.2007 ordered an enquiry

against the workman about his misconduct of misbehaviour

towards customers arising out of bank's business and doing

acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The Senior

Manager of Personnel & Industrial Relations Department

of the management bank, appointed as the enquiry officer,

conducted the enquiry and submitted his findings dated

25.06.2007 holding him guilty of the charges leveled against

him. After accepting the findings and after affording an

opportunity of being heard he was imposed with the

punishment of 'dismissal from service without notice' as

per the final order dated 26.11.2007. Challenging the order

of dismissal he preferred an appeal before the appellate

authority. In the appeal the punishment was reduced to

that of 'compulsory retirement with superannuation

benefits' after confirming the findings of guilt entered

against him. Dissatisfied with it he raised an industrial

dispute and the same has resulted in this reference.

4. After appearance before this tribunal workman

filed claim statement challenging the validity of the enquiry

by contending that the enquiry was held in a biased and

partism manner and it is vitiated by violation of the

principles of natural justice. The findings were entered into

by the enquiry officer on the basis of unauthenticated

documents without due proof and without identification

through competent witnesses and hence the same cannot

be made as the basis for imposition of penalty on him. The

punishment imposed is illegal and unjust as the findings

are erroneous, perverse, biased and against the evidence

on record and facts and circumstances of the case. The

allegations levelled against the workman even is found to

be proved amount to only minor misconducts as defined

in Bipartite Settlements and the penalty was imposed

without considering the workman's past record and

extenuating circumstances and in violation of clause 19.12

sub-clause (c) of First Bipartite Settlement. It is illegal as it

is imposed in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 without obtaining prior approval from

this tribunal when ID 12/2007 was pending before this

tribunal at the time of imposition of penalty. Hence the

punishment is liable to be set aside and he is entitled to be

reinstated in service with full back wages, continuity of

service and other attendant benefits.

5. Management filed written statement denying the

allegations in the claim statement with regard to the legality

and validity of the enquiry and contending that the

workman was imposed with the penalty after conducting a

fair and proper enquiry after affording sufficient

opportunity to the workman to present his case through a

defence representative of his choice and in strict

compliance with the principles of natural justice without

any procedural irregularities. The charges levelled against

him are clear and specific and the enquiry officer entered

into the findings after having meticulous analysis of the

entire evidence. It is contended that the punishment

imposed on the workman is legal, just and proportionate

and it was imposed after obtaining approval from this

tribunal by filing an application under Section 33(2)(b) of

the Industrial Disputes Act as MP 2/2007. The punishment

was imposed after considering his past record of

punishment of reduction of basics pay by one stage

imposed for similar acts of misconduct committed by him

and proved in the enquiry earlier in the year 2005. Hence

there is no merit in the allegation of the workman to the

effect that the punishment was imposed on him without

considering his past record and extenuating circumstances

and violation of clause 19.12(c) of the First Bipartie

Settlement. The charges against the workman proved in

the enquiry are acts of gross misconduct and not minor

misconducts as alleged by the workman in the claim

statement. Even an employee of the bank is behaving

unruly, making indecent remark by using abusive language

and misbehaving towards the customer it cannot be viewed

lightly and be taken as trivial misconduct. The continuance

of such employee is detrimental to the interest of the bank.

After the imposition of penalty by taking a lenient view in

the previous instance of similar misconduct the workman

again committed acts of misconduct of misbehaviour

towards the customer. Hence the punishment imposed on

him is legal and proportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct proved in the enquiry. Hence he is not entitled

to any relief.

Workman filed replication denying the contentions

in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations

except as to the approval under Section 33(2)(b) in the

claim statement.

7. The validity of the enquiry was considered as a

preliminary issue. For that purpose the enquiry file was

produced by the management and the same was got marked

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2665

as Ext. M1 through the examination of the enquiry officer

as MW-1. The enquiry was found to be valid as per order

dated 22.11.2012. After that the case was posted for final

hearing and the arguments for both sides were heard.

8. Learned counsel for the workman has submitted

that the charges levelled against the workman and found

to be proved in the enquiry constitute only minor

misconducts for which lesser penalty to be imposed under

clause 7(j) and 7(k) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10th

April, 2002 and not under clause 5(j) and (q) of the Bipartite

Settlement inviting major penalty. In order to have a proper

consideration of that aspect it is necessary to have a

reappraisal of the evidence in the enquiry by this tribunal

for that limited purpose. It was further submitted by him

that the penalty imposed on the workman is shockingly

disproportionate to the charges found to be proved against

him.

9. Learned counsel for the management on the other

hand has argued that all the findings entered into by the

enquiry officer based on evidence after having a careful

scrutiny and by assigning valid reasons and hence it does

not call for any interference by this tribunal. It was further

submitted by him that the punishment imposed on the

workman is just, legal and proportionate to the gravity of

the proved misconducts. The imposition of penalty on the

previous instance of misbehaviour was also pointed out

by him to be an aggravating circumstance for the imposition

of such a penalty on him.

10. The points for determination are:

(i) Whether the findings entered into against the

workmanin the enquiry call for any interference in

this reference?

(ii) Whether the punishment imposed on the workman

is legal and justified?

11. Point No. I:-As it is already found that the enquiry

is valid it is unnecessary to have a reappraisal of the entire

evidence as in an appeal since the findings were arrived at

based on reliable evidence. The evidence is to be looked

into only for the limited purpose of considering the question

as to the imposition of penalty.

12. Before considering the evidence it is to be pointed

out that in disciplinary proceedings the standard of proof

required is that of preponderance of probabilities and not

proof beyond reasonable doubt like in a criminal case. If

there are some relevant materials accepted by the

disciplinary authority which reasonably support the

conclusion that the officer is guilty it is not the function of

the tribunal to review the materials. If the enquiry has been

properly held the question of adequacy of reliability of

evidence cannot be canvassed before this tribunal.

13. In the decision reported in BC Chathurvedi Vs.

Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC749 it was held :

"Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of

proof of fact or evidence as defined therein apply to

disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts

the evidence and conclusion receives support there

from, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold

that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.

The court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does

not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the

evidence and to arrive at its own independent

findings on the evidence. The court/tribunal may

interfere, where the authority hold the proceedings

against the delinquent officer in a manner

inconsistent with the rules or natural justice or in

violation of Statutory rules prescribing the mode of

enquiry or whether the conclusion or finding reached

by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence,

if the conclusion or findings be such as no reasonable

person would have reached, the court/tribunal may

interfere with the conclusion or finding and mould

the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of

the case".

14. The jurisdiction of the tribunal to interfere with

disciplinary matters for punishment cannot be equated with

an appellate jurisdiction and the tribunal cannot interfere

with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent

authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse.

If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and

in accordance with the principles of natural justice what

punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter

exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent

authority and if the penalty can be lawfully imposed and is

imposed on the proved misconduct the tribunal has no

power to substitute its own discretion for that of the

authority.

15. In the decision reported in The General Secretary,

South Indian Cashew Factories workers' Union Vs. The

Managing director, Kerala State Cashew Development

Corporation Ltd. & Ors. AIR-2006 SC 2208 it was held by

the Apex Court that when enquiry was conduced fairly and

properly in the absence of any allegations of victimization

or malafides or unfair labour practice Labour court has no

power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the

management.

16. It is also to be pointed out that in Chathurvedi's

case (Supra) it was held:

"A review of the above legal position would establish

that the disciplinary authority and in appeal the

Appellate Authority being fact finding authorities

have exclusive power to consider the evidence with

a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with

the discretion to impose appropriate punishment

keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the

misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal while

exercising power of judicial review cannot normally

2666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

substitute its own conclusion or penalty an impose

some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by

the disciplinary authority or appellate authority

shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mould the relief, either directly,

the disciplinary/Appellate Authority to recondisder

the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it

may by itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in

support thereof."

17. Keeping in mind the above principles enunciated

in those decisions it is to be considered whether there is

any reason to interfere with the penalty imposed on the

workman as it is already found that the enquiry was

conducted in a fair and proper manner without violating

the principles of natural justice. There is no scope for any

interference with the findings of the disciplinary authority

unless it is perverse or based on no evidence.

18. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against

the workman based on a written complaint made by Shri

Immanuel John Nidhiry about his misbehaviour towards

him on 20.10.2006 in the morning by 11.00 'O' clock while he

was standing in frong of the cash counter, where the

workman was the cashier, for remitting cash in his account.

the allegation is that the workman was talking unnecessarily

to a person standing ahead of him and after some time he

had revised cash from one Kariyachan who was standing

behind him and issued receipt by passing the order in the

queue and he started to talk with him. At that time he had

questioned the delay and then workman misbehaved

towards him by making indecent remarks by using filthy

and abusive language. He went to the Manager's cabin

and at that time the workman rushed with open hook and

belt of his pants and started explaning things without any

instruction from the Manager or seeking permission from

him. An earlier instance of misbehaviour towards him by

the workman is also stated in the complaint.

19. After conducting an investigation chargesheet

was issued to him for the gross misconducts of (1)

misbehaviour towards customer arising out of bank's

business and (2) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of

the bank.

20. Workman submitted his explanation denying the

allegation as to his misbehaviour towards the customer.

Enquiry Officer after conducting a fair and impartial enquiry

found that the workman is guilty of the charges levelled

against him. The enquiry officer has analyzed the evidence

in the enquiry in a rational and logical manner and entered

into the findings based on relevant and acceptable evidence.

Cogent reasons have been assigned by the enquiry officer

in support of the findings. it is not necessary to have a

detailed discussion of the evidence in the departmental

enquiry by this tribunal, as there is no reason to hold that

the findings are perverse. The findings of the enquiry officer

are based on the evidence produced during the

departmental enquiry. Conclusion reached by the enquiry

officer cannot be said to be in such a nature as no reasonable

person would have ever reached. On a careful scrutiny of

the evidence adduced in the enquiry I do not find any

reason to hold that the charges levelled against him are

untrue. Instead it can very well be held that the findings of

the enquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority

and upheld by the Appellate Authority are based on reliable

and acceptable evidence. After going through the evidence

I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the

enquiry officer on the charges levelled against him.

21. Now it is to be considered whether the allegations

provede in the enquiry supporting the charges constitute

only minor misconducts as alleged in the claim statement.

At the time of argument learned counsel for the workman

has submitted that the allegations do not constitute the

gross misconducts under clause 5(j) and clause 5(q) of the

Bipartitle settlement dated 10th April, 2002 but it will only

come within the purview of clauses 7(j) and 7(k) of that

Bipartite Settlement. As it is relevant to look into those

provisions in the Bipartite Settlement, the same is extracted

below:—

"5.By the expression "Gross misconduct" shall be

meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part

of an employee:

...........................................................................................

(j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the

bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely

to involve the bank in serious loss

..........................................................................................

...........................................................................................

(q) misbehaviour towards customers arising out of

bank's business"

"7. By the expression "Minor misconduct" shall be

meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part

of an employee:

..........................................................................................

............................................................................................

(j) failing to show proper consideration, courtesy or

attention towards officers, customers or other employees

of the bank, unseemly or unsatisfactory behaviour while

on duty;

(k) marked disregard of ordinary requirements of

decency and cleanliness in person or dress

..........................................................................................

...........................................................................................

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2667

22. The charges alleged and proved against the

workman is the misbehaviour towards a customer of the

branch using filthy, abusive and insulting language when

he had approached the workman's counter for remitting

cash. He is stated to be an esteemed, valuable and reputed

customer of the bank. In this connection it is to be born in

mind that there was a previous instance of misconduct of

misbehaviour towards another customer of that branch of

the bank Smt Lubina who came to remit cash in the name of

M/s. Rural Development Centre and about which an enquiry

was conducted an found him guilty and imposed with the

penalty of "reduction of basic pay by one stage in the

scale of pay". The proposed penalty was dismissal from

service without notice but such a penalty was imposed by

taking a lenient view. It is at the time when an ID was

pending before this tribunal about it the present instance

of misbehaviour of the workman towards the customer -

Shri Immanuel had taken place. The customers are expected

to be treated in a decent and gentle manner and such

misbehaviour by uttering abusive and insulting language

is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the bank. On

a consideration of the nature and gravity of the proved

charges it can be held without any hesitation that it will

amount to gross misconduct coming under clause 5(j) and

(q) of the Bipartite Settlement. On a consideratio of the

proved allegations and the entire facts and circumstances

I do not find any reason to hold that there is any perversity

in entering into the findings against the workman and the

same will constitute major misconducts inviting penalty.

23. Point No. ii:- Challenge is made with regard to the

imposition of penalty alleging that the same was imposed

on the workman in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 without obtaining prior approval from

this tribunal in view of the pendency of ID 12/2007 as to

the previous instance of misbehaviour. In the written

statement it is contended that approval was obtained by

the management by filing application under Section 33(2)(b)

of the Industrial Disputes Act before this tribunal as MP 2/

2007 and it is not denied in the rejoinder filed in the case.

Management has also produced copy of the order dated

18.12.2009 in that MP to satisfy the approval from this

tribunal. Hence the attack made by the workman on that

ground is wholly unsustainable.

24. A bank officer is required to take all possible

steps to protect the interest of the bank and discharge his

duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and

diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a

bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable

from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank.

The very discipline of a bank is depended upon each of its

officers acting and operating within the allotted sphere.

Acting beyond ones authority by itself is a breach of

discipline and is a misconduct.

25.The punishment imposed against the workman

cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the

proved misconduct against his especially in view of the

previous penalty imposed on him which is stated to have

been upheld by this tribunal in the above said ID. Taking

into consideraiton of the proved misconduct and the other

facts and circumstances and applying the principles

enunciated in the decisions cited above there is not scope

for interference with the punishment imposed against the

workman.

26. In the result an award is passed finding that the

action of the management bank in imposing the penalty of

compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits on

the workman w.e.f. 26.11.2007 is justified. Hence he is not

entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman -

NIL

Witness for the management

MW1

01.08.2011

Shri Satheesh P K

Exhibit for the workman

NIL

Exhibit for the management

MI - Enquiry file

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1037.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iqjoksÙkj jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@04@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1037.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 39/2012)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Purvottar Railway and

their workman, received by the Central Government on 07/

03/2014.

[No. L-41012/04/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

2668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 39/2012

Ref. No. L-41012/04/2012-IR (B-I) dated: 15.03.2012

BETWEEN :

Shri Parvez Alam,

C/o Shri Ashok Kumar,

283/63 KH, Garhi Kanauri Premwati Nagar,

P.O.-Manak Nagar,

Lucknow - 06

(Espousing cause of Shri Ashok Kumar)

AND

The Chief Medical Officer,

North Eastern Railway,

Divisional Hospital,

Varanasi (U.P.)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/04/2012-IR (B-I) dated:

15.03.2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between the Shri Parvez Alam, C/o

Shri Ashok Kumar, 283,/63 KH, Garhi Kanauri Premwati

Nagar, P.O.-Manak Nagar, Lucknow and the Chief Medical

Officer, North Eastern Railway, Divisional Hospital, Varanasi

(U.P.) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Purvottar

Railway, Lucknow/Varanasi in not giving him age

Relaxation despite giving service to his Junior, who

has worked for less number of days, on 4/10/04, is

legal and justified? to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

3. The order of reference was endorsed to Shri Parvez

Alam, C/o Shri Ashok Kumar, 283/63 KH, Garhi Kanauri

Premwati Nagar, P.O. - Manak Nagar, Lucknow with

direction to the party raising the dispute to filed the

statement of claim along with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days

of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward a

copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties

involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial

Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

4. The order of reference was registered in the

Tribunal on 13.04.2012 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman's union for filing the

Statement of Claim together with documents etc. on

24.05.2012. None turned up from the workman on

24.05.2012, 20.07.2012, 30.08.2012 and 26.10.2012. However,

Shri Parvez Alam appeared for the workman on 04.12.2012;

accordingly the workman's union was directed to file their

statement of claim along with relevant documents and list

of reliance and witness on 23.01.2013. None turned up on

behalf of the workman on 23.01.2013, 01.03.2013; however

the authorized representative of the workman appeared

intermittently; but did not file any statement of claim; rather

on 22.07.2013 workman filed an application, paper No. D-3,

stating therein that an application regarding amendment in

the schedule of reference is pending with the Ministry

hence sought time; accordingly, 10.09.2013 was fixed for

further orders. Neither any amendment was received from

Ministry on 10.09.2013, 30.10.2013, 19.12.2013 and

07.02.2013 nor did the workman move any application for

grant of further time to file that statement of claim. Keeping

in view the reluctance of the workman's union to file their

statement of claim the file was reserved for award.

5. In the above circumstances, it appears that the

workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of

which it has raisaed present industrial dispute; therefore,

the present reference order is decided as if there is no

grievance left with the workman, resultantly no relief is

required to be given to him. The reference under

adjudication is answered accordingly.

6. Award as above.

Lucknow

18th February, 2014

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1038.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos 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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 60@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@09@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1038.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2669

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 60/2012) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/03/2014.

[No. L-41011/09/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 60/2012

Ref. No. L-41011/09/2012-IR (B-I) dated: 07.05.2012

BETWEEN

Mandal Sangathan Mantri

Uttar Railway Karamchari Union

283/63 Kh, Garhi Kanauri (Premwati Nagar)

Post-Manak Nagar

Lucknow-11.

(Espousing cause of Shri Ramesh Chand Batham)

AND

Senior Divisional Personnel Officer

North Eastern Railway

DRM Officer, Ashok Marg

Lucknow.

Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer

(SMD)

North Eastern Railway

Ashok Marg

Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/09/2012-IR (B-I) dated

07.05.2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub -section (1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10

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

this industrial dispute between the Mandal Sangathan

Mantri, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union, 283/63 Kh, Garhi

Kanauri (Premwati Nagar), Post-Manak Nagar, Lucknow

and Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern

Railway, DRM Officer, Ashok Marg, Lucknow & Senior

Divisional Electrical Engineer (SMD) North Eastern Railway,

Ashok Marg, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the Management of North

Eastern Railway Lucknow in recovering the payments

made to Shri Ramesh Chand Batham, helper Khalasi

from 19/09/2003 to 31/07/2007 after granting him

promotion to the post of fitter grade-III vide order

dated 19/09/2003, is legal and justified? To what releif

the workman is entitled to ?"

3. The order of reference was endorsed to the Mandal

Sangathan Mantri, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union, 283,/

63 Kh. Garhi Kanauri ((Premwati Nagar), Post-Manak Nagar,

Lucknow with direction to the party raising the dispute to

filed the statement of claim along with relevant documents,

list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen

days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward

a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite

parties involved in his dispute under rule 10(B) of the

Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

4. The order of reference was registered in the

Tribunal on 15.06.2012 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman's union for filing the

Statement of Claim together with documents etc. on

20.07.2012. None turned up from the workman on

20.07.2012, 30.08.2012, 26.10.2012, 04.12.2012, 23.01.2013,

01.03.2013 and 18.04.2013. However, one Shri Parvez Alam

appeared for the workman on 03.06.2013, without any

authority; accordingly the workman's union was directed

to file their statement of claim along with relevant

documents and list of reliance and witness on 22.07.2013.

On 22.07.2013 workman filed an application, paper No. D-3,

stating therein that an application regarding amendment in

the schedule of reference is pending with the Ministry

hence sought time; accordingly, 10.09.2013 was fixed for

further orders. Neither any amendment was received from

Ministry nor any copy of the amendment application has

been filed before this Tribunal; nor the workman moved

any application for grant of further time to file the statement

of claim. Keeping in view the reluctance of the workman's

union to file their statement of claim the file was reserved

for award.

5. In the above circumstances, it appears that the

workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on the

basis on which it has raised present industrial dispute;

therefore, the present reference order is decided as if there

is no grievance left with the workman's union. Resultantly

no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6. Award as above.

Lucknow

20th February, 2014

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

2670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1039.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos 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 68@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@07@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1039.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2013)

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

I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Northern Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/

03/2014.

[No. L-41011/07/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 68 of 2013

Reference No. L-41011/07/2013-IR (B-I) dated: 27.05.2013

Joginder Singh C/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Divisional

Secretary, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union, 58/1, Himmat

Pura Colony, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

...Workman

Versus

General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda

House, New Delhi.

The A.D.E. Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

None

For the Management

Sh. N.K. Zakhmi

Advocate.

Award Passed on:-18.02.2014.

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification L-41011/07/2013-IR (B-I) dated: 27.05.2013 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

"Whether the action of the management of Railway

Administration in not considering the date of

promotion of Shri Joginder Singh son of Shri Sain

Dass w.e.f. 18.1.1985/19.12.1985 is just, fair and legal?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. Case taken up today for passing the award. Despite

repeated opportunities, none appeared for the workman

nor any claim statement has been filed. The reference is

pending in this Tribunal since 2013. None appeared on

behalf of the workman despite registered notice also. It

appears that the workman is not interested to pursue the

present reference. In view of the above the present

reference is disposed off and answered against the

workman as no claim has been lodged on behalf of the

workman.

4. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

18-2-2014

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1040.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; fcgkj

xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

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

vf/kdj.k] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 154@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@15@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1040.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.154/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2,

Dhanabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/15/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2671

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. 154 OF 2013

PARTIES

The Gen. Secretary,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

Employees Association, Bhojpur

(Bihar).

Vs.

The Chairman,

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna

(Bihar).

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Union Representative

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Management's Representative

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd Feb., 2014

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-12011/

15/2013-IR (B-I) dt. 31.05.2013.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank was justified in terminating the

services of the workman who worked as part time

sweeper in the branch of the bank for more than 13

years. If not, what relief they are entitled for?"

2. Neither any Representative for the Madhya Bihar

Gramin Bank Employees' Association, Ara, Dist: Bojpur

(Bihar) nor any one of the O.P./Management of Madhya

Bihar Gramin Bank Patna, appeared nor any written

statement with any document filed on behalf of the Union

concerned despite Regd. notice issued to the both the

parties on 31.10.2013. But the perusal of the case rerecord

reveals the fact that as per a petition dt. 03.10.13 under the

signature of General Secretary Arun Kumar Singh duly seen

by the Authority concerned of the O.P./Management, it

has been urged for the closure of this Industrial Dispute

on the ground that the workman does not intend to contest

it, and that an application under Sec. 2A (1 & 2) of the

Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act 2010 was filed before

the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, following the failure of

concilliation proceeding. The present reference relates to

an issue about termination of service of the workmen

(unnamed) who worked as a Part Time Sweeper in the

Branch of the Bank for more than 13 years.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as no

Industrial dispute existent in the present reference, and

accordingly an order of No Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1041.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2013½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@112@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1041.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2013) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Ballarpur Colliery 3/4 Pits, and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/112/2013-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/52/2013

Date: 17.02.2014.

Party No.1

The sub Area Manager,

Ballarpur Sub Area of WCL

P.O. Ballarpur,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

2672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Party No.2

Shri Lomesh Khartad,

General Secretary,

Rashtria Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Ballarpur,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 17th February, 2014)

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 Ballarpur Colliery and their workman, Shri

Sahebrao Nattuji moharkar for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-22012/112/2013-IR (CM-II) dated 03.09.2013, with the

following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Ballarpur Sub Area, Western Coalfields Limited in

denying employment to Shri Shailesh Kumar, the

dependant son of Shri Sahebrao Nattuji Moharkar

who has already put in 35 years of service, which is

contrary to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is

legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due.

Inspite of sufficient service of the notice, the

petitioner neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim.

The Party No. 1 appeared through their advocates on

19.12.2013.

Inspite of adjourning the case thrice for filing of

statement of claim by the petitioner, the neither the

petitioner appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So, on

17.02.2014, the reference was closed, holding that the

petitioner was not interested to proceed with the reference

and the reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also

produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails to

appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the

dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in

favour of the said party and the party would not be entitled

to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of the

settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that the

petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement of

claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it

is ordered:—

ORDER

The reference is answered in the nagative and against

the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1042.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñlhñ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@9@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1042.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 45/2001) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Hindustan Lalpeth Opencast Sub Area

of WCI, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-22012/9/2000-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/45/2001

Date: 30.01.2014.

Party No. 1

: The Sub Area Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth Open Caste Sub Area

of WCL

Post:—Lalpeth, Distt.-Chandrapur (MS).

Party No. 2

: Shri Lomesh M. Khartad, President,

National Colliery Workers Congress,

Ambedkar Ward,

Ballarpur, Tah & Distt.

Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 30th January, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2673

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman Smt. Durgabai

and 19 others for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/9/

2000-IR (CM-II) dated 30.01.2001, with the following

schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management namely Sub-

Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of

WCL, PO: Lalpeth, distt. Chanrapur in not regularizing

Smt. Durgabai and 19 other Sweeper (as per list

attached) of Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery is legal

proper and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen

are entitled and from what 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, "National Colliery

workers Congress", ("the union" in short) filed and

statement of claim, on behalf of the workman, Smt. Durgabai

and 19 others, ("the workmen" in short), and the

management of WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their

written statement.

In the statement of claim it was pleaded on the behalf

of the workmen that the workmen are entitled for

regularisation in service w.e.f. January, 1994 with full back

wages and all consequential benefits.

3. The Party No. 1 filed the written statement denying

the allegations made in the statement of claim and pleading

inter-alia that the workmen were contract labourers and

they were never appointed by it as its employees and there

was no employer employee relationship between it and the

workmen and the workmen are not entitled for any relief.

4. It is to be mentioned here that on 30.01.2014, the

case was posted for adducing of evidence from the side of

the party no. 1 on affidavit and accordingly the Party No. 1

filed the affidavit of witness, Shri Devendre S. Pode.

However, the union representative, Shri Lomesh M.

Khartad, who had filed the statement of claim on behalf of

the workmen, filed an application supported with affidavit

that the workmen involved in this dispute are no longer

interested to pursue the case and they did not attend the

court for their cross-examination and as such, it is necessary

for disposal of the reference treating the same to be

withdrawn. In the application, the advocate for the party

no. 1 endorsed of his having no objection to the application.

As the workmen involved in this case are not

interested to proceed with the case as stated by the union

representative on affidavit, in the interest of justice the

application was allowed.

4. As the workmen don't want to proceed with the

reference, the reference is liable to be dismissed without

granting of any relief to them and also without any leave to

raise the dispute again or to review the present reference.

Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The reference is dismissed as not pressed by the

petitioner. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. No

leave is also granted to the workmen to raise the dispute

again or to review the present reference. The application

supported with affidavit filed by the petitioner is made part

of the award.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1043.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj usñ chñ ihñ thñ

vkjñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 89@2005½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@48@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1043.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 89/2005) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of National Bureau of

Plant Genetic Resources, National Bureau of Plant Genetic

Resources, and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/48/2004-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/89/2005

Date: 26.09.2013.

Party No. 1

The Director,

National Bureau of Plant Genetic

Resources, Indian Council of

Agriculture Research Pusa Camp,

New Delhi.

The Officer-in-Charge,

National Bureau of Plant Genetic

Resources, Regional Station,

Behind 5 Godown, Shastri Road,

Dr. PDKV Campus, Akola. (MS).

2674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Party No. 2

Shri Pradeep Prabhakar Bade,

R/o. Adarsh Colony, Laxmi Niwas,

New SBI Bank, Akola. (MS).

AWARD

(Dated : 26th September, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of NBPGR and their workman, Shri Pradeep

Prabhakar Bade, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-42012/

248/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 17.11.2005, with the following

schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of National

Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi and

Officer-in-Charge, Akola of terminating the services

of Shri Pradeep Prabhakar Bade R/o. Adarsh Colony,

Laxmi Niwas, Near SBI Branch, Akola, Teh & Distt.

Akola (MS) is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the disputant workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Pradeep

Bade, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim

and the management of National Bureau of Plant Genetic

Resources, Akola, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written

statement.

The case of the wokman as projected in the statement

of claim is that in the year 1984, he was appointed as a peon

by the then Offricer-in-Charge, Shri D.P. Patel of Party No.

1 and he was being paid Rs. 1800/- per month and his name

was sponsored by the employment exchange and initially,

though he was engagement as a peon, subsequently, he

was engaged in multipurpose works, such as chowkidari at

Gin Bank, Poli House and Rest House etc. and so also in

agriculture work of cleaning and sowing and payment of

wages was being given to him by taking his signature on

revenue stamp of one rupee affixed on a register maintained

by Party No. 1 and during his service tenure, he used to

drive jeep and tractor, being entrusted by Party No. 1, as he

was having a valid driving license and as the permanent

driver Shri Awale retired from service and his entire service

record was unblemished and there was no memo or any

complaint against him and he was in continuous

employment of party No. 1 from 1984 to June, 2003 and he

had completed more than 240 days in a year and therefore,

as per the provisions of law, his status had become that of

a permanent workman/employee.

The further case of the workman is that Party No. 1 is

an industry and in 1978, Party No. 1 established its office at

Akola and started the work of research and commercial

activities by acquiring 52 acres of land from Dr. Punjabrao

Krishi Vidyapeth, Akola and started Gin Bank, Poli House

and Machhi Talab on various plots developed on the

agricultural lands taken from the Vidyapeth and Party No. 1

also constructed meeting hall, rest house and technical

office and for the purpose of carrying out its commercial

activities, it employed various persons on permanent basis

and at present, eleven permanent employees consisting of

peons, Technical Assistants, driver, sweeper and labourers

are working Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 earns huge income

from agriculture operations on the agricultural lands and

selling agricultural products in the market and for the

purpose of doing agricultural operation, the Party No. 1

took his services alongwith other employees and the

activities of Party No. 1 are totally commercial and Party

No. 1 uses to earn profit from all these activities and

therefore, the Party No. 1 is an industry and he was a

workman.

The further case of the workman is that the Party No.

1 without following the provisions of law terminated his

services in the month of June, 2003 and neither any notice

was issued nor any enquiry was made before termination

of his services and he was drawing Rs. 2010/- per month at

that time and as his status was that of a permanent

employee, his termination from services by Party No. 1 is

totally illegal and bad in law and therefore is liable to be

quashed and set aside and in reference No. CGIT/NGP/

196/2000, which was quite similar to his case, it has already

been held by this Tribunal that party No. 1 is an industry

and the termination of its employees is illegal and the same

was without following the due procedure of law and his

case is more or less similar in nature like that of the

employees involved in reference case No. 196/2000.

The workman has prayed to declare his oral

termination made by Party No. 1 in June, 2003 as illegal and

to direct Party No. 1 to reinstate him in service with

continuity, full back wages and all the consequential

benefits.

3. In the written statement, denying the pleadings

made in the statement of claim, Party No. 1 has pleaded

inter-alia that it was established by the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture,

Government of India, New Delhi in the year in 1976 and

being a nodal organization in India, it has national mandate

to plan, conduct, promote and coordinate all activities

concerning plant exploration, collection, safe conservation

and distribution of both indigenious and introduced

genetic variability in crop plants and their wild relatives

and it not only provides genetic resources to ongoing crop

improvement programmes to sustain continued advances

in agricultural productivity and stabilize production, but

also conserves them safely to meet needs of future

generations and it has no profit making motive, as none of

the plants or plant produce are subjected for any sale and

it has no trading activity and it is solely and primarily a

research institute and for doing the agricultural work in the

fields, casual labourers were engaged through contractors

and it is an institution engaged in carrying out fundamental

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2675

research in agriculture and therefore, not an industry as

defined u/s. 2 (j) of the Act and for that the claim of the

workman is liable to be dismissed.

The further case of party No. 1 is that for number of

years, the casual labourers recruited by the departments of

the Central Government were deprived of the benefits of

regularisation in service and the casual labourers were

agitating and were demanding wages at par with class-IV

employees of the Government, so the policy relating to

engagement of casual labourers in Central Government

offices was reviewed in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court's judgment dated 17.01.1986 in the case of Surinder

Singh and others Vs. Union of India and based on the

directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, different departments

of Government of India framed suitable scheme to absorb

the daily paid casual labourers and to implement those

schemes and Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and

Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi

issued guidelines to their Directorates and other officials

throughout India, vide office memorandum No. 49.14/2/86-

Estt. (C) dated 07.06.1988 for review of policy on recruitment

of casual workers and persons on daily wages and on the

basis of the above guidelines, the Government of India,

Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), issued

office memorandum No. 57016/2/90-Estt. (C) dated

10.09.1993 and further review the policy and decided that

the existing guidelines contained in office memorandum

dated 07.06.1988 be continued to be followed and also

framed a scheme called "casual labourers (Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of

Government of India, 1993" and the same was brought into

force w.e.f. 01.09.1993 and in terms of the guidelines of

office memorandum dated 07.06.1988, casual labourers

could be legally engaged for work which is of casual/

seasonal nature and it has been following the above

mentioned scheme and based on those guidelines issued

directives to their institutes throughout India, for

regularisation of the daily paid casual labourers engaged

by them and in view of its aforesaid policy, it had directed

the departments/units to engage casual labour on contract

basis Vide order dated 10/14.12.1999 and issued guidelines

for allotment of work of various operations to the

contractors and accordingly, the contract was allotted by

it to one Shri R.S. Ghodpage, Nagpur and a written

agreement was signed between it and the contractor on

13.01.2000, which was effective from 16.01.2000 to 15.01.2001

and in terms of the agreement, the contractor was deputing

his casual labourers for doing the agricultural work,

depending upon its availability and the contractor used to

raise a consolidated bill, depending upon the number of

casual labourers he had deputed and the said bill was being

paid to him by an account payee cheque by it and as per

the policy of the Government and the directions of the

controlling authority, the contract was extended for a further

period of one year from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 and the

same was again extended for a further period.

It is specifically denied by Party No. 1 that the

workman was appointed in 1984 (wrongly mentioned as

1982 in the written statement) and he was being paid

Rs. 1800 per month and he was engaged in multipurpose

works and he was in continuous service from 1984 till June,

2003 and he had completed more than 240 days in a year

and had become a permanent workman as alleged. It is

pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the workman was a daily

rated labourer and he was paid wages weekly and the

workman is not entitled to any relief and in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2006) 4

SCC at page 1 (Secretary, State of Karnatak and other Vs.

Umadevi), the claim is not maintainable.

4. In support of his claim, the workman has examined

only himself as a witness. The evidence of the workman is

on affidavit. In his examination-in-chief, the workman has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

However, in his cross-examination, the workman has stated

that wages was being paid to him on signing the

acquaintance roll and wages were being paid to him for the

days he was engaged by Party No. 1.

5. The Pparty No. 1 has examined Mr. Abdul Nizar,

the Officer-In-Charge of its Regional Station, Akola as a

witness, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,

Exts. M-II to M-LXXVI, the payment sheet-cum-attendance

of the workman.

In his examination-in-chief, this witness has also

reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement. He

has further stated that the workman was not engaged in

the year 1984 and he did not work from 1984 to 1990 and for

the first time, the workman was engaged as daily paid casual

labour for doing agricultural work in the year 1991 and he

worked up to 15.01.2000 and he was paid wages on weekly

bills and he used to sign on revenue stamp and he has filed

wage bills from 01.07.1984 to 15.01.2000, showing the wages

paid to the workman and others. This witness had proved

the wage sheet as Exts. M-II to M-LXXVI. This witness

has also stated that the workman was paid wages for the

number of days he worked and wages was paid to him for

153, 59, 94, 154, 155, 153, 154, 157, 98, and 13 days in the

year 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and

2000 respectively and the workman has not worked for 240

days in any year and he worked only for the number of

days as mentioned above, when work was available in the

season.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that

he has no personal knowledge about the engagement and

disengagement of the workman and the contents of his

affidavit are based on the documents available in the office.

This witness has also specifically stated that there is no

other document in the office regarding the engagement

and disengagement of the workman except Exts. M-II to

M-LXXVI. This witness has also stated in his cross-

examination that casual labourers were engaged as per the

requirements.

2676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman was

appointed as a peon by Party No. 1 in the year 1984 and his

name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and

the workman though initially worked as a peon,

subsequently, he was engaged by Party No. 1 to do

multipurpose works including agricultural operations and

driving of vehicles and the workman worked continuously

from 1984 to June 2003 and the workman had completed

more than 240 days of work every year and thus had

acquired the status of a permanent workman, but Party No.

1 without compliance of the mandatory provisions of law

and without giving any prior notice, illegally terminated

his service in June, 2003 and as such, the termination of the

workman from services is illegal and the Party No. 1 did not

produce the entire documents relating the engagement of

the workman, which is clear from the cross-examination of

the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 and as

such, adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party

No. 1.

If was submitted by the learned advocate for the

workman that the Party No. 1 is an industry, as it earns

huge income by raising different crops on the lands acquired

by it and by selling the crops in the market and the workman

is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and

full back wages.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the Party No. 1 that Party No. 1 is not an

industry as defined under section 2 (j) of the Act, as it is an

institute engaged in carrying out fundamental research in

agriculture and there is not profit making motive of the

institute and non of the plaints plant produce are subjected

to sale.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged as daily

casual labourer in the farm of Party No. 1 in 1991 and he did

not work with the Party No. 1 for the the first time from

1984 to 1990 and the workman worked upto 15.01.2000 and

he was paid his wages on weekly bills after signing on

revenue stamp and he did not work for 240 days in any

year and the workman has not produced a single document

or any other evidence except his own evidence on affidavit

to prove that he had worked continuously from 1984 to

june, 2003 and that he had completed 240 days of work

every year, though the initial burden was upon him to prove

the same and it is clear from the evidence of the witness

examined by Party No. 1 and the documents, Exts. M-II to

M-LXXVI that the workman worked till 15.01.2000 and his

engagement was on daily wages basis, as and when

required and he did not complete 240 days work in any

year and the engagement of the workman was by the

contractor as per his requirement and services of the

workman were not terminated by 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 (1997) 4 SCC-391 (Himanshu Kumar

Vs. State of Bihar) and AIR 1997 SC-1855 (Physical Research

Laboratory Vs. K.G. Sharma).

8. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that

the terms of refernce made by the Central Government is

quite vague, as the date from which, the services of the

workman were terminated by the management of Party No.

1, which is quite essential for adjudication of the dispute,

has not been mentioned.

The workman though has mentioned in the

statement of claim that he was appointed as a peon in 1984

by Party No. 1 and continued to work till June, 2003, he has

neither mentioned the date and month of his appointment

nor the date of his termination. The workman though has

mentioned in the statement of claim that his name was

sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he has not

mentioned anything as to whether his appointment was an

oral appointment or by issuance of any appointment order.

The workman has also not mentioned anything as to how

he was appointed, that is to say as to whether such

appointment was made after his appearance in any test or

interview conducted by Party No. 1.

It is to be mentioned here that the workman has

not produced a single document is support of his claim

that he was appointed as a peon in 1984 and that his name

was sponsored by the employment exchange and that he

was engaged by Party No. 1 in multipurpose works

including cultivation and driving of vehicles and that he

worked continuously with Party No. 1 from 1984 to June,

2003 and he had completed 240 days of work every year.

The workman except his own evidence on affidavit, has

not adduced any other evidence in support of his claim.

9. On the other hand, Party No. 1 has claimed that

the workman was engaged as a daily wages casusal

labourer to do the agricultural work in 1991 through

contractor and his engagement was as and when required

by the contractor and when work was available and the

workman worked till 15.01.2000 and he had not completed

240 days of work in any year. The evidence of the witness

for the Party No. 1 in this regard has not at all been

challenged in the cross-examination. The witness for the

Party No. 1 has given the number of days worked by the

workman in each year chronologically in this evidence on

affidavit. Such statement of the witness is corroborated by

the documents Exts. M-II to M-LXXVI. In the cross-

examination of the witness of party no. 1, it has been

brought out that except the documents Exts. M-II to M-

LXXVI, there is not other document in the office of the

party no. 1 regarding the engagement and disengagement

of the workman. So, there is no question of drawing of

adverse inference against Party No. 1 for non-production

of documents as submitted by the learned advocate for the

workman.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2677

On perusal of the evidence on record, it is found

that Party No. 1 has not been able to show that the

engagement of the workman was through the contractor.

However, it is clear from the evidence, both oral and

documentary that the engagement of the workman by Party

No. 1 was on daily wages casual basis for doing agricultural

work as and when required during the period from 1991 till

15.01.2000 and there was no regular appointment of the

workman as a peon in 1984 and he did not work

continuously from 1984 till June, 2003.

10. In view of the stands taken by the parties, the

first question requires to be considered is as to whether,

the Party No. 1 is an industry as defined under section 2 (j)

of the Act.

In this regard, I think it apropos to mention about

the judgement of the Hon'ble Seven Judges Bench of the

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 (Bangalore

Water Supply Vs. Sewerage Board). In the above judgement,

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

''S.2 (j)- ''Industry'' Meaning and scope of what the

term includes and excludes - Tests and guidelines for such

inclusion and exclusion indicated - Charitable Institutions,

Clubs, Educational Institutions, Municipalities, Research

Institutes, Co-operative Societies, Establishment of Liberal

profession, if industry-Agencies and departments of

Governments engaged in any non-sovereign functions

when deemed to be industry indicated - Complex of services

- Some qualifying for exemptions and some not-Tests.

''Industry'' as defined in the sub-section has wide

import.

Where there is (i) Systematic activity (ii) Organised

by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct

and substantial element is chimerical) and (iii) for the

production and/or distribution of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual

of religious but inclusive of material things or services

geared to celestial bliss), prima facie, there is an industry

in the enterprise.

Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private or

other sector.

The true focus is functional and the decisive test is

the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the

employer employee relations.''

Taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties

regarding the activities and functions performed by Party

No. 1 and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the judgement as mentioned above, it is

found that Party No. 1 is an ''industry'' as defined under

section 2(j) of the Act.

11.In this case, the workman has taken the stand

that he worked continuously from the year 1984 till June

2003 and he had completed 240 days of work in every year.

However, the Party No. 1 has denied such claim and has

stated that the workman was engaged on daily wages casual

basis as and when required from 1991 till 15.02.2000 and he

had never completed 240 days of work in any year. In view

of the stands taken by the parties. I think it apt to mention

about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in this regard.

The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in

AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their

workmen) have held that:—

''Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service

for not less than one year under the employer, if the

workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period

of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled.

The definition of ''Continuous Service'' need not be read

into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days

in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous

service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B

only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee)

in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of

the new provisions, however, is not different, In fact, the

amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by

substituting in clause (b) the words ''for every completed

year of continuous service'' has removed a discordance

between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended

Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is

necessary, if the total service is 240 days in a period of

twelve calendar months either before the serveral changes

or after these. The only change in the Act is that this

service must be during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which calculation has

to be made. The last amendment has now removed a

veguences which existed in the unamended section 25-B''.

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253

(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble

Apex Court have held that,

''Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B

(1) and (2) - Continuous service-Scope of sub-section (1)

and (2) is different, (words and phrases-Continuous

Service)

Before a workman can complain of retrenchement

being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show

that he has been in continuous serivce for not less than

one year under the employer, who has retrenched him from

service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the

expression ''continuous''. Both in principle and are precedent

it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation

where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12

calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days

within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and

counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of

retrenchement. If he has, he would be deemed to be in

continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose

of section 25-B and chapter V-A''.

2678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in

AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)

have held that:

''Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947 - S.25F, 10 -

Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services

without payment of —Dispute referred to Tribunal-Case

of workman/claimant that he had worked for 240 days in a

year preceding his termination - Claim denied by

management-Onus lies upon claimant to show that he had

in fact worked for 240 days in a year—In absence of proof

of receipt of salary, the affidavit of the workman is not

sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240

days in year preceding his termination.''

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in

(2005) 5 SCC-100 (Reserve Bank of India Vs. S. Mani) have

held that:—

''Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss. 25-F, 25-N, 25-B

and II-240 days' continuous Service-Onus and burden of

proof with respect-to-Evidence sufficient to discharge-

Failure of Employer to prove a defence (of abandonment of

service) if sufficient or amounted to an admission,

discharging the said burden of proof on the workman

discharged, merely because employer fails to prove a

defence or an alternative plea of abandonment of service -

Filing of affidavit of workman to the effect that he had

worked for 240 days continuously or the the workman had

repeated representations or raised demands for

reinstatement, is not sufficient evidence that can discharge

the said burden-Other substantive evidence needs to be

adduced to prove 240 day's contnuous serivce-Instances

of such evidence given.

The initial burden of proof was on the workman to

show that they had completed 240 days of service. The

Tribunal did not consider the question from that angle. It

held that the burder of proof was upon the appellant on the

premise that they have failed to prove their plea of

abandonment of service.

Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in this

favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence

for any Court of Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a

workman had in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. Such

evidence might include proof of receipt of salary or wages

for 240 days or order or record of appointment or

engagement for this period on the terms and conditions of

his officer of appointment, or by examination of any other

witness in support of his case.

So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex court in the decisions mentioned above that

for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary

for the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days in

the preceding 12 calendar months commencing and

counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden

of such proof is upon the workman.

10. The present case in hand in now to be considered

with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman

has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least

for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.

As already mentioned above, the workman except

his own evidence on affidavit has not adduced any other

evidence. It is clear from the evidence on record, both oral

and documentary as already stated above that the

engagement of the workman by Party No. 1 was on daily

wages casual basis for doing agricultural work as and when

required during the period from 1991 to 15.01.2000 and there

was no regular appointment of the workman as a peon and

he did not work continuously from 1984 till June 2003. It is

also found that the workman has miserably failed to prove

that he had completed 240 days of work in the preceding 12

months of the alleged date of his termination or in any year.

Hence, the provision of section 25-F r/w. section 25-B of

the Act are not applicable to the case of the workman. So,

the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is

ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of National Bureau of

Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi and Office-in-Charge,

Akola of terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Prabhakar

Bade r/o Adarsh Colony, Laxmi Niwas, Near SBI Branch,

Akola, Teh & Dist. Akola (MS) is legal and justified. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1044.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh ih MCY;w Mh

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;kyu uñ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

88@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@257@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1044.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/2011)

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 Central Public Works

Department, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/257/2003 - IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2679

ANNEXURE

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 88/2011

Shri Ramesh Chand through

The National President,

All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan,

4823, Balbir Nagar Extension,

Gali No. 13, Shahdra,

Delhi - 110032.

.....Workman

Versus

The Executive Engineer,

CPWD, K-Division,

I.P. Bhawan,

New Delhi.

.....Management

AWARD

A sweeper was engaged by a contractor in April 1994

to whom sweeping and maintenance work at M.S.

Apartments, F Block, Curzon Road, New Delhi was awarded

for a specified period by the Central Public Works

Department (hereinafter referred to as the management).

Sweeping and maintenance work at the aforesaid building

was awarded to various contractors, from time to time.

Contractors changed but the sweeper, so engaged,

continued to work there. Wages less than the minimum

wages, notified by the appropriate Government, were paid

to the sweeper. He filed an application before the Authority,

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, seeking directions

to the contractors (whom he served from time to time) for

payment of difference of wages, paid less to him than the

minimum wages notified for the scheduled employment, in

which he was employed. It irked the contractor, whom he

was serving at that time. His services were dispensed with

abruptly, without giving any notice or pay in lieu thereof

and retrenchment compensation. The sweeper approached

the All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (herein

after referred to as the union) for redressal of this grievances.

The union raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer

seeking reinstatement of the sweeper in service of the

management. It was claimed that the contract between the

management and the contractor was sham and bogus. The

management contested the claim and as such conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure

report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

Government referred the dispute to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi, for adjudication, vide

order No. L-42012/257/2003-IR(CM-II), New Delhi dated

23.08.2004, with following terms:

"Whether the contract between the management of

CPWD and their contractor is sham and whether

demand of All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari

Sangathan for regularization/absorption of Shri

Ramesh Chand in the establishment of CPWD is legal

and justified? If yes, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. Corrigendum was issued by the appropriate

Government vide order No. L-42012/257/2003-IR(C-II), New

Delhi dated 22.09.2005, on the strength of which terms of

reference was substituted as follows:

"Whether the contract between the management of

CPWD and their contractor is sham and whether

demand of All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari

Sangathan for reinstatement/regularization/

absorption of Shri Ramesh Chand in the

establishment of CPWD is legal and justified? If yes,

to what relief he is entitled?"

3. Claim statement was filed by the sweeper, namely

Shri Ramesh Chand pleading therein that he was working

with the management through contractors since April 1994.

He had put in more than 240 days continuous service in

every calendar year. No seniority list was circulated in the

establishment where he was engaged. He was performing

duties as that of regular sweeper, employed by the

management. Though he worked under various contractors,

who changed from time to time, yet he continued to work

with the management. Sweeping work is directly connected

with day to day work of the management in its divisions

and is essential in nature. Contract entered into between

the contractor and the management was sham, designed to

deny status of permanency to him. The said contractor

was a smoke screen to defeat various beneficial labour

legislation. Instructions were being issued to him daily by

staff of the management. At no point of time, work was

ever supervised by the contractor. The management even

enjoyed disciplinary authority over him. Though there were

vacant posts, yet his services were engaged as contractual

labour for considerable long period. His services were

illegally dispensed with on 19.04.2002. No notice or pay in

lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to

him at the time of termination of his services. The

management committed unfair labour practice in keeping

him as an employee of the contractor. He claims

reinstatement in service of the management with continuity

and full back wages. He also claims that his services may

be regularized with the management.

4. Claim was demurred by the management pleading

that the claimant was engaged as a sweeper by different

contractors for completion of work awarded to them from

time to time. There was no privity of contract between the

claimant and the management. Since the claimant was

engaged by different contractors, hence there was no

question of his completing 240 days continuous service

2680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with the management. He cannot compare himself with

regular employees of the management in the matter of his

service conditions. The management used to supervise

work done by the contractor and not the contract labour.

Instructions regarding work were being issued to the

contractor. Claimant was under the direct control of the

contractor. Since there was no relationship of employer

and employee between the parties, there was no occasion

for the management to terminate his services. It does not

lie in the mouth of the claimant to seek reinstatement in

service of the management, not to talk of regularization of

his services, pleads the management.

5. The case was transferred to this Tribunal for

adjudications, vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II), New

Delhi dated 30.03.2010 by the appropriate Government.

6. An application was moved by the claimant to

implead Shri P.K. Pathak, the contractor, who allegedly

dispensed with service of the claimant. After hearing the

parties, the said application was allowed vide order dated

28.07.2011, and the contractor was impleaded in the arrays

of respondents.

7. The contractor assails the claim, pleading that the

claimant was working with him since 16.02.2002 as sweeper.

He used to leave his work place unauthorizedly. Since he

was not satisfied with his (claimant's) work, his services

were dispensed with on 19.04.2002. He projects that the

claimant was engaged by him at the instance of Shri Shakeel

Ahmed, to whom the contract was awarded by the

management prior to him. Shri Ahmed informed that the

claimant had full knowledge of the building and the work

which is to be undertaken by him. On that information, he

was engaged. However, his services were dispensed with

when it was found not to be satisfactory.

8. To discharge onus resting on him, the claimant

testified facts himself as well as examined Shri Satish Kumar

Sharma. Shri Srinibash Behra was examined by the

management. Contractor also entered the witness box to

testify facts. No other witness was examined by either of

the parties.

9. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Satish Kumar

Sharma, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf of

the management. The contractor opted not to participate

in the proceedings after testifying facts. Hence, arguments

were not raised on his behalf. I have given my careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:—

10. The claimant unfolds that he was engaged on the

job through contractor, namely, Shri Sohan Lal on

01.04.1994. He used to work at M.S. Apartments, Curzon

Road, New Delhi, as safai karamchari. He worked there

upto April 2002. Contractor used to change but he

continuously worked at the premises of the management.

In the year 2002, Shri Pathak was the contractor. He filed an

application before the Authority under the Minimum Wages

Act, 1948 Documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/24 relate to

the said matter. His services were dispensed with since he

had filed an application seeking payment of minimum wages

for the job performed by him.

11. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma deposed that he is

employed as works assistant with the management.

Claimant is known to him, in the capacity of leader of the

union. Claimant worked at M.S. Apartments, Curzon Road,

New Delhi. Work performed by the claimant is of perennial

in nature. Claimant used to report for his work to Shri Srinibas

Behra, Junior Engineer. He used to work on the directions

of Shri Behra. According to information received by him,

claimant was engaged by the management in the year 1994

through the contractor. Contractors used to change but

the claimant continuously worked with the management

till the year 2002. Claimant filed a petition seeking payment

of minimum wages, which resulted into a settlement, copy

of which settlement is Ex.WW1/3.

12. Shri Srinibas Behra deposed that work relating to

caretaking of M.S. Apartments, F Block, Curzon Road, New

Delhi was assigned to the contractor vide contract

agreement Ex. WW2/M1. Contract was renewed from time

to time and documents in this regard are Ex. WW1/M2 to

Ex.WW1/M6. Contractor used to employ the sweeper.

Claimant was never engaged by the management. Different

contractors have engaged the claimant on sweeping job.

The management never supervised work of the claimant.

Whenever a complaint was noted in the job of the contract

employee, complaint was made to the contractor and the

latter used to take action in that regard. When contract of

the contractor came to an end, he had not engaged the

claimant any further.

13. Shri P.K. Pathak unfolds in his affidavit, Ex.MW2/

A, tendered as evidence, that caretaking job at M.S.

Apartments, F Block, Curzon Road, New Delhi was assigned

to him vide award letter No. 2491/AE/61C/2001-2/74 dated

06.02.2002. Prior to him, the work was awarded to

M/s. Shakeel Ahmed. On recommendations of Shri Shakeel

Ahmed, he deployed Shri Ramesh Chand. Work of the

claimant was not satisfactory, hence his services were

terminated by him on 19.04.2002. Claimant for a period of

about 2 months with him.

14. Facts testified by the claimant, Shri Satish Kumar

Sharma, Shri Behra and Shri Pathak are scanned in order to

ascertain as to whether relationship of employer and

employee existed between the claimant and the

management. As testified by the claimant, he was engaged

by the contractor in April 1994 to carry out sweeping jobs

at M.S. Apartments, Curzon Road, New Delhi. He concedes

that his wages were being paid by the contractor. There

were other sweepers too, who were employees of the

contractor. He further concedes that he was engaged by

the contractor(s) to whom caretaking work was awarded

by the management from time to time. Out of facts testified

by the claimant, it became apartment that he was engaged

by the contractor to carry out sweeping jobs. He places

reliance on settlement Ex.WW1/3, which was filed before

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2681

the Authority, under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In

Ex.WW1/3, it is detailed that a sum of Rs. 3500.00 was paid

to the claimant by M/s. Shakeel Ahmed, contractor, towards

full and final settlement in respect of claim application

moved under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act,

1948. Ex.WW1/4, is the receipt of payment made to the

claimant by M/s. P.K. Pathak, contractor at the relevant

time. In the said receipt, a sum of Rs. 2000.00 was paid to

the claimant towards full and final settlement of his claim,

moved under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the same

manner, a sum of Rs. 3000.00 was received by the claimant

from M/s. Shiv Kumar Gupta and receipt Ex. WW1/6 was

executed in that regard. Ex.WW1/7 is the copy of order

passed by the Authority, under Minimum Wages Act, 1948,

which projects that the claimant knocked door of that forum

for payment of difference of wages, paid less to him than

the minimum wages by the contractor(s), namely, M/s. P.K.

Pathak, M/s. Shakeel Ahmed, M/s. Shiv Kumar Gupta and

M/s. Sohan Lal Arora. His application was disposed off,

since the claimant settled his grievances with the aforesaid

contractor(s) who have employed him from time to time. In

application Ex.WW1/18, moved before the Authority, under

Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the claimant projects that the

management is the principal employer and the contractor

is his employer. Application Ex. WW1/21 was moved by

the claimant before the Superintending Engineer requesting

him to get difference of minimum wages paid from Shri

Pathak, the contractor. He also detailed there in that the

contractor had dispensed with his services by an oral order

on 19.04.2012. Thus it is evident that tone and tenor of the

testimony of the claimant is that his employer was the

contractor(s), whom he served from time to time. Shri Satish

Kumar Sharma also admits in his testimony that the claimant

was never an employee of the management.

15. Shri P.K. Pathak deposed that in February 2002,

claimant was engaged by him when caretaking work at

M.S. Apartments, Curzon Road, New Delhi, was assigned

to him by the management. Facts testified by Shri Pathak

and those detailed by the claimant, Shri Satish Kumar

Sharma and Shri Behra project that the claimant was an

employee of the contractor. The management was the

principal employer. Wages of the claimant were paid by the

contractor. When claimant perceived that wages, less than

the minimum wages, were being paid to him by his employer,

he sought redressal of his grievance before the Authority,

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He settled his

grievances and received some amount towards full and

final settlement from the contractors, his employers. These

facts make me to conclude that it was the contractor who

was employer of the claimant. No evidence worth name

was adduced by the claimant to project that he was an

employee of the management. Sequence of events brought

over the record by the Claimant, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,

Shri Behra and Shri Pathak make me to conclude that the

claimant was an employee of the contractor, who used to

make payment of his salaries. It was the contractor who

was his pay master. Relationship of employer and employee

never existed between the management and the claimant.

16. Whether the claimant, who was an employee of

the contractor, can maintain a dispute against the

management? For an answer to this proposition, the

Tribunal has to take note of the law contained in section 10

of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,

1970 (in short the Contract Labour Act), which makes

provision for prohibition of employment of contract labour.

For sake of convenience provisions of section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act are reproduced thus:

"10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour:—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

the appropriate Government may, after consultation with

the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board,

prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment

of contract labour in any process, operation or other work

in any establishment.

(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section

(1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate

Government shall have regard to the conditions of work

and benefits provided for the contract labour in that

establishment and other relevant factors, such as—

(a) Whether the process, operation or other work is

incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade,

business, manufacture or occupation that is carried

on in the establishment,

(b) Whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is

of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of

industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation

carried on in that establishment;

workmen in that establishment or an establishment

similar thereto;

(d) Whether it is sufficient to employ considerable

number of whole-time workmen.

Explanation—If a question arises whether any

process or operation or other work is of perennial nature,

the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall

be final."

17. As emerge out of the provision of sub-section (1)

of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, the appropriate

Government may, by notification in the official gazette,

prohibit employment of contract labour in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment. When

employment of contract labour is prohibited, by issuance

of a notification in official gazette by the appropriate

Government, what would be the status of the contract

labour employed in the establishment? Such a question

arose before the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.

[2001 (7) S.C.C.I]. The Apex Court ruled therein that there

cannot be automatic absorption of contract labour by

principal employer on issuance of notification by the

appropriate Government on abolition of contract labour

system, under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the law laid

by the Apex Court, which is extracted thus:

"….they fall in three classes: (1) where contract labour

is engaged in or in connection with the work of an

2682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

establishment and employment of contract labour is

prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/

court ordered abolition of contract labour or because

the appropriate Government issued notification

under section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic

absorption of contract labour working in the

establishment was ordered, (2) where contract was

found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage,

in which case the contract labour working in the

establishment of the principal employer were held, in

fact and in reality, the employees of the principal

employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to

the abolition of contract labour but present instances

wherein the court pierce the veil and declared the

correct position as a fact at the stage after

employment of contract labour stood prohibited, (3)

where in discharge of a statutory obligation of

maintaining a canteen in an establishment the

principal employer availed the services of the

contractor, the courts have held that the contract

labour would indeed be employees of the principal

employer."

18. The Court ruled that neither section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of

a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-

section (1) of section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case [1974 (3)

SCC 66], the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR

1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory by the

Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in

the canteen were held to be employees of the establishment.

The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall in class (3)

mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai (1978 Lab. I.C.

1264) was considered by the Apex Court in the said

precedent and it was ruled therein that the said precedent

falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court concluded

that on issuance of prohibitive notification under section

10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting employment of

contract or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought

before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of

service, the Industrial Adjudicator will have to consider

the question whether the contractor has been interposed

either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any

given result for the establishment or for supply of contract

labour for work of the establishment under a genuine

contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance

of various beneficial legislation so as to deprive the workers

of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not

genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract

labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal

employer who shall be directed to regularize the services

of the contract labour in the establishment concerned,

subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that

purpose.

19. As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance of

a prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of his service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken

to produce any given result in the establishment or for

supply of the contract labour for the work of the

establishment under a genuine contract or it is a mere ruse/

camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial legislation

so as to deprive the workers of the benefits therein. Thus it

was ruled that a contract labour can raise a dispute before

the industrial adjudicator in regard to his conditions of

service and in case the contract is found to be not genuine

but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will

have to be treated as employees of the principal employer.

Also see Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. [1960

(II) LLJ. 233], which was referred with approval in Steel

Authority of India.

20. In Shivanandan Sharma [1955 (1) LLJ 688], the

respondent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a

contract to the Treasures who appointed cashiers,

including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before

the Apex Court was : was the appellant and employee of

the Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into

the Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

"If a master employs a servant and authorizes him to

employ a number of persons to do a particular job

and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a

cash consideration, the employees thus appointed

by the servant would be equally with the employer,

servant of the master."

21. In the above precedent the Apex Court for the

first time laid down the crucial test of supervision and control

for determining the relationship of employer and employee.

22. In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was

manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor

who engaged his own workers. When after some time, The

workers were not engaged, they raised an Industrial dispute

that they were denied employment by the petitioner.

On reference of that dispute, the labour court

passed an award against the petitioner. When matter

reached the Apex Court, on examination of various

factors and applying the effective control test, it

was held that though there was no direct relationship

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2683

between the petitioner and the workers yet on lifting the

veil and looking at the conspectus of factors governing

employment, the naked truth, though draped in different

perfect paper arrangement, was that the real employer was

the petitioner, not the immediate contractor. The Apex Court

stated law in following words:

"Where a worker or group of workers labours to

produce goods or services and these goods or services

are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the

employer. He has economic control over the workers'

subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for

any reason chokes off, the workers is virtually, laid off. The

presence of intermediate contractor with whom alone the

workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contract

is of no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at

the conspectus of factors governing employment, we

discern the naked truth, though draped indifferent perfect

paper arrangement, that the real employer is the

management, not the immediate contractor***. If the

livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour

rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit

and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct

relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or

the make-believe trappings of detachment from the

management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may

vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot

be shaken off. Of course, if there is total dissociation in

fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved

workmen, the employment is, in substance and real-life

terms, by another. The management's adventitious

connections cannot ripen into real employment."

As noted above, this precedent does not present an

illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance

where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position to the effect that the contract labours were

employees of the principal employer and not of the

contractor.

23. In Steel Authority of India (Supra) it has been

ruled that the term "contract labour" is a species of workman.

A workman may be hired: (1) in an establishment by the

principal employer or by his agent with or without the

knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in connection

with the work of an establishment by the principal employer

through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the

knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is hired

in or in connection with the work of an establishment by

the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts

as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship

between the principal employer and the workman. But when

a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an

establishment by a contractor, either because he has

undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment

or because he supplies workmen for any work of the

establishment, a question might arise whether the

contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai's case

(supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation case [1999

(6) S.C.C. 439] etc.; if the answer is in affirmative, the

workman will be in fact an employee of the principal

employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workman

will be a contract labour.

In view of the legal proposition, referred above, it is

concluded that the claimant can maintain this dispute

against the management since he agitates that the contract

agreement between the management and the Contractor is

sham and nominal.

24. Whether any directions for deeming the contract

labour as having become the employees of the principal

employer can be issued, when the contractor or the principal

employer had violated the provisions of the Contract

Labour Act? To find an answer, provisions of that Act are

to be examined. The Contract Labour Act regulates

conditions of workers in contract labour system and

provides for its abolition by the appropriate Government

as provided by section 10 of that Act. In regard to regulatory

measures Section 7 requires the principal employer to get

itself registered, while Section 12 obliges every contractor

to obtain a licence, under the provisions of that Act. Section

9 places an embargo on the principal employer of an

establishment from employing contractor labour in the

establishment, when either it is not registered or its

registration has been revoked. Section 12 of the Contract

Labour Act imposes a liability on a contractor not to

undertake or execute any work through contract labour

except under and in accordance with a licence. Section 23,

24 and 25 make contraventions of the provisions of that

Act or Rules made thereunder penal. In Dena Nath (1992

Lab. I.C. 75) the Apex Court considered the question,

whether non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 7

and 12 by the principal employer and the contractor

respectively would make the contract labour employed by

the principal employer as the employee of the latter. It was

ruled that only consequence of non-compliance either by

the principal employer of Section 7 or by the contractor in

complying the provisions of Section 12 is that they are

liable for prosecution under the said Act. But the employees

employed through the contractor cannot be deemed to be

the employees of the principal employer.

25. In the Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex

Court laid emphasis "...........the consequence of violation

of Section 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided

in Section 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in

Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified

in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be if absorption of

contract labour in the establishment of principal employer

or a lesser or harsher punishment. Such an interpretation

of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

2684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

interpretative legislation and as such, clearly impermissible".

The above authoritative pronouncements make it clear that

on violations of the provisions of the Contract Labour Act

or Rules made thereunder, the contract labour could not be

deemed to have become the employee of the principal

employer.

26. Whether this Tribunal has power to order for

abolition of contract labour system in the establishment of

the management? For an answer, legal dicta is to be

considered. Before enactment of the Contract Labour Act,

the industrial adjudicator, in appropriate cases, used to

issue directions to the establishment concerned to abolish

or modify system of contract labour. Reference can be made

to precedents in United Salt Works and Industries Ltd.

[1962 (I) LLJ. 131], Shibu Metal Works [1966 (I) LLJ. 717],

National Iron & Steel Co. [1967 (II) LLJ. 23], and Ghatge

and Patil (Transport) Pvt. Ltd. [1968 (I) LLJ. 566]. The

National Commission on Labour (1966) in Para 29.11 of its

report, enumerated those factors, on which abolition of

contract labour was ordered, thus:—

"29.11. Judicial awards have discouraged the practice

of employment of contract labour, particularly when

the work is (i) perennial and must go on from day to

day; (ii) incidental and necessary for the work of the

factory; (iii) sufficient to employ a considerable

number of whole time workmen; and (iv) being done

in most concerns through regular workmen. These

awards also came out against the system of

'middlemen'."

27. After Contract Labour Act was brought on statute

book, the Apex Court examined jurisdiction of the industrial

adjudicator to issue directions to the establishment to

abolish contract labour in Vegoils Private Ltd. [1971 (2)

S.C.C. 724] and ruled that it would be proper that the

question, whether the contract labour in the appellant

industry was to be abolished or not, be left to be dealt with

by the appropriate Government under the provisions of

that Act, if it becomes necessary. The observations made

by the Court are extracted thus:—

"The appropriate Government when taking action

under Section 10 will have an overall picture of the

industries carrying on similar activities and decide

whether contract labour is to be abolished in respect

of any of the activities of that industry. Therefore, it

is reasonable to conclude that the jurisdiction to

decide about the abolition of contract labour, or to

put it differently, to prohibit the employment of

contract labour, is now to be done in accordance

with Section 10. Therefore, it is proper that the

question whether the contract labour regarding

loading and unloading in the industry of the appellant

is to be abolished or not, is left to be dealth with by

the appropriate Government under the Act, if it

becomes necessary. On this ground, we are of the

opinion that the direction of the Industrial Tribunal

in this regard will have to be set aside.*** The legality

of the direction given by the Industrial Tribunal

abolishing contract labour in respect of loading and

unloading from May 1, 1971, can also be considered

from another point of view. The Central Act, as

mentioned earlier, had come into force on February

10, 1971. Under Section 10 of the said Act the

jurisdiction to decide matters connected with

prohibition of contract labour is now vested in the

appropriate Government. Therefore, with effect from

February 10, 1971, it is only the appropriate

Government that can prohibit contract labour by

following the procedure and in accordance with the

provisions of the Central Act. The Industrial Tribunal,

in circumstances, will have no jurisdiction, through

its award dated November 20, 1970, to give a direction

in that respect which becomes, enforceable after the

date of the coming into force of the Central Act. In

any event, such a direction contained in the award

cannot be enforceable from a date when abolition of

contract labour can only be done by the appropriate

Government in accordance with the provisions of

the Central Act".

28. In Gujarat Electricity Board [1995 (5) S.C.C. 27]

the same view was taken by the Apex Court holdings that

the authority to abolish the contract labour vests in the

appropriate Government and not in any court including

the industrial adjudicator. It would be apposite to reproduce

the observation of the Court thus:

"53. Our conclusions and answers to the questions

raised are, therefore, as follows:—

(i) In view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act,

it is only the appropriate Government which has

the authority to abolish genuine labour contract

in accordance with the provisions of the said

Section. No Court including the industrial

adjudicator has jurisdiction to do so.

(ii) If the contract is sham or not genuine, the

workmen of the so-called contractor can raise an

industrial dispute for declaring that they were

always the employees of the principal employer

and for claiming the appropriate service

conditions. When such dispute is raised, it is not

a dispute for abolition of the labour contract and

hence the provisions of Section 10 of the Act will

not bar either the raising or the adjudication of

the dispute. When such dispute is raised, the

industrial adjudicator has to decide whether the

contract is sham or genuine. It is only if the

adjudicator comes to the conclusion that the

contract is sham, that he will have jurisdiction to

adjudicate the dispute. If, however, he comes to

the conclusion that the contract is genuine, he

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2685

may refer the workmen to the appropriate

Government for abolition of the contract labour

under Section 10 of the Act and keep the dispute

pending. However, he can do so if the dispute is

espoused by the direct workmen of the principal

employer. If the workmen of the principal employer

have not espoused the dispute, the adjudicator,

after coming to the conclusion that the contract

is genuine, has to reject the reference, the dispute

being not an industrial dispute within the meaning

of Section 2(k) of the ID Act. He will not be

competent to give any relief to the workmen of

the erstwhile contractor even if the labour

contract is abolished by the appropriate

Government under Section 10 of the Act.

(iii) If the labour contract is genuine a composite

industrial dispute can still be raised for abolition

of the contract labour and their absorption.

However, the dispute, will have to be raised

invariably by the direct employees of the principal

employer. The industrial adjudicator, after receipt

of the reference of such dispute will have first to

direct the workmen to approach the appropriate

Government for abolition of the contract labour

under Section 10 of the Act and keep the reference

pending. If pursuant to such reference, the

contract labour is abolished by the appropriate

Government, the industrial adjudicator will have

to give opportunity to the parties to place the

necessary material before him to decide whether

the workmen of the erstwhile contractor should

be directed to be absorbed by the principal

employer, how many of them and on what terms.

If, however, the contract labour is not abolished,

the industrial adjudicator has to reject the

reference.

(iv) Even after the contract labour system is abolished,

the direct employees of the principal employer

can raise an industrial dispute for absorption of

the ex-contractor's workmen and the adjudicator

on the material placed before him can decide as to

who and how many of the workmen should be

absorbed and on what terms".

29. In Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex Court

had referred the precedents in Vegoils case (supra) and

Gujrat Electricity Board (supra) with approval. Thus it

emerges that power to abolish contract labour system vests

with the appropriate Government, under Section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act, and not with any court including the

industrial adjudicator. This Tribunal has not been saddled

with any responsibility to abolish contract labour in an

establishment, on parameters enacted in sub-section (2) of

Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act.

30. Now I would turn to the facts of the present

controversy. It is not a case where an employee of a

contractor, employed in a statutory canteen, has invoked

the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This matter, as projected

by the claimant, is left to be approached on the proposition

as to whether contract agreement entered into between the

management and the Contractor was sham and nominal.

For an answer to this proposition, it would be expedient to

examine the contract agreements, which have been proved

as Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 by Shri Satish Kumar

Sharma. In construction of contents of Ex.WW2/M1 to

Ex.WW2/M6, this Tribunal cannot be oblivions of the rules

viz., written instruments shall, if possible, be so interpreted

"ut res magis valeat quam pereat" (a liberal construction

should be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold

them, if possible) and that such a meaning shall be given to

it as may carry out and effectuate to the fullest extent the

intention of the parties.

31. Elementary principle of law relative to contracts

is that parties to contracts are to be allowed to regulate

their rights and liabilities themselves and the Courts will

only give effect to the intention of the parties as it is

expressed by the contract. However the law in some cases

overrides the will of the individual and renders ineffective

and futile his expressed intention or contract. No court or

tribunal will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of

action upon an immoral or an illegal act. A contract cannot

be made the subject of an action if it be impeachable on the

grounds of dishonesty, or as being opposed to public

policy, if it be either contra bonus mores, or forbidden by

law. No court or tribunal will allow itself to be made the

instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of

a contract or transaction which is illegal.

32. Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 contain clauses

which are contra bonos mores or forbidden by law. Contract

agreements, proved as Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 are

replica of each other. These documents are looked into to

ascertain an answer to the above proposition. Clause of

above contract of agreements, described as Model Rules

for Protection of Health and Sanitation arrangement for the

workers and Contract labour Regulations are to be delved

upon. When perused Model Rules for Protection of Health

and Sanitation Arrangement has taken care of it came to

light that provisions have been made for first aid facilities,

drinking water, washing facilities, latrine and urinals,

provision for centre during rest, creches, canteen and anti

malarial protections. It emerges over record that suitable

arrangements were made for protection of health and

sanitary arrangement for the employees of the contractor.

Contract Labour Regulations formulated by the

management speak of payment of wages by the contractor.

For sake of convenience, the same are extracted thus:—

(i) The contractor shall fix wage periods in respect

of which wages shall be payable.

2686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) No wage period shall exceed one month.

(iii) The wages of every person employed as contract

labour in an establishment or by a contractor

where less than one thousand, such persons are

employed shall be paid before the expiry of the

seven day and in other cases before the expiry of

tenth day after the last day of the wage period in

respect of which the wages are payable.

(iv) Where the employment of any worker is

terminated by or on behalf of the contractor, the

wages earned by him shall be paid before the expiry

of the second working day from the date on which

his employment is terminated.

(v) All payments of wages shall be made on a working

day at the work premises and during the working

time and on a date notified in advance and in case

the work is completed before the expiry of the

wage period, final payment shall be made within

48 hours of the last working day.

(vi) Wages due to every worker shall be paid to him

direct or to other person authorised by him in this

behalf.

(vii) All wages shall be paid in current coin or currency

or in both.

(viii) Wages shall be paid without any deductions of

any kind except those specified by the Central

Government by general or special order in this

behalf or permissible under the payment of Wages

Act, 1956.

(ix) A notice showing the wages period and the place

and time of disbursement of wages shall be

displayed at the place of work and a copy sent by

the contractor to the Engineer-in-Charge under

acknowledgement.

(x) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the

disbursement of wages in the presence of the

Engineer-in-Charge or any other authorised

representative of the Engineer-in-Charge who will

be required to be present at the place and time of

disbursement of wages by the contractor to

workmen.

(xi) The contractor shall obtain from the Engineer-in-

Charge or any other authorised representative of

the Engineer-in-Charge as the case may be, a

certificate under his signature at the end of the

entries in the "Register of wages" or the "Wage-

cum-Muster Roll" as the case may be in the

following form:

"Certified that the amount shown in column No….has

been paid to the workman concerned in my presence

on…at…"

33. Contractor was ordained to maintain register for

persons employed on work, muster roll register, wage

deduction for damages or loss, register of advances,

employees. He was burdened with an obligation to issue

identity card cum wage slip, employment card and service

certificate.

34. Records referred above were to be preserved by

the contractor for a period of three years. Labour Officers

were empowered to make investigations or enquiry with a

view to ascertain and enforece due and proper observance

of the regulations. Therefore, it emerges that proper

regulations were made by the management in order to see

that the contract employees get their dues under the law.

35. Clause 19 of the contract agreements, proved as

Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6, imposes obligation on the

contractor to obtain a licence under the Contract Labour

Act. He was further saddled with a duty to abide by the

provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act,

1998 besides contraction Workers (Regulation of

Employment & Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and other

Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. On his failure

to fulfil requirement of the above statutes, he was to attract

penal provisions as arising out of resultant non-execution

of the work. He was to make payment of wages to his

employees. Provisions relating to the same are reproduced

thus:

(i) The contractor shall pay to labour employed by

him either directly or through sub-contractors,

wages not less than fair wages as defined in the

DAE, Contractor's Labour Regulations or as per

the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation

and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971,

wherever applicable.

(ii) The Contractor shall notwithstanding the

provisions of any contract to the contrary, cause

to be paid fair wage to labour indirectly engaged

on the work, including any labour engaged by his

sub-contractors in connection with the said work,

as if the labour had been immediately employed

by him.

(iii) In respect of all labour directly or indirectly

employed in the works for performance of the

contractor's part of this agreement, the contractor

shall comply with or cause to be complied with

the DAE Contractor Labour Regulations made by

Government from time to time in regard to payment

of wages, wage period, deductions from wages,

recovery of wages not paid and deductions

unauthorizedly made, maintenance of wage books

or wage slips, publication of scale of wages and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2687

other terms of employment, inspection and

submission of periodical returns and all other

matters of the like nature or as per the provisions

of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Act, 1970 and the contract Labour (Regulation

and Abolition) Central Rules 1971, wherever

applicable.

(iv-a) The Engineer-in-charge concerned shall have the

right to deduct from the moneys due to the

contractor any sum required or estimated to be

required for making good the loss suffered by a

worker or workers by reasons of non fulfillment

of the conditions of the contract for the benefit of

the workers, non-payment of wages or of

deduction made from his or their wages which are

not justified by their terms of the contract or non-

observance of the regulations.

(iv-b) Under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act

1948 and the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules,

1950, the contractor is bound to allow or cause to

be allowed to the labourers directly or indirectly

employed in the works one day's rest for six days

continuous work and pay wages at the same rate

as for duty. In the event of default, the Engineer-

in-Charge shall have the right to deduct the sum

or sums not paid on account of wages for weekly

holiday to any labourer, and pay the same to the

persons entitled thereto from any money due to

the contractor by the Engineer-in-Charge.

(v) The contractor shall comply with the provisions

of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, Minimum

Wages Act, 1948, Employees Liability Act, 1938,

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961,

and the Contractor's Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 or the modifications thereof

or any other laws relating thereto and the rules

made there under from time to time.

(vi) The contractor shall indemnify and keep

indemnify Government against payments to be

made under and for the observance of the laws

aforesaid and the D.A.E., Contractor Labour

Regulations without prejudice to his right to claim

indemnity from his sub-contractors.

(vii) The laws / regulations aforesaid shall be deemed

to be a part of this contract and any breach thereof

shall be deemed to be a breach of this contract.

(viii) Whatever is the minimum wage for the time being,

or if the wage payable is higher than such wage,

such wage shall be paid by the contractor to the

workmen directly without the intervention of

Jamadar and the Jamadar shall not be entitled to

deduct or recover any amount from the minimum

wage payable to the workmen as and by way of

commission or otherwise.

(ix) The contractor shall ensure that no amount by

way of commission or other wise is deducted or

recovered by the Jamadar from the wage of

workmen.

36. Leave and pay are to be regulated in the following

manner:

Leave and pay during leave shall be regulated as

follows:

(1)LEAVE:

(i) In the case of delivery: maternity leave not

exceeding 8 weeks, 4 weeks upto and including

the day of delivery and 4 weeks following a that

day.

(ii) In the case of miscarriage: upto 3 weeks from the

dated miscarriage.

(2) PAY:

(i) In the case of delivery: leave pay during maternity

leave will be at the rate of the women's average

daily earnings, calculated on the total wages

earned on the days when full time work was done

during a period of 3 months, immediately

preceding the date on which she gives notice that

she expects to be confined or at the rate of rupee

one only a day whichever is greater.

(ii) In the case of miscarriage: leave pay at the rate

of average daily earning calculated on the total

wages earned on the days when full time work

was done during a period of 3 months immediately

preceding the date of such miscarriage.

(3) CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF

MATERNITY LEAVE:

No maternity leave benefit shall be admissible to a

woman unless she has been employed for a total

period of not less than 6 (six) months immediately

preceding the date on which she proceeds on leave.

(4)The contractor shall maintain a register of

maternity (Benefit) in the prescribed from as given below,

and the same shall be kept at the place of work.

37. As far as supervision and superintendence of

employees other contractor are concerned, following

provisions were made:

‘‘Contractors Superintendence, Supervision,

Technical Staff & Employees

(i) The contractor shall provide all necessary

superintendence during execution of the work and

all along thereafter as may be necessary for proper

fulfilling of the obligations under the contract.

2688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The contractor shall immediately after receiving

letter of acceptance of the tender and before

commencement of the work, intimate in writing to

the Engineer-in-Charge, the name(s),

qualifications experience, age, address(s) and

other particulars along with certificates, of the

principal technical representative to be in-charge

of the work and other technical representative(s)

who will be supervising the work. Minimum

requirement of such technical representative(s)

and their qualifications and experience shall not

be lower than specified in Schedule "F". The

Engineer-in-Charge shall within 3 days of receipt

of such communication intimate in writing his

approval or otherwise of a such a representative(s)

to the contractor. Any such approval may at any

time be withdrawn and in case of such withdrawal,

the contractor shall appoint another such

representative(s) according to the provisions of

this clause. Decision of the tender accepting

authority shall be final and binding on the

contractor in this respect. Such a principal

technical representative and to the technical

representative(s) shall be appointed by the

contractor soon after receipt of the approval from

Engineer-in-Charge and shall be available at site

before start of work. All the provisions applicable

to the principle technical representative under the

clause will also be applicable to other technical

representative(s). The principal technical

representative

and

other

technical

representative(s) shall be present at the site of

work for supervision at all times when any

construction activity is in progress and also

present himself/themselves, as required, to the

Engineer-in-Charge and/or his designated

representative to take instructions. Instructions

given to the principal technical representative or

other technical representative(s) shall be deemed

to have the same force as if these have been given

to the contractor. The principal technical

representative

and

other

technical

representative(s) shall be actually available at site

full during all stages of execution of work, during

recording/checking/test

checking

measurements of works and whenever so required

by the Engineer-in-Charge and shall also note

down instructions conveyed by the Engineer-in-

Charge or his designated representative(s) in the

site order book and shall affix his/their signature

in token of noting down the instructions and in

token of acceptance of measurements/checked

measurements/test checked measurements. The

representative(s) shall not look after any other

work. Substitutes, duly approval by Engineer-in-

Charge of the work in similar manner as aforesaid

be provided in event of absence of any of the

representative(s) by more than two days. If the

Engineer-in-charge, whose decision in this

respect is final and binding on the contractor,

is convinced that no such technical

representative(s) is/are effectively appointed or

is/are effectively attending or fulfilling the

provision of this clause, a recovery (non-

refundable) shall be effected from the contractor

as specified in Schedule "F" and the decision of

the Engineer-in-Charge as recorded in the site

order book and measurement recorded checked/

test checked in Measurement Books shall be final

and binding on the contractor. Further if the

contractor fails to appoint suitable technical/

Principal technical representative and/or other

technical representative(s) and if such appointed

persons are not effectively present or are absent

by more than two days without duly approved

substitute or do not discharge their

responsibilities satisfactorily, the Engineer-in-

Charge shall have full powers to suspend the

execution of thework until such date as suitable

other technical representative(s) is/are appointed

and the contractor shall be held responsible for

the delay so caused to the work. The contractor

shall submit a certificate of employment of the

technical representative(s) along with every on

account bill/final bill and shall produce evidence

if at any time so required by the Engineer-in-

Charge.

(ii) The contractor shall provide and employ on the

site only such technical assistants as are skilled

and experienced in the irrespective fileds and such

foremen and supervisory staff as are competent

to give proper supervision to the work. The

contractor shall provide and employ skilled,

semiskilled and unskilled labour as is necessary

for proper and timely execution of the work. The

Engineer-in-Cahrge shall be at liberty to object to

and require the contractor to remove from the

works any person who in his opinion

misconducts himself or is in competent or

negligent in the performance of his duties or

whose employment is otherwise considerd by the

Engineer-in-Charge to be undesirable. Such

person shall not be employed again at works site

without the written permission of the Engineer-

in-Charge and the persons so removed shall be

replaced as soon as possible by competent

substitute".

38. When above terms of Ex.WW2/M1 to EX.WW2/

M6 are take into account, it emerges that a perfect paper

arragement was made when these documents were executed.

Reasons for the above observation are evident out of

above clauses itself. As per contents of the written

statement contract was awarded to the contractor for

providing caretaking job at M.S. Apartments. F Block,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2689

Curzon Road, New Delhi. As noted above, clauses relating

to contractor's superintendence, supervision, appointment

of technical staff and technical representative(s) project

that these stipulations relate to construction activities. It

has been detailed therein that the principal technical

representative and other technical representative, appointed

by the contractor, shall be actually available at the site

during all stages of execution of work, during recording/

checking/test checking of measurements of work and

nothing it down in site order book and measurement book.

These instructions are irrelevant for discharge of contractual

obligations of providing caretaking job at M.S. Apartments,

F block, Curzon Road, New Delhi. Whether these provisions

were detailed in Ex. WW2/M1 to Ex. WW2/M6 with a view

to fasten liability on the contractor for the obligations,

undertaken by him on the strength of the document referred

above? Answer lies in negation, since the contractor has

not undertaken any liability to carry out any construction

activities. It cannot be said that these terms were recorded

due to inadvertence. The circumstances, which emerge out

of Ex. WW2/M1 to Ex. WW2/M6, make it apparent that a

standard document was drafted by the management to get

it executed from the contractor, no matter that these terms

are to be adhered to or not. It was so done with a view to

project that the contract agreement does not infringe rights

available to contract employees under beneficial labour

legislations. It is apparent that the terms, contained in Ex.

WW2/M1 to Ex. WW2/M6, are mere eye wash and parties

never intended to act upon the same.

39. Whether it was the Contractor who exercised his

control or supervision on the claimant? Factors of control

and supervision to be exercised by an employer on his

employee(s) were described in various precedents, which

would be noted herein under. In Chintaman Rao [1958(II)

LLJ 252] the Apex Court ruled that the concept of

employment involves three ingredients: (1) employer, (2)

employee, and (3) the contract of employment. The

employer is one who employs, that is, one who engages

the services of other persons. The employee is one who

works for another for hire. The employment is the contract

of service between the employer and employee where under

the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his

control and supervision. In Food Corporation of India

[1985(II) LLJ 4] Justice Desai, speaking for the Apex Court,

announced that a contract of employment "discloses a

relationship of command and obedience between them".

Where a Contractor employs a workman to do the work

which he contracted with a third person to accomplish, the

workman of the Contractor would not without something

more become the workman of third person.

40. In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Limited

[1957(1) LLJ 477], the Apex Court ruled that test of

"supervision and control may be taken as the prima facie

test for determining the relationship of employment". It

was further laid that existence of the right in the master to

supervise and control the work to be done by the servant,

not only matter of directing that work the servant is to do

but also the manner in which he shall do his work is the

prima facie test for determining the existence of master and

servant relationship. It was suggested that correct method

of approach, would be to consider whether having regard

to the nature of work there was due control and supervision

by the employer. The greater amount of direct control

exercised over the person rendering the services by the

person contracting for them, the stronger the ground for

holding it to be a contract of service. The control and

supervision test was reaffirmed by the Apex Court in

Chintaman Rao (supra), wherein it was ruled that "worker"

was a person employed by the management and there must

be contract of service and a relationship of master and

servant between them. In Shankar Balaji Waje [1962(1) LLJ

119] , the Apex Court clarified that "control of the

management, which is a necessary element of the

relationship of master and servant is not directed towards

providing or dictating the nature of the article to be

produced or the work to be done, but refers to the other

incidents having a bearing on the process of work the

person carries out in the execution of the work. The manner

of work is to be distinguished from the type of work to be

performed. In V.P. Gopala Rao [1970(11) LLJ 59] , the Apex

Court said that it is the question of fact in each case whether

the relationship of master and servant exists between the

management and the workman and there is no abstract a

prior test of the work control required for establishing the

contract of service. It was laid therein that for holding that

the persons employed in the factory were workers within

the meaning of sub-section (1) of section (2) of the Factories

Act, 1948, it is to be considered that the fact that the

workman had to work in the factory implied certain amount

of supervision by the management and the nature and extent

of control varied in different industries and that when the

operation was of a simple nature, the control could be

exercised at the end of the day by the method of rejecting

the bidis which did not come up to the proper standard. It

is, therefore, not surprising that in recent years, the control

test, as traditionally formulated, has not been treated as an

exclusive test. In Silver Jublee Tailoring House [1973(11)

LLJ 495] , the Apex Court ordained that "it is in its

application to skilled and particularly professional work

that control test in its traditional form has really broken

down. It has been said that in interpreting "control" as

meaning the power to direct how the servant should do the

work, the court has been applying the concept suited to a

past age".

41. During the last three decades emphasis in the

field has shifted and no longer rests so strongly upon the

question of control. Control is obviously an important factor

and in many cases it may still be a decisive factor, but it

would be wrong to say that in every case it is a decisive

factor. In Shining Tailors [1983(11) LLJ 143] , the Apex Court

2690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

held that the piece rated workers working for a big tailoring

establishment were workmen for the establishment. It was

observed therein that the "right of removal of the workman

or not to give work as an element of control and

supervision" which was amply satisfied to announce that

those piece rated workers were the workmen for the

establishment. The Court concluded that the proposition

that "piece rate" itself indicates relationship of independent

contract, is not correct. A servant who has full liberty to

attend to his work according to his pleasure and not

according to orders of his master, is an independent

contractor. A goldsmith engaged to finish jewels within a

given time and when it was oepn to such goldsmith to

finish jewels within the given time or earlier and engage

themselves or others of their own were held to be

independent contractors, in K. Keswa Reddiar [1957(1) LLJ

645] . In the like manner a goldsmith who undertook the

manufacture of ornaments like other goldsmith which he

was asked to manufacture and was entitled to receive

remuneration which would depend upon the nature of the

work done, was held to be not under the order or control of

the proprietor of the concern for whom he was doing the

work, in Achuta Achar [1968(1) LLJ 500]. An agreement for

selling milk on commission was held to be a contract for

service and not a contract of service, in Abad Dairy Doodh

Vitran Kendra Sanchalak Mandal, Ahmedabad [1989

Lab.I.C. 1970]. The Tiny Deposit Agents employed in

desposit mobilization activity of the bank have been held

to be falling within the definition of the workman and not

an independent contractor in the precedent in the

Management of Indian Bank [1990(1) LLJ 50].

42. As emerge out, element of control or supervision

of employer in respect of detail of work would be an

identifying mark of the servant. Where an employer retains

the power, not only of directing what work is to be done

but also of controlling the manner of doing the work, these

factors would be determinative of his status as of a master.

His control is not directed towards providing or dictating

the nature of work to be done but refers to other incidents

having a bearing on the process of work the person carries

out in the execution of the work. Control test postulates a

combination of managerial and technical functions.

43. Whether element of control and supervision of

the management in respect of details of work of the claimant

emerge out of contract agreements Ex.WW2/M1 to

Ex.WW2/M6? As projected above, stipulation relating to

contracts, superintendence, supervision and technical staff

and employees and detailed in the contract agreements

relating to construction activities. No provision is made in

Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 relating to the work of

sweepers deployed by the contractor. There is complete

vacuum of stipulation in that regard. Contract agreement

Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 does not contain any

obligation on the part of the Contractor to supervise the

work of the claimant. No clause is there in the document to

show that the Contractor would deploy some personnel to

supervise the work of the claimant. Who used to the mark

attendance of the claimant? Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6

draws a blank. No parol evidence was brought in to suggest

that it was the Contractor who supervised work of the

claimant. Vacuum of facts in Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6

and conspicuous absence of any ocular evidence in that

regard leave no doubt to conclude that it was the

management who used to supervise the work of the

claimant.

44. Disciplinary control is exercised by an employer

on his employees by way of codifying rules of conduct for

them. He engrafts acts of misconduct in those rules. He

punishes his employees for their blameworthy conduct. It

is so done by him with a view to maintain discipline at the

work place and to deter potential delinquent from doing

improper behaviour or to come in conflict with rules of

standard of behaviour.

45. Whether management exercised disciplinary

control on the claimant? For an answer, contents of

Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 are scanned again. It has

been specified therein that the management may deduct

fines, deduction for absence form duty, deduction for

damage or loss of goods, expressly entrusted to the claimant

for custody, deduction for recovery of advance or for

adjustment of over-payment of wages, from the wages of

the claimant. For sake of convenience, these provisions

are extracted thus:

"6. Fines and Deductions which may be made from

wages—

(i) The wages of a worker shall be paid to him without

any deduction of any kind, except the following:

a. Fines.

b. Deductions for absence from duty, i.e. from the

place or the places where by the terms of his

employment he is required to work. The amount

of deduction shall be in proportion to the period

for which he was absent.

c. Deduction for damage to or loss of goods

expressly entrusted to the employed person for

custody or for loss of money or any other

deduction which he is required to account, where

such damage or loss is directly attributable to his

neglect or default.

d. Deduction for recovery of advances or for

adjustment of overpayment of wages, advances

granted shall be entered in a register.

e. Any other deduction which the Central

Government may from time to time allow.

(ii) No fines should be imposed on any worker save

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2691

in respect of such acts and omissions on his part

as have been approved of by the Chief Labour

Commissioner.

(iii) No fine shall be imposed on a worker and no

deduction for damage or loss shall be made from

his wages until the worker has been given an

opportunity of showing cause against such fines

or deductions.

(iv) The total amount of fine which may be imposed in

any one wage period on a worker shall not exceed

an amount equal to three paisa in a rupee of the

total wages payable to him in respect of that wage

period.

(v) No fine imposed on any worker shall be recovered

from him by instalment or after the expiry of sixty

days from the date on which it was imposed.

(vi) Every fine shall be deemed to have been imposed

on the day of the act or omission in respect of

which it was imposed."

46. As projected above, management retains right to

impose fines, deduct wages for absence from duty or deduct

an amount representing loss of goods which was expressly

entrusted to the claimant, out of wages of the claimant. It

has also been specified in the rules referred above, that

fines shall be imposed on the claimant after granting on

opportunity of being heard. Thus, it is evident that the

management regained disciplinary control with it in respect

of acts and conduct of the claimant. This right is an attribute

of disciplinary control exercised by the employer on the

employee.

47. Construction adopted on contents of Ex.WW2/

M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 is based on the standards of presumed

intent of parties. The construction has been so put, with

an idea to preserve the will of the parties to the aforesaid

agreements. It is the duty of a court or tribunal to give

effect to the intention of the parties in construing a written

instrument. On ascertaining general scope of Ex.WW2/M1

to Ex.WW2/M6, intention of the parties contained therein,

nature of the instrument and legal right of the parties

thereto, it is concluded that efforts were made by the

management to hide the truth with a view to project a make-

believe instrument of engaging personnel through the

Contractor. In fact the mangement retained administrative

and disciplinary control over the contract employees.

When veil was lifted, it emerged that contract agreements

Ex.WW2/M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 are sham and bogus. There

are realties of relationship of employer and employees

between the management and the claimant. In view of the

forgoing reasons, it is concluded that the veil of Ex.WW2/

M1 to Ex.WW2/M6 is a smoke-screen which would not

snap relationship between the management and the

claimant.

48. As unfolded by the claimant and Shri Satish

Kumar Sharma, an application under Section 20(2) of the

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was instituted by the claimant

when wages, less than the minimum wages notified by the

appropriate Government, were given to him. He impleaded

Shri P.K. Pathak, contractor at the relevant time, besides

the contractors, to whom contract was awarded by the

management prior to Sri Pathak. It enraged Shri Pathak,

who made the claimant jobless in an arbitrary manner. Thus,

it is crystal clear that when the claimant exercised his right

of seeking payment of minimum wages, he was bade

farewell. Since the claimant was an employee of the

management, in that situation his services were dispensed

with in arbitrary manner in the garb of control being

exercised on him by the contractor. Action of the

management squarely falls within the ambit of definition of

retrenchment, as contained in sub-section (oo) of Section

2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act.) No

case was proejcted by the management that the said action

falls within the exceptions contained therein. Therefore it

is crystal clear that action of the management amounts to

retrenchment.

49. As per admission made by the management in its

written statement, claimant was serving it through various

contractors since 1994. No hue and cry was made to proejct

that services rendered by the claimant were not continuous

for a period of one year, as contemplated by Section 25B of

the Act. When an employee renders services of more than

one year, he is entitled to protection/benefits contained in

Section 25F of the Act.

50. Claimant deposed that neither one month's notice

nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation

was paid to him, when his services were dispenses with.

The claimant had rendered continuous service for a period

of one year, as contemplated by Section 25-B of the Act.

According to him, retrenchment compensation was not

paid, whcih fact was not dispelled by the management.

The management was under an obligation to pay him

compensation for retrenchment, when his services were

dispensed with. Payment of retrenchment compensation is

a condition precedent to a valid order of retrenchment.

Precedents in Bombay Union of Journalists [1964 (1) LLJ

351], Adaishwar Laal (1970 Lab.I.C. 936) and B.M. Gupta

[1979 (1) LLJ 168] announce that subsequent payment of

compensation connot validate an invalid order of

retrenchment.

51. At the cost of repetition it is noted that the claimant

deposed that his services were terminated by the

management on 19.04.2002 without any notice. Out of facts

unfolded by the claimant, it stands crystallizaed that neither

notice nor pay in lieu thereof nor retrenchment

compensation was paid to him by the management.

Therefore, his retrenchment is violative of the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Act.

2692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

52. It is well settled that in a case of wrongful

retrenchment, dismissal or discharge, the normal rule is to

award reinstatement. But where a case falls in any of the

exception to general rule, the industrial adjudicator has

discretion to award reasonable and adequate compensation,

in lieu of re-instatement. Section 11A of the Act vests the

industrial adjudicator with discretionary jurisdiction to give

"such other relief to the workman" in lieu of discharge or

dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require,

where for some valid reasons it considers that reinstatement

with or without conditions will not be fair or proper. Here in

the case, the management could not show that the case in

question projects facts which carve out it to be a case of

exceptional category.

53. It is well settled that negative language used in

section 25-F of the Act imposes a mandatory duty on the

employer, which is condition precedent to retrenchment of

a workman. Contravention of mandatory requirements of

section 25-F of the Act would invalidate the retrenchment

and render it void ab initio. Reference can be made to the

precedents in Auro Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd., Nasik (1992

Lab. I.C. 1364) and Ollur Regional Imitation Diamond

Manufacturing Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. [1993(II) LLJ

174]. As detailed above, retrenchment of the claimant is

illegal and void ab initio.

54. As concluded above, claimant was engaged by

the management through contractor(s) by way of creation

of make believe contract agreement, which were found to

be perfect paper arrangement. On lifting of veil, the

management was found to be the real employer. Services

of the claimant were disengaged when he tried to seek

right of payment of minimum wages as notified by the

appropriate Government from time to time. His retrenchment

is found to be void ab initio. Claimant being an employee

of the management cannot be retrenched by the Contractor.

He is deemed to be in the service of the management.

55. Question comes whether he is entitled to full back

wages. For an answer in his favour, he was under an

obligation to establish that he remained unemployed since

the date of his retrenchment. No evidence has been

adduced by the claimant on that point. Thus it cannot be

said that he remained unemployed, since the date of

dispensing with his services by the management. The Apex

Court and High Courts dealt with the issue of award of

compensation, when reinstatement in service was not found

expedient. Those precedents may help the Tribunal in

ascertaining the quantum of back wages, which may be

awarded to the claimant. In S.S. Shetty [1957 (11) LLJ 696]

the Apex Court indicated some relevant factors which an

adjudicator has to take into account in computing

compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in the following

words:

"The industrial Tribunal would have to take into

account the terms and conditions of employment,

the tenure of service, the possibility of termination

of the employment at the instance of either party, the

possibility of retrenchment by the employer or

resignation or retirement by the workman and even

of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the

workman being awarded various benefits including

reinstatement under the terms of future awards by

industrial Tribunal in the event of industrial disputes

arising between the parties in future.............In

computing the money value of the benefits of

reinstatement, the industrial adjudicator would also

have to take into account the present value of what

his salary, benefits etc. would be till he attained the

age of superannuation and the value of such benefits

would have to be computed as from the date when

such reinstatement was ordered under the terms of

the award.

Having regard to the considerations detailed above,

it is impossible to compute the money value of this benefit

of reinstatement awarded to the appellant with mathematical

exactitude and the best that any tribunal or court would do

under the circumstances would be to make as correct as

estimate as is possible bearing, of course in mind all the

relevant factors pro and con".

56. A Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court in B.

Choudhary (1983 Lab I.C. 1755) deduced certain guidelines

which have to be borne in mind in determining the quantum

of compensation viz. (i) the back wages receivable (ii)

compensation for deprivation of the job with future

prospect and obtainability of alternative employment; (iii)

employees' age (iv) Length of service in the establishment

(v) capacity of the employer to pay and the nature of the

employer's business (vi) gainful employment in mitigation

of damages; and (vii) circumstances leading to the

disengagement and the past conduct. These factors are

only illustrative and not exhaustive. In addition to the

amount of the compensation, it is also within the jurisdiction

of the Tribunal to award interest on the amount determined

as compensation. Furthermore, the rate of such interest is

also in the discretion of the Tribunal. Reference can be

made to Tabesh Process, Shivakashi (1989 Lab I.C. 1887).

57. In Assam Oil Co. Ltd. [1960(1) LLJ 587] the Apex

Court took into account countervailing facts that the

employer had paid certain sums to the workmen and her

own earning in the alternative employment and ordered

that "it would be fair and just to direct the appellant a

substantial sum as compensation to her". In Utkal

Machinery Ltd. [1966 (1) LLJ 398] the amount of

compensation equivalent to two year salary of the employee

awarded by the industrial Tribunal was reduced by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2693

Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one year salary

of the employee in view of the fact that she had been in

service with the employer only for 5 months and also

took into consideration the unusual manner of her

appointment at the instance of the Chief Minister of the

State. In A. K. Roy [1970 (1) LLJ 228] compensation

equivalent to two years salary last drawn by the workmen

was held to be fair and proper to meet the ends of justice.

In Anil Kumar Chakaraborty [1962(II) LLJ 483] the Court

converted the award of reinstatement into compensation

of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as just and fair compensation in

full satisfaction of all his claims for wrongful dismissal

from service. In O.P. Bhandari [1986 (II) LLJ 509], the Apex

Court observed that it was a fit case for grant of

compensation in view of reinstatement. The Court

awarded compensation equivalent to 3.33 years salary as

reasonable. In M.K. Aggarwal (1988 Lab I.C. 380), the

Apex Court though confirmed the order of reinstatement

yet restricted the back salary to 50% of what would

otherwise be payable to the employee. In Yashveer Singh

(1993 Lab I.C. 44) the court directed payment of

Rs. 75,000/- in view of reinstatement with back wages. In

Naval Kishor [1984 (II) LLJ 473] the Apex Court observed

that in view of the special circumstances of the case

adequate compensation would be in the interest of the

appellant. A sum of Rs. 2 lac was awarded as compensation

in lieu of reinstatement. In Sant Raj [1985 (II) LLJ 19] a

sum of Rs. 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of

reinstatement. In Chandu Lal (1985 Lab I.C. 1225) a

compensation of Rs. 2 lac by way of back wages in lieu of

reinstatement was awarded. In Ras Bihari (1988 Lab I.C.

107) a compensation of Rs. 65000/- was granted in lieu of

reinstatement, since the employee was gainfully employed

elsewhere. In V.V. Rao (1991 Lab. I.C. 1650) a compensation

of Rs. 2.50 lac was awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

58. The claimant rendered continuous service of 9

year to the management, on the date when his services

were illegally retrenched. He had to fight for about a period

of a decade for redressal of his grievances. The

circumstances, in which he was retrenched and mass

unemployment prevalent in economic field, which may come

in the way when someone goes for an alternative

employment, besides other factors of this case, persuade

me to award 20 per cent back wages from the date of

retrenchment till the date the award becomes operative

under section 17-A of the Act, besides reinstatement of the

claimant in the service of the management, with continuity

and all consequential benefits.

59. Claimant rendered continuous service for a period

of 9 years when his services were illegally retrenched. As

concluded above, he is deemed to be in the service of the

management. In Uma Devi [2006 (4) SSC 1], the Apex Court

rules that an employee who has been irregularly engaged

and is in service for more than a decade, a one time policy

should be formulated by the Government for regularization

of his services. Observations made by the Apex Court in

that regard are reproduced thus:

"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases

where irregular appointments (not illegal

appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N.

Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in

para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly

sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and

the employees have continued to work for ten years

or more but without the intervention of orders of the

courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization

of the services of such employees may have to be

considered on merits in the light of the principles

settled by this court in the cases above referred to

and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the

Union of India, the State Government and their

instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a

one-time measure, the services of such irregularly

appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in

duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders

of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure

that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those

vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up,

in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers

are being now employed. The process must be set in

motion within six months from this date. We also

clarify that regularization, if any already made, but

not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this

judgment, but there should be no further bypassing

of the consitutional requirement and regularizing or

making permanent, those not duly appointed as per

the constitutional scheme."

60. Had services of the claimant not been retrenched,

he would been eligible to avail benefit of one time policy,

formulated by the Government pursuant to the directives

referred above. Considering all these aspects, it is

commanded that the management shall consider the case

of the claimant for regularization in the service pursuant to

the policy so framed. In case he is found eligible, process

of regularization would be concluded within a period of

four months from the date when the award becomes

enforceable. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to

the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 19-02-2014

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1045.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flafMdsV cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

2694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh&1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@97@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1045.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 14/2011) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government

07/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/97/2010-IR(B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

I.D. No. 14/2011

Shri Rich Pal Singh,

Village Akbarpur Majra,

Post Office Palla,

Delhi-110036.

. . . Workman

Versus

The Asst. General Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Personnel Deptt.,

Sarojini House, 6-Bhagwan Das Road,

New Delhi-110001.

. . . Management

AWARD

An attender working at DTC Wazipur Depot

Extension Counter, Syndicate Bank (in short the bank)

allegedly pilfered cash amounting to Rs. 1300.00 from

packets of Rs. 100 in denomination, destroyed evidence of

pilferage of currency notes by unauthorizedly breaking

open packet of Rs. 100 in denomination in which shortage

was noted, mixed loose cash of Rs. 700.00 kept with the

packet and opted not to disclose his outside borrowings

while availing loan from the bank, under various staff loan

schemes. Charge sheet dated 05.04.2004 was served upon

the attender. His reply to the charge sheet was found not

to be satisfactory, hence a domestic enquiry was

constituted against him. After conducting an enquiry, report

dated 19.10.2004 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to

the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority

concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and

awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the

attender. Appeal preferred by the attender also came to be

dismissed. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute before

the Conciliation Officer. Since the bank contested his claim,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, appropriate Government referred the

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order No. L-

12012/97/2010-IR(B-II), New Delhi dated 31.01.2011 with

following terms:

"Whether action of the management of Syndicate

Bank in dismissing services of Shri Rich Pal Singh,

Attender, with effect from 31.01.2005 is fair and legal?

What relief workman is entitled to?"

2. Claim statement was filed by the attender, namely,

Shri Rich Pal Singh, pleading therein that he joined services

of the bank on 23.01.1985. In January 2003, he was posted

at DTC Wazirpur Depot Extension Counter, attached to

Azadpur branch of the bank. He worked at the Extension

Counter till may, 2003. Charge sheet dated 05.04.2004 was

served upon him wherein following allegations were

levelled:

(i) The workman with dishonest intention resorted

to pilferage of cash amounting to Rs. 1300.00 from

packets of Rs. 100 in denomination, tendered to

him for making bundles and subsequently he

reimbursed the said amount and thereby derived

pecuniary benefits for him temporarily.

(ii) Workman has also destroyed evidence by

unauthorizedly breaking open packet or Rs. 100

in denomination in which shortage was found at

the Extension Counter and mixed loose notes of

Rs. 700 kept with the packet, and

(iii) The workman has not disclosed outside

borrowings while availing loans from the bank,

under various staff loan schemes.

3. Claimant projects that above allegations were

vague and far from truth. He asserts that he has been

victimized. When shortage of currency notes was reported

at the Extension Counter, erstwhile manager asked him to

reimburse the shortage and give in writing to the effect

that the shortage was caused by him. Since the demand

was illegal, he refused to concede to it. He was told by Shri

T.R. Rajgopal, Manager-cum-Custodian of double lock,

Bhure Lal, Cashier-cum-Joint Custodian and Smt. Indu

Trikha, Clerk that on his reimbursement of Rs. 1300.00 and

tendering acknowledgement of that fact, he would be saved

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2695

by them. He refused to oblige them in that regard. Threats

were extended to him at the Extension Counter as well as at

Currency Chest, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, by Shri Rajgopal as

well as Shri S.K. Mittal, Officer of the bank. He was

manhandled in presence of bank officials, who intervened

and saved him.

4. Claimant went on to narrate that Shri Shankar Lal

was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who was subordinate to

Shri T.R. Rajgopal. He was being influenced and inclined

to act in favour of the bank. Shri Shankar Lal was involved

in investigation of charges at the time of fact finding enquiry

and thus acted as investigator as well as judge of the matter.

His demand to supply relevant documents was turned

down. He was not given fair opportunity to establish his

innocence by the Enquiry Officer. He was not allowed to

produce his witnesses in defence. Enquiry was held in an

illegal manner and findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer

were perverse.

5. The Disciplinary Authority had not taken into

account his past record of 20 years' service when

punishment was awarded to him. Punishment of dismissal

form service without notice was harsh, oppressive and

unreasonable. It was disproportionate to gravity of the

lapses, alleged against him. He claims reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages, besides costs

of litigation.

6. Claim was demurred by the bank pleading that the

dispute has been referred after long and unexplained delay.

The claimant was dismissed in the year 2005 while dispute

has been referred for adjudication in the year 2011. It has

been claimed that on account of unexplained delay, reference

is liable to be rejected. The bank projects that the claimant

was served with charge sheet dated 05.04.2004 for gross

misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the

bank. He resorted to pilferage of cash from cash packets

and temporarily misappropriated the same. He failed to

discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty

and thereby, acted in a manner detrimental to the interest

of the bank. He also concealed his outside liabilities while

availing loan from the bank. These acts amount to

misconduct within clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement.

At the relevant time, he was working at DTC Wazipur

Depot Extension Counter attached to Azadpur branch of

the bank.

7. On 27.05.2003, Currency Chest authorities informed

that while counting cash, remitted by the Extension Counter,

shortage of Rs. 600 in packets of Rs. 100 in denomination

was found. Officials of the Extension Counter verified the

entire cash kept in double lock and found shortage of Rs.

700.00 (7 currency notes in packet of Rs. 100 in

denomination). Thus total shortage of Rs. 1300 in packets

of Rs. 100 in denomination was noted. When staff members

posted at the Extension Counter were questioned, the

claimant confessed his guilt in presence of the other staff

members. Subsequently, he reimbursed Rs. 1300.00 towards

the shortage. Out of that reimbursed amount, loose cash of

Rs. 700.00 was kept with the packet of Rs. 100 in

denomination wherein shortage was found at the Extension

Counter. After accounting of cash of Rs. 1300, the claimant

was asked to carry entire cash to the double lock. At that

juncture, he hurriedly broke open the packet in which

shortage was noted and mixed loose cash of Rs. 700.00,

kept with that packet to make the packet complete. He also

availed loan facilities from the bank under various staff

loan schemes and deliberately concealed his outside direct/

indirect liabilities in order to avail loan facilities. The above

acts amounted to misconduct for which he was charge

sheeted. His reply was found not to be satisfactory and as

such a domestic enquiry was constituted. The bank details

that the enquiry was conducted on various dates and ample

opportunities were given to the claimant to defend himself.

Claimant participated in the enquiry, where he was defended

by a defence respresentative. He was given all fair and

reasonable opportunities to defened himself, which

opportunities were utilized by him. Enquiry was conducted

as per provisions of the Bipartite Settlements and principles

of natural justice. After conclusion of the enquiry, the

Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 19.10.2004 to

the Disciplinary Authority. It has been disputed that the

Enquiry Officer was involved in investigation of the charges

levelled against the claimant. It is also denied that the

Enquiry Officer was involved in drafting of the charge sheet

and collection evidence in the matter. Opportunities were

given to the claimant to produce his witnesses and he

examined himself in defence. He disclosed a few names as

defence witnesses, who were not allowed to be examined,

since they were not concerned with the charges. Enquiry

conducted by the bank was just, fair and proper.

8. It has been calaimed that there was no occasion

for Shri Rajgopal, Shri Bhure Lal and Ms. Indu Trikha to

assure the claimant of his exoneration of the charges, on

his acknowledgement of gult and reimbursement of pilfered

amount. The bank projects that a cock and bull story has

been narrated by the claimant in that regard. It has also

been disputed that threats were extended to the claimant

by Shri Rajgopal and Shri S.K. Mittal. The bank asserts

that punishment of dismissal, awarded to the claimant,

commensurate to his misconduct. Since the claimant has

become undependable and unreliable, he could not be

retained in service of the bank. It is claimed that the claim

statement may be discarded and an award be passed in

favour of the bank.

9. On persual of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(i) Whether enquiry conducted by the management

was fair and just?

(ii) Whether punishment awarded to the claimant was

proportionate to his misconduct?

2696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii) As in terms of reference.

(iv) Relief.

10. Issue No. (i) was treated as preliminary issue.

11. Shri Shankar Lal was examined by the bank to

discharge onus resting on it. Claimant entered the witness

box to prove his version.

12. On hearing the parties and appreciation of ocular

as well as documentary evidence, issue No. (1) was

answered in favour of the claimant and against the bank,

vide order dated 17.08.2011.

13. To prove misconduct of the claimant, Shri T.R.

Rajgopal, Smt. Indu Trikha, Smt. Sudershan and Shri M.L.

Sharma were examined by the bank. To rebut evidence

adduced by the bank, claimant entered the witness box

again and testified facts. He also examined Shri Subash

Chandra, in support of his defence. No other witness was

examined by either of the parties.

14. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Vikram

Aggarwal, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri Rajesh Mahindru, authorized

representative, raised his submissions on behalf of the

bank. I have given my careful considerations to arguments

advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records.

My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as

follows:

Issue No. 2

15. In order to assess adequacy of punishment

awarded to the claimant, it is expedient to note charges

levelled against him, besides evidence adduced by the

parties. Charge sheet dated 05.04.2004, proved as Ex. MW1/

1, unfolds charges as follows:

"That you have been working as attender at our CAO,

New Delhi since 20.01.2004 and prior to this, you

were working at our Azadpur branch and were

entrusted to work at Wazirpur Depot Extension

Counter attached to Azadpur branch, during the

period between 01.01.2003 and 30.05.2003. While

functioning in your position as such, the following

circumstances appear against you:

On 27.05.2003, Currency Chest Asaf Ali Road, New

Delhi, authorities informed the Wazipur Depot

Extension Counter official that while counting the

cash remitted to them by the Extension Counter, a

shortage of Rs. 600.00 in two packets of Rs. 100.00

denomination has been found. The EC Officials

verified the entire cash kept in the double lock and

found shortage of Rs. 700.00 (7 pieces of notes in a

packet of Rs. 100 denomination) thus the total

shortage amounted to Rs. 1300.00 in the packets of

Rs. 100 denomination. It is reported that when the

staff members including you were questioned by the

EC officials about the said shortage of cash, you

confessed in presence of other staff members, having

removed these notes from packets of Rs. 100

denomination. Subsequently you also reimbursed

Rs. 1300.00 towards the said pilferage/shortage. Out

of Rs. 1300 reimbursed by you. Rs. 700.00 was kept

as loose cash alongwith the packet of Rs. 100

denomination, wherein the shortage was found at

the EC. After counting the cash, you were asked to

carry the entire cash in the double lock, you hurriedly

broke open the said packet in which there was a

shortage and mixed of you own the loose cash of

Rs. 700.00, kept with that packet to make the packet

complete. That you had availed the loan facilities

from the bank under staff loan schemes and

deliberately concealed your outside direct/indirect

liabilities in order to avail the said facilities.

The following lapses are attributed to you in the

matter.

(i) That you with dishonest intention resorted to

pilferage of cash amounting to Rs. 1300.00 from

packets of Rs. 100 in denomination, tendered to

you for making bundles. Subsequently you

reimbursed the said amount and thereby derived

pecuniary benefits for self temporarily.

(ii) That you have also destroyed evidence by

unathorizedly by breaking open the packet of

Rs. 100 in denomination in which shortage was

found at the Extension Counter and mixed loose

notes of Rs. 700 kept with the packet and

(iii) That you have not disclosed outsides borrowings

while availing loans from the bank under various

staff loan schemes.

It is alleged against you that you with dishonest

intention resorted to pilfering of cash amounting to

Rs. 1300 from cash packets of Rs. 100 denomination

and misappropriated the same tempoarily and failed

to discharge your duties with utmost integrity/

honesty, thereby, acted in a manner detrimental to

the interest of the Bank. You also deliberately

concealed you outside liabilities while availing loans

from the bank.

The above acts on your part are highly objectionable

and amount to misconduct within the meaning of the

Bipartite Settlement (Memorandum of Settlement)

dated 10.04.2002. You are, therefore charged with

gross misconduct of 'doing acts prejudicial to the

interest of the bank' vide Clause 9.5(j) of the Bipartite

Settlement (Memorandum of Settlement) dated

10.04.2002."

16. In affidavit Ex. MW/2/A, tendered as evidence,

Shri T.R. Rajgopal unfolds that he was working as Manager

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2697

inchrage at DTC Wazirpur Depot Extension Counter from

May to June 2003. Claimant was posted as attender at

Extension Counter from January 2003 to May 2003. On

27.05.2003, Currency Chest, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, informed

the Extension Counter that there was shortage of 6 currency

notes of Rs. 100 denomination in cash received by them

from the Extension Counter. They also informed that stamp

of Extension Counter on the front and back of the packets

was not matching. On that information, it was found

necessary to recount the entire cash lying in double lock at

the Extension Counter. With the help of staff members,

entire cash was counted again. After counting entire cash,

it was found that there was shortage of seven currency

notes of Rs. 100 in one packet of Rs. 100. It was noted that

1/2 stamp of the Extension Counter, affixed on backside of

the packet, was not appearing on currency note. He

enquired from the staff members and the claimant admitted

his guilt in front of other staff members that he had removed

notes from the packets of Rs. 100. He also stated that he

was ready to pay that amount. He also apologized for his

conduct and assured that he will not repeat it again. He

submitted that he would give written statement admitting

his guilt in that regard. After that he paid a sum of

Rs. 1300.00 to clear shortfall of Rs. 600.00 found in the

Currency Chest and shortfall of Rs. 700.00 found in a packet

of Rs. 100 at the Extension Counter.

17. Shri Rajgopal narrates that thereafter officer of

the Currency Chest was contacted and informed that the

Extension Counter would bring either Rs. 600.00 or other

packet of Rs. 100 to clear the shortfall. They were also

informed that it was already late on that day, so they would

give it on 28.05.2003. Out of Rs. 1300.00 paid by the claimant,

Rs. 700.00 were kept by putting rubber band on it alongwith

packet of Rs. 100, wherein short fall was noted. The said

packet was kept alongwith other packets to be put in double

lock. He went to take keys of double lock from his drawer.

By the time he came back with keys, the claimant mixed

loose cash of Rs. 700.00 in the said packet of Rs. 100, wherein

shortage was noted, by breaking its docket and put a new

docket on it. He mixed that packet with other packets of

cash. When he was questioned, he told that he had

completed the packet in which there was a shortfall. With a

view to destroy evidence, the claimant had mixed loose

cash in the packet. The docket which was removed by the

claimant could not be found, since there were number of

torn dockets lying nearby.

18. Since packets in double lock cannot be kept

without signatures, therefore all packets including the said

packet was kept in the double lock after putting signatures

on the same, deposes Shri Rajgopal. In the evening, the

claimant approached him again and told that he was

mentally disputed and as such will give writing on the next

date. He went to the Currency Chest where they refused to

exchange or return the packet wherein deficiency of

Rs. 600.00 was found. Since he had reached the Currency

Chest at about 6.30 p.m. alongwith the claimant, by that

time cash was already closed. On the next day, claimant

remained absent without any intimation. Therefore, it was

decided to deposit Rs. 600.00 in suspense account, which

was paid by the claimant to make shortage good. Since the

claimant had not come for his duties, his signatures could

not be taken on the slip for depositing Rs. 600.00 in

suspense account, on 29.05.2013. Details of incident were

written on a note dated 29.05.2013, which was sent to

superior officers. The said note bears his signatures,

signatures of Shri Bhure Lal, Ms. Indu Trikha,

Smt. Sudarshan and Shri Brahm Prakash. He has proved

nothing dated 29.05.2013 as Ex.MW1/16. Copy of statement

for deposit of Rs. 600.00 in suspense account is Ex.MW1/

17. Copy of front and backside of notes in which shortfall

was found by the Currency Chest is Ex.MW1/10. Copy of

statements made by Ms. Sudershan Vij, Ms. Indu Trikha,

Shri Brahm Prakash and Shri Bhure Lal are Ex.MW1/12,

Ex.MW1/13, Ex.MW1/14 and Ex.MW1/16 respectively.

19. Ms. Indu Trikha unfolds in her affidavit Ex.MW3/

A, tendered as evidence, that she was working as clerk at

the Extension Counter on the relevant date. On 27.05.2013,

information relating to shortage of cash of Rs. 600.00 in

cash, deposited by the Extension Counter with the Currency

Chest, was received. Entire cash in double lock at the

Extension Counter was recounted by her alongwith the

Joint Custodian. During the process of recounting,

shortage of 7 currency notes of Rs. 100 in denomination

was noted. Matter was discussed and the claimant admitted

guilt in front of all staff members. Thereafter, he reimbursed

a sum of Rs. 1300. He also agreed to give his confession, in

writing on 28.05.2013. Later on he did not do so. Written

not prepared by Shri T.R. Rajgopal bears her signatures,

besides signature of Shri Bhure Lal, Ms. Sudershan and

Shri Brahm Prakash. She made her statement on 21.11.2003,

proved as Ex.MW1/13.

20. In affidavit Ex.MW4/A, tendered as evidence,

Ms. Sudershan reaffirms facts unfolded by Ms. Indu Trikha

in her affidavit Ex. MW3/A. She asserts that the claimant

admitted his guilt in front of all staff members and

reimbursed a sum of Rs. 1300.00. Writing dated 29.05.2013,

proved as Ex.MW1/9, bears her signatures, besides

Shri T.R. Rajgopal, Shri Bhure Lal, Shri Brahm Prakash. Her

statement dated 21.11.2003 is Ex.MW1/12.

21. Shri M.L. Sharma, claims to have been working as

Manager, Azadpur branch of the bank from 22.07.2002 till

07.06.2004. He unfolds that Shri Bhure Lal, Joint Custodian

at the Extension Counter had expired. Claimant remained

on leave on 29th and 30th of May 2002. Leave application,

besides medical certificate, was submitted by him in that

regard. Claimant had taken loans from various co-operative

societies and also availed staff advances/loans from the

bank. While availing staff advance, he deliberately

concealed information with respect to his liabilities with

2698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

different co-operative societies, in his loan application.

Copy of demand statment dated 15.10.2003 submitted by

Syndicate Bank Employees Thrift and Credit Society is

Ex.MW1/20. Demand statement dated 08.03.2003 submitted

by Syndicate Bank Employees Co-operative Urban (SE)

Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. is Ex.MW1/21. Copy of

demand statement dated 20.10.2003, submitted by

Syundicate Bank Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit

Society, is Ex. MW1/22 and Ex.MW1/23. Copy of application

for advance, submitted by the claimant to the bank, didn't

disclose above loans taken from above societies. He

submitted false information in his application and failed to

disclose his loan liabilities. He also narrates story of

shortage of currency notes in a packet at the Extension

Counter, which facts were gathered by him from other

employees posted at the Extension Counter.

22. In affidavit Ex.WW1/B, the claimant asserts that

Shri Rajgopal was not having cordial relations with him,

due to his low caste and status in life. Shri Rajgopal was in

the habit of calling him SC/ST. Shri Rajgopal was also

biased against him on account of his union activities. He

used to harass him in many ways like asking him to fetch

water from outside, cleaning used cups and glasses, making

tea, bringing milk from long distance etc. When he expressed

his inability to do such menial jobs, Shri Rajgopal used to

threaten him in that regard. He deposes that in respect of

incident dated 27.05.2003, he has been made a scapegoat

to save influential people. Shri Rajgopal asked him to

reimburse an amount of Rs. 1300.00 and on his refusal to

do so, he asked for a written confession. When he refused

to write a confession, Shri Rajgopal, Shri Bhure Lal and

Ms. Indu Trikha assured him that he would be saved in

case he gives a confession in that regard. Shri Rajgopal

told him that he had worked in industrial relations cell for

the last 20 years and know everything, which happens

there. On 28.05.2003, Shri Rajgopal took him to the Currency

Chest and asked him to give a written confession. When

he did not agree, he was taken to the basements where

Shri Rajgopal and Shri Mittal manhandled him. They

threatend him of dire consequences. He was saved from

them by the bank officials, present there. He maintains that

packets of notes and dockets were not shown to him.

According to him, no entry is there in suspense account

purported to have been recorded on 27.05.2007 and

28.05.2003. Cash received from DTC depot used to be kept

inside sometimes without counting. Cash packets, prepared

with dockets, were brought by DTC Depot staff to the

Extension Counter. Any deficiency therin used to be

reimbursed by the DTC officials. He has been made a

scapegoat by Shri Rajgopal to protect his own skin.

23. Shri Subhash Chandra unfolds that on 26.05.2013,

the claimant was brought to the Currency Chest by Shri

Rajgopal. He was taken in basement by Shri Rajgopal and

Shri Mittal. He followed them. Shri Mittal wanted to obtain

a confession from the claimant to the effect that he has

embezzled Rs. 5 lakh from the bank. He claimed that by

obtaining such a writing, they would have been able to

save themselves from punishment. Claimant was assured

that nothing would happen to him. When the claimant

refused to give these facts in writing, Shri Rajgopal and

Shri Mittal started beating him. He questioned them as to

why they were beating the claimant there when matter

relates to the Extension Counter.

24. When facts unfolded by Shri T.R. Rajgopal,

Ms. Indu Trikha, Ms. Sudershan, the claimant and Shri

Subhash Chand, in their affidavits as well as during course

of their cross examination, are appreciated, it came to light

that facts relating to receipt of telephonic information from

Currency Chest, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, on 27.05.2003

concerning deficiency of currency notes in bundles of

Rs. 100 in denomination has not been disputed at all.

Claimant projects that when incident dated 27.05.2013 came

to light, he was made scapegoat by influential persons.

Facts unfolded by Shri Rajgopal, Ms. Indu Trikha and

Ms. Sudershan, which are not dispelled by the claimant,

bring it to light that on 27.05.2013, deficiency of Rs. 600.00,

in packets of Rs. 100 in denomination, depositd with the

Currency Chest by Extension Counter authorities, was

noted. Extension Counter was informed by Currency Chest

in respect of the said deficiency. Therefore all cash lying in

double lock at the Extension Counter was checked. No hue

and cry has been raised by the claimant on these counts.

Therefore, admitted facts emerge that deficiency of

Rs. 600.00 was noted by the Currency Chest in two bundles

of Rs. 100 in denomination deposited by the Extension

Counter and on that information all cash lying in double

lock at the Extension Counter was recounted.

25. Shri Rajgopal unfolds that when cash lying in

double lock was recounted, shortage of Rs. 700.00 in bundle

of Rs. 100 in denomination was noted. On this packet of

note, 1/2 stamp of Extension Counter, affixed on back side

of the packet, was not appearing on notes of that packet.

Normally, after counting of notes, same are arranged in a

packet over which a slip is put, which is initialled by the

Accountant as well as the Manager. Thereafter, that bundle

of note is given to the attender to prepare docket, affix seal

on obverse and reverse of the packet and to put rubber

band on the packet. The seal is affixed on docket on obverse

and reverse in such a manner so that half seal may come on

the slip and half may appear on currency note. In the packet

in which deficiency of Rs. 700.00 was noted, seal put on

reverse of the packet was not appearing on the note. It

made authorities to believe that the said packet was

tampered with and currency notes were taken out of it by

someone.

26. Who was in a position to tamper with currency

notes either the Accountant or the Branch Manager or the

Joint Custodian? The Branch Manager had initialled the

slip affixed over that packet as testified by Shri T.R. Rajgopal.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2699

When bundle of notes are put in strong room, joint

custodians open it, puts currency inside and locks it. In

such a situation, two officers are present there and one of

them cannot avail opportunity to pilfer currency notes.

Cashier and Branch Manager cannot dare to do so, since

both of them had counted the currency notes and initialled

the slip in token of the fact that bundle of currency note is

complete. As testified by Shri Rajgopal, claimant used to

prepare, put seal and slip and rubber band on the docket.

He used to do such job in the cabin of the Cashier. When

the claimant used to be busy with his jobs, Cashier used to

go in Deposit Section for performance of her other duties.

In absence of the Cashier, the claimant used to remain alone

while preparing dockets and putting seals on the currency

notes. In that eventuality, opportunity was available to the

claimant to tamper with the packets of notes.

27. When deficiency in the bundle of currency notes,

amounting to Rs. 700.00 was noted, Shri Rajgopal

questioned the staff members. At that juncture, claimant

was also interrogated. Shri Rajgopal projects that the

claimant admitted his guilt and reimbursed Rs. 1300.00, out

of which sum maximum was contributed by other staff

members. When reimbursement was made, a sum of

Rs. 700.00 was kept with the bundle of note, wherein

deficiency was noted. Cash was to be put in the strong

room and Shri Rajgopal went to bring keys from his drawer.

At that juncture, the claimant destroyed the docket, prepared

new docket and mixed up seven notes of Rs. 100 in

denomination in that packet. Shri Rajgopal unfolds that he

never thought that the claimant would mix up 7 currency

notes in that bundle. Ms. Indu Trikha gives reaffirmation

to these facts unfolded by Shri Rajgopal. According to her,

claimant admitted his guilt relating to pilferage of

Rs. 1300.00. He reimbursed a sum of Rs. 1300.00 and agreed

to give a written confession in that regard. She presents

that a note was prepared by Shri T.R. Rajgopal in that regard

on 29.05.2013, which is Ex. MW 1/9. Her signatures appear

on Ex. MW 1/9. Smt. Sudershan also unfolds those very

facts. She presents that the claimant admitted his guilt in

her presence and she signed Ex. MW 1/9 in token of that

fact.

28. Question for consideration would be as to why

Ex. MW 1/9 was recorded two day after the incident?

Deficiency of Rs. 700.00 was noted in cash lying in the

strong room on 27.05.2003. On that very day, reimbursement

of Rs. 1300.00 was made by the claimant Since a sum of

Rs. 600 was to be deposited with Currency Chest, claimant

was taken there by Shri Rajgopal on 28.05.2003. Authorities

of the Currency Chest refused to exchange bundle of notes

or receive a sum of Rs. 600.00, which was deficient in bundle

of Rs. 100.00 in denomination, deposited by the Extension

Counter authorities. When this stand was taken by the

Currency Chest authorities, matter went out of hands of

Shri T.R. Rajgopal. It became expedient for him to record

facts relating to the incident and thus writting Ex. MW 1/9

was recorded on 29.05.2003. Claimant failed to attribute

animus against Ms. Trikha, Ms. Sudershan, Shri Bhure Lal

and Shri Brahm Prakash, signatories of Ex MW 1/9.

Shri Bhure Lal left for his heavenly abode and could not be

brought before the Tribunal for testimony. Shri Brahm

Prakash was also not brought in the witness box. It is not

the assertion of the claimant that Ms. Trikha and

Ms. Sudershan were bearing enmity against him and as

such were motivated to testify facts against him. No fact is

brought over the record to project that these two witnesses

were unworthy of credence. The claimant had not

questioned their depositions to the effect that they were

bribed or given corrupt inducement of temporal gain to

testify facts against him. Deposition of Ms. Trikha and

Ms. Sudershan were found to be in consonance with

ordinary human behaviour, tenets of veracity and natural

of course of events. I could not find any reason to disbelieve

these two witnesses.

29. Claimant raised an accusing finger at

Shri Rajgopal, alleging that he used to harass him. However,

during course of his cross examination, he could not bring

it to the light that he made any complaint against

Shri Rajgopal to the authorities at that point of time, when

he was allegedly harassed by him. As per claim projected

by Shri Rich Pal, Rajgopal and Shri Mittal put pressure on

him to extort a concession from him. This pressure was

allegedly put on him on 27.05.2003 and 28.05.2003.

Thereafter, the claimant remained on leave for two days on

medical grounds. He had not reported to the authorities

about his alleged harassment by Shri Rajgopal and

Shri Mittal. He had not approached the authorities

concerned with law and order when he was allegedly

harassed by Shri Mittal and Shri Rajgopal, who tried to

extort confession from him. From his act of keeping silence

in that regard, it surfaced over the record that story of Shri

Rajgopal being inimical qua the claimant has been coined.

There is no substance in that story.

30. When an enmity has been claimed against

Shri Rajgopal, in that situation this Tribunal is put to guard

in the matter of appreciation of his testimony. Testimony of

Shri Rajgopal has been scrutinized with caution. When

facts unfolded by him were assessed on acid test of veracity,

it came to light that there is no inconsistency in narration

unfolded by him. He was found to be a man of veracity. It

was not at all noted that Shri Rajgopal was motivated to

testify facts against the claimant, with a view to save his

skin. It is evident that facts detailed by other witnesses

give support to the events detailed by this witness. In

view of these reasons, I am of the considered opinion that

facts narrated by Shri Rajgopal are worth relable and worthy

of credence. His testimony is appreciated to assess

misconduct, committed by the claimant.

31. As unfolded by Shri Rajgopal, the claimant

admitted his guilt of pilfering currency notes while preparing

dockets of bundle of notes, affixing seal over them and

2700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

putting rubber band, in discharge of his duties as attender.

He reimbursed a sum of Rs. 1300.00 to make deficiency

good. Rs. 600, which was deficient in bundles of notes

deposited with Currency Chest, were kept separate while

Rs. 700.00 were kept alongwith bundle in which deficiency

of that amount was noted. At that juncture, claimant

removed the docket, destroyed it, prepared a new docket

and mixed Rs. 700.00 in that bundle, with a view to destroy

evidence against him. When Rs. 600.00 were kept in the

strong room, it were not recorded in bank's books, since

that money was not part of the accounted money. When

Currency Chest authorities refused to accept that amount,

it was deposited in suspense account on 29.05.2013. Till

that amount was deposited in suspense account, it was

kept in safe custody. Out of above facts, it is evident that

pilferage of a sum of Rs. 1300.00 was done by the claimant,

which amount was reimbursed by him to make deficiency

good. In order to destroy evidence against him, he mixed

Rs. 700.00 in bundle of currency notes, wherein deficiency

of that amount was noted. Therefore, out of facts testified

by the witnesses, namely, Shri Rajgopal, Ms. Indu Trikha

and Ms. Sudershan, it has been brought over the record

that the claimant committed misconduct of pilferage of

currency notes and destruction of evidence against him,

when he mixed Rs. 700.00 in bundle of currency note of

Rs. 100 in denomination, wherein deficiency was noted on

27.05.2003. Facts unfolded by the claimant are nothing but

pigment of his imagination, hence the same are discarded.

32. Shri M.L. Sharma projects that the claimant took

advance from the bank on the strength of application Ex.

MW 1/23. In that application he had not disclosed his

liability to Syndicate Bank Staff Co-operative Thrift and

Credit Society, State Bank Employees Co-operative Urban

(S&E) Thrift and Credit Society and Syndicate Bank

Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, from

where he had obtained loans. Demand statements, in respect

of loans from above societies, were issued against him,

which are Ex. MW 1/20, Ex. MW 1/21 and Ex. MW 1/22

respectively. Shri Rich Pal could not dispel facts testified

by Shri M.L. Sharma in that regard. In his affidavit, Ex. MW

1/B, Shri Rich Pal maintained an eerie silence relating to his

liabilities towards aforesaid societies. Thus, it is evidence

that Shri Rich Pal has no defence to the facts, unfolded by

Shri Sharma.

33. Shri Subhash Chandra, entered the witness box,

to unfold a story to the effect that the claimant was harassed

and beaten by Shri Rajgopal and Shri S.K. Mittal on

28.05.2003 at Currency Chest, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. Facts

unfolded by him are found to be farther from truth. He

claims that he knew Shri Rich Pal since 28.05.2003. He visited

his house once in June or July 2004. Thereafter, he met him

in March 2012. As per case projected by Shri Subhash

Chand, the claimant was there in the basement at Currency

Chest alongwith Shri Rajgopal and Shri S.K. Mittal. They

brought him to the Extension Counter alongwith them.

There was no occasion for the witness to ascertain as to

where Shri Rich Pal was residing. He does not claim to

have visited his work place. Under these circumstances, it

is evident that the witness coined a story of meeting the

claimant in June or July 2004, without explaining as to how

he came to know about his residence and place of office.

On the other hand Shri Subhash Chandra maintained silence

for a period of 9 years and then entered the witness box on

one fine morning to unfold facts. His long silence over the

matter speaks volume about veracity of his statement. In

view of these events no substance of truth is found in

facts unfolded by Shri Subhash Chandra. His testimony is,

therefore, discarded.

34. What should be the appropriate punishment,

which can be awarded to the claimant, is a proposition

which would be addressed to by this Tribunal? Right of an

employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is

not unfettered. The punishment imposed must

commensurate with gravity of the misconduct, proved

against the delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of

section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act), it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to

vary the order of punishment on finding that the order of

dismissal was too severe and was not commiserative with

the act of misconduct. In other words, the industrial

adjudicator could not interfere with the punishment as it

was not required to consider propriety or adequency of

punishment or whether it was excessive or too severe. Apex

Cout, in this connection, had, however, laid down in Bengal

Bhatdee Coal Company [1963 (I) LLJ 291] that where order

of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the

act of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would

impose in like circumstances, that itself would lead to the

inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which

would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge. But by

enacting the provisions of section 11-A of the Act, the

Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer,

in imposing punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is

now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally

decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of

misconduct, in cases of discharge or dismisal. If the

Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal

is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a given

case, it has the power not only to set aside order of

punishment and direct reinstatement with back wages, but

it has also the power to impose certain conditions as it may

deem fit and also to give relief to the workman, including

award of lesser punishment in lieu of discharge of dismissal.

35. It is established law that imposing punishment

for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing

authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered

with by the Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not required

to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment. But

where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,

regard being had to the particular conduct and past record,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2701

or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in

like circumstance, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of

such punishment as itself showing victimization of unfair

labour practice. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex

Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Ltd.

[1965 (I) LLJ 462]. Likewise in Management of the

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry

[1971 (II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer

made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial

matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation

and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be

unwarranted. In Ram Kishan [1996 (I) LLJ 982] the

delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using

abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts

and in the circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held

that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to

the delinquent. It was ruled therein, "when abusive

language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be

understood in the environment in which that person is

situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that

led to the use of abusive language. No straight-jacket

formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the

abusive language in the given circumstances would

warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be

considered on its own facts."

36. In B.M. Patil [1996 (II) LLJ 536), Justice Mohan

Kumar of Karnataka High Court observed that in exercise

of discretion, the Disciplinary Authority should not act

like a robot and justice should be moulded with humanism

and understanding. It has to assess each case on its own

merit and each set of fact should be decided with reference

to the evidence recording the allegation, which should be

basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may

be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity

to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of

punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the

bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss

of 50p. to the employer by irregular sale of tickets. It was

held that the punishment was to harsh and disproportionate

to the act of miscounduct.

37. After insertion of section 11-A of the Act, the

jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with

the Tribunal, who has to see whether punishment imposed

by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act

of misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the

misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment

is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is

such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or

dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or

without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any

other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in

lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstance of the

case may warrant. Reference can be made to a precedent in

Sanatak Singh (1984 Lab. I.C. 817). The discretion to award

punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or

dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal

can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment

imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to

the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be

made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [1994 (II)

LLJ 332]. Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now

jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of

punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it is

satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not

justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case,

section 11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers

to the Industrial Tribunal, first is virtually the power of

appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer

in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence

and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost

importance, is the power of reappraisal of quantum of

punishment.

38. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [2005 (2) S.C.C.

481] the Apex Court was confronted with the proposition

as to whether power available to the Industrial Tribunal

under section 11-A of the Act are unlimited. The Court

opined that "there is no such thing as unlimited jurisdiction

vested with any judicial or quasi judicial forum and

unfettered discretion is sworn enemy of the constitutional

guarantee against discrimination. An unlimited jurisdiction

leads to unreasonableness. No authority, be it

administrative or judicial, has any power to exercise the

discretion vested in it unless the same is based on justifiable

grounds supported by acceptable materials and reasons

thereof". The Apex Court relied its judgement in C.M.C.

Hospital Employees Union [1987 (4) S.C.C. 691] wherein it

was held that "section 11-A cannot be considered as

conferring an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or

the Labour Court. The power under section 11-A of the

Act has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial

Tribunal or Labour Court is expected to interfere with the

decision of a management under section 11-A of the Act

only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by

the management is highly disproportionate to the degree

of guilt of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal

or Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision". In

Hombe Gowda Educational Trust [2006 (1) S.C.C. 430] the

Apex Court announced that the Tribunal would not normally

interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the

employer unless an appropriate case is made out therefore.

39. Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal

and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is

not untrammeled power. This power has to be exercised

only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge

or dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the

Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one.

It involes application of the mind by the Tribunal to various

circumstances like nature of delinquency committed by

2702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency on

employer's business, besides length of service rendered

by him. Furthermore, the Tribunal has to consider whether

the decision taken by the employer is just or not. Only after

taking into consideration these aspects, the Tribunal can

upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The

quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without

recording specific findings on points referred above. No

indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of

grave misconduct like cheating, fraud, misappropriation of

employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference

can be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa

[1995 (I) LLJ 960].

40. As noted above, the cliamant pilfered cash

amounting to Rs. 1300.00 from packets of Rs. 100 in

denomination, destroyed evidence of pilferage of currency

notes by way of unauthorizedly breaking open the packet

of Rs. 100 in denomination in which shortage was noted,

mixed loose cash of Rs. 700.00 kept with the packet and

had not disclosed his outside borrowings while availing

loan from the bank, under various staff loan schemes.

Misconduct like cheating, fraud and misappropriation of

employers funds are grave one, justifying punishment of

dismissal from service. Taking into account the gravity of

misconduct committed by the claimant, I am of the

considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the

claimant does not require any interference by the Tribunal.

41. Question for consideration comes as to whether

punishment awarded to the claimant was shockingly

disproportionate to his misconduct, justifying interference

by this Tribunal? In Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company

of India (Pvt.) Ltd. [1973 (1) S.C.C. 813], the Apex Court

ruled that once misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to

sustain order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating

victimization. It has been further laid therein that if a proper

enquiry is conducted by an employer and a correct finding

arrived at regarding the misconduct, the Tribunal, even

though now empowered to differ from the conclusion arrived

at by the management, will have to give very cogent reasons

for not accepting the view of the employer. Again in

Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. (N.W.K.R.T.C) [2005 (3)

S.C.C. 254] it was laid that question of quantum of

punishment would not be weighed on amount of money

misappropriated but it should be based on loss of

confidence, which is a primary factor to be taken into

account. Once a person is found guilty of misappropriating

his employer's fund, there is nothing wrong for the

employer to lose confidence or faith in such a person,

awarding punishment of dismissal.

42. Punishment of dismissal from service without

notice commensurate to the misconduct committed by the

claimant. It cannot be said that the punishment awarded to

the claimant was shockingly disproportionate to his

misconduct, justifying interference by the Tribunal. The

punishment of dismissal without notice cannot be said to

be harsh, indicating victimization. One who commits

misconducts, like cheating and fraud looses confidence of

his employer. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion

that the claimant has miserably failed to project that

punishment awarded to him is to be substituted by any

other punishment. The issue is, therefore, answered in

favour of the bank and against the claimant.

Issue No. 3

43. No evidence worth name has been highlighted

to show that the claimant has been victimized or bank had

malafide intention or followed unfair labour practice.

Whether the penalty of dismissal from service, awarded

to the claimant, would relate back to the date of order of

dismissal passed by the bank? For an answer, it is expedient

to consider precedents handed down by the Apex Court.

In Ranipur Colliery [(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 719] the employer

conducted a domestic enquiry though defective and

passed an order of dismissal and moved the Tribunal for

approval of that order. It was ruled therein that if the enquiry

is not defective, the Tribunal has only to see whether there

was a prima facie case for dismissal and whether the

employer had come to the bonafide conclusion that the

employee was guilty of misconduct. Thereafter on coming

to that conclusion that the employer had bonafide come to

the conclusion that the employee was guilty, that is, there

was no unfair labour practice and no victimization, the

Tribunal would grant the approval which would relate back

to the date from which the employer had ordered the

dismissal. If the enquiry is defective for any reason, the

Tribunal would also have to consider for itself on the

evidence adduced before it whether the dismissal was

justified. However on coming to the conclusion on its own

appraisal of evidence adduced before it that the dismissal

was justified its approval of the order of dismissal made by

the employer on defective enquiry would still relate back

to the date when order was made.

44. In Phulbari Tea Estate [(1960) (1) S.C.R. 32] the

domestic enquiry held by the employer culminating in the

order of dismissal was found to be invalid, being in gross

violation of the rules of natural justice. Even before the

Tribunal, the employer did not lead proper evidence to

justify the order of dismissal and contended itself by merely

producing the statement of certain witnesses recorded

during the domestic enquiry and the workman had no

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses before the

Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence before it, justifying

the dismissal, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal

and granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which

order was upheld by the Apex Court. In that case question

of relating back of the order of dismissal did not arise.

45. In P.H. Kalyani [1963 (1) LLJ 673] the employer

dismissed the workman after holding a domestic enquiry

into the charges. Since some dispute was pending before

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2703

the Industrial Tribunal, the employer applied for "approval"

of action of dismissal in compliance with the proviso to

section 33(2) (b) of the Act. The workman made an

application under section 33-A of the Act. Apart from

relying on validity domestic enquiry, the employer adduced

all the evidence before the Tribunal in support of its action.

On basis of evidence before it, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the facts of misconduct committed by the

workman were of serious nature involving danger to human

life and therefore dismissed the application under section

33-A and accorded "approval" to the action of dismissal

taken by the employer. In this situation the Apex Court

held that if the enquiry is not defective and the action of

the employer is bonafide, the Tribunal will grant the

‘‘approval" and the dismissal would "relate back to the

date from which the empoyer had ordered dismissal". If

the enquiry is invalid for any reason, the Tribunal will have

to consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it,

whether the dismissal was justified. If it comes to the

conclusion on its own appraisal of such evidence that the

dismissal was justified, the dismissal would "still relate

back to the date when the order was made". Sasa Musa

Sugar Works case (supra) was distinguished saying that

observations made therein "apply only to a case where the

employer had neither dismissed the employee nor had come

to the conclusion that a case for dismissal had been made.

In that case, the dismissal of the employee takes effect

from the date of the award and so until then the relation of

employer and employee will continue in law and in fact".

46. D.C. Roy [(1976) Lab. I.C. 1142] is the illustration

where domestic enquiry held by the employer was found

to be invalid being violative of principles of natural justice

and the employer had justified the order of dismissal by

leading evidence before the Labour Court, on appraisal of

which the Labour Court found the order of dismissal

justified. In appeal, the Apex Court upheld the award with

the observation that "the ratio of Kalyani's case (supra)

would therefore, govern the case and the judgment of the

Labour Court must relate back to the date on which the

order of dismissal was passed".

47. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. (1980 (1) LLJ 137)

inverted image of D.C. Roy's case was presented by a

majority of three judge bench wherein it was held that

"where no enquiry has preceded punitive discharge, and

the Tribunal for the first time upholds the punishment, this

court in D.C. Roy vs. Presiding Officer (supra) has taken

the view that full wages be paid until the date of the award.

There cannot be any relation back of the date of dismissal

when the management passed the void order". Though

the court ruled that law laid in D.C. Roy is correct yet it

followed obiter instead of the decision. Observations of

the Apex Court in above decision, bearing on the relate

back rule, were faulted in R. Thiruvirkolam (1997 (1) SCC 9)

on the ground that they "are not in the line with the decision

in Kalyani which was binding or with D.C. Roy to which

learned Judge Krishna Iyer J. was a party. It also does not

match with the juristic principle discussed in Wade". The

view taken in R. Thiruvirkoam (supra) was affirmed in Punjab

Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. (1997 (2) LLJ 1041).

48. In view of the catena of decisions, detailed above,

it is clear that an employer can justify its action by leading

evidence before the tribunal. This equally applies to cases

of total absence of enquiry and defective enquiry. A case

of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no

enquirty. If no evidence is led or evidence adduced does

not justify the dismissal by the employer, the Tribunal can

order reinstatement or payment of compensation as it may

think fit. But if it finds on the evidence adduced before it

that the dismissal is justified, the doctrine of relate back is

pressed into service to bridge the time gap between the

rupture of the relationship of employer and employee and

the finding of the Tribunal.

49. If the workman is to be paid wages upto the date

of the award of the Tribunal, the Parliament has to enact

so, declares the Delhi High Court in Ranjit Singh Tomar

(ILR 1983 Delhi 802). Obviously the Act does not make any

provision for the situation. Precedents in Ghanshyam Das

Shrivastava (1973 (1) SCC 656), Capt. M. Paul Anthony

(1999 (3) SCC 679) and South Bengal State Transport

Corporation (2006 (2) SCC 584) nowhere deal with the

controversy, hence are not discussed.

50. In view of the facts detailed above, punishment

of dismissal from service without notice would relate back

to the date of the order. Claimant could not bring it to light

that the order of dismissal from service would be applicable

from the date of the award and not from the date of the

order. All these facts would project that punishment of

dismissal without notice, awarded to the claimant, is legal,

fair and justified. Claimant could not show any illegality in

the order of dismissal passed by the bank. The issue is,

therefore, answered in favour of the bank and against the

claimant.

Relief.

51. In view of above discussion, I am of the

considered opinion that the claimant is not a person on

whom the bank can depend upon. Banking business is

conducted on trust and confidence. When an employee is

found not to be trust worthy, his retention in service may

affect business of the bank. Such an employee cannot be

retained in service. Therefore punishment of dismissal is

not to be interfered with by this Tribunal. The claimaint is

not entitled to any relief not to talk of relief of reinstatement

in service. His claim statement is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the action of the bank in

dismissing the claimant from service is legal and justified.

2704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Claim statement is brushed aside. An award is passed in

favour of the bank and against the claimant. It be sent to

appropriate Govt. for publication.

Dated : 10.01.2014

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk-1046-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj vksfjUVy c®d vkWQ

dkselZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼36@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 07-03-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@32@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1046.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2010) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. I,

New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of

Commerce and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/32/2010-IR(B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 36/2010

Shri Suraj S/o Sh. Ram Chander,

H.No. 604, Block-T,

Mangolpuri,

Delhi-110083.

....Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Oriental Bank of Commerce,

HQ Harsha Bhawan, E Block,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi.

The Manager,

Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Azadpur Branch,

New Delhi.

...Management

AWARD

Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to

as the bank) engages safai karamcharis on daily wage basis

when regular safai karamcharis happen to be on leave. On

rendering continuous service for considerable long period,

daily wager safai karamcharis raise demand for

regularization of their services. Considering such demands,

the bank had regularized services of 69 such daily wager

safai karamcharis of other backward classes and general

categories, in March 2008. Shri Suraj Pal also claimed to

have worked as daily wager safai karamchari with the bank.

He belaboured under a belief that he was also entitled for

regularization of his services, pursuant to circular dated

10.3.2008. According to Shri Suraj Pal, his services were

illegally dispensed with by the bank in May 2008. He

approached the Conciliation Officer for redressal of his

grievance, seeking relief of reinstatement in service of the

bank. Since his claim was contested by the bank, hence

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-12012/32/

2010-IR(B-II), New Delhi dated 22.07.2010 with following

terms:

"Whether action of the management of Oriental Bank

of Commerce in terminating services of Shri Suraj

Pal, temporary safaiwala with effect from May 2008

is just, fair and legal? What relief workman is entitled

to?"

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Suraj Pal pleading

therein that he was engaged as safai karamchari by the

bank in 1995, initially at Extension Counter N.K. Bagroadia

Public School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi. After a few months,

he was asked to resume his duties at Azadpur branch of

the bank, where he worked for a considerable period. He

was again sent back to the Extension Counter N.K.

Bagrodia Public School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi where he

worked in the year, 1997-98. He was again sent back to

Azadpur branch of the bank where he served for a few

months in the year 2005. He was ordered to resume his

duties at Prashant Vihar branch of the bank in 2005 itself

where he worked till May 2008. He was assured by the

bank authorities that his services would be regularized in

due course of time. Ms. Usha Sharma, Branch Manager at

the Extension Counter, wrote to higher authorities on

28.04.1998 requesting for regularization of his services. In

March 2008, 69 daily wager safai karamcharis were

regularized in service by the bank but his name did not find

place in that list. He also applied for regularization of his

services but his case was not considered. In May 2008, his

services were abruptly terminated without giving any notice

or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation. He

rendered continuous service of 240 days in every calender

year. Termination of his services is violative of provisions

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2705

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He served notice of

demand on 01.08.2008 seeking reinstatement of his services,

but to no avail. He claims reinstatement in service of the

bank with continuity and full back wages.

3. Claim was resisted by the bank pleading that there

existed no relationship of employer and employee between

the parties. Claimant was never taken in employment by

the bank. No occasion arose for the claimant to serve the

bank as daily wager safai karamchari at Extension Counter

N.K. Bagrodia Public School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi, or at

Azadpur and Prashant Vihar branches of the bank. No letter

was ever written to the higher authorities requesting for

regularization of services of the claimant. It is not disputed

that in March 2008, services of 69 daily wager safai

karamcharis were regularized. However, it is pleaded that

since the claimant was not in the employment of the bank,

there was no occasion for his name to appear in the list of

safai Karamcharis, whose services were regularized.

Claimant has no case for seeking reinstatement in service

of the bank. Claim is devoid of merits, hence may be

dismissed, pleads the bank.

4. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

(i) Whether there existed relationship of employer

and employee between the parties?

(ii) As in terms of reference.

(iii) Relief.

5. Claimant examined Shri Umesh Kumar Mathur,

Ms. Usha Sharma and himself to substantiate his claim.

Shri Vinod Kumar, Shri Kedar Prasad and Shri Prem Sharma

were brought in the witness box by the bank to rebut the

claim.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.S. Saini,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Ms. Kitu Bajaj, authorized representative,

raised submissions on behalf of the bank. I have given my

careful considerations to arguments advanced at the bar

and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:

Issue No. 1

7. Shri Umesh Kumar Mathur, Branch Manager,

unfolds that he was working at the Extension Counter N.K.

Bagrodia Public School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi from 1995

to 1998. He feigned ignorance as to whether Ms. Usha

Sharma was working as Officer Incharge at the said

extension Counter in the year 1997-98. However, after going

through the attendance record for April 1998, proved as Ex.

WW1/1 he unfolds that in April 1998, Smt. Usha Sharma

was working as ,Manager at the said Extension Counter.

He declares that Shri Suraj Pal never worked at the Extension

Counter N.K. Bagrodia Public School, Sector 9, Rohini,

Delhi in the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999. Facts unfolded

by Shri Umesh Kumar Mathur denounces claim put forth

by Shri Suraj Pal to the effect that he was initially engaged

by the bank at Extension Counter N.K. Bagrodia Public

School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi for a few months in 1995

and was ordered to resume his duties again at the said

extension counter in 1997, where he worked for the year,

1997 and 1998.

8. Ms. Usha Sharma deposed that she was working

at the Extension Counter N.K. Bagrodia Public School,

Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi, in 1995. She worked at the said

Extension Counter for about 2½ years. She declares that

Shri Suraj Pal never worked at the said Extension Counter.

Ms. Sharma announces that documents Ex. WW 1/1, Ex.

WW 2/1 to Ex. WW2/4 are neither in her hand nor bears

her signatures. As detailed above, Ms. Sharma also dispels

the claim put forth by the claimant to the effect that he

served at the Extension Counter N.K. Bagrodia Public

School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi, from 1995 till 1998.

9. Affidavit Ex. WW 3/A was tendered as evidence

by the claimant, wherein he swears that he worked as safai

karamchari at Extension Counter N.K. Bagrodia Public

School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi in 1995. He worked there for

a few months and thereafter, was ordered to resume his

duties at Azadpur branch of the bank. He was again asked

to resume his duties at Extension Counter N.K. Bagrodia

Public School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi, where he worked in

1997 and 1998. He was again sent to Azadpur branch of the

bank in 1998, where he worked till first quarter of the year

2005. In 2005, he was asked to resume his duties at Prashant

Vihar branch of the bank, where he worked till 2008. he

relief on vouchers Ex. WW 3/1 to Ex. WW 3/13 to

substantiate his claim.

10. I would not be out of place to mention that

production of documents, such as payment vouchers, was

sought by the claimant from the bank. The bank disputed

existence of such vouchers. In order to give a fair chance

to the claimant to prove his case, the bank was commanded

to allow inspection of records to Shri R.S. Saini, authorized

representative of the claimant, on the 15th and 16th

November 2010. Shri Saini conducted the inspection on

those dates. He sought further time to inspect records at

the branch. He was again allowed to carry out inspection

of the record for a period of one week from 25.11.2010.

Despite full opportunity granted to inspect the record, Shri

Saini could not lay his hands on any voucher, on the

strength of which payment was released by the bank in

favour of the claimant.

11. Shri Vinod Kumar was working as safai karamchari

at Azadpur branch of the bank, as unfolded by him in his

affidavit Ex. MW 1/A. During course of his cross

examination, he declares that vouchers Ex. WW 3/1, Ex.

WW 3/3, Ex WW 3/8 to Ex. WW 3/10, Ex. WW 3/11 and Ex.

WW 3/13 pertain to him and bear his signatures on its

reverse. These vochers were prepared for him, he received

2706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

payment on the strength of these voucher, hence his

signatures do appear on reverse of these vouchers.

12. Shri Kedar Prasad unfolds that he was working

as safai karamchari at Azadpur branch in the year 1998. He

had produced vouchers Ex. MW 2/1 to Ex. MW 2/8 to

substantiate this fact. He declares that vouchers Ex. MW

2/W1 to Ex. MW 2/W2 bear his signatures on its reverse.

13. Shri Prem Sharma declares that relationship of

employer and employee never existed between the claimant

and the bank. He unfolds that he had gone through the

vouchers pertaining to Extension Counter N.K. Bagrodia

Public School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi, as well as Azadpur

and Prashant Vihar branches of the bank for the period

1995 to 2008. Claimant never worked in any capacity at

Extension Counter N.K. Bagrodia Public School, Sector 9,

Rohini, Delhi, as well as Azadpur and Prashant Vihar

branches of the bank. There was no occasion for the bank

to make payment of wages to the claimant.

14. Evidence adduced by the parties would be

scrutinized to ascertain as to whether claimant was ever

engaged by the bank as daily wager safai karamchari. For

an answer to this proposition, it is to be appreciated as to

how a contract of service is entered into. The relationship

of employer and employee is constituted by a contract,

express or implied between employer and employee. A

contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to

serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the

scope of the duty undertaken. A contract of employment

may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that

such a contract was intended although never expressed

and when there has, in fact, been employment of the kind

usually performed by the employees. Any such inference,

however, is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation

between the parties concerned was on a charitable footing

or the parties were relations or partners or were directors of

a limited company which employed no staff. While the

employee, at the time, when his services were engaged,

need not have known the identity of his employer, there

must have been some act or contract by which the parties

recognized one another as master or servant.

15. As noted above Shri Umesh Kumar Mathur, who

was examined by the claimant, made it clear that the claimant

was never engaged by the bank at Extension Counter N.K.

Bagrodia Public School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi. His

testimony gets re-affirmation from facts unfolded by Ms.

Usha Sharma, who also entered the witness box at the

instance of the claimant. These two witnesses push the

claim of the claimant to doldrums. Their depositions were

not castigated by the claimant by way of declaring them

hostile. Hence their testimony stares at the face of the

claimant and mars his claim.

16. To come out of the trauma created by the

depositions of Shri Umesh Kumar Mathur and Ms. Usha

Sharma, the claimant opted to enter the witness box. In his

ocular testimony, claimant projects that he was initially

engaged by the bank in 1995. He worked as a daily wager

safai karamchari with the bank till May 2008. Whether ocular

facts could establish the cause of the claimant? In Range

Forest Officer (2002 LLR 339), it has been ruled that the

workman had to lead evidence to show that in fact he had

worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.

Mere filing of affidavit cannot be regarded as sufficient

evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to a conclusion

that the workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a

year.

17. In Essen Deinki [2003 SC (L & S) 113], the Apex

Court ruled that in support of ocular facts, workman is

under an obligation to produce some document to

substantiate his claim of rendering continuous service of

240 days with his employer. Observations made by the

Apex Court are extracted thus:

"Completion of 240 days, in the year preceding

termination of the workman to avail benefit under

section 25F read with Section 2B of the Act, is to be

proved by leading cogent evidence. Burden to prove

that the workman has rendered service for 240 days

in a year lies upon the workman when such claim is

denied by the employer. No proof of receipt of salary

or wages for 240 days or order or record of

appointment or engagement for this period was

produced by the workman. It is for the claimant to

lead evidence and show that he had in fact worked

for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.

Law, being well settled, and provisions of law are

also very clear in that regard, question of

interpretation of provisions of law in the manner

proposed by learned advocate for the respondent,

does not arise at all. In that respect, it is immaterial

whether the statute is beneficial legislation to the

labour or not."

18. In R.M. Yelati [2006(1) SCC 106] same proposition

of law was laid by the Apex Court. It was ruled therein that

mere filing of affidavit or self serving statement made by

the claimant will not suffice to discharge burden of proof

of serving the employer for a period of 240 days in a given

year. For sake of convenience, observations made by the

Apex Court are extracted thus:

"Analyzing the above decisions of this Court, it is

clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms

do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying

general principles and on reading the afore-stated

judgments, we find that this Corut has repeatedly

taken the view that the burden of proof is on the

claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in

a given year. This burden is discharged only upon

the workman stepping in the witness box. This

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2707

burden is discharged upon the workman adducing

cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In

cases of termination of services of daily waged earner,

there will be no letter of appointment or termination.

There will also be no receipt or proof of payment.

Thus in most cases, the workman can only call upon

the employer to produce before the court the nominal

muster roll for the give period, the letter of

appointment or termination, if any, the wage register,

the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse

inference ultimately would depend therafter on facts

of each case. The above decisions however make it

clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements

made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the

matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on

the workman to prove that he had worked for 240

days in a given year. The above judgments furhter

lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls

per se without any plea of suppression by the

claimant workman will not be the ground for the

Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the

management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down

the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with

the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the

labour court unless they are perverse. This exercise

will depend upon facts of each case."

The above propositon was again reiterated in recent

judgements in Shyamal Bhowmik [2006(1) SSC 337], Sham

Lal [2006 VI AD (SC) 1] and Gangaben Laljibhai and others

[2006 VI AD (SC) 31].

19. Now, turning to facts, it is to be noted that the

claimant deposes that he was initially engaged as a daily

wager safai karamchari at Extension Counter N.K. Bagrodia

Public School, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi, where he worked for

a few months. He was ordered to resume his duties at

Azadpur branch of the bank in 1995 itself and he worked

there upto 1997. In 1997 he was again sent to the Extension

Counter, where he worked till 1998. He was again sent to

Azadpur branch where he worked till first quarter of 2005.

In 2005 he was sent to Prashant Vihar branch where he

worked till termination of his services. To substantiate his

ocular testimony, claimant had placed reliance on vouchers

Ex. WW 3/1 to Ex. WW 3/13. However, these documents

do not pertain to him as declared by Shri Vinod Kumar.

Shri Vinod Kumar deposed in bold words that vouchers

Ex. WW 3/1, Ex. WW3/3 to Ex. WW3/8, Ex. WW3/10,

Ex. WW3/11 and Ex. WW3/13 relate to him, payment was

released in his favour and he signed on reverse of these

documents, in taken of acceptance of payment. When these

documents are scanned, testimony of Shri Vinod Kumar is

found to be worth credence. Signatures of Shri Vindo Kumar

also appear on reverse of Ex. WW3/2, Ex. WW3/9 and Ex.

WW3/12. These documents were not put to him by the

claimant during the course of his cross examination, hence

Shri Vinod Kumar did not have any opportunity to comment

on these documents. It is evident that the documents, which

the claimant wants to rely to substantiate his ocular facts,

nowhere give strength to his parole statement. There is

not even an iota of fact, documentary or otherwise, which

may give re-affirmation to facts unfolded by the claimant in

his affidavit Ex. WW3/A.

20. Ocular facts unfolded by the claimant are not

only in contrast to facts detailed by Shri Umesh Kumar

Mathur and Ms. Usha Sharma but come under attack

through depositions of Shri Vinod Kumar, Shri Kedar Prasad

and Shri Prem Sharma. Shri Vinod Kumar made it clear that

documents, relied by the claimant, were forged by him, by

way of putting his signature on reverse of those documents.

Shri Kedar Prasad and Shri Prem Sharma drive ocular

testimony of the claimant to corner. Facts unfolded by these

witnesses make deposition of the claimant unworthy of

reliance. Events narrated by the claimant are farther from

truth, hence are to be dicarded. In view of these reasons, I

am constrained to conclude that the claimant has not been

able to bring over the record that he was ever engaged by

the bank as daily wager safai karamchari, Contra to it, facts

unfolded by Shri Umesh Kumar Mathur, Ms. Usha Sharma,

Shri Vinod Kumar, Shri Kedar Prasad, Shri Prem Sharma

make me to conclude that the claimant has miserably failed

to establish existence of relationship between him and the

bank. The issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the

bank and against the claimant.

Issue No. 2

21. Since there exists no relationship of employer

and employee between the bank and the claimant, claimant

cannot agitate a case for reinstatement in the service of the

bank. However, one important fact, crept over the record

needs consideration. In its written statement, the bank

projects that no notice of demand was served on it by the

claimant before raising this industrial dispute. In that regard,

claimant conceded during the course of his cross

examination that no notice of demand was sent by him to

the bank. The object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(in short the Act) is to protect workman against victimization

by the employer and ensure termination of industrial dispute

in a peaceful manner. The Act, however, does not provide

for any set of social and economic principles for adjustment

of conflicting interest. Such norms have been evolved and

devised by industrial adjudication, keeping in view the

social and economic conditions, the needs of the workmen,

the requirement of the industry, social justice, relative

interests of the parties and common good. These norms

have given rights to the industrial employees what may be

called industrial rights, as such rights may not be available

at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of

employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique

known as collective bargaining. This tool is resorted to

between an employer or group of employers and a bonafide

2708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

labour union. Policy behind this is to protect workmen as a

class against unfair labour practices. What imparts to the

dispute of a workman the character of an "industrial dispute"

is that it affects the right of the workmen as a class.

22. An industrial dispute comes into existence when

the employer and the workman are at variance and the

dispute/difference is connected with the employment or

non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions

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

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

rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement

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

held that mere demand, asking the appropriate Government

to refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised by

the workmen with their employer, regarding such demand,

cannot become an industrial dispute. Hence, an industrial

dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless a demand

is made by the workman or workmen on the employer and

it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation

Pvt. Ltd. (1970 Lab.I.C.421), High Court of Delhi went a

step ahead and held that "...demand by the workman must

be raised first on the management and rejected by it, before

an industrial dispute can be said to arise and exist and that

the making of such a demand to the Conciliation Officer

and its communication by him to the management, who

rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute an

industrial dispute."

23. The above decision was followed by Orissa High

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

and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt.

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

Union of Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had ruled that an

industrial dispute must be in existence or apprehended

on the date of reference. If therefore, a demand has been

made by the workman and it has been rejected by the

employer before the date of reference, whether direct or

through the Conciliation Officer, it would constitute an

industrial dispute. In Shambhunath Goyal [1978 (1) LLJ

484], the Apex Court appreciated facts that the workman

had not made a formal demand for his reinstatement in

service. However, he had contested his dismissal before

the Enquiry Officer and claimed reinstatement. Against

the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he preferred an appeal

to the Appellate Authority, claiming reinstatement on the

ground that his dismissal was bad in law. Then again, he

claimed reinstatement before the Conciliaton Officer in

the course of conciliation proceedings, which was

contested by the employer. Appreciating all these facts,

the Apex court inferred that there was impeccable

evidence that the workman had persistently demanded

reinstatement, rejection of which brought an industrial

dispute into existence.

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

FLT 195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath Goyal

had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. But it had

distinguished it on fact. It was also pointed out that

decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu Resettlement

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

in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court concluded that

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

conflict between the two decisions, must prevail. The High

Court held that making of the demand by the workman on

the management was sine qua non for giving rise to an

industrial dispute.

25. The High Court of Madras in Management of

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

or difference between management and the workman,

automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from

service. His dismissal per secreates a dispute or difference

between the management and the workman.The Court

further observed that "it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,

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

such is not enough but then there should be a demand by

the workman on the management to give rise to an

industrial dispute". However this decision appears to be

inconsistent with the ratio of dicision in Bombay Union

of Journalists (supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra).

No doubt, for existence of an industrial dispute, there

should be a demand by the workman and refusal to grant

it by the management. However, a demand should be

raised, cannot be a legal notion of fixity and rigidity.

Grievances of the workman and demand for its redressal

must be communicated to the management. Means and

mechanism of the communication adopted are not matters

of much significance, so long as demand it that of the

workman and it reaches the management. Reference can

be made to the precedent in Ram Krishna Mills Coimbatore

Ltd. [1984 (2) LLJ 259].

26. The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial

dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific

or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or prescribed

manner in which refusal should be communicated. For an

industrial dispute to come into existence, written claim is

not sine qua non. The read into the definition, requirement

of written demand for bringing an industrial dispute into

existence would tantamount to rewriting the section,

announced the Apex Court in Shambunath Goyal (supra).

In other words, oral demand and its rejection will as much

bring into existence an industrial dispute, as written one. If

facts and circumstances of the case show that the workman

had been making a demand, which the management had

been refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an

industrial dispute between the parties.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2709

27. The above proposition of law makes it apparent

that in case the claimant would have been able to project

existence of relationship of employer and employee between

the parties, even in that situation the dispute has not

acquired status of an industrial dispute, since the claimant

had not made any demand on the bank, written or oral,

before raising the dispute before the Conciliation Officer.

On that count too, the claimant is debarred from raising

grievance of reinstatement in service of the bank. In view

of the foregoing reasons, it is announced that there was no

occasion for the bank to terminate services of Shri Suraj

Pal with effect from May 2008. The issue is answered,

accordingly.

Relief

28. Since there existed no relationship of employer

and employee between the parties, Shri Suraj Pal cannot

claim that his services were ever terminated by the bank in

May 2008. Question of legality and justifiability of the

action of the bank in terminating services of Shri Suraj Pal

does not arise. Claimant is not entitled to any relief, muchless

the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and

full back wages. His claim is liable to be discarded,

Resultantly, his claim is brushed aside. An award is passed

in favour of the bank and against the cliamant. It be sent to

the appropriate Government for publication.

Date : 20.02.2014

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1047.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh&1 ds iapkV lanHkZ ¼183@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-03-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1047.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 183/2012 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 UCO Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/03/2014.

[No.-L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX DELHI

I.D. No. 183/2012

Smt. Prem Lata,

W/o Sh. Mahesh Chand,

R/o 425-H, Pocket-2,

Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,

Delhi-110091.

......Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

UCO Bank,

UCO Bank Building,

Patel Chowk,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001.

....... Management

AWARD

A Daily wager on casual basis was engaged at Mayur

Vihar, Phase-I branch, Delhi by the United Commercial Bank

(in short the bank) for casual jobs. She was paid for actual

days of work through vouchers. Work was taken from her

intermittently from 16.11.2010 till 03.08.2011. She was not

engaged thereafter. She took her non-engagement by the

bank as termination of her service. She made a demand for

reinstatement in service, which demand was not conceded

to. She, therefore, raised an industrial dispute before the

Consiliation Officer. Since her claim was contested by the

bank, conciliation proceedings could not yield a favourable

result. Since 45 days, from the date of moving an application

before the Conciliation Officer expired, the daily wager,

namely, Ms. Prem Lata opted to file the dispute before this

Tribunal, using provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A

of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (in short the Act),

without it being referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Act.

2. Claim statement was filed by Ms. Prem Lata

pleading that she was employed by the bank with effect

from November 2010 as attendant. Her last drawn wages

were Rs. 4,500.00. She was engaged by the bank at its

Mayur Vihar, Phase I branch. She worked honestly,

diligently and to entire satisfaction of her superiors. No

memo or charge sheet was ever served upon her. No legal

facilities like ESI, PF, bonus, appointment letter, leave

encashment etc. were provided to her. She was assured

that on completion of one year service, she would be made

2710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

permanent and facilities, referred above, would be accorded

to her. However, instead of doing so, the bank opted to

dispense with her services abruptly on 14.09.2011. She had

rendered continuous service of 300 days to the bank. Action

of the bank is illegal, unfair and against all cannons of law.

It amounts to unfair labour practice and victimization. She

has been out of employment since the date of termination

of her services. She claims reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

3. The bank demurred her claim, pleading that Ms.

Prem Lata was never appointed as an attendant, hence

there was no quesiton of paying wages to her. In fact, she

was engaged only for cleaning and washing in morning

and that too for some hours. She was paid on vouchers for

the days she worked. There was no question of giving

assurance to her for making her job regular and permanent.

There was no occasion for the bank to issue a memo or

charge sheet to the claimant. Since the claimant was not an

employee of the bank, she was not entitled for facilities like

ESI, PF, bonus, appointment letter and leave encashment.

Her claim for reinstatement in service is devoid of merits.

Her claim may be dismissed, pleads the bank.

4. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(i) Whether the claimant rendered continuous

service of 240 days in preceding 12 months form

the date of her termination?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for relief of

reinstatement?

(iii) Relief.

5. Claimant examined herself in support of her claim.

Her cross examination was deferred at the request of the

bank. On 03.02.2014 none attended the Tribunal on behalf

of the bank, hence case was proceeded under rule 22 of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Since none was

present for the bank, hence opportunity to cross examine

the claimant could not be accorded to it. The claimant closed

her evidence. No witness was examined on behalf of the

bank.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Anil Kumar

Tripathi, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. None came forward to present

facts on behalf of the bank. I have given my careful

considerations to arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the records. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:—

Issue No. 1

7. In affidavit Ex. WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

claimant swears that she was engaged by the management

on 16.11.2010. She worked continuously with the

management till 14.09.2011. She completed more than 300

days continuous service on the date when her services

were illegally dispensed with. In support of ocular facts,

she placed reliance on Ex.WW1/2 to Ex.WW1/7 in order to

establish that she rendered continuous service of 240

deays.

8. In order to see as to whether Ms. Prem Lata

rendered continuous service of one year as contemplated

by section 25B of the Act, evidence adduced by her is to

be appreciated. Ocular facts unfolded by her are to be

scanned in the light of law laid in that regard from time to

time. In Range Forest Officer (2002 LLR 339), it has been

ruled that the workman had to lead evidence to show that

in fact he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding his

termination, Mere filing of affidavit cannot be regarded as

sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to a

conclusion that the workman had, in fact, worked for 240

days in a year.

9. In Essen Deinki [2003 SC (L&S) 113], Apex Court

ruled that in support of ocular facts, workman is under an

obligation to produce some document to substantiate his

claim of rendering continuous service of 240 days with his

employer, Observations made by the Apex Court are

extracted thus:

"Completion of 240 days is to be in the year preceding

termination of the workman to avil benefit under

section 25F read with section 2B of the Act. Burden

to prove that the workman has rendered service for

240 days in a year lies upon the workman when such

claim is denied by the employer. No proof of receipt

of salary of wages for 240 days or order or record of

appointment or engagement for this period was

produced by the workman. It is for the claimant to

lead evidence and show that he had in fact worked

for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.

Law, Being well settle, and provisions of law are also

very clear in that regard, question of interpretation

of provisions of law in the manner proposed by

learned advocate for the respondent, does not arise

at all. In that respect, it is immaterial whether the

statute is beneficial legislation to the labour or not."

10. In R.M. Yelati [2006(1) SCC 106] same proposition

of law was laid by the Apex Court. It was ruled therein that

mere filing of affidavit or self serving statement made by

the claimant will not suffice to discharge burden of proof

of serving the employer for a period of 240 days in a given

year. For sake of concenience, observations made by the

Apex Court are extracted thus:

"Analyzing the above decisions of this Court, it is

clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms

do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying

general principles and on reading the afore-stated

judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2711

taken the view that the burden of proof is on the

claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in

a given year. This burden is discharged only upon

the workman steping in the witness box. This burden

is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent

evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of

termination of services of daily waged earner, there

will be no letter of appointment or termination. There

will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in

most cases, the workman can only call upon the

employer to produce before the court the nominal

muster roll for the given period, the letter of

appointment or termination, if any, the wages register,

the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse

inference ultimately would depend thereafter on fact

of each case. The above decisions however make it

clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements

made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the

matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on

the workman to prove that he had worked for 240

days in a given year. The above judgments further

lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls

per se without any plea of suppression by the

claimant workman will not be the ground for the

Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the

management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down

the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with

the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the

labour court unless they are perverse. This exercise

will depend upon facts of each case."

The above proposition was again reiterated in recent

judgments in Shyamlal Bhowmik [2006(1) SCC 337]. Sham

Lal [2006 VI AD (SC) 1] and Gangaben Laljibhai and others

[2006 VI AD (SC) 31].

11. Whether Ms. Prem Lata has been able to

discharge onus resting on her? She details ocular facts in

her affidavit Ex. WW1/A projecting therein that she served

the bank from 16.04.2010 till 14.09.2011. To substantiate

those facts, she had placed reliance on Ex. WW1/2 to Ex.

WW1/7. Ex. WW1/2 is copy of voucher dated 13.07.2004

on the strength of which she was paid wages for a period

of 3 days in July 2004. Ex. WW1/3 unfolds that a sum of Rs.

15.00 was paid to her towards some casual work performed

by her. Ex. WW1/4 details that wages for 9th, 10th and 11th

May 2011, were paid to her. In the same manner, wages

from 15.04.2011 to 20.04.2011 was paid to here on the

strength of voucher Ex. WW1/5. Wages for 3 days in March

2011 were paid to her on the strength of voucher Ex. WW1/

6 and wages for 3 days in February 2011 were paid to her

on the strength of voucher Ex. WW1/7. Thus, out of those

document, claimant could project that wages for 22 days

were paid to her, when she performed duties with the bank.

Evidently, she had not been able to place cogent

documentary evidence to substantiate ocular facts detailed

by her in her affidavit Ex. WW1/A.

12. The bank had placed vouchers over record, which

have not been proved. Since these vouchers bear signatures

of the claimant on its reverse, in token of fact that wages

were paid to her by the bank, hence, I am constrained to

peruse these vouchers in order to ascertain as to whether

claimant had rendered continuous service of 240 days, in a

calendar year. When these vouchers are perused, it came

to light that the claimant was paid wages for 6 days from

16.11.2010 to 13.11.2010 on the basis of voucher dated

23.11.2010, wages for a period of 4 days from 24.11.2010 to

27.04.2010 were paid to her on the strength of voucher

dated 29.11.2010. In the same manner, wages for 2 days for

29th and 30th November 2010 was paid on the strength of

voucher dated 30.11.2010. Wages for 12 days from

15.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 was paid on the strength of voucher

dated 30.12.2010. Wages for a period of 5 days from

31.12.2011 to 05.01.2011 was paid to her on the strength of

voucher dated 05.01.2011. Similarly wages for a period of 3

days each from 06.01.2011 to 08.01.2011, 09.01.2011 to

12.01.2011, 13.01.2011 to 15.01.2011, 16.01.2011 to 19.01.2011,

20.01.2011 to 22.01.2011 were paid to her on the strength of

vouchers dated 08.01.2011, 12.01.2011, 15.01.2011.

19.01.2011 and 22.01.2011 respectively. Wages for a period

of 2 days from 24.01.2011 & 25.01.2011 were paid on the

strength of voucher dated 25.01.2011. In the same manner

wages for a period of 3 days each were paid from 31.01.2011

to 02.02.2011, 07.02.2011 to 09.02.2011, 13.02.2011 to

15.02.2011, 17.02.2011 to 19.02.2011, 03.03.2011 to 05.03.2011,

10.03.2011 to 12.03.2011, 17.03.2011 to 19.03.2011, 14.03.2011

to 16.03.2011, 21.03.2011 to 23.03.2011 & 24.03.2011 to

26.03.2011 were paid to her on the strength of vouchers

dated 02.02.2011, 09.02.2011, 15.02.2011, 21.02.2011,

05.03.2011, 12.03.2011, 19.03.2011, 16.03.2011, 23.03.2011 &

26.03.2011 respectively. Similarly wages for 4 days from

15.04.2011 to 20.04.2011 were paid to her on the strength of

voucher dated 20.04.2011. Wages for a period of 2 days

from 21.04.2011 to 23.04.2011 were paid to the claimant on

the strength of voucher dated 03.04.2011. In the same

manner, wages for a period of 3 days each from 28.04.2011

to 30.04.2011, 05.05.2011 to 07.05.2011, 09.05.2011 to

11.05.2011 and 12.05.2011 to 14.05.2011 were paid to the

claimant vide vouchers dated 30.04.2011, 07.05.2011,

11.05.2011 and 14.05.2011 respectively. Wages for a period

of 2 days from 16.05.2011 to 18.05.2011 were paid to her on

the strength of voucher dated 18.05.2011. Wages for a

period of 3 days from 19.05.2011 to 21.05.2011 were paid to

the claimant vide voucher dated 21.05.2011. Wages for

29.05.2011 was paid to the claimant vide voucher dated

30.05.2011. Wages for a period of 3 days each from 30.06.2011

to 02.07.2011, 04.07.2011 to 06.07.2011, 07.07.2011 to

09.07.2011, 11.07.2011 to 13.07.2011, 14.07.2011 to 16.07.2011,

21.07.2011 to 23.07.2011, 25.07.2011 to 27.07.2011, 28.07.2011

to 30.07.2011, 01.08.2011 to 03.08.2011 were paid to the

2712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

claimant vide vouchers dated 02.07.2011, 06.07.2011,

09.07.2011, 13.07.2011, 16.07.2011, 23.07.2011, 27.02.2011,

30.07.2011 and 03.08.2011 respectively. These vouchers

being it over the record that the claimant rendered 139

days' continuous service with the bank.

13. An employer may discharge a portion of his labout

force as surplus age in a running or continuing business

for variety of reasons e.g., for economy, convenience,

rationalization in industry, installation of a new labour saving

machinery etc. The Act defines "termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reasons

whatsoever", except the categories exempted in sub-

section 2(oo), to be retrenchment. The definition of the

term "retrenchment", as enacted by the Act, is extracted

thus:

"(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action, but does not include:—

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman or reaching the age of

superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman

concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a

result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation in

that behalf contained therein; or

ground of continued ill-health".

14. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of a

workman by the employer "for any reason whatsoever"

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement of

workman on reaching the age of superannuation; or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(1) LLJ 1] and Mahabir.

15. Section 25-F of the Act lays down conditions

pre-requisite to retrenchment, which are as follows:

(i) There should be one month's notice in writing to

the workman concerned.

(ii) The notice should specify the reasons for

retrenchment.

(iii) The period of one month's notice should have

expired before retrenchment is enforced, or the

workman has been paid in lieu of such notice the

wages for the period.

(iv) The workman has been paid retrenchment

compensation which should be equivalent to 15

days' average pay for every one years' service or

any part thereof provided it exceeds six months.

(v) The notice is also given to the appropriate

Government.

16. For seeking protection under Section 25-F of the

Act an employee should be in continuous service under

an employer for not less than one year. Continuous service

for a period of one year may include period of interruption

on account of sickness or authorized leave or accident or

strike, which is not illegal or lockout or cessation or work

which is not due to any fault on the part of the workmen, as

enacted by provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 25B of

the Act. Sub-section (2) of the said section introduces a

fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in

"continuous service" within the meaning of clause (1) for a

period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to in

continuous service for that period under an employer if he

has actually worked for the days specified in clauses (a)

and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968 Lab. I.C. 1180)

it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub-

section (2) furnished a unit of measure and if during that

unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by

the workman is 240 days, then he can be considered to

have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose

of the section. The idea is that if within a unit period of one

year a person had put in at least 240 days of service, then

he must get the benefit conferred by the Act. Consequently,

an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman

actually worked for not less than 240 days during the period

of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the

retrenchment.

17. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306], Apex

Court announced that when a workman renders continuous

service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar months, he

is deemed to have completed one years' service in the

industry. It would be expedient to reproduce observations

made by the Apex Court in that regard, which are extracted

thus:

"Under Section 25-B a workman who during the

period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2713

an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed

to have completed one year's service in the industry.

Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out

whether the workman had actually worked for not

less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar

months immediately preceding are retrenchment.

These provisions of law do not show that a workman

after satisfying the test under Section 25B has further

to show that he has worked during all the period he

has been in the service of the employer for 240 days

in the year".

18. Interruption of service occurred during the

course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services.

Fiction under section 25-B of the Act will operate if workmen

has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The

explanation appended to section 25-B of the Act

specifically includes the days on which workman was laid

off under an agreement or he has been on leave with full

wages, or he has been absent due to temporary disablement

caused by accident arising out of an in the course of his

employment and in the case of a female, maternity leave,

under the expression 'actually worked' used under sub-

section (2) of section 25-B of the Act. Question for

consideration would be as to whether the words 'actually

worked' would not include holidays, Sundays and

Saturdays for which full wages are paid. The Apex Court

was confronted with such a proposition in American Express

Banking Corporation (1985 (2) LLJ 539), wherein it was

rules that the expression 'actually worked under the

employer' cannot mean those days only when the workman

worked with hammer sickle or pen, but must necessarily

comprehend all those days during which he was in the

employment of the employer and for which he had been

paid wages either under express or implied contract of

service or by compulsion of statute, standing orders etc.

The Court ruled that Sundays and other holidays, would

be comprehended in the words 'actually worked" and it

countenanced the contention of the employer that only

days which are mentioned in the explanation should be

taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number

of days on which the workman had actually worked though

he had not so worked and no other days. The Court

observed that the explanation is only clarificatory, as all

explanations are, and cannot be used to limit the expanse

of the main provision. Precedent in Lalappa Lingappa (1981

(1) LJ 308) was distinguished by the Apex Court in the case

referred above. The precedent was followed in Standard

Motor Products of India Ltd. (1986 (1) LLJ 34) Thus, it is

crystal clear from the law laid above that Sundays and

holidays shall be included in computing continuous service

under section 25-B of the Act.

19. Period of service referred above, nowhere includes

Sundays and holidays. In a calendar year, an employee

may get 52 weekly offs, besides three national holidays. In

case 52 weekly offs and three national holidays are added

to the periods referred above, claimant does not reach the

national figure of 240 days to claim continuous service for

a period of one year. Resultantly, it is obvious that the

claimants has not been able to establish that she rendered

continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year, to avail

benefits of provisions of section 25F of the Act. Self-serving

words detailed by the claimant nowhere enable her to

discharge onus resting on her. It is announced that he

claimant failed to establish that she rendered continuous

service of 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date

of alleged termination of her services. The issue is,

therefore, answered in favour of the bank and against the

claimant.

Issue No. 2

20. The claimant had not rendered continuous service

of one year to claim protection under section 25F of the

Act. Provisions of section 25-F does not come to her rescue.

It is not the case of the claimant that after termination of

her service, the bank employed some other person for

casual jobs. She also does not claim that junior to her was

retained, when her services were dispensed with. Thus, it

is evident that provisions of section 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of

the Act have no application to the present controversy.

Action of the bank in not engaging her any further is found

to be in consonance with law. She is not entitled to relief of

reinstatement in service. The issue is answered in favour

of the bank and against the claimant.

21. At the cost of repetition, it is announced that

neither provisions of section 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the

Act are applicable to the case of the claimant. In such a

situation, neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof and

retrenchment compensation was to be paid to her. Claim

put forth by Ms. Prem Lata, seeking reinstatement in

service of the bank, is not maintainable. Her claim statement

is, accordingly brushed aside. An award is, passed in favour

of the bank. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publiation.

Dated: 04.02.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1048.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ

cMksnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼134@2003½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@88@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

2714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1048.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 134/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/88/2003 - IR(B-II)]

JOHAN, TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM NO. 33,

BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI-110 032

Present:— Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

I.D. No. 134/2003

Shri R. K. Verma

Versus

Bank of Baroda

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-12011/88/2003-IR(B-II) dated

11.9.2003 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for the adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda New Delhi in not to recall/rescind the order

of punishment dated 29/9/2000 as modified by the

order dated 19.3.2001 of the appellate authority is

just, legal and fair? If not, to what relief the workman

Sh. R.K. Verma, Head Cashier is entitled to and from

which date?

On 13.10.03 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 134/2003 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 filed claim

statement on 24.12.2003. Wherein he stated as follows:—

1. That the workman Shri R.K. Verma was employed

by the management/Bank in the year 1966 as a

permanent employee of the Bank and at present I

holding the post of Head Cashier Category 'E'.

The Workman is a member of Bank of Baroda

Employees Union, Delhi. The Union is registered

with Registrar of Trade Unions, Delhi. The

workman has been performing his duties with

utmost sincerity and devotion and there has been

no complaint against him.

2. That the workman/applicant is a workman as

defined in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and the management/Bank is

an industry in terms of Section 2(j) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The cause of the workman

has been espoused by the Bank of Baroda

Employee Union, Delhi.

3. That the present dispute referred for adjudication

pertains to the charge sheet number BR: NH: STF:

98/230 dated 26.5.1998 against the workman. The

applicant denied the charges vehemently and

participated in the domestic inquiry proceeding

as and when required to do so.

4. That the workman was charge sheeted on

26.5.1998 for the alleged incidents on 2.4.1998 and

3.4.1998. The charge sheet was issued by the Chief

Manager of Nehru Place Branch. The Chief

Manager acting as Disciplinary Authority decided

to hold enquiry by appointing Sh. P. K. Guglani,

Senior Manager, as Enquiry Officer.

5. That the Management/Bank proceeded with

domestic inquiry and awarded an unwarranted,

unjustified and illegal punishment to the workman

without following the well establishment norms,

rules and regulations and principles of natural

justice. The same has been proceeded in utter/

flagrant disregard to the procedural lapse and has

prejudice seriously the defence of the workman

and caused the irreparable loss and injury to him.

The Presenting Officer in his over anxiety to prove

the charges levelled additional charge that I

delayed opening of the cash on 2.4.1998 although

this allegations did not figure in the charge sheet.

The enquiry officer on the same line chose to

over weigh the statements of the Management

witnesses. In doing so the findings of the enquiry

officers came up without any material evidence

on record. Consequently, perversity in the finding

of enquiry officer crept into it.

6. That the workman was served with a show cause

notice dated 13.3.2000 issued by the Assistant

General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Nehru

Place Branch propsoing the punishment of

withdrawl of special cashiers allowance and

reduction of one increment in time scale. The

workman submitted a reply dated 21.3.2000. He

categorically mentioned that he was not supplied

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2715

with the enquiry report. On 1.4.2000 the workman

received a letter from Assistant General Manager,

Nehru Place Branch enclosing therewith

arguments of Presenting Officer. The workman

again sent a letter dated 6.4.2000 pointing out that

the enquiry report has not been supplied to him,

instead he has been served with a copy of

arguments of Presenting Officer.The workman

received the enquiry report dated 27.2.2000 vide

letter dated 7.4.2000 of Assistant General Manager,

stating therein that the Disciplinary Authority had

already determined to impose punishment. It was

also stated therein that no useful purpose would

be achieve until the propose punishment was

withdrawn and my reply to the show cause be

considered prior to arriving at the conclusion to

inflect punishment upon me.

7. That the workman submitted his reply dated

19.6.2000. It was pointed out that the findings of the

enquiry officer was perverse as the same was not in

consonance with facts of the case. It was a case of no

material on record which could substantiate the allegations

against the workman. It was only under pressure the

enquiry officer arrived at the findings that could please

the higher officers.

8. That it is pertinent to mention that after the

domestic inquiry was concluded the applicant was not

served to the inquiry report. The applicant was served

with a letter dated 13.3.2000 inflecting two punishments.

No opportunity was afforded to him. The inquiry report

was also no served upon him. The inquiry report was

reportedly sent to the applicant when he pointed out that

the punishment has been awarded without serving a copy

of inquiry report and affording an opportunity to him. The

Management/Bank has put the cart before the horse. It has

flouted the well settled norms and rules for enquiry and

disciplinary proceedings.

9. That the applicant represented to the disciplinary

authority pointing out the procedural lapse in awarding

the punishment which was violative of the service, rules

and principles of natural justice. It was also pointed out

that the alleged inquiry report sent to him was in fact the

argument of Presenting officer. It is relevant to mention

that this action of the bank was deliberate and malicious to

prejudice the defence of the applicant. He was then served

with the true and correct copy of the inquiry report.

10. That after receiving the inquiry report the

applicant submitted his written defence to the disciplinary

authority.

11. That the disciplinary authority with pre-

determined mind inflected the same punishment as has

already been imposed vide letter dated 13.3.2000. It is

evident that the authority did not bother to apply its mind

to the defence submitted by the applicant later on.

12. That the disciplinary authority has issued the

above punishment in gross violation of the laid procedure

of the departmental inquiries the order of the disciplinary

authority is unjust, improper, unfair and illegal and in

violation of the Principles of natural justice. It suffers from

serious legal infirmities and procedural lapses on the part

of the disciplinary authority.

13. That the order dated 13.3.2000 was never

withdrawn by the authority. The defence submissions were

afforded to after the award inflecting the punishment was

past. No personal hearing was afforded to before the order

dated 13.3.2000. The opportunity for submitting his defence

statement was given without serving a copy of inquiry

report. The inquiry report which was sent to the applicant

was infact a copy of argument of Presenting Officer. The

same was changed later on when the applicant pointed out

and protested. The sequence of events unequivocally

shows that it was an eye wash. The Bank/Management

acted on its own whims and fancies in utter disregard to

the procedural law.

14. That the disciplinary authority while affording

an opportunity to submit defence statement mentioned

the same to be a de-novo proceedings for awarding the

punishment. It is well established that the de-novo

proceedings is initiated only when the Disciplinary

Authority differs from the findings of enquiry and record

its reasons for the same. In the instant case that de-novo

proceedings had been initiated to actuate and authenticate

the conclusion arrived by the Authority without following

norms and Rules of domestic proceedings. The whole

exercise of the Authority appears to be an exercise to arrived

and actuate a pre-determine punishment to be inflected

upon the workman.

15. That it may be pointed out that the charge sheet

and the order were issued with by the Chief Manager, who

was the Displinary Authority in this case. The Chief

Manager has been substituted by Assistant General

Manager as a Head of the Branch. Even if AGM, derives

powers of Disciplinary Authority by any interpretation,

the Appellate Authority already notified in the order of the

Chief Manager, happens to be the authority of equal rank

i.e. AGM od the Region. This would be against the

provision of the Bipartite Settlement which provide that

the Appellate Authority should be above the rank of

DisciplinaryAuthority.

16. That in view of the above the order of Chief

Manager (Disciplinary Authority) notifying Assistant

General Manager of the Region as Appellate Authority is

back because the same is not in consonance with the

Appellate Authority notified by the General Manager

(Personnel).

2716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17. That since the charge could not be substantiated,

the punishment awarded to the workman is illegal, arbitrary,

whimsical and unjustified.

18. That as stated hereinabove due to violation of

normal procedure of domestic enquiry and disciplinary

action, the order of punishment is rendered void.

In view of the aforesaid submission, the Hon'ble

Tribunal may kindly be pleased to pass an award in favour

of the workman and against the management.

IN REPLY TO CLAIM STATEMENT MANAGEMENT

FILED WRITTEN STATEMENT. WHEREIN IT IS

SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS:—

Before adverting to the union's Statement of Claim,

the management of Bank of Baroda begs to state that in the

instant case the government has made the order of

reference (No. L-12011/88/2003-IR(B-II) dated 11-9-2003

arbitrarily, mechanically without application of mind and in

utter violation of the mandate of law wherefor not only the

reference is wholly invalid but on that count this Hon'ble

court is a forum non juris lacking necessary competence

and jurisdiction to entertain the reference and proceed to

adjudicate uopn the merits of the terms of reference for the

following amongst other:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:—

(i) For that it is explicit from a bare reading of the

terms of reference that what has been referred by

the government for adjudication of this Hon'ble

court does not par take the nature of an 'industrial

dispute' within the meaning of the expression

defined u/s 2-K or Sec. 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, nor do the terms of reference

constitute to be the subject matter of 'industrial

dispute' falling under any of the subjects notified

in second and third schedule to the Act. In

Shambu Nath Goyal's case the Hon'ble Apex Court

succinctly laid down that power conferred on the

appropriate government to make an order of

reference u/s 10(1) of the Act can be exercised

only when there is an existing or apprehended

'industrial dispute'- the condition precedent or

the since qua non for the government to exercise

its reference making power. In the instant case

since what has been referred by the government

is not an industrial dispute therefore the reference

has been made arbitrarily disregarding the

mandate of law;

(ii) for that even if it may be assumed for a while that

the terms of reference tentamount to be an

'industrial dispute falling within the ambit and

scope of the expression defined under the Act

yet the reference order is bad in law as the

government has erred in requiring the Hon'ble

Court to adjudicate upon the legality and

justifiability of an order dated 29.9.2000

(Disciplinary Authority's Order) which, upon its

merger in Appellate Authority's order dated

19.3.2001 was not existing and surviving at the

time the government made the instant order of

reference. The instant reference order is thus

invalid, inconsequential and incapable of being

adjudicated by virtue of Doctrine of Merger laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora

of judgments including S.S. Rathore case.

(iii) for that what has been referred by the government

for adjudication of this Hon'ble Court is not the

real dispute, if any. The real dispute may have

been whether the workman committed alleged

misconducts and whether he should at all be

visited with the punishment even for proved acts

of misconducts. The subject matter of reference

is therefore not the real dispute and consequently

the order of reference has been made by the

government without application of mind. The

management of the bank craves to refer to and

reply upon Mool Chand Hospital case in that

behalf:

(iv) for that in view of the above reasons this Hon'ble

Court, it is humbly submitted, lacks the necessary

competence and jurisdiction to hold any

proceedings to answer the terms of reference on

merits excepts to hold and declare that the

reference is invalid;

(v) for that the instant order of reference is bad in

law also because it has been belatedly made by

the government and entertained by this Hon'ble

court causing prejudice to the management of the

bank.

(vi) for that since the instant reference has been made

at the instance of the union deeming the dispute

to be a collective industrial dispute and not an

individual industrial dispute therefore it can be

adjudicated only by the labour court as had been

provided u/s 10 (1) (d) and not 10 (1) (d) of the

Act.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

The workman Shri R.K. Verma is employed in Bank of

Barod and he is presently working as Head Cashier

Category 'E' in the Bank. In the year 1998 when the workman

was working in the Bank's Nehru Place Branch, he was

served with a charge sheet dated 26.5.1998 for committing,

on 2nd and 3rd April 1998, certain acts of misconduct

specified in the charge sheet. Thereafter the management

of the Bank initiated a departmental enquiry in which the

workman was allowed to fully participate alongwith his

defence representative Shri R.L. Virmani, General Secretary

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2717

of the union. On the conclusion of the enquiry

proceedings, the enquiry officer submitted his report and

findings to the Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy

of E.O.'s report and findings alongwith a show cause

Notice requiring the workman to show cause as to why

the punishment proposed to be imposed by the DA be

not imposed on him. The CSF workman submitted his

explanation to the said notice pleading no cause for the

imposition of proposed punishment on him. On perusing

the workman's explanation to the show cause notice, the

DA found the same to be not satisfactory and thus vide

his orders dated 29.9.2000 imposed the punishment of

withdrawal of Head Cashier Allownce and reduction of

one annual increment in the time scale for one year. Feeling

aggrieved with the 'DA's above mentioned orders, the

workman preferred an appeal with the Appellate Authority

who, after hearing the workman and his representative,

took a lenient view and modified the quantum of

punishment by maintaining the DA's order of reduction

of one increment and setting aside the other punishment

i.e. withdrawal of allowance. Thus the Appellate Authority

considerably softened the rigour of punishment the DA

had imposed on the workman for the proved acts of

misconduct which the workman had committed. This

shows that the only order which now survive is the order

Appellate Authority dated 19.3.2001.

REPLY TO UNION'S STATEMENT OF CLAIM :

Union's submissions in paragraphs 1 to 17 of its SOC

are, and be deemed to have been, denied unless and to the

extent specifically admitted herein or the same are not

inconsistent with the management's submissions or

relevant documents. Parawise reply to union's averments

is as under:

1. Union's assertions in paras 1 & 2 of its SOC that

it is registerd with the Registar of Trade Unions, Delhi,

that the workman Shri RK Verma is its member, that it has

espoused the cause of the workman and that the workman

has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity

and devotion wherefore the management has never had

any complaint against him, are denied partly for want of

knowledge and partly because the same factually

incorrect. It is stated, and the Hon'ble Court would also

kindly appreciate, that had the workman's conduct been

that of a sincere and faithful employee and had he

discharged his duties with responsibility and devotion,

the management would not have been forced to charge

sheet and punish him for indictable acts stood proved

against him in fair and just departmental enquiry held by

the management.

2. Contnets of Para 2 & 3 of union's SOC call for no

rejoinder to the extent they are not factually and

conceptually inconsistent with the management's

submissions and relevant documents placed before the

Hon'ble Court.

3. Union's admission of the management having held

departmental enquiry against the workman in respect of

charge sheet dated 26.5.1998 call for no rejoinder. Union's

rest of the averments in para 5 of its SOC are however

based on limitless factual and legal misconceptions besides

being utterly vague and unspecific and hence the same are

partly vehemently repudiated and partly denied for absence

of essential particulars/details. Union's averments that the

punishment imposed on the workman is unwarranted,

unjustified and disproportionate to the severity of

misdemeanor committed by him, that the management did

not follow well established norms, rules and regulations

and principles of natural Justice while punishment the

workman for alleged acts of misconduct are all vegue and

unspecific and cannot be properly and suitably replied-

either admitted or denied. The management reserves it right

to reply to all these unspecific and vegue assertions of the

union if and when it particularises them. The Union's

contention that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

perverse, are wrong and hence denied. It is reiterated that

the enquiry held by the enquiry officer was just, fair and in

accord with the well known principles of natural justice

and that the findings returned are based on evidence on

record.

4. In reply to union's submission in paragraphs 6 & 7

of the SOC, there is no denying the fact that on perusal of

findings and report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary

Authority issued a Show Cause Notice to the workman

requiring him to show cause as to why the propose

punishment be not imposed on him, that the workman

submitted his explanation/reply to the aforesaid notice

pleading innocent and not guilty of any of the charges

alleged against him. All other averments of the union are

grossely misconceived and hence untenable.

5. Union's submissions, assumptions, contentions

and allegations in paragraphs 8 to 14 of the SOC suffer

from the vice of conflicting and contradictory pleas, are

otherwise repetitive having already replied in the preceding

paras and thus call for no fresh rejoinder.

6. Union's submissions in paragraphs 15 to 17 are

passed on gross misconceptions, misreading and

misunderstanding of the contents and scope of the

relevant circulars issued by the Bank appointing officers

as Disciplinary and Appellate authorities for Award Staff

of the Bank. It is stated that the authorities who took

departmental action and decision against the workman had

the necessary competence and Jurisdiction to take the

decision and action in workman's case.

In view of the above premises it is thus indisputably

evident that there is no substance or merit in workman's/

union's submissions in the Statement of Claim and that the

Order of Reference is also invalid.

The Management most humbly prays that the

Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased:

2718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

A) to hold and declare the order of reference as bad

in law and invalid before holding any proceedings

on merits of terms of reference as well as parties

submissions;

B) to hold and declare that even otherwise the

management's action taken against the workman,

including the domestic enquiry, is just, fair and

does't suffer from any procedural infirmity and in

case the enquiry held and the action taken is

found to be suffering from any such infirmity, give

additional opportunity to the management to

justify their action by adducing such additional

evidence as may be thought/urged;

C) to answer the reference in favour of the

management including award of cost of these

proceedings to the management.

REJOINDER OF BEHALF OF THE WORKMAN TO THE

W.S. FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. That the management passed an order of

punishment dated 29.09.2000 against the workman

without affording him proper opportunity to

defend his case. The whole exercise was with

predetermined mindset to punish the workman. It

is evident from the sequence of events that the

management has already decided to punish the

workman even prior to initiating the enquiry

proceeding. The enquiry proceeding was not

initiated with intent to find the facts and to arrive

at judicious findings. It was merely with intention

to orchestrise an enquiry to arrive at the

punishment predetermined by the management.

2. That the order dated 13.3.2009/29.09.2000 was

possed by the authority without giving a copy of

enquiry report to the workman. It was only when

the workman requested the management

repeatedly and wrote letter dated 21.03.2000 to

the management, the management sent a copy of

argument of presenting officer of the management

before the enquiry officer along with the letter

dated 01.04.2000. The workman was constrained

to write a letter dated 06.04.2000 pointing out such

illegal action of management. He was served with

enquriy report dated 27.02.2000 only with the letter

dated 07.04.2000. It clearly shows that the order

of punishment was passed by the management

even prior to affording an opportunity to the

workman.

3. It is well established proposition of law that an

opportunity be afforded to the delinquent prior

to imposing punishment and the same has not

been adhered to.

4. That order of punishment is also bad in law as the

same was passed without serving a copy of the

enquiry report to the workman. Considering the

proposition of law laid down in Md. Ramgan

Khan's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

S.P. Viswanathan Vs. UOI & Ors. 1991, Supp. (2)

SCC 269 laid down that non-supply of copy of

the enquiry report to the delinquent before

passing an order of punishment renders the order

of punishment illegal. The same proposition has

been held in a number of case.

5. That since the order dated 13.03.2000/29.09.2000

in illegal due to non-compliance of the rules, norms

and principles of natural justice, the subsequent

order dated 19.03.2001 is unjust, improper and

illegal. The order dated 19.03.2001 is rendered non-

est and void.

PARAWISE REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE WORKMAN

TO THE W.S. FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT.

The contents of written statement filed by the

management are wrong, unjust, improper and hence denied

besides those which are admitted specifically herein. It is

categorically denied that the present reference is arbitrary

and has been made without application of mind. The

management cannot be allowed to challenge order of

reference dated 11.09.2003 at this belated stage and in the

proceeding before Ld. Industrial Tribunal.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

(i) That the contents of para under reply are

misconceived and misleading and hence

categorically denied. A bare reading of the

definition of ''Industrial Disputes'' vide Section 2

(k) of I.D. Act makes it crystal clear that the present

dispute referred is an industrial dispute and this

Hon'ble Court has power and jurisdiction to

adjudicate upon it.

(ii) That the contents of para under reply are wrong,

unjust, improper, misconceived and misleading

and hence categorically denied. The order of

reference is well drafted as the present industrial

Dispute rest upon the order dated 29.09.2000 as

modified vide order dated 19-03-2001. It is, thus,

the penalty imposed upon the delinquent vide

order dated 29-09-2000 and/ or 19-03-2001 is in

question and the same is subject matter in the

reference. The management may not be allowed

to thwart and demolish the case of the workman

by misconceived application of Doctrine of merger.

In the cited case of S.S. Rathore the question of

res-judicata was decided by Hon'ble Supreme

Court and it was held that in case of dismissal of

Special Leave Petition in limine, the impugned

judgment (of Hon'ble High Court) does not merge

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2719

into the same. Thus, the order/judgment passed

in limine, in the Special leave Petition, does not

become res-judicata while impugning the same

judgment of Hon'ble High Court by way of filing

review application. Thus, the cited authority

does not support the contention of the

management.

(iii) That the contents of para under reply are indicative

of the mindset of the management, misconceived

and misleading hence vehemently denied. The

management intends to put the card before the

horse as it has done in the enquiry proceedings

in the present case. Without proving the action

of the workman to be misconduct, it has tried to

authenticate, actuate and confirm the punishment.

The workman reserves his right to explain and

differentiates the cited case of Mool Chand

Hospital at proper stage.

(iv) That the contents of para are simply illegal, and

denied. It does allegedly intend to constrain the

wide jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court when an

industrial Dispute is referred to it, for adjudication.

It is well within the power and jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble court to frame issues as per reference

and all other ancillary issues necessitated in order

to adjudicate the Industrial Disputes referred to

it. The management may not be allowed to put its

own terms and condition upon the adjudication

before this Hon'ble Court.

(v) That the contents of para under reply are wrong,

false, arbitrary and hence denied. It is the workman

who has been caused to suffer prejudice and

irreparable loss due to delaying tactics of the

management.

(vi) That the contents of para under reply are wrong

and misconceived and misleading and hence

denied. The workman through the Union has

impugned the said order punishment at the proper

forum vide remedy available to him.

REPLY TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE.

The contents of para that the Disciplinary Authority

furnished a copy of ENQUIRY Officer's report and findings

along with a show cause notice dated 13.03.2000 are wrong

and false and hence categorically denied. The factual

position of the case as mentioned in the preliminary

submissions hereinabove is referred herein also and the

same is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The

Disciplinary Authority did not care to see the reply of

workman to the show cause notice as the order of

punishment has already been passed. The appellate

authority vide order dated 19.03.2001 acted on the same

line confirmed the punishment without considering, the

facts of the case and perverse findings of the E.O.

REPLY ON BEHALF OF WORKMAN TO REPLY

FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT TO UNION'S

STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

1-2. In reply to paras no. 1 and 2 of the reply, the

contents of para no. 1, 2 and 3 of the statement of

claim are reiterated.

3. In reply to para no. 3 of the reply, the contents of

para no. 5 of the SOC may kindly be referred. In

absence of specific reply to the averments made

in the para no. 5 of the SOC stand to be admitted

by the management.

4. The contents of para under reply extend to

explanation or reply to the averment made in para

no. 6 and 7 of the SOC. The management neither

served the enquiry report to the workman prior to

passing order of punishment nor it withdrawn the

proposed penalty. It passed order of punishment

to considering the reply of the workman to the

show cause notice. The management failed to give

and explanation to its unjust, improper and illegal

action.

5-6. The contents of paras no. 5 and 6 of the reply are

general denial of the facts and submissions made

in the SOC. There are no specific denial of the

contents of submissions made in para no. 8 to 17

of the Statement of claim. It amounts to the

admission of the facts and submission made in

the SOC.

Prayer clause of the writer statement deserves to be

rejected.

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that, in view

of the aforesaid contents and the contents and submissions

of the statement of claim, the reference deserves to be

answered in favour of the workman and against the

management.

In support of its case Workman filed affidavit of

Sh. Ram Kishan Verma on 8/11/2005. Wherein he stated

as follows:—

1. I, Ram Kishan Verma s/o Shri B.D. Verma, aged 62

years resident of House No. 1/1567 Mansarovar

Park, Shahdara Delhi 110032, do hereby solemnly

affirm and state as under:

2. That I was employed by the Management Bank

of Baroda in the year 1966 and was holding the

post of Head Cashier Cat-E at the time of my

retirement from M-9, Connaught Circus Branch

on attaining the age of superannuation. I am fully

acquainted with the facts and circumstances of

the case.

3. That prior to my posting at m-9 Connaught Circus

Branch I was posted a Head Cashier Cat-E, at

2720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Nehru Place branch of the Bank. Due to heavy

rush of cash payments, there was no cash balance

left in the Branch on 02.4.1998 and I requested

Shri S.S. Gupta, Chief Manager to arrange to bring

the cash from currency chest. Shri S.S. Gupta, a

Chronic patient of High Blood Pressure and

habitual of loosing temper on small matters,

unnecessarily stated shouting at me. I simply told

him that there was unusual rush of cash payment

on that day and that the cash had to be arranged

to make payments. At this Shri S.S. Gupta,

infuriated and told me to go to my seat and

threatened to take action against me. The cash

was brought twice from the currency chest,

Parliament Street Branch.

4. That the second lot of remittance so received from

currency chest Parliament Street, New Delhi at

around 4.30 PM, did not bear the signatures for

the cash having been recounted and as per Book

of Instructions of Bank, the cash should be

recounted before it is kept in the cash safety. Thus

the cash had to be recounted and then kept in the

cash safe.

5. That I was issued a charge sheet dated 26.05.1998

leveling various allegations for alleged incidents

of the 02.04.1998 and 3.4.1998. Vide another order

dated 26.5.1998 the Chief Manager appointed Shri

P.K. Guglani, Senior Manager as Enquiry Officer

to hold the Enquiry.

6. That the alleged allegation that I delayed the start

of days work on 03.04.1998 is contrary to the facts

on record. That I made some twenty (20) payments

before 11.30 totaling Rs. 1,40,000/- on 03.04.1998

is sufficient enough to prove the allegation as

false.

7. That the charges were framed against me

unilaterally by the Management without giving

me reasonable opportunity to reply them. The

constitution of the enquiry is therefore illegal and

bad in law.

8. That I was found guilty and charges as proved

by the Enquiry Officer based on "No

Evidence"and without giving reasoning. My

submissions had not been considered by the

Enquiry Officer. There was at all no evidence to

prove the charges. The Enquiry Officer seemed

more interested in proving the case of the

Management that to find the factual position and

hence biased.

9. That the Asstt. General Manager, Disciplinary

Authority Nehru Place Branch vide Notice dated

13.03.2000 proposed the punishment of withdrawal

of Special Cashier's Allowance and reduction of

one increment in time scale.

10. In reply I submitted a letter dated 21.03.2000

pointing out that I was not supplied the findings

of the Enquiry Report to make my submissions,

before issuing the show-cause notice dated

13.03.2000. I received a letter dated 01.4.2000 from

Asstt. General Manager enclosing therewith the

arguments of the Presenting Officer instead of

Enquiry Report. Thereupon, I sent another letter

dated 06.04.2000 that the Enquiry Report was not

supplied to me. The Disciplinary Authority, The

Asstt. General Manager, Nehru place Branch sent

the Enquiry Report dated 27.02.2000 vide letter

dated 07.04.2000. I again sent a letter dated

17.04.2000 to the Asstt. General Manager, pointed

out that the Disciplinary Authority had already

determined to impose the punishment and no

useful purpose would be served until the

proposed punishment was withdrawn.

11. That I ultimately submitted my reply to the findings

of the Enquiry and pointed out various infirmities

in the enquiry vide letter No. 19.06.2000. The

Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary

Authority, Nehru Place branch did not consider

the points raised by me simply vide letter dated

03.07.2000, proposed the punishment similar to

the one proposed earlier vide letter dated

13.03.2003.

i. Withdrawal of Head Cashier Allowance

Permanently;

ii. Stoppage of one increment for one year.

12. I submitted a reply to the Show-Cause Notice dated

03.07.2000 vide my letter dated 09.09.2000. But to

my surprise, the final order of punishment was

passed by Assistant General Manager, Regional

Office DCR II who was not at all the designated

Disciplinary Authority. The following punishment

was imposed by Assistant General (DCR II) New

Delhi vide Order dated 20.09.2000.

i. withdrawal of Special Allownace;

ii. Reduction of one increment for one year.

13. I prefered an appeal dated 05.11.2000 against the

order of punishment dated 29.09.2000 passed by

Assistant General Manager DCR II, New Delhi.

The Appellate Authority modified the punishment

vide order dated 19.03.2001 to "Reduction of one

increment for one year".

14. The Enquiry and Disciplinary proceedings

suffered from serious infirmities and procedural

lapses on the part of the Disciplinary Authority

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2721

and are in Violation of the principal of Natural

Justice and therefore, needs to be set aside.

That I am entitled to receive difference of salary so

reduced.

He tender his affidavit on 19.4.2006 and He was

cross-examined on the same day by Shri T.C. Gupta A/R

for the management.

Cross-examination is as follows:-

I retired from the bank service on 31.12.2003 It is

correct that the reference was made at the instance of Bank

of Baroda Employees Union and accordingly the case is

registered in this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is correct that bank of

Baroda Employees Union has filed statement of claim on

my behalf. Rejoinder has also been filed statement of claim

on my behalf. Rejoinder has also been filed by the Union

on my behalf., It is also correct that as many as 19

documents were filed alongwith the rejoinder by the Union.

The documents/copies of documents are Ex. WW1/1 to 19

(objected to on the ground that the same are not properly

proved. The objection to be decided at the time of final

arguments). It is correct that I was issued a charge sheet

dated 26.05.1998 Ex WW1/1. It is correct that an enquiry

was conducted in respect of the said charge sheet and I

participated during the enquiry proceedings wherein I was

represented by defence representative. Shri R.L. Virmani. It

is correct that I was given show cause notice dated

13.03.2000 Ex. WW1/proposing punishment to be given

after I was held guilty by the enquiry officer. The propose

punishment was withdrawal of Cashier allowance and

reduction of one increment in the time scale. I did not file

any reply to the show cause notice. Again said that I have

filed reply through Union. I have filed an objection vide

letter dated 21.03.2000 vide Ex. WW1/ to show cause notice.

It is also correct that the disciplinary authority rejected my

objection and passed an order dated 03.07.2000 Ex. WW1/

imposing the punishments mentioned therein. It is also

correct that I had went in appeal dated 09.09.2000 against

the said order which was dismissed by the Appellate

Authority vide order dated 19.03.2001 Ex WW1/. I know

the contents of the written statement filed by the union on

my behalf. The enquiry held against me was not fair and

properly conducted. The enquiry was not fair as the facts

were not properly brought on record. I has cleared payment

of one lakh forty thousand by noon and this fact was not

recorded in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer

did not afford any opportunity or to my representative to

cross examine the witnesses. It is incorrect to suggest that

the enquiry conducted against me was fair and I was given

complete opportunity to cross examine the witnesses

produced by the management during the enquiry and that

there was no violation of principles of natural justice. It is

incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the

instance of my representative.

In support of its case management filed affidavit of Shri

P.K. Guglani on 21.3.07. Wherein he stated as follows:—

1. That in the year 1998, while I was working as Senior

Manager in the Defence colony, New Delhi branch of the

bank, the then Chief Manager of Nehru Place, New Delhi of

the Bank vide order No. BR/NEH/STF/98/231 dated

26-5-1998, appointed me as the Enquiry Officer for holding

Departmental Enquiry in respect of a Chargesheet No. BR/

NEH/STF/98/320 dated 26.5.1998 issued to the concerned

employee Shri R.K. Verma, Head Cashier of Nehru Place

Branch of the Bank. A copy of Chief Manager/Disciplinary

Authority's aforesaid order appointing me as the E.O. is

Annexure-1 to this Affidavit, which is now marked as Ex.

MW1/1, a copy of the aforesaid Chargesheet is Annexure-

2 now marked as MW-1/2. On receipet of the DA's order, I

issued notice to R.K. Verma (CSE in brief) and to the

concerned Authority informing them about the date, time

and place of enquiry. Accordingly the Management's

representatives or the presenting officer Shri B. Saxena

and the CSE alongwith his Defence Representatives (DR)

Shri R.L. Virmani appeared before me on 19/2/1999 which

was the first date of hearing. Thereafter I held the enquiry

Proceedings on different dates on which the CSE alongwith

his DR and the MR/PO participated in all the proceedings

which were finally concluded on 21.2.1999 as the DR had

stated that CSE had decided not to adduce any evidence in

his defence. The record of enquiry proceedings held by me

during 19.2.1999 to 21.12.1999 on different dates and which

runs from pages 1 to 67 I Annexure-3 which is now marked

as Ex-MW-1/3. On conclusions of enquiry proceedings I

submitted my findings & report dated 27.2.2000 to the then

Disciplinary. Authority for his consideration and necessary

action he might deem fit to take; copy of my findings and

report is Annexure-4 and is marked as Ex. MW-1/4. On the

basis of evidence adduced by the management and in view

with the fact that the CSE had chosen not to adduce any

evidence in his defence qua Management's evidence, the

charges leveled against the CSE stood establishment

against him.

I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that

my foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of

personal knowledge and also on records annexed which I

believe to be correct, that nothing therein is false and

nothing material have been concealed there from. So help

me God.

Ld. A/R for Workman/Claimant has not cross-

examined the management witness. Right of cross-

examination of Workman was closed by my Ld

Predecessors Shri Dr. R.K. Yadav on 31.5.2013 at 2:10 P.m.

Against which workman has not availed any remedy

so order of closing his right of cross-examination has

become final.

2722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

So the remains unrebutted statement of Shri MW1

Shri P.K. Guglani which cannot be brushed aside hence

liable to be relied upon.

Even today that is on the date of Judgment Neither

Workman/Claimant nor his Ld. A/R come to argue in this

oldest I.D, although sufficient opportunity was given to

him. Hence I have heard the arguments of Sri. Sanjeev

Kumar Gupta A/R for the management.

In the light of argument for management perused the

pleading statement of claim, Written Statement, Rejoinder

and evidence of parties etc. on record including settled law

and relevant provisions of concerned law.

Case is of civil nature. So standard of proof is

preponderance of evidence. Perusal of record shows that

Questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of

reference are as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda, New Delhi is not to recall/rescind the order

of punishment dated 29-9-2000 as modified by the

order dated 19.3.2001 of the appellate authority is

just, legal and fair? If not, to what relief the workman

Sh. R.K. Verma, Head Cashier is entitled to and from

which date?

Following issues has been framed by my Ld

Predecessors on 6.7.2005.

1. Whether the reference is invalid for the reasons

stated in preliminary objection of the written

statement?

2. In terms of reference?

Perusal of record further shows that workman/

claimant in support of his case filed his affidavit on 10.11.05.

He tendered his affidavit on 19.4.06. He was cross-examined

on the same day.

Perusal of record also shows that management in

support of its case placed reliance on affidavit dated 21.3.07

of Enquiry Officer Sri P.K. Guglani.

In addition to it workman/claimant was punishment

on 29-9-2000 by Asst. General Manager (DMR-II) and

sentence of "Withdrawal of Special allowance" and

"Reduction of one increment for one year was awarded to

him. Against which he preferred appeal. Appellate Authority

took lenient view on ground of hope of reformation in

appellant hence allowed appeal on 19.3.2001 and reduced

his sentence from withdrawal of special allowance and

Reduction of one increment for one year to Reduction of

one increment for one year.

In the circumstances of the instant case no

interference is required in the order of appellate court

because there appears no illegality or material irregularity

or jurisdictional flaw in Judgment of the appellate

Authority.

In these circumstances reference is liable to be

decided against workman and in favour of management.

Which is accordingly decided.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:- 27-12-2013

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1049.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj c®d vkQ cM+kSnk

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼3@2000½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 07-03-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@106@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O.1049.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.3/2000) of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,

New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07-03-2014.

[No. L-12011/106/99 - IR (B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO.

33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 3/2000

Ashok Kumar

Versus

Bank of Baroda

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-12011/106/99/IR(B-II) dated

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2723

28-12-1999 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for the adjudication:-

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda Regional Office, Bareilly in terminating the

services of Sh. Ashok Ex-temporary Peon w.e.f.

4/1/94 (A/N) is just and fair and legal? If not, what

relief, he is entitled to and from what date?"

On 19/01/2000 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 3/2000 and claimant was

called upto to file claim statement with in fifteen years 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. Wherein he stated as follows:-

1. That the workman was appointed/employed as

Peon at Main Branch Mathura on and w.e.f. 28.12.1991 and

continued to work as such till 4-1-1994. The period of his

employment was continuous except for artificial breaks

just to deny legal rights of the workman. He did perform

regular nature of duties of peon. The termination of services

of the workman is illegal and invalid.

2. That the workman was paid wages under assumed/

non-existent names. Though the workman did perform his

duties and was paid his wages, the workman was made to

sign the payment vouchers for wages on different names

during the period of his employment. Only for the following

periods the workman was allowed to sign in his own name

for payment.. The periods are:

1) 28.12.91 to 8.2.92

- 37 days

2) 10.02.92 to 14.3.92

- 30 days

These payments were made on 8.2.92 and 14.3.92

respectively. The workman was compelled to sign in his

own handwriting on assumed names for payments. Since

the workman had no option the workman did sign the

vouchers for payments, as dictated/directed by the officers.

However, the workman worked continuously in the bank

as peon. The workman was not paid any wages for Sundays

and other holidays. This also would amount to unfair labour

practice.

3. That the workman was not issued any order of

appointment, nor order of termination. Under para 535 of

Shastri Award the bank is required to issue order of

appointment even for temporary appointment. But the bank

has violated the provisions of Shastri Award, and bi-partite

settlements. Since the workman badly needed job and was

under constant threat of loosing job, the workman could

not even protest against the unfair labour practice practiced

by the bank management. Taking advantage of weaker

bargaining power of the workman, the workman was

exploited and the unfair labour practice was practiced by

the bank. Only to deny the just claims and legal rights as

accrued to him in law, the workman was made to sign

payment vouchers on different names.

4. That the workman did perform duties of Peon right

from 28.12.1991. The duties performed by the workman

include clearing of cheques, to visit Post office for posting

letters/registry, stitching of vouchers, to open bank, dusting

of tables and records, moving records and instruments/

documents from one table to another, and other regular

duties. Timings of duty of workman was regular banking

work, as applicable to regular employees. Though the

workman used to work beyond regular working hours, the

workman was not paid any over time; not even scale wages

or regular pay-scale and other benefits, as are payable to

regular peon continuously from the workman at a pittance.

5. That the workman was not allowed to mark

attendance. The bank may call my employment as casual

or temporary. But the fact was that the duties performed by

the workman were of regular peon. The duties were of

permanent in nature and continuous one. Continuous

employment itself is indicative of availability of vacancy.

6. That the termination of services of the workman

was illegal, invalid and void ab initio being violation of Sec

25-F of I.D. Act. The workman had put in more 240 days of

services in the bank. No retrenchment notice, nor any

retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman. The

principle of Last come first go was also not followed. No

seniority list as required under Rule 76 and 77 of Central

Rules was maintained by the bank. Hence the termination

is illegal and invalid. It is also in violation of principles of

natural service.

7. That under clauses 20.7. and 20.8 of the first bi-

partite Settlement temporary appointment could be made

only for less than three months that too only for the

contingencies stated therein otherwise not. The workman

was not appointed either on leave vacancies or due to

increase in the volume of work. There existed lot of work at

Main Branch Mathura. The very fact that the workman

was continued right from 28.12.1991 to 4.1.94 itself is a

sufficient proof that there existed vacancies. Under para

535 of Shastry Award the bank is required to issue written

order of appointment, but the bank has violated this

provision by not issuing any written order of appointment.

Similarly the Shastry Award provides for issuing notice

before termination of services. In violation of the provisions

of Shastry and Desai awards and bi-partite settlements,

the services of the workman were terminated which would

amount retrenchment.

8. That the action of the bank in not issuing order of

appointment; not paying regular scale wages and other

allowance/benefits; not allowing to mark attendance;

extracting regular and permanent nature of work; terminating

without notice or retrenchment compensation; not paying

wages in the name of workman himself, but on different

2724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

name; the workman was made to sign payment vouchers

under assumed name; extracting regular peon work; etc.,

are conclusively prove that the bank has committed unfair

labour practice as defined under Sec. 2 (r), and as provided

in the V the schedule to the ID Act, 1947.

9. That the Union initiated conciliation proceedings

on behalf of the workman in 1996. When the workman

approached the Union. The conciliation officer verified the

records on 5-3-99 pertaining to payment of wages in the

Branch. The verification report was signed by Shri A.K.

Jain, General Secretary of the Union and Shri Anil Kumar

Gupta, Senior Manager of the Bank and conciliation officer.

The conciliation officer, Shri Roop Chand submitted a failure

report dated 31.7.99 to the Central Government.

10. It is therefore prayed to this Hon'ble Court that it

may pleased to pass award holding that management

committed unfair labour practice and the action of the

management in terminating the services of the workman is

unjust, unfair and illegal. The action of terminating the

services is retrenchment and in violation of Sec. 25F of the

I.D. Act. Hence the workman is entitled to the relief of

reinstatement and all backwages with all consequential

reliefs.

Against claim statement management filed following

written statement on 24.10.2000:—

1. The management of the bank begs to state that the

instant reference order is patently invalid and as such this

Hon'ble Court lacks the necessary competence and

jurisdiction to answer the terms of reference in view of the

following amongst other:—

1.(a) for that the bank never recruited, appointed and

employed the said Sh. Ashok Kumar establishing vinculum

juris i.e. jural master and servant/employer-employee

relationship with him, a pre-requisite for the accrual and

existence of an 'industrial dispute' as defined under section

2(k) of the industrial dispute Act, 1947, (briefly, the Act).

1. (b) for that in the absence of such a relationship

between the bank and the said Sh. Ashok Kumar as is

mentioned in the precceding para, neither the union could

validity take up his cause nor the Government could lawfully

assume the existence of an 'indusrial dispute' between the

parties to the order of reference, much less in the terms

specified therein, and validly make the instant reference by

exercising its reference making powers U/S 10 if the Act.

Thus the instant reference order is wholly arbitrary,

contrary to the provisions of law and the authoritative

pronouncements of law courts in the country.

1. (c) for that the union, at whose instance the instant

reference has emanated, neither espoused the cause of the

said Sh. Ashok Kumar nor could it lawfully raise an 'industrial

dispute' on his behalf without his being an employee of the

answering bank.

1. (d) for that in view of the above contentions the

Government has made the instant reference without and/

or in excess of its reference making powers under the Act.

1. (e) for that since the order of reference is invalid

for the reasons mentioned hereinabove therefore this

Hon'ble Court, it is respectfully submitted, is a 'forum non

juris' lacking necessary competence and jurisdiction to take

cognizance of the same and hold any proceedings for

answering the terms of reference except declaring that the

reference is invalid and this court cannot proceed with the

same.

1.(f) since the union's SOC is not in conformity with

Rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957

and is in defiance of the Government's directives therefore

the SOC is liable to be rejected and return the union and

the proceedings declared as concluded.

Without prejudice to the foregoing contentions, the

management of the bank begs to submit as under in reply

to the union's in reply to the union's statement of claim

(briefly, SOC) and on the FACTS & MERITS OF THE CASE.

2. Union's submission in para 1 of its SOC are based

on factual and legal misconceptions and as such the same

are emphatically denied. It is stated that the bank never

recruited, appointed and employed the said Shri Ashok

Kumar. Consequently there never existed vinculum juris/

juridical employer-employee relationship between him and

the bank. It is pertinent to point out that all appointments

of sub-staff such as peons etc. in the bank on regular and

substantive basis are made by the Regional Managers,

and not by the Branch Managers, in compliance of statutory

provisions and the prescribed procedure and the rules of

recruitment of sub-staff. In the instant case the Regional

Manager of the Bank's Bareilly Regional Office never invited

applications for employment either from Sh. Ashok Kumar

or from any other persons nor was Shri Ashok Kumar

sponsored by any employment exchange against bank's

requisition for considering him for employment nor did Sh.

Ashok Kumar participate even in the recruitment process

which the bank had held in compliance of Government's

Policy Decision and the bank's advertisements inviting

applications from those who had worked for 90 days or

more in any branch of the bank in India between 1982 to

1989. Since the said Sh. Ashok Kumar did not at all held an

appointment in the bank capable of being continued

therefore there was no question of termination of his

services in any manner whatsoever by the Bank's Regional

Manager of Bareilly Regional Office under whose

immediate administrative supervision and control Mathura

Branch of the bank falls. It is stated that a service cannot

be held to be terminated unless it has been validity made

and is capable of being continued. There is however no

denying the fact that in view of chronic shortage of potable

dirinking water in Mathura City, the Branch Manager might

have sometimes deployed the said Shri Ashok Kumar also

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2725

as daily wager or on contract supply of water in the branch

and during such deployment, the Branch Manager might

have asked the said Sh. Ashok Kumar to do some other

sundry jobs also such as serving water to the staff

members and to the public visiting the branch, dusting of

furniture etc. and for all the services he was paid. Thus

the said Sh. Ashok Kumar never had contract of service

with the bank.

3. Contents of para 2 of the union's SOC as stated are

patently wrong and hence denied. There is however no

denying the fact that as & when the said Sh. Ashok Kumar

or any other person was deployed by the Branch Manager

for the purpose(s) mentioned in the preceding para or for

any other contingency, he was paid for the same by the

Branch Manager on the basis of MoU between him and

those persons.

4. Union's submission as stated in para 3 of the SOC

are based on legal misconceptions and hence the same are

wrong and not admitted in any particulars. It is stated that

since the bank never recruited, appointed and employed

the said Sh. Ashok Kumar therefore the bank was not under

any obligation to issue any appointment letter to him.

Reference to and reliance on the provisions of Sastry and

Desai Awards and on Bipartite Settlements, by the union is

misplaced and misconceived. The bank committed no

illegality or any unfair labour practice in not issuing a letter

of appointment to the said Sh. Ashok Kumar as has been

alleged by the union.

5. Union's submissions in para 4 of its SOC are wrong

and not admitted to the extent they are contrary to the

management's submissions made hereinabove. It is

incorrect that the said Sh. Ashok Kumar was required to

work overtime, as has been alleged by the union. Further,

since the said Sh. Ashok Kumar was never employed in the

bank in the branch in question therefore there was no

question of his being given the facility of leave as allowed

to the employees of the bank.

6. In reply to para 5 of the union's SOC it is stated

that in the facts & circumstances of the case and for the

reasons mentioned in the preceding paras, there was no

obligation or the necessity for the bank to maintain the

attendance record of the said Sh. Ashok Kumar like those

of bank's muster roll/regular appointees.

7. In the facts & circumstances of the case and for

the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the union's

submissions in para 6 of its SOC are based on gross legal

misconceptions and ignorance of law and hence the same

are wrong and not admitted in any particulars.

8. For the reasons stated hereinabove it is reiterated

that the union's submissions in paras 7 & 8 of its SOC are

misplaced and misconceived and hence the same are

without any substance or merit.

9. In reply to para 9 it is stated that the initiation of

conciliation proceedings by the union in respect of and on

behalf of the said Sh. Ashok Kumar and the holding of

those proceedings by the conciliation officer under the

Act was unwarranted, unjustified, incompetent and illegal.

10. In view of the foregoing submissions there is

therefore no substance or merit in the prayer the union has

made in para 10 of its SOC and the same is therefore liable

to be rejected and the prayer made by the management

herein below deserves to be granted.

Prayer

(a)

That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

hold and declare that the instant reference order is

patently arbitrary, incompetent and illegal in view

of the management's preliminary objections.

(b)

Upon holding and declaring as prayed above, hold

and declare that the said Sh. Ashok Kumar is not

entitled to any relief whatsoever from the bank as

he was not an employee of the bank, let alone a

duly recruited and appointed one.

(c)

Having held as prayed above, answer the reference

in favour of the management.

(d)

Pass any other order in favour of the management

as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper.

Rejoinder of the workman

1. That the contents of the para 1 are wrong and

denied being misconceived. The reference is legal and valid.

The Preliminary objection are frivolous and devoid of any

merits.

Reply to preliminary objections

1(a) to 6 contents of para 1 (a) are wrong and denied.

The workman was employed as Peon in the Main Branch

Mathura w.e.f. 28.12.91 and continued to work as such till

4.1.94. There existed employer-employee relationship

between the parties therein. the dispute raised is 'industrial

dispute. Preliminary objection are meritless and have been

made for the sake of objection and to side track the Central

issue. This Hon'ble Tribunal has the jurisdiction to

adjudicate the Reference order. The workman was given

payment of conveyance for doing outside work also such

as going to post office sending for Registered post; to

treasury for handing over document. RBI, etc. The peon

book, payment vouchers would prove that the workman

did perform the work of regular Peon in the Bank.

Parawise Rejoinder

1. Contents of para 1 of WS are wrong and denied.

Contents of para 1 of claim are reiterated and reaffirmed.

The Bank employed the workman as Peon and extracted

regular nature of work of Peon, as stated in the claim. The

workman was paid initially @ Rs. 25 per day which was

2726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

enhanced to Rs. 30 and lastly was paid Rs. 35 per day.

This payment was given to his every month. This much

less than the regular scale and even to the minimum wages

fixed by the Central Govt. Bonus was not paid. No other

benefits was given to the workman. The workman was not

paid for Sundays and other holidays. There was no paid

holiday. There existed employer-employee relationship

between the Bank and the workman. The Bank in fact has

committed unfair Labour practice by employing the

workman as Temporary, not issuing appointment order

extracting regular/permanent nature of duties; not paying

scale wages; not extending other service benefits as are

admissible to regular employees of the bank. Even

appointment order was not issued, though required under

Award and law. The Management wanted to exploit and

extract work from workman at a lesser amount and thereby

committed unfair labour practice. It is not open to the Bank,

at this stage, to say that the workman was not recruited

and he was not appointed by Regional Manager, etc. It is

wrong and denied that the Branch Manager engaged the

workman for supplying water, as alleged. The workman did

perform duties, as stated in the claim. There existed

employer-employee relationship between the Bank Officer/

Manager assigned work; supervised, controlled and paid

wages to the workman. The submissions, as regards

employment are too vague and have been made with

deliberate design to deny the legal right to the workman.

However, it is clear from the submissions that the Bank did

employ the workman and there existed employer- employee

relationship.

2. Contents of para 2 of the WS are wrong and denied.

Contents of para 2 of the claim are reiterated and reaffirmed.

Though the Bank admits employment, the submissions are

too vague. There was no MOU between the Branch

Manager and the workman, as alleged. Temporary

employment can be only for the contingencies mentioned

under para 20.7 and 20.8 of first Bi-partite settlement for a

period of 90 days. The workman was not employed for

those contingencies, but employed to do permanent nature

of duties upto the date to illegal termination in 1994. No

order of termination after having committed unfair labour

practice, it is not open to the Bank to take any plea contrary

to its in writing was given to the workman conducts/actions

in employing the workman in its employment.

3. Contents of para 3 of the WS are wrong and denied.

Contents of para 3 of the claim are reiterated. The Bank

employed the workman in its employment and extracted

permanent nature of Peons work. By virtue of continuous

employment a legal right to remain in employment accrued

to the workman. The provisions of Shastry, Desai (Award)

and Bi-partite settlement have been violated by the Bank.

No seniority list was maintained as required under Central

Rules; No attendance registers, etc. as required under law

were maintained by the Bank. Discontinuance/or

termination of services of the workman is unfair labour

practice, malafide and amount to fraud on statute.

Continuous employment is indicative of existence of

permanent vacancy and the workman was suitable to the

job. The action of the Bank in terminating/retrenching the

services was therefore unjust and unfair and void ab initio.

4. Contents of para 4 of the WS are wrong and denied.

Contents of para 4 of the claim are reiterated and reaffirmed.

The allegations that the workman was never employed is

self contradictory and hence wrong and denied.

5. Contents of para 5 of the WS are wrong and denied.

Contents of para 5 of the claim are reiterated and reaffirmed.

The bank is required to maintain attendance register,

payment of wages register, etc. in law. The bank has violated

Rule 76, 77, 78 of Central Rules. The legal obligations have

been discharged by the bank.

6. Contents of para 6 of the WS are wrong and denied

being misconceived. Contents of para 6 of the claim are

reiterated and reaffirmed.

7 & 8. Contents of para 7 & 8 of the WS are wrong

and denied being no specific denial the contents of para 7

& 8 of the claim are deemed to have been admitted by the

Bank. The Bank officer made the workman to sign the

payment vouchers on assumed names. This is evident from

the verification report of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner.

9. Contents of para 9 of the WS are wrong and denied.

Contents of para 9 of the claim are reiterated and reaffirmed.

The allegations are misconceived.

10. Contents of para 10 of the WS are wrong and

denied. Contents of para-10 of the claim are reiterated and

reaffirmed.

It is therefore prayed that the relief as prayed in the

claim be granted to the workman.

My Ld. Predecessor has not framed any issue but proceed

to adjudicate the present reference on the basis of schedule

wherein questions of determination were as follows:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda Regional Office, Bareilly in terminating the

services of Sh. Ashok Ex-temporary Peon w.e.f.

4/1/94 (A/N) is just, fair & legal? If not, what relief, he

is entitled to and from what date?’’

Workman in support of his case filed affidavit where-

in he stated as follows:—

1. That the deponent is workman concerned is

conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case

and hence competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the workman was employed as Peon at main

branch w.e.f. 28.12.1991 and continued to work till 4.1.1994.

The period of employment was continuous except for

artificial breaks one or two days.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2727

3. That the workman was paid his wages on vouchers

on his own name as well as benami names. The workman

was allowed to sign the payment vouchers for wages only

for the following period :

(a) 28.12.1991 to 8.2.1992

37 days

(b) 10.2.1992 to 14.3.1992

30 days

These payments were made on 8th February, 1992

and 14th March, 1992 respectively. The woman was

compelled and coerced to sing on assumed names for

payments. Since the threat of termination of service was

hanging the workman had no option except to obey the

dictates of Branch Manager/Officers. Since the workman

was badly need of a job he could not even protest against

the practice of asking signature on payment vouchers for

payment of wages. The workman was not paid any wages

for Sundays and other holidays.

4. That the workman was not issued any order of

appointment or termination. No notice of termination was

given. No notice pay in lieu of notice period was given. No

retrenchment compensation was given to the workman.

5. That the workman did perform the duties of regular

peon right from initial employment till his termination of

services. The duties performed by the workman include

clearing of cheques, to visit post office for posting letter/

registry, stitching of vouchers, to open bank, dusting of

tables and records, moving records and instruments/

documents from one table to another, and other regular

duties. Timing of duty of workman was regular banking

work, as applicable to regular employee. Though the

workman used to work beyond regular working hours. The

workman was not paid any over time; not even scale wages

or regular pay scale and other benefits, as are payable to

regular peon in the bank. No facilities of leave we given.

The bank extracted permanent and perennial nature work

of Peon continuously from the workman at a pittance. In

fact the workman worked against permanent vacancy. The

workman was not allowed to mark attendance.

6. That the Bank did not maintain any seniority list of

employees. The principle of last come first go was not

followed. The workman was not employed against any

casual vacancy or temporary increase of work or against

any leave vacancy. There existed a lot of work at main

branch Mathura.

7. That the union i.e. UP Bank of Baroda Employees

Union raised Industrial Dispute in the Conciliation in1996.

The Conciliation officer verified the records of the Branch

on 5.3.1999 pertaining to the wages in the branch. The

verification report dated 5.3.1999 or the Conciliation officer

is Exhibit WW1/1. The failure Report dated 31.07.1999 of

the conciliation officer is Exhibit WW1/2. The statement of

Claim filed in the Conciliation is Exhibit WW1/3. The

verification Report dated 5.3.1999 bears the signature of

Shri A.K. Jain, General Secretary of the Union, Shri Anil

Kumar Gupta, Sr. Manager of the Branch and Shri Roop

Chand, conciliation officer. I identify and recognize the

signatures of all the three persons as they had signed in

my presence.

8. That the workman was initial Rs. 25 per day as

wages which was enhanced to Rs. 30 and lastly to Rs. 35

per day. The payment of wages was given every month.

No bonus was paid to the workman. No other benefits was

given to the workman. There was no paid holidays or weekly

off.

9. That the workman was not supplying drinking

water as alleged in the written statement. There was no

contract for supplying water to the Branch. The workman

performed the duties of peon regularly an continuously.

10. That the contents of statement of claim and the

rejoinder of the workman are true and correct. Both the

statement of claim and rejoinder bears my signature.

WW1 Shri Ashok Kumar on 5.2.2004. Tendered his affidavit

dated 24.12.2002 which was marked as WW1/1. Thereafter

he was cross-examined by Ld. A/R for the management.

Wherein he stated that he was appointed as peon on

28.12.1991, by Sh. O.P. Bhalla Bank Manager. No

appointment letter was given to me. I myself went in Bank

to get job. I was not called upon by anyone. I myself went

there. In continuously work since 28/11/1991 to 4/1/94

except Sunday. My salary was either paid of 8 days or after

month. I used to sign on vouchers.

Although I used to work in name of Bhola but I

received money. Shri O.P. Bhalla retrenched me. When I

was retrenched then there came permanent Peon on transfer

from another branch.

I was retrenched orally. I have no certificate of Bank

relating to completion of 67 days completion by me nor

there is any paper to show that I worked since December

1991 to January 1994. I have not produced that certificate

which shows that I completed 67 days of work. It is wrong

to suggest that I was appointed by Bank for a period during

which Peon from another branch couldn't come in the branch

and it is incorrect to suggest that I was not appointed on

the post of Peon. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not

worked since 28.2.91 to 4.1.94.

In support of its case management filed affidavit of

Sh. N.N. Chaturvedi which having following contents:—

I, the deponent, state that my above particulars are

true and correct. I further state that I am employed in Bank

of Baroda and at present posted as Branch Manager in the

Bank's Shikohabad Branch. I further state that during the

period December 1991 to January 1996. I was posted as an

officer in the Bank's branch at Mathura. I further state that

2728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the recruitment of sub-staff in the bank's is made out of

those persons who are sponsored by the Employment

Exchange on Bank's requisition and that a committee

constituted by the Regional Officers to select the

candidates for regular appointments in the Bank. The

appointment orders are issued by the Regional Managers.

Branch Managers are not empowered to appoint any

person on permanent/regular basis except as daily wagers

on ad hoc basis for meeting unforeseen passing

contingency on permission from the Regional Office,

Sh. Ashok Kumar was one of such person who was

engaged from time to time by the then branch manager for

serving water and tea etc. to the visitors in Branch.

His affidavit was tendered on 21/10/08. He was cross-

examined on the same day. His cross-examination is as

follows:-

Sh. O.P. Bhalla was the branch manager at Mathura

Branch U.P. I do know if Anil Kumar Gupta was Senior

Manager at Mathura Branch from March, 99 or not as I was

transferred and not posted there at that time. It is correct

that the Branch Manager of Mathura Branch engaged

Ashok Kumar for serving water and tea etc. to the visitors

but was not employed by him. It is incorrect to suggest

that Ashok Kumar was employed as a Peon in the Banks

Branch at Mathura from 28.12.91 to 4.1.94. vol. he was

sometimes engaged this period for serving water and tea

etc. by the Branch Manager of that Branch. It is correct

that Ashok Kumar was engaged during from time to time

for serving water and tea etc. to the visitors from December,

1991 to 4.1.94. I do not have the exact details of the

engagement of Mr. Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar never

worked for 240 days in a year at any point of time. We do

not keep any record when persons like Ashok Kumar are

engaged for serving water and tea etc. No action was called

for against any Branch Manager and so no action was

taken by the Regional Office against him. I do not know if

there is any circular issued by the bank regarding

engagement of persons for meeting exigencies of service

water and tea etc. to the visitors but after serving for

32 years in the bank. I know that Branch Managers who are

to run the branches can similarly engaged persons for

smoothly running the branches. It is wrong to suggest

that I have deposed incorrectly or falsely.

Workman/claimant filed written submission in

which he mentioned as follows:—

1. That the appropriate Govt. after having conducted

the conciliation proceeding, which culminated into no

settlement/failure referred the case to this Hon'ble Tribunal

vide reference order dated 28.12.1999 as under:—

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda Regional Office, Bareilly in terminating the

services of Sh. Ashok Ex-temporary Peon w.e.f.

4/1/94 (A/N) is just fair & legal? If not, what relief, he

is entitled to and from what date?"

2. That the claimant/workman filed this claim before

the Tribunal and Inter-alia submitted in the claim that the

claimant/workman was appointed as peon with effect from

28.12.1991 and continued to work upto 4.01.1994 with

artificial break in order to deny the benefit of continuity of

service. The claimant/workman during this tenure of

employment with the management was paid the wages

against the assumed/non existent names and made to sign

accordingly. It was further submitted by the workman that

no order of appointment was ever issued to him in

contravention of the decisions of Shastri Award, bi-partite

settlement and Desai Award and such action of the

management was akin to unfair labour practice on the part

of the management.

The violation of section 25 F Read with other

provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act has always been

manifest on the face of record as also the action of the

management directed towards snatching of livelihood of

claimant/workman. The conciliation proceeding were held

by the competent authority and the contention of the

claimant/workman was verified and found to be true as per

the report dated 05.03.1999. It was also submitted that the

appointment of Peon for a period of less than 90 days was

only in pressing contingencies that to no against regular

nature of work but in the case of claimant/workman

extensions continue to be given to the claimant/workman

till the management could find regular incumbent to the

post of Peon, meaning thereby the workman was deployed

against the regular nature of job but for the hoodwinking

acts of the management indulging thereby into the illegal

as well as unfair labour practice.

3. That the management in its written statement to

the claim of workman denied employee relationship and

maintained that the workman never worked for a period of

more than 240 days at a stretch and further denied to have

forced the workman to sign the voucher payment on the

names which were imaginary and non existent. Management

further maintained that no power rests with Branch

Manager to appoint functionary even for short spells as

the Regional manager was only empowered in this regard.

Management also challenged the reference order of the

Appropriate Govt. being invalid for want of jurisdiction.

Likewise the conciliation proceedings were also termed as

unwarranted, unjustified and illegal. Management requested

this Hon'ble Tribunal to dismiss the claim of the Claimant/

workman in favour of the management.

4. That the claimant/workman in its rejoinder filed

before this Hon'ble Tribunal refuted the submission of the

management and reiterated the submissions made in the

statement of claim.

5. That the claimant/workman led his evidence by

way of affidavit and was cross-examined by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2729

management. The claimant/workman categorically stated

during cross-examination that his services were terminated

only on resumption of regular Peon in the Branch, workman

also stated that he was paid wages on the name of

Sh. Bhola and made to sign on payment Voucher as Bhola

and this Fact has not been regarded by the management

the workman also disagreed with the suggestion of the

management that he was not in employment of Bank for

the period December 1991 to January 1994, no appointment

letter was issued in order to sustain the submission of the

management that the workman was appointed further period

of vacancy of a Peon till a Peon joins duty on Transfer on

this branch.

6. That the management produced Sh. N.N.

Chaturvedi Branch Manager who deposed before this

Tribunal that Branch Manager was not empowered to

appoint Peon either on regular basis or on part time basis.

Branch Manager only empowered to engage persons of

daily wages for unforeseen pressing contingencies that

too with the prior permission of Regional Manager and Sh.

Ashok Kumar the workman, was one of them. During cross-

examination the management admitted to have engaged

Sh. Ashok Kumar the workman from time to time during

the period December 1991 to January 1994. Management

further admitted the engagement of the workman for serving

water, tea etc. to the visitors, whereas fact remains that the

workman continuously in the Branch and his signatures

on the payment vouchers existed which are enclosed for

the perusal of Hon'ble Tribunal.

7. That the workman was denied the benefit of being

considered for the post of Peon on 01.08.1998 when the

candidates inclusive of the workman were sponsored by

the Distt. Employment Exchange Mathura. Out of total 20

candidates sponsored the employment exchange, name of

the workman figures at Serial No. 17. The management

knowingly ignored the workman and violated the

provisions of I.D. Act which contemplate to give priority

to the persons already worked with the management given

the credit to an aphorism of first come first severed and

priority to experienced person over callow persons.

8. That the workman was terminated in violation of

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act and giving artificial

breaks, taking signature on wages payment voucher

prepared on non-existent person and compelling to sign

accordingly were only to camouflage the legal provisions

as also to deny legitimate due to the workman i.e. the

workman ought to have been made regular and absorbed

in the regular cadre of Bank Employees.

9. That the workman places reliance on an Award

dated 16.06.2008 given by the Central Govt. Industrial

Tribunal-II, Rajindra Bhawan, Rajindra Place, New Delhi-

110008, in I.D. No. 168/99 in the case of Damodar Prasad

through Uttar Pradesh Bank of Baroda Employee Union

Vs. Regional Manager Bank of Baroda Moradabad, U.P.

when the Hon'ble Presding of the Tribunal gave award in

favour of the workman and directed the management not

to dis-engage the worker with another worker, being

infringement of section 25F, G & H of I.D. Act Hon'ble

Tribunal further directed to reinstate the workman of the

date of termination along with 25% back wages. The case

of the workman is identical to that workman in whose favour

the award has been pronounced. The copy of the judgment

is enclosed.

In the back drop of foregoing submission and legal

prepositions, the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased

to decree the claim of workman and direct the management

to reinstate the workman with full back wages and

consequential benefits.

Ld. A/R for the management has not reply written

argument of Workman.

Ld. A/R for the management vehemently argued that

workman who is casual worker on daily rate wager.

He has not completed work for 240 days.

He was not appointed according to proper procedure

established for appointment.

Hence workman is entitled to no relief.

He placed reliance on principles laid done in following

rulings:—

1. Post Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

VERSUS

Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

2007 STPL (LE) 38356 S.C.

2. Post Master General, Kolkata & Ors.

VERSUS

Tutu Das (Dutta)

2007 STPL (L.E.) 37507 S.C.

In reply Ld. A/R for the workman stressed that

workman had worked as daily wager for approximately

3years continuously as Peon, No notice pay retrenchment

compensation was paid to him as contemplated Para 522 of

Sastri Award and Section 25F for the I.D. Act, 1947. The

management has acted in breach of Rule 76, 77 & 78 of

Central Rules.

Against aforesaid contention Ld. A/R for the

management counter contended that workman not entitled

for benefit of Sec. 25-F I.D. Act, as provisions of it has not

been violated.

From perusal of the record it transpires that the

workman has filed documents in support of his case. These

2730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are vouchers regarding payment made to the workman.

Etc. which prove that the workman has worked for more

than 240 days in every year of his engagement. He has not

been paid retrenchment compensation and pay in lieu of

notice.

It is settled law that if a workman has worked for 240

days continuously he should be given retrenchment

compensation and 15 days salary for every completed year

in lieu of notice.

It is not the case of the management that the work

does not exist with the management.

It becomes quite vivid from the record that the

workman has worked continuously but payment to him

has been made in fictitious name. it cannot be said that the

bank has no knowledge of this case. The workman has

proved the averments of his claim by cogent documentary

as well as oral evidence.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the settled law of Hon'ble Supreme court on the

point of reinstatement and grant of back wages which

shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence

wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the

facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.

In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Anr

Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) II LLJ 141 Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held that reinstatement of workman with continuity of

service and 25% back wages was not proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case and the compensation of

Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) shall meet the ends

of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture

Marketing Board & Anr Air 2009 Supreme Court 3004,

Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus "the award of

reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the

workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers

has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead

compensation has been awarded." In catena of Judgments,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement

is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal

or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act.

In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society Limited

Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 48c6, Hon'ble Supreme

Court held thus," grant of relief of reinstatement, it is trite,

is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic."

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by

following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered

service with the respondent as a casual worker, thus.

Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) by

way of damages as compensation to the workman/claimant

by Management after expiry of period of limitation of

available remedy against Award. That will meet the end

of Justice.

Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman and

against Management.

Award is according passed.

Dated: 18/12/2013

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1050.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k @Je

U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYYkh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 70@13½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@06@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½ ]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1050.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/13)

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

II, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the Industiral

Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/06/2013-IR(B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, DELHI

PRESENT :—Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 70/13

Smt. Prem Lata

Versus

The General Manager

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-12012/06/2013-(IR(B-II)) dated

10.05.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for the adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank

in termination the services of Smt. Prem Lata,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2731

Part-Time Attendant is legal & justified? If not? What

relief the workman is entitled for?"

On 08.07.13 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 70/13 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 claimant appeared in this court

and instead of filing claim statement. She moved as

application on 12/08/2013. Wherein she expressed her desire

not to proceed further and prayed for stoppage of the

proceeding of the instant ID No. 70/13.

She also mentioned in her application that case of

like nature is pending in the CGIT Court No.-1. In which her

evidence are being recorded.

In the light of aforesaid contents there appears no

justification to proceed further.

In the light of aforesaid circumstances it is a fit case

in which no dispute award be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:—06/12/2013

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1051.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUnzh; fo|ky;

uañ 1] ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2006½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@33@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1051.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 5/2006) of

the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/33/2005 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj] vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ izdj.k lañ 5@2006

Hkkjr ik.Ms;~

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl uañ&L-42012/33/2005 - IR(CM-II) fnukad

06@12@2005

'kadjyky iq= Jh dUgS;k yky

fuoklh & ykxfM;k okl] iksñ lk;iqjk] rgñ teokjkex<+

ftyk t;iqjA

v/s

1- vflLVsaV dfe'uj] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] 92] xka/kh uxj ekxZ] ctkt

uxj] t;iqjA

2- izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj] ftyk vtesjA

3- izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] vtesjA

izkFkh dh rjQ ls

% Jh dq.kky jkor & ,MoksdsV~

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh gok flag & ,MoksdsV~

% iapkV %

fnukad % 30-01-2014

1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

dh /kkjk 10 mi&/kkjk ¼1½ [k.M ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 6-12-2005

ds vkns'k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq

lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS%&

2- ^^D;k izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] dkWyst jksM] C;koj ds }kjk

vius deZdkj Jh 'kadjyky iq= Jh dUgS;kyky] nSfud Hkksxh deZpkjh

dks ekg ekpZ 1997 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr djuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k

lEer gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj vius fu;kstd ls fdl jkgr dks ikus

dk vf/kdkjh gS\**

3- nSfud osru Hkksxh izkFkhZ Jfed Jh 'kadjyky dh rjQ ls

fnukad 27-2-2006 dks izLrqr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr%

izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mldks foi{kh la[;k 1 us foi{kh la[;k 2 izkpk;Z]

dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj] ftyk vtesj] ds ;gka fnukad 1-7-1993 dks

prqFkZ deZpkjh ds :i esa HkrhZ fd;k Fkk vkSj izkFkhZ fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls

mDr laLFkku esa dM+h esgur] yxu o bZekunkjh ls viuk dk;Z djrk

vk jgk FkkA fnukad 2-9-1995 dks foi{kh la[;k 2 izkpk;Z] dsUnzh;

fo|ky;] C;koj] vtesj us Jfed dks foi{kh la[;k 3 izkpk;Z] dsUnzh;

fo|ky;] vtesj ds ;gka LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;kA

4- vkxs Jfed dk dFku gS fd fnukad 1-7-1993 ls ekpZ

1997 rd mlus yxkrkj foi{khx.k ds laLFkku esa dk;Z fd;k] ysfdu

laLFkku }kjk ekpZ 1997 esa ekSf[kd :i ls Jfed dks lsok&eqDr dj

2732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fn;k x;kA lsokeqfDr ds mijkUr Jfed us foi{khx.k ds vf/kdkfj;ksa

ls fyf[kr ,oa ekSf[kd :i ls dbZ ckj fuosnu fd;k fd os Jfed dks

dke ij ys&ysA bl ij foi{khx.k ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk Jfed dks ;g

dgk x;k fd tc Hkh dke dh t:jr gksxh] Jfed dks dke ij j[k

fy;k tk,xk] ysfdu Jfed dks dke ij ugha fy;kA blds ckn

Jfed us Jheku dsUnzh; le>kSrk vf/kdkjh] vtesj ds le{k foi{khx.k

ds fo#) f'kdk;r izLrqr dh] tgka foi{khx.k dh gB/kfeZrk ds dkj.k

le>kSrk lQy ugha gks ik;k] ftlds ifj.kkeLi:i le>kSrk

vf/kdkjh }kjk vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu ekuuh; dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

izsf"kr fd;k x;k vkSj rRi'pkr~ dsUnzh; ljdkj us fopkjksijkUr~ mDr

fookn fu.kZ;kFkZ dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;]

t;iqj dks izsf"kr fd;kA

5- vkxs Jfed dk dFku gS fd lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ foi{khx.k

}kjk Jfed dks dksbZ vkjksi&i= ugha fn;k x;k vkSj u gh dksbZ tkap

dh xbZA Jfed us viuh lsokeqfDr dks voS/k] vuqfpr] ,oa 'kwU; dgk

gS vkSj vius dFku dks fuEu dkj.kksa ij vk/kkfjr crk;k gS%&

1- ;g fd lsokeqfDr ds le; Jfed dks dksbZ vkjksi&i= ugha

fn;k x;k vkSj ,d ekg dh uksfVl Hkh ugha nh xbZ vkSj u rks NaVuh

eqvkots dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA

2- Jfed dh lsokeqfDr esa foi{kh laLFkku }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA

3- Jfed }kjk ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd fnuksa

rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k x;kA

4- Jfed foi{khx.k ds laLFkku esa tks dk;Z djrk Fkk mldh

izd`fr LFkk;h gS vkSj vkt Hkh ml dk;Z dh laLFkku esa vko';drk gSA

5- Jfed dh lsokeqfDr esa foi{kh laLFkku }kjk ^^vuqfpr Je

O;ogkj** fd;k x;kA

6- Jfed dh lsokeqfDr esa foi{khx.k }kjk lkekU; ,oa izkd`frd

fu;eksa dh vogsyuk dh x;hA

7- Jfed dh lsokeqfDr esa foi{khx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh fdlh Hkh fu;e o mifu;eksa dk ikyu ugha

fd;k x;kA

8- Jfed dh lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947 ds fu;e 77 ,oa 78 dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA

9- Jfed lsokeqfDr dh frfFk ls csjkstxkj gS vkSj dkQh dksf'k'k

djus ds ckotwn dksbZ jkstxkj ugha fd;k gSA

6- mDr ys[k ds i'pkr~ Jfed us izkFkZuk dh gS fd foi{khx.k

}kjk ekpZ 1997 esa dh xbZ lsokeqfDr dks voS/k] vuqfpr ,oa 'kwU;

?kksf"kr djrs gq, lsok dh fujUrjrk vkSj cdk;k osru ,oa leLr ykHkksa

lfgr Jfed dks cgky fd;k tkos vkSj [kpkZ eqdnek

Hkh fnyok;k tk;A

7- foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls izkFkhZ&Jfed Jh 'kadjyky ds

LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds fo#) izkjfEHkd vkifÙk vkSj izLrjokj oknksÙkj

fnukafdr 11 vizSy 2006 izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkjfEHkd vkifÙk esa

Jfed ds LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dh iks"k.kh;rk dks pqukSrh nh xbZ gS vkSj

;g dgk x;k gS fd LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa foi{kh la[;k 1 vflLVsUV

dfe'uj] dsUnzh; fo|ky; dks i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk dsUnzh; fo|ky;

laxBu f'k{kk lafgrk dh fu;ekoyh ds fo#) gS vkSj bl izdkj i{kdkjksa

ds dqla;kstu ds vk/kkj ij LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS]

;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ okn&dkj.k izkIr ugha gS

tks LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS blfy, LVsVesUV

vkWQ Dyse iks"k.kh; ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foi{khx.k dk

laLFkku ,d 'kS{kf.kd laLFkku gS ftldk foÙkh; Hkkj rFkk vU;

lqfo/kkvksa vkSj O;oLFkkvksa dk Hkkj Hkkjr ljdkj ogu djrh gS vkSj

laLFkku esa ,slh dksbZ xfrfof/k ;k fdlh fØ;kdyki dk lapkyu ugha

gksrk tks okf.kT;hd laLFkku ;k O;olkf;d bdkb;ksa }kjk lkekU; turk

ds fy, tui;ksxh lsok ;k mRikn ds mRiknu ds :i esa dh tkrh gSa]

bl izdkj foi{khx.k dk laLFkku ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk

fQftdy fjlpZ yscksjsVªh cuke dsñthñ 'ekZ ds izdj.k esa izfrikfnr

fl)kUr ds vuqlkj ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk gSA

8- ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu ,d iathd`r

laLFkk gS] ftldk iath;u iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1860 ds vUrxZr

gqvk gSA bl laxBu }kjk lapkfyr fd, tk jgs dsUnzh; fo|ky;ksa gsrq

lEiw.kZ fu;ekoyh cuk;h xbZ g® ftlds vUrxZr fdlh in ij vk'kkFkhZ

dh fu;qfDr fu/kkZfjr p;u izfØ;k viukus ds mijkUr gh dh tk

ldrh gS] pwafd izkFkhZ Lo;a mlds dFkkuqlkj ,d flfoy in /kkfjr

djrk gS vr% bl vk/kkj ij Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mBk;k x;k fookn

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk gSA

9- ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mBk;k x;k fookn

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ds dkj.k fujLr gksus ;ksX;

gS] D;ksafd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds vUrxZr ^^m|ksx**

dh ifjHkk"kk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g lqLi"V gS fd foi{khx.k dk

laLFkku 'kS{kf.kd laLFkku gS tks ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ds vUrxZr ugha

vkrk] D;ksafd foi{khx.k dk laLFkku dksbZ O;kolkf;d lsok iznku ugha

djrk vkSj u gh fdUgh ,slh oLrqvksa dk fuekZ.k] O;kikjhdj.k vFkok

O;olk;hdj.k djrk gS] tks vke turk dh t:jrksa dh iwfrZ ds fy,

vko';d gSA

10- foi{khx.k }kjk oknksÙkj esa mDr dFku ds leFkZu esa

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznÙk fof/k O;oLFkk HkkSfrd

vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk ¼ihñvkjñ,yñ½ cuke dsñthñ 'kekZ ¼1997½

4 ,lñlhñlhñ i`"B 257 ds n`"VkUr esa izLrj 140 yxk;r 143 dks

m)`r djrs gq, izfrikfnr fl)kar dk voyEc fy;k x;k gS vkSj ;g

dgk x;k gS fd mDr n`"VkUr esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us cSaxykSj

okVj lIykbZ ds ekeys esa nh xbZ O;oLFkk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g

fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd fdlh laLFkku dk fØ;kdyki ml

laLFkku dks ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk esa ykus gsrq ,d vge~ vk/kkj gksrk

gSA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2733

11- bl izdkj mDr izkjfEHkd vkifÙk;ksa ds vk/kkj ij foi{khx.k

us oknksÙkj esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh ekax&i=

ljljh rkSj ij fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

12- izLrjokj izkFkhZ Jfed ds LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds fo:)

oknksÙkj esa foi{khx.k us LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds izLrj 1 vkSj 2 ds

dFku ds laca/k esa dgk gS fd ftl izdkj izLrj 1 o 2 vafdr gS og

Lohdkj ugha gSA izLrj 3 o 4 ds laca/k esa dgk gS fd os vlR;]

diksydfYir vkSj vk/kkjghu gS blfy, vLohdkj g®A izLrj 3 ds

laca/k esa ;g Hkh mYys[k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dk dFku vfHkys[kh;

rF;ksa ds foijhr gSA izLrj 5 ds dFku dks vlR; vk/kkjghu

fof/k&fo:) vkSj vfHkys[kh; rF;ksa ds fo:) crkrs gq, vLohdkj

fd;k gS vkSj izLrkj 6 ds dFku dks Hkh vLohdkj fd;k gSA

13- vkxs ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks foi{khx.k 1 vFkok

2 }kjk dHkh Hkh fdlh vkns'k }kjk prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i

esa fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k rFkk fu;qfDr ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ vkns'k

i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gS vkSj u vfLrRo esa gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dk

;g dFku fd foi{kh lañ 1 us foi{kh lañ 2 ds ;gka Jfed dks fnukad

1-7-93 dks prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa HkrhZ fd;k Fkk] vlR;

vk/kkjghu] fof/kfo:) vkSj vfHkys[kh; rF;ksa ds foijhr gSA

14- oknksÙkj ds izLrj 1 esa foi{khx.k us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd

izkFkhZ dks nSfud ikfjJfed ds vk/kkj ij vkdfLed izd`fr ds dk;Z

dh miyC/krk ds dkj.k fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj tk dk;Z izkFkhZ

Jfed dks djus ds fy, fn;k x;k Fkk mldh izd`fr iw.kZ :i ls

vLFkk;h Fkh ,oa dk;Z dh izd`fr LFkk;h ugha FkhA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS

fd fdlh Hkh LFkk;h izd`fr ds fy, fu;ekuqlkj HkrhZ dh izfØ;k

lEikfnr djus ds mijkUr gh fu;qfDr nh tk ldrk gSA

15- ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd Jfed dk ;g dFku vk/kkjghu o

vlR; gS fd mldks fnukad 2-9-1995 dks foi{kh la[;k 3] izkpk;Z]

dsUnzh; fo|ky;] vtesj ds ;gka LFkkukUrfjr fd;k x;k] deZpkjh dk

;g dFku i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kh; rF; ds foijhr gSA

LFkkukUrj.k dh izfØ;k dsoy LFkkih deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw gksrh gS rFkk

fdlh Hkh Js.kh ds deZpkjh dk LFkkukUrj.k djus ds fy, izkpk;Z

l{ke vkSj vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh ugha gSA deZpkjh dk ;g dFku vlR;

vkSj diksydfYir gS fd 1-7-1993 ls ekpZ 1997 rd mlus

yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k] vkSj ;g dFku Hkh vlR; gS ekSf[kd :i ls

ekpZ 1997 ls mls lsok&eqDr dj fn;k x;kA deZpkjh dks dHkh

fdlh in fo'ks"k ij fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ Fkh blfy, lsok&eqfDr dk

dFku la/kkj.kh; ugha gSA deZpkjh dk ;g dFku Hkh vlR; gS fd

lsokeqfDr ds ckn mlus foi{kh laLFkku ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ls fyf[kr

vkSj ekSf[kd :i esa dke ij okil ysus ds fy, dbZ ckj fuosnu

fd;k vkSj mldks okil dke ij ysus ds fy, vk'oklu fn;k x;kA

16- deZpkjh dk ;g dFku Hkh xyr gS fd le>kSrk vf/kdkjh

vtesj ds le{k vkS|ksfxd fookn mBk;k x;k Fkk ftldk mÙkj

izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj le>kSrk

vlQy gksus ij ekeys dks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;k x;kA

oknksÙkj ds izLrj 5 esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foi{khx.k dk laLFkku

^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS] blfy, vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs] bl dkj.k deZpkjh dh

ekaxi= U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k iks"k.kh; ugha gS rFkk fujLr gksus ;ksX;

gSA oknksÙkj ds izLrj 6 ¼v½ esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd

vkosnd dks ,d vof/k fo'ks"k gsrq vkdfLed izd`fr ds dk;Z dh

miyC/krk ds dkj.k nSfud ikfjJfed ds vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr

fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk mldh lsokeqfDr vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

1947 ds izko/kku ds varxZr ^^NaVuh** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha

gS] vkSj bl dkj.k izkFkhZ dksbZ eqvkotk vFkok uksfVl ds cnys osru

dh /kujkf'k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA

17- 6 ¼c½ esa dgk x;k gS fd /kkjk 25¼,Q½ ds mYya?ku dk

dFku vk/kkjghu gS D;kasfd izkFkhZ us dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa tqykbZ

1993 ls Qjojh 1994 rd dh le;kof/k esa 240 fnu rd dk;Z

ugha fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds mYya?ku dk

dFku vk/kkjghu gS rFkk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kku ds ikyu dh

vko';drk ugha gSA

18- ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh vkdfLed fu;qfDr

vkdfLed dk;Z dh miyC/krk ds dkj.k nSfud ikfjJfed ds

vk/kkj ij dh xbZ Fkh tks dFku Jfed dh fu;ksftr dk;Z vof/k ls

Li"V gSA izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 1993 esa ek= 16 fnu] vxLr 1993 esa ek=

14 fnu] flrEcj 1993 esa ek= 29 fnu] vDVwcj 1993 esa ek= 17

fnu] uoEcj 1993 eas ek= 8 fnu] fnlEcj 1993 esa ek= 12 fnu]

tuojh 1994 esa 20 fnu] vkSj Qjojh 1994 esa dsoy 9 fnu nSfud

osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr vkSj

vlR; gS fd ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ esa mlus 240 fnu ls vf/kd fnuksa rd

dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk Hkh vlR; gS foi{kh laLFkku esa

fd, tkus okys dk;Z dk izd`fr LFkk;h FkhA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk Hkh

xyr vkSj vlR; gS fd foi{khx.k dk d`R; ^^vuqfpr Je O;ogkj**

dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku xyr gS fd mldh lsokeqfDr

esa lkekU; ,oa izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr dh vogsyuk dh xbZ gS rFkk

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds fdlh fu;e vFkok mifu;eksa

dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA mDr oknksÙkj ds lkFk ekaxi= fujLr djus

dh ekax dh xbZ gS rFkk dgk x;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ fdlh Hkh izdkj dk

vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA

19- izkFkhZ Jfed dh rjQ ls fjTok;UMj izLrqr dj foi{khx.k

dh izkjfEHkd vkifÙk;ksa dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj dgk x;k gS

fd foi{kh laxBu ds laLFkku esa tks xfrfof/k gksrh gS mlds lEcU/k esa

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk igys ls fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd

og ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrh gS rFkk bl laca/k esa foi{khx.k }kjk

izkjfEHkd vkifÙk esa dkuwu dh xyr O;k[;k dh xbZ gSA fjTok;UMj

esa foi{khx.k ds oknksÙkj dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;kfpdk esa izLrqr

fd;s x;s dFku dh iqujko`fÙk dh xbZ gSA

2734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20- izkFkhZ Jfed dh rjQ ls izys[kh; lk{; ds :i esa izn'kZ

MCY;w&1] vflLVsUV dfe'uj Jh vkjñ dsñ tSu] dsUnzh; fo|ky;

laxBu] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj ds i= dh QksVksizfr lk{; esa izLrqr

fd;s x;s deZpkjh 'kadjyky ds 'kiFk&i= ds lkFk izLrqr dh x;h gSA

21- foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls lk{; esa izLrqr dh xbZ Jherh m"kk

fdj.k jkBh] izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky; la[;k 2] QkbZlkxj jksM+] vtesj

dh lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= ds lkFk izkFkhZ Jfed dh vDVwcj

1996 vkSj Qjojh 1997 dh mifLFkfr ds fooj.k ds vuqlkj iznku

dh xbZ nSfud etnwjh dk izys[kh; fooj.k izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA mDr

ds vfrfjDr foi{kh dh rjQj ls lwph fnukafdr 29-5-2006 ds lkFk

'kadjyky dh mifLFfkr ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k rFkk etnwjh ds :i

esa fd;s x;s Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr vkB vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;s x;s gS]

ftuds ek/;e ls fofHkUu le;ksa ij nSfud etnwjh ds :i esa izkFkhZ

Jfed }kjk izkIr dh xbZ /kujkf'k vkSj fd;s x;s fnolksa dk mYys[k

gSA lHkh vkBks izys[k QksVks&izfr;ka gS ftuesa vf/kdka'k Lo;a izkFkhZ ds

ys[k ,oa gLrk{kj esa gS ftl ij dk;Z fnolksa dh la[;k ds fo#)

Hkqxrku dk fooj.k izLrqr gSA

22- Jh 'kadjyky izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk lk{; esa izLrqr fd;s x;s

'kiFk&i= ds fo#) foi{khx.k }kjk 'kadjyky dh izfrijh{kk dh xbZ

gS vkSj foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls Jherh m"kk fdj.k jkBh] izkpk;Z dh

izLrqr 'kiFk&i= ds fo#) izkFkhZ Jfed dh rjQ izkpk;Z dh izfrijh{kk

dh xbZ gSA mHk;i{k }kjk viuk lk{; lekIr fd;k x;kA

23- eSaus ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh

dq.kky jkor ,MoksdsV rFkk foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls muds fo}ku

izfrfuf/k Jh gokflag] ,MoksdsV dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d~

voyksdu fd;kA

24- izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g

cgl dh xbZ gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh fu;qfDr foi{khx.k ds ;gka fnukad

1-7-1993 dks prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa dh xbZ Fkh vkSj lsok ds

nkSjku mldk LFkkukUrj.k foi{kh la[;k 2 ds ;gka ls foi{kh la[;k 3 ds

;gka dh xbZ] tgka ij mlus fnukad 2-9-1995 ls ekpZ

97 rd dk;Z fd;k vkSj ekSf[kd :i ls Jfed dks

ekpZ] 1997 esa lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k] bl izdkj izkFkhZ Jfed dh

lsokeqfDr vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½

,oa 25 ¼Mh½ ds mYya?ku esa dh x;h gS] lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ Jfed dks

dksbZ uksfVl ugha nh x;h vkSj u gh uksfVl ds cnys eqvkots dk

Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA ;g cgl Hkh dh xbZ fd Jfed us yxkrkj ,d

dSys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd vof/k rd dke fd;k gS] mldh

lsokeqfDr esa vkS|ksfxd fookn ¼dsUnzh;½ fu;e] 1957 ds varZxr

fu;e 77 o 78 dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;kph dh lsokeqfDr esa

^^vuqfpr Je O;ogkj** dk vuqlj.k fd;k x;k gS] vr% mldh

lsokeqfDr voS/k gS vkSj og lsok dh fujUrjrk ,oa cdk;k osru lfgr

leLr ykHkksa ds lkFk lsok esa okil fy;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

25- blds fo#) foi{khx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls

;g cgl dh xbZ gS fd foi{khx.k dk izfr"Bku ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk

ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS ,oa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku

foi{khx.k ij ykxw ugha gksrsA ;g cgl Hkh dh xbZ gS fd vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ,oa 25 ¼Mh½ ds izko/kku

foi{khx.k ij ykxw ugha gksrs gS rFkk izkFkhZ ^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls

vkPNkfnr ugha gS D;ksafd foi{khx.k dk izfr"Bku ^^m|ksx** ugha gSA ;g

cgl Hkh dh xbZ gS fd izkFkh Jfed us foi{kh ds ;gka 240 fnu rd

fu;fer :i ls dke ugha fd;k gS blfy, Hkh /kkjk 25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dk izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrk gSA ;g Hkh cgl

dh xbZ gS fd nSfud ikfjJfed ds vk/kkj ij vkdfLed dk;Z dh

miyC/krk ds dkj.k Jfed dh vkdfLed fu;qfDr dh xbZ Fkh bl

izdkj Jfed ls fy, tkus okys dk;Z dh izd`fr LFkk;h ugha Fkh vkSj

mldh lsokeqfDr ^^vuqfpr Je O;ogkj** dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk rFkk

;kph dh vkosnu fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

26- izkFkhZ Jfed dh rjQ ls vius cgl ds leFkZu esa fuEu

n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa %µ

¼1½ 1988 lqizhe dksVZ ¼,yñ ,.M ,lñ½ i`"B 892 fel ,ñ

lqUnjecky&;kph cuke xksok neu ,oa fnm ljdkj ,oa

vU;&izR;FkhZx.k

¼2½ 1989¼1½ vkj,yvkj i`"B 156 jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;]

[k.MihB] ¼t;iqj [k.MihB½ ;'koUr flag ;kno&;kph

cuke jktLFkku jkT; ,oa vU;&izR;FkhZx.k

¼3½ ,vkbZvkj 2003] lqizhe dksVZ i`"B 3329 eSllZ =Ecd jcj

b.MLVªht fyfeVsM vihykFkhZ cuke ukfld oDlZ ;wfu;u

,oa vU;&izR;FkhZx.k

¼4½ ,vkbZvkj 2006 lqizhe dksVZ 355¼1½ vkj ,e ;sYykV~Vh

cuke lgk;d vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk

foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls vius cgl ds leFkZu esa fuEu n`"Bkar

izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa %µ

¼1½ ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 26-3-1997

dks fuf.kZr fgekaHkq dqekj fo|kFkhZ ,oa vU;&;kphx.k

cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU;&izR;FkhZx.k

¼2½ 2002 ¼3½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst] i`"B 25 jsaUt QkjsLV

vkfQlj&vihykFkhZ cuke ,lñ Vhñ gkfnekuh&izR;kFkhZ

¼3½ 1997¼4½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst i`"B 257 fQftdy fjlpZ

yscksjsV~jh&;kph cuke dsñ thñ 'kekZ&izR;FkhZ

27- mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr dh x;h cgl rFkk mlds leFkZu esa

izLrqr n`"VkUr] i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr vfHkopuksa rFkk mlds leFkZu esa

mudh rjQ ls iznÙk lk{; rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, bl

rF; dh bl Lrj ij leh{kk vko';d gS D;k ;kph i{k vius vfHkopuksa

esa izLrqr dFku fl) djus esa lQy gSA

28- i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ls fuEu egRoiw.kZ fcUnq fu.kZ;kFkZ

mRiUu gksrs gS%µ

¼1½ D;k foi{khx.k dk izfr"Bku ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls

vkPNkfnr gS tSlkfd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

dh /kkjk 2¼ts½ esa ifjHkkf"kr gS\

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2735

¼2½ D;k izkFkhZ Jfed us lsok lekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ dys.Mj o"kZ

esa 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS\

29- tgka rd izFke fcUnq dk iz'u gS foi{khx.k ds fo}ku

vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh xbZ gS fd mudk izfr"Bku dsUnzh;

fo|ky; vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 2 ¼ts½ esa

ifjHkkf"kr ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS vkSj vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku dsUnzh; fo|ky; ij ykxw ugha gksrs blfy,

izkFkhZ Jfed ;kfpr vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA vius dFku ds

leFkZu esa foi{k us HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk ¼ihvkj,y½ cuke

dsñ thñ 'kekZ ¼1997½ 4 ,lñlhñlhñ i`"B 257 esa ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ fof/k O;oLFkk dks viuh cgl esa m)`r fd;k gSA

blds fo#) izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g cgl dh gS fd

foi{k dk ;g dFku fof/k laxr ugha gS fd mudk izfr"Bku dsUnzh;

fo|ky; ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gSA vius dFku ds

leFkZu esa izkFkhZ Jfed dh rjQ ls 1988 lqizhe dksVZ dslst

¼,yñ ,.M ,lñ½ i`"B 892 fel ,ñ lqUnjecky&;kph cuke xksok

neu ,oa fnm ljdkj ,oa vU;&izR;FkhZx.k dk n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;k

x;k gS vkSj ;g dgk x;k gS fd 'kSf{kf.kd laLFkku ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk

ls vkPNkfnr gS bl rF; dks ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us mDr n`"VkUr

esa vo/kkfjr fd;k gSA eSaus mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ mDr nksuksa

n`"VkUrksa ij lE;d~ voyksdu fd;k gSA

30- tgka rd izFke fcUnq ij fu.kZ; dk iz'u gS] HkkSfrd

vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk ¼ihvkj,y½ cuke dsñ thñ 'kekZ ds n`"VkUr esa

ftldk mYys[k foi{khx.k us vius oknksÙkj esa Hkh fd;k gS ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy esa ;g iz'u fopkj.kh; Fkk fd D;k

vihykFkhZ HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

1947 dh /kkjk 2 ¼ts½ esa ifjHkkf"kr ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr

gS\ bl ekeys esa izR;FkhZ dsñ thñ 'kekZ fnukad 25-10-1948 dks

lkbZfUVfQd Xykl Cyksoj ds in ij fu;qDr gq, vkSj bl in ij jgrs

gq, 11-5-1976 dks QksVksxzkQh MkD;weSaUVs'ku lfoZlsl esa ,d ,sls in

ij LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;s x;s tks xSj&rduhdh vkSj iz'kklfud in

FkkA fnukad 31-12-1978 dks mudh mez 58 o"kZ iwjh gks xbZ ftlds

ifj.kkeLo:i mUgsa fnukad 1-1-1979 dks lsokfuo`Ùk dj fn;k x;kA

58 lky dh mez esa lsokfuo`Ùk dj fn;s tkus ds dkj.k vkSj 60 lky

rd lsok dk volj u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k mUgksaus ekuuh; xqtjkr

mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dhA blh chp mUgksaus Je

vk;qDr ds le{k lsokfuo`Ùk dj fn;s tkus ds fo#) f'kdk;r izLrqr

dh ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i Je vk;qDr us mudk ekeyk Je U;k;ky;]

vgenkckn dks izsf"kr dj fn;kA fo}ku Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn us

vihykFkhZ HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk dk ;g dFku vLohdkj dj

fn;k fd HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls

vkPNkfnr ugha gS tSlk fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 2¼ts½ esa dgk

x;k gSA HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk dks ^^m|ksx** gksus dh vo/kkj.kk

O;Dr djus ds lkFk&lkFk fo}ku Je U;k;ky; us ;g fu"d"kZ Hkh fn;k

fd HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk ,d vuqla/kku laLFkku gS ftlds

}kjk fd;k tk jgk vuqla/kku oLrqvksa vFkok lsok dh mRikn] vkiwfrZ

vFkok forj.k ls tqM+k gqvk ugha gSA fo}ku Je U;k;ky; us ekkuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 1978¼2½ ,llhlh i`"B 213 okVj lIykbZ

,.M flojst cksMZ cuke ,ñ jktkIik esa nh xbZ fof/k O;oLFkk ds vk/kkj

ij mDr vo/kkj.kk O;Dr dhA fo}ku Je U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh ik;k fd

HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk Lo;a rFkk vius deZpkfj;ksa ds lfØ;

lg;ksx ls laxfBr ,oa lqO;ofLFkr i)fr ds vuqlkj vuqla/kku

lacaf/kr dk;Z&dyki dk lapkyu dj jgh gS rFkk vuqla/kku ls izkIr

ekSfyd miyfC/k rFkk vkfo"dkj fcØh ;ksX; gSA fo}ku Je U;k;ky;

us HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk dks ^^m|ksx** gksus dh vo/kkj.kk

O;Dr djus esa ekuuh; xqtjkr mPp U;k;ky; }kjk HkkSfrd vuqla/kku

iz;ksx'kkyk ,EiykbZt ;wfu;u cuke ,ñ ,uñ jke ¼fo'ks"k flfoy

vkosnu la[;k 1082@79½ esa nh xbZ fof/k O;oLFkk dk Hkh vuqlj.k

fd;k ftl fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; xqtjkr mPp U;k;ky; us ;g izs{k.k fd;k

gS fd cSaxyksj okVj lIykbZ ,oa flojst cksMZ cuke ,ñ jktIik ds

ekeys esa nh xbZ O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj bl lUns'k dh dksbZ xqatkbZ'k ugha

gS fd HkkSfrd vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk] vgenkckn esa dk;Zjr deZpkjhx.k

vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e ds vUrxZr ^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk esa

vk,axsA fo}ku Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn us ;g voèkfjr fd;k fd

izR;FkhZ us 1948 ls ysdj 1976 rd ,d yEch vofè ds fy, rduhdh

in ij dk;Z fd;k blfy, mls iz'kklfud in ij dk;Z djrs gq,

O;fDr dh laKk ugha nh tkuh pkfg, Fkh D;ksafd vius dk;Zdky ds

vfUre fnuksa esa mldk LFkkukUrj.k iz'kklfud in ij fd;k x;k Fkk

ftl le; mldh mez 58 o"kZ iwjh gks jgh Fkh mDr ifjfLFkfr esa Je

U;k;ky; us voèkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ 60 lky dh mez rd lsok esa

cus jgus dk gdnkj gS rFkk izR;FkkhZ dks lsok fuo`fRr fd;s tkus dk

vkns'k fofè fo#) ?kksf"kr fd;k vkSj ;g Hkh voèkfjr fd;k fd og

vius in ij iquLFkZkiuk ds lkFk iwjh osru Hkh ikus dk gdnkj gS

ysfdu pwafd 60 lky dh mez iwjh gks pqdh Fkh blfy, nks o"kZ dh

vofè dk osru fn;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA fo}ku vihykFkhZ

HkkSfrd vuqlaèku iz;ksx'kkyk us lhès ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds

lkeus vihy izLrqr dh D;ksafd ekuuh; xqtjkr mPp U;k;ky; us ;g

n`f"Vdks.k viuk;k Fkk fd HkkSfrd vuqlaèku iz;ksx'kkyk ^^m|ksx**

dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g voèkfjr

fd;k fd fdlh Hkh i{kdkj dk ;g dFku ugha gS fd HkkSfrd vuqlaèku

iz;ksx'kkyk ,slh xfrfofè esa layXu gS ftls m|e] okf.kT;deZ ;k

fuekZ.k dgk tk ldsA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh voèkfjr

fd;k] "Neither from the nature of its organization nor from

the nature and character of the activity carried on by it, it

can be said to be an 'undertaking' analogous to business

or trade. it is not engaged in a commercial industrial activity

and in cannot be described as an economic venture or a

commercial enterprise as it is not its object to pruduce and

distribute services which would satisfy wants and needs

of the consumer community. It is more an institution

discharging Governmental functions and a domestic

enterprises than a commercial enterprise. We are, therefore,

of the opinion that PRL is not an 'industry' even though it

is carrying on the activity of research in a systematic manner

2736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with the help of its employees as it lacks that element which

would make it an organisation carrying on an activity which

can be said to be analogous to the carrying on of a trade or

business because it is not producing and distributing

services which are intended or meant for satisfying human

wants and needs, as ordinarily understood." ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us rn~uqlkj HkkSfrd vuqlUèku iz;ksx'kkyk vihy Lohdkj

dh rFkk fo}ku Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn }kjk ikfjr iapkV dks fujLr

fd;kA

31- blds fo#) ;kfp i{k ds fo}ku vfèoDrk dh rjQ ls

izLrqr n`"VkUr fel ,ñ lqUnjecky cuke xksok neu fnm ljdkj ,oa

vU; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g voèkfjr fd;k gS fd

vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 dh èkjk 2 ¼,l½ esa ifjHkkf"kr

^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls ^^v/;kid** vkPNkfnr ugha gS ysfdu

/kkjk 2 ¼ts½ esa ifjHkkf"kr ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls ^^'kS{kf.kd laLFkku**

vkPNkfnr gSaA fel ,ñ lqUnjecky cuke xksok neu ,oa fnm ljdkj

,oa vU; ds ekeys esa vihykfFkZuh izR;FkhZ ds fo|ky; esa ,d

v/;kid ds :i esa fu;qDr Fkh ftldh lsok,a fo|ky; ds izcUèu ds

}kjk i= fnukafdr 25-4-1975 ds ek/;e ls lekIr dj nh xbZA

lsoklekfIr dk vkns'k lekIr djkus esa vusd iz;klksa ds foQy gkus

ds ckn vkS|ksfd fookn vfèfu;e ds vUrxZr vihykfFkZuh us ^^lqyg

vfèdkjh** ds le{k vkS|ksfxd fookn mBk;kA lqyg le>kSrk dh

dk;Zokgh lQy ugha gqbZA ;g ikdj fd vihykFkhZuh deZdkj dh

ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS ljdkj us vihykfFkZuh ds ekeys dks Je

U;k;ky; esa fu.kZ;kFkZ Hkstus ls euk dj fn;k blds ckn vihykFkhZuh

us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds i.th ihB] xksok ds le{k fjV

;kfpdk izLrqr dh vkSj ;g ;kpuk dh fd 'kklu dks fufnZ"V fd;k

tk;s fd mlds ekeys dks Je U;k;ky; ds le{k izsf"kr djsa rkfd

mldh lsok lekfIr ds vkns'k fd oS|rk dk fu.kZ; gks ldsA ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; us vihykfFkZuh dh fjV ;kfpdk fujLr dh vkSj ;g

voèkfjr fd;k fd vihykfFkZuh ^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNfnr

ugha Fkh ftlls {kqCè gksdj vihykfFkZuh us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

ds le{k vihy izlRqr dh A ekuuh; loksZPPk U;k;ky; ds le{k

fu.kZ;kFkZ fuEu nks iz'u vorfjr gq,%&

¼1½ D;k og fo|ky; ftlesa vihykfFkZuh dk;Zjr Fkh og ^^m|ksx**

Fkk\

¼2½ D;k vihykfFkZuh ^^deZdkj** Fkh rFkk ml ^^m|ksx** esa

fu;qDr Fkh\

32- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us cSaxyksj okVj lIykbZ ,oa

flojst cksMZ cuke vkjñjktIik lfgr vius vusd iwoZ fu.kZ;ksa dk

lanHkZ ysrs gq, ;g voèkfjr fd;k fd 'kS{kf.kd laLFkku ftlesa

vihykfFkZuh dk;Zjr Fkh og ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr FkkA

vihykfFkZuh ds lanHkZ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds izLrj

10 esa ;g voèkfjr fd;k gS fd vihykfFkZuh ^^deZdkj** ugha FkhA bl

izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;

dh iqf"V dhA

33- i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk mlds leFkZu esa iznÙk izys[kh;

,oa ekSf[kd lk{; rFkk fofèd n`"VkUrksa ds lE;~d voyksduksijkUr

^^eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gw¡ fd foi{khx.k dk izfr"Bku dsUnzh; fo|ky;

^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gS tSlk fd vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèfu;e 1947 dh èkjk 2 ¼ts½ esa ifjHkkf"kr gSA izFke fcUnq rn~uqlkj

ldkjkRed fu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gSA

34- tgk¡ rd izkFkhZ Jfed ds èkjk 2 ¼,l½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèfu;e ds vuqlkj ^^deZdkj** gksus dk iz'u gS foi{khx.k }kjk

bUdkj fd;k x;k gs fd og ^^deZdkj** gS ysfdu ;g rF; Lohdkj

fd;k x;k gS fd nSfud osru ikfjJfed ds vkèkj ij vkdfLed

izd`fr ds dk;Z dh miyCèrk ds dkj.k mls fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk

rFkk ml dk;Z dh izd`fr vLFkk;h FkhA blls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed

nSfud etnwjh ij fu;ksftr Fkk ;|fi oknksÙkj esa dgh bl ckr dk

Li"V mYys[k ugha gS fd dk;Z dh D;k izd`fr Fkh tks mlls fy;k tkrk

FkkA ;kph us Hkh ;kfpdk esa vFkok vius 'kiFk&i= esa dk;Z dh izd`fr

dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gS rFkk dgk gS fd og prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh in

ij fu;qDr FkkA foi{k ds 'kkiFk&i= ds iSjk 2 esa nSfud etnwjh fn;s

tkus dk mYys[k gS vr% ;g Li"V ,oa fufoZokn gS fd og ^^nSfud osru

Hkksxh etnwj** FkkA foi{k dh rjQ ls ,slk dksbZ n`"VkUr ugha izLrqr gS

fd izkFkhZ ^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gSA blds foijhr

;kphi{k dh rjQ ls nSfud osru Hkksxh ls lEcfUèr n`"VkUr ;'koUr

¯lg ;kno cuke jktLFkku jkT; ,oa vU; izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA foi{k

}kjk Jfed dks Hkqxrku ls lEcfUèr izLrqr vfHkys[k Hkh bl ckr ds

izek.k gS fd izkFkhZ nSfud osru Hkksxh FkkA foi{k }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k

M&1 yxk;r M&9 ls Hkh ;g tkfgj gS fd ;kph nSfud osru Hkksxh

Jfed FkkA

35- ;'koUr flag ;kno ds ekeys esa ;kph us Hkkjrh; lafo/kku

ds vuqPNsn 226 ds vUrxZr vius fu;qfDr&i= ds lkFk ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk bl dFku ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k fd og vk;qosZfnd

vkS"k/kky;] e;wjosjk] vyoj esa nSfud osru&Hkksxh] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh

ds :i esa fnukad 28-11-85 dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj bl fu;qfDr

dh vof/k 53 fnu dh FkhA ckn esa fnukad 28-1-86 ds vkns'k ls

mldh fu;qfDr vof/k dks foLrfjr fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 25-4-86

ds vkns'k ls mldh lsok dks vkxkeh vkns'k rd foLrfjr fd;k x;kA

bl izdkj mlus 13-8-87 rd mDr vkS"k/kky; esa dk;Z fd;kA vkxs

;kph us mYys[k fd;k fd vpkud mldh lsok fnukad 13-8-87 ds

Øe'k% izR;kFkhZ 2 ,oa 3 ds vkns'k ls lekIr dj nh x;h rFkk nksuksa

izR;kFkhZx.k }kjk ikfjr lsok lekfIr lEcfU/kr vkns'k fnukad

13-8-87 ds gh FksA ;kph us lsok foLrkj lEcfU/kr vkns'k fnukad

28-1-86 vkSj 25-4-86 ,oa lsok lekfIr lEcfU/kr nksuksa vkns'k fjV

;kfpdk ds lkFk layXu fd,A

36- ;kph us lsok lekfIr ds nksuksa vkns'kksa dks bl vk/kkj ij

pqukSrh nh Fkh fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr og

^^deZdkj** rFkk vkS"k/kky; ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr FkkA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2737

vkSj lsok lekfIr vkns'k fnukad 13-6-87 ds Bhd iwoZ 12 dys.Mj

eghuksa esa mlus yxkrkj 240 fnu ls T;knk vof/k rd lsok dh]

blfy, mldks lsok lekfIr ^^NVuh** dh Js.kh esa ifjHkkf"kr gS ysfdu

mldh NVuh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vkKkid funsZ'kksa dk ikyu fd;s

fcuk dh x;hA mls u uksfVl nh x;h ;k uksfVl ds cnys osru fn;k x;k

vkSj u gh {kfriwfrZ nh x;h tSlk fd /kkjk 25 ,Q esa izkfo/kkfur gS vr%

mldh ^^NVuh** voS/k gSA mlus ;kpuk dh fd lsok lekfIr lEcfU/k

nksuksa vkns'k fujLr fd, tk,a rFkk fiNys lEiw.kZ osru ds lkFk mls

lsok esa okil fy;k tk,aA ;kph us ;g Hkh ;kpuk dh] fd mlls ,d

fu;fer prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk ysfdu mls

dsoy nSfud etnwjh nh tkrh Fkh tks ,d fu;fer deZpkjh ds osru

ls dkQh de gS vr% izR;FkhZx.k dks fu;fer deZpkjh dk osru nsus ds

fy, Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tk,A

37- izR;FkhZx.k us ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, vius dFku esa

;kph dh va'kdkyhu nSfud osru Hkksxh prqFkZ Js.kh dehZ ds :i esa

fu;qfDr Lohdkj dh vkSj dgk fd ;kph dh iw.kZdkyhu fu;qfDr ugha

FkhA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd pwafd og va'kdkfyd fu;qfDr ij Fkk blfy,

^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk vkPNkfnr ugha Fkk tSlk fd vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e] 1947 esa ifjHkkf"kr gSA blfy, /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds

izko/kku ds ikyu dh vko';drk ugha Fkh] vr% ;kfpdk iks"k.kh;

ugha gSaA

38- izR;FkhZx.k dh rjQ ls bl fcUnq ij dksbZ cpko ugha j[kk

x;k fd vkS"k/kky; ^^m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gSA ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu

n`"VkUrksa dk mYys[k djrs gq, vo/kkfjr fd;k dh vkS"k/kky; ^^m|ksx**

dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gSA

39- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k bl ekeys esa ;g iz'u

fopkj.kh; Fkk fd D;k va'kdkyhu deZpkjh /kkjk 2 ¼ts½ esa of.kZr

^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr gS\ bl ekeys esa ;g fo'ks"k

:i ls mYys[kuh; gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; ds izLrj&5

esa fof'k"V :i ls mYys[k fd;k gS fd i{kdkjksa ds chp fu;qfDr dh

frfFk vkSj lsok lekfIr dh frfFk] fu;qfDr i= tkjh gksus rFkk lsok

lekfIr ds vkns'k tkjh gksus ds fcUnq ij rFkk lsok lekfIr dh frfFk

rd deZpkjh ds dk;Zjr jgus ds rF; ij mHk;i{k ds chp dksbZ

fookn ugha FkkA ;|fi lsok dh Øec)rk izHkkfor Fkh ysfdu ;g rF;

egRoiw.kZ Fkk fd lsok lekfIr ds fnu rd og dk;Zjr FkkA bl ckr ij

Hkh fookn ugha Fkk fd /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vuqikyu esa uksfVl vFkok

osru ;k {kfriwfrZ ugha nh x;h FkhA bl izdkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us

;g dgk fd deZpkjh us /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vuq:i yxkrkj dke

fd;k Fkk vr% ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZx.k }kjk /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½

dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k FkkA vr% ^^NVuh** voS/k Fkh vkSj lsok lekfIr

dk vkns'k rn~uqlkj fujLr gksus ;ksX; FkkA

40- tgka rd ^^deZdkj** dh ifjHkk"kk ls ;kph ds vkPNkfnr

gksus dk iz'u gS ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

vkSj fofHkUu mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk n`"VkUrksa esa iznÙk fof/k O;oLFkkvksa

dks m)`r djrs gq, ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd ;kph ^^deZdkj** dh

ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr Fkk ;|fi og va'kdkyhu deZpkjh FkkA ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; us rn~uqlkj fjV ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh rFkk fiNys 50

izfr'kr osru ds lkFk va'kdkyhu deZpkjh ds :i esa gh in LFkkfir

djus dk funsZ'k fn;k ijUrq fu;fer prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa

osru fn;s tkus lEcfU/kr vuqrks"k ds fy, ;kfpdk vLohdkj dhA

fu;qfDr i= dk vHkko ,oa vU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[k eSa bl

fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd ;g n`"VkUr 'kadjyky ds orZeku ekeys esa dsoy

mlds ^^deZdkj** gksus ds lEcU/k esa ykxw gksrk gSA ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; }kjk n`"VkUr esa nh x;h fof/k&O;oLFkk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,

vo/kkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ ^^deZdkj** gSA

41- tgka rd f}rh; fcUnq ls lEcfU/kr rF;ksa ij fu.kZ; dk

iz'u gS bu rF;ksa dks fl) djus dk Hkkj iw.kZr% ;kph i{k ij gSA tgka

rd bl fcUnq ij izys[kh; lk{; dk iz'u gS ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls

dksbZ fu;qfDr i= vFkok lsok lekfIr lEcfU/kr i= ugha izLrqr fd;k

x;k gSA ;kph us ;kfpdk esa ;g dgk gS fd foi{kh la[;k nks us foi{kh

la[;k rhu ds ;gka ;kph dks 2-9-95 dks LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;k ysfdu

bl LFkkukUrj.k ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ vfHkys[k Hkh ;kph us i=koyh ij

ugha izLrqr fd;k gSA bl izdkj ;kph ds dFkukuqlkj mlus 1-7-93 ls

2-9-95 rd foi{kh la[;k nks ds ;gka rFkk 3-9-95 ls ekpZ 97 rd

foi{kh 3 ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k ftldk dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; ls leFkZu

ugha gSA foi{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk VªkUlQj ds dFku dk ?kksj

fojks/k djrs gq, cgl esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkpk;Z dks LFkkukUrj.k dh

'kfDr ugha gS ,oa ;kph }kjk LFkkukUrj.k dh ckr >wBh gSA foi{k ds

'kiFk&i= esa LFkkukUrj.k rFkk foi{kh 3 ds ;gka dk;Z djus ds rF; ls

bUdkj fd;k x;k gSA vr% LFkkukUrj.k ds rF; dks Hkh fl) djus dk

Hkkj izkFkhZ i{k ij gh gSA lsok ls gVk;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ;kph us ;g

dgk gS fd ekSf[kd vkns'k ls mls gVk;k x;k ysfdu ml frfFk dk

mYys[k ;kfpdk esa vFkok 'kiFk&i= esa ;kph us ugha fd;k gSA ;kfpdk

esa mlus mYys[k fd;k gS fd 1-7-93 ls ekpZ 97 rd mlus dk;Z fd;k

ysfdu gVkus dh frfFk ugha vafdr dh gS vr% mlds dFkukuqlkj ;g

vkWdyu curk gS fd mls 1-7-93 ls 31-3-97 rd dk;Z fd;kA ;kph

ds dk;Z djus ds lEcU/k esa foi{k us vius oknksÙkj esa tqykbZ 93 esa 16

fnu] vxLr 93 esa 14 fnu] flrEcj 93 esa 29 fnu] vDVwcj 93 esa

17 fnu] uoEcj 93 esa 8 fnu] fnlEcj 93 esa 12 fnu] tuojh 94 esa

20 fnu rFkk Qjojh 94 esa 9 fnu dk;Z djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk

blls lEcfU/kr mifLFkfr iaftdk izLrqr dh gSA tqykbZ 93 esa mifLFkfr

16 tqykbZ ls n'kkZ;h x;h gS tcfd ;kph us ;kfpdk esa izFke tqykbZ ls

dk;Z djuk dgk gSA foi{k us mDr vof/k dh gkftjh ,oa Hkqxrku dk

fooj.k izLrqr fd;k gSA Hkqxrku dk fooj.k Loa; 'kadjyky ds gLrk{kj

esa gSA ekSf[kd lk{; esa bu Hkqxrkuksa ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[kksa ij vius

gLrk{kj rFkk Hkqxrku ;kph us Lohdkj fd;k gSA mDr ds vfrfjDr

foi{k dh rjQ ls QkbZlkxj jksM] vtesj fLFkr fo|ky; ls ;kph ds

vDVwcj 96 esa 12 fnu dk;Z djus rFk mlls lEcfU/kr 510@& #i;s

vkSj Qjojh 97 ls 11 fnu dk;Z djus rFkk muls lEcfU/kr 468@&

#i;s Hkqxrku Jfed }kjk izkIr djus dk fooj.k izLrqr gSA

2738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

42- ekSf[kd lk{; dh izfrifj{kk esa ;kph us Lohdkj fd;k gS

fd mls fu;qfDr i= ugha feyk Fkk ysfdu mldk lk{kkRdkj gqvk Fkk

vkSj v[kckj esa fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa foKkiu fudyk Fkk ysfdu

mlus v[kckj ugha izLrqr fd;k gS vkSj Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lk{kkRdkj

ds ckn fu;qfDr i= ugha feyk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd esa ;kph ds

vfrfjDr VhdepUn vkSj jkts'k 'kekZ x;s Fks ,oa pk;h lk{kkRdkj ds

fnu gh 1-7-93 dks M~;wVh ij yx x;k FkkA VhdepUn ;k jkts'k 'kekZ

lk{; esa izLrqr ugha gSA

43- osru Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa izfrijh{kk esa ;kph us dgk gS

Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr mlus dksbZ okmpj ugha izLrqr fd;k gSA ;g Hkh

Lohdkj fd;k gS LFkkukUrj.k ds lEcU/k esa mlus dksbZ vkns'k izLrqr

ugah fd;k gS tks i`"B 3 dh izfrifj{kk ls tkfgj gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd

LFkkukUrj.k dk eghuk ;k o"kZ ;kn ugha gS ,oa mls o"kZ 1997 esa gVk

fn;k x;k Fkk ftldh f'kdk;r mlus lu~ 2000 es Je vk;qDr ds ;gka

dh Fkh rFkk 2004 esa mlus Je vk;qDr ds ;gka f'kdk;r dh Fkh ;k ugha

mls ;kn ugha gS ,oa f'kdk;r djus ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k muds fo}ku

vf/koDrk ds ikl gSA ;kph dh rjQ ls 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z

djus ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr lk{; dh mDr fLFkfr ls ;g tkfgj gS fd

nksuksa txg ds fo|ky;ksa esa ls fdlh fo|ky; esa mlus 240 fnu rd

yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds rF; dks fl) ugha fd;k gS rFkk foi{kh lkf{kuh

Jherh m"kk fdju jkBh] izkpk;Z dh izfrijh{kk ls Hkh ;kph ds i{k esa

bl fcUnq ij dksbZ enn ugha feyrh gSA

44- ;gha ij bl fcUnq dh leh{kk Hkh vko';d gS fd izn'kZ

MCY;w&1 'kadjyky dh rjQ ls izLrqr vfHkys[k ls D;k 'kadjyky dks

dksbZ enn feyrh gS bl vfHkys[k dk mYys[k 'kadjyky dh 'kiFk&i=

ds iSjk 13 esa gS ftlds vuqlkj lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; fo|ky;]

vtesj us izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;&2 vtesj dks vukifÙk iznÙk

djrs gq, fnukad 27-9-96 dks funsZf'kr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ 'kadjyky

dks xzqi ^^Mh** in ij nSfud osru ij fu;qDr dj fy;k tk; tc rd

dksbZ fu;fer fu;qfDr ds vk/kkj ij p;fur deZpkjh ugha vk tkrkA

blh i= ds vk/kkj ij 04 vDVwcj 96 dks 'kadjyky dk fo|ky; esa

dk;Z ij vkuk gkftjh jftLVj dh udy ls tkfgj gksrk gS ftl ekg ls

'kadjyky us ek= 12 fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA bl i= ds lEcU/k esa

izfrijh{kk esa 'kadjyky us i`"B rhu ij Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lgk;d

dfe'uj ,yñdsñ tSu ftUgksaus mDr i= fn;k gS og 'kadjyky ds xkao

ds fuoklh gSa rFkk mUgksaus dgk Fkk fd rsjk VªkUlQj vtesj djk fn;s gSaA

vkxs mlus dgk gS fd vtesj esa mlus 8 ekg vkSj C;koj esa mlls Hkh

T;knk vof/k rd dke fd;k gSA bl i= ds vuqlkj] vxj vtesj ds

fo|ky;&2 esa ekpZ 97 rd dk;Z djuk Lohdkj dj fy;k tk;s tc

Hkh vDVwcj 96 ls ekpZ 97 rd ek= 6 ekg ls de vof/k curh gSA

bl i= ls Lo;a Hkh bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd C;koj esa 'kadjyky

dh lsok lekfIr ds ckn i= fnukafdr 27-9-96 ckn esa dsUnzh;

fo|ky;&2 esa fu;qfDr ds mís'; ls vfLrRo esa vk;k D;ksafd vxj

C;koj ls ysdj dsUnzh; fo|ky;&2 vtesj rd yxkrkj 1-7-93 ls

31-3-97 rd 'kadjyky us dk;Z fd;k gksrk rks mDr i= dh dksbZ

vko';drk gh ugha FkhA bl i= ds vk/kkj ij Hkh nksuksa fo|ky;ksa esa

Øe'k% yxkrkj dke djus vFkok vyx&vyx 240 fnu yxkrkj

dk;Z djus ds rF; dh iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA

45- ;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g cgl dh gS fd 3-5-2006

dh mudh vkosnu ds vuqlkj o"kZ 1993 ls ekpZ 97 rd dh gkftjh

jftLVj] isesUV jftLVj vkSj isesUV okmpj foi{k us ugha izLrqr fd;k

vr% foi{kh ds fo#) ;kph ds i{k esa izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k dh

tkuh pkfg, fd mlus yxkrkj 240 fnu rd dk;Z fd;k gSA mYys[kuh;

gS fd mDr vkosnu ds fo#) foi{k dh vkifÙk fnukad 2-8-2010

vk;h fd vtesj esa nks fo|ky; gS ;kph us fdl fo|ky; esa dke

fd;k gS bldk mYys[k ugha gS rFkk ;kfpdk esa Hkh mYys[k ugha gS rFkk

C;koj dk vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gS rc ;kph us 16-11-2010

dks fooj.k izLrqr fd;k ftlds ckn foi{k us vDVwcj 96 rFkk Qjojh

97 dk Hkqxrku ,oa gkftjh fooj.k izLrqr fd;k gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls

;g dgk x;k gS fd vU; dksbZ vfHkys[k deZpkjh ls lEcfU/kr ugha gS

vr% mls izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa 2006 lqizhe

dksbZ dslst ¼,yñ,.Mñ,lñ½ 38 lqjsUnzuxj fMfLVªDV iapk;r &

vihykFkhZ cuke ng~;kHkkbZ vejflag & izR;FkhZ esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk

izklafxd gS ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Hkkjrh; lk{;

vf/kfu;e 1872 dh /kkjk 114 III (g) ds lEcU/k esa ;g vo/kkfjr

fd;k gS fd izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus ls iwoZ U;k;ky; dks igys

lUrq"V gksuk pkfg, fd dfFkr lk{; vfLrRo esa gS rFkk mls izLrqr

fd;k tk ldrk FkkA blh n`"VkUr esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us /kkjk

25 (G) ,oa 25 (H) ds lUnHkZ esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd nSfud

osru Hkksxh ds lEcU/k esa fu;ksDrk ls deZpkfj;ksa dh ofj"Brk lwph ds

j[k&j[kko dh vis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh gSA izfrijh{kk esa Jherh m"kk

fdju jkBh] izkpk;Z us vfHkys[kksa ds lEcU/k bl lq>ko ls bUdkj fd;k

gS fd tkucw>dj vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSaA 240 fnu dh dk;Z

vof/k dks fl) djus dk Hkkj ;kph ij gS vkSj vfHkys[kksa dh izLrqfr u

djus dks bls fl) ik;s tkus dk vk/kkj ugha cuk;k tk ldrk gSA bl

lEcU/k esa foi{k }kjk izLrqr n`"VkUr fgekU'kq dqekj fo|kFkhZ ,oa vU;

cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; rFkk jsUt QkWjsLV vkWfQlj cuke ,lñVhñ

gkfnekuh esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk Hkh mYys[kuh; gSA

46- fgekU'kq dqekj fo|kFkhZ ,oa vU; & ;kph] cuke fcgkj

jkT; ,oa vU; & izR;FkhZx.k] esa mHk;i{k }kjk Lohd`r rF;ksa ds vuqlkj

;kph la[;k ,d fnukad 1-8-88 dks lgk;d ds in ij] ;kph la[;k

nks fnukad 10-11-89 dks MªkbZoj ds in ij rFkk ;kph la[;k 3 yxk;r

5 pijklh ds in ij 31-5-87 vkSj 22-4-92 dks] dks&vkWijsfVo Vªsfuax

Ldwy] nso?kj esa fizfUliy }kjk nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fu;qDr

fd;s x;sA mudh lsok;sa fizfUliy }kjk lekIr dj nh x;h ftlls

{kqC/k gksdj mUgksaus ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk izLrqr dhA

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us ;kphx.k dh ;kfpdk fujLr

dh ftldh iqf"V ekuuh; [k.MihB }kjk dh x;hA ekuuh; [k.MihB

ds fu.kZ; ls {kqC/k gksdj ;kphx.k us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds

le{k fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr dh fd vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds mYya?ku esa mudh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2739

lsok;sa lekIr dh x;h gS vr% ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g

iz'u fopkj.kh; Fkk fd D;k ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd ;kphx.k dh

^^NVuh** dj nh x;h gS tSlkfd /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 esa dgk x;k gS\ lEcfU/kr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds

ewY;kaduksijkUr ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g ik;k fd vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr mudh lsokeqfDr ^^NVuh** ugha

FkhA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k] "every

Department of the Government cannot be treated to be

'industry'. When the appointments are regulated by the

statutory rules, the concept of 'industry' to that extent

stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to

the post in accordance with the rules but were engaged on

the basis of need of the work. They are temporary

employees working on daily wages. Under these

circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot

be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial

Disputes Act. The concept of 'retrenchment', therefore,

cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these

employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks

to contend that in the High Court, the petitioners did not

contend that it is a case of retrenchment but termination of

their services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily-wage

employees and have no right to the posts, their

disengagement is not arbitrary. The special leave petition

is accordingly dismissed." ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznÙk

fof/k O;oLFkk orZeku ekeys esa ykxw gksrh gS D;ksafd deZpkjh dk;Z dh

vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij nSfud etnwjh ij fu;qDr Fkk rFkk dsUnzh;

fo|ky; esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr ,d fu;fU=r izfØ;k

dks viukus ds mijkUr gh nh tkrh gSA 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z

djus ds rF; dks Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed us fl) ugha fd;k gS vr% /kkjk 25

¼,Q½ ds izko/kku Hkh vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs gS ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i

Jfed dh lsokeqfDr ^^NVuh** ugha gSa vkSj u gh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds

mya?ku esa dh x;h gSA

47- jsUt] QkWjsLV vkfQlj&vihykFkhZ cuke ,lñVhñ

gkfnekuh&izR;FkhZ] ds ekeys esa Je U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g vkS|ksfxd

fookn Fkk fd izR;FkhZ us 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj

mldh lsok lekfIr ^^NVuh** eqvkotk fn;s fcuk dj nh x;hA vihykFkhZ

us izR;FkhZ dh vkosnu dk Je U;k;ky; ds le{k fojks/k fd;k vkSj

dgk fd izR;FkhZ us 240 fnu rd dke ugha fd;k gSA

fo}ku Je U;k;ky; us vius iapkV fnukad 10-8-98 ls ;g

fu"d"kZ fn;k fd lsokeqfDr ^^NVuh** eqvkotk fn;s fcuk dh x;hA

fo}ku Je U;k;ky; us bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapus ds fy, fd izR;FkhZ us

240 fnu dke fd;k] ;g mYys[k fd;k fd deZpkjh }kjk izLrqr fd;k

x;k 'kiFk&i= ;g fl) djus ds fy, i;kZIr Fkk fd mlus 240 fnu

dke fd;k gS vkSj ;g fl) djus dk Hkkj vihykFkhZ ij Fkk fd deZpkjh

dh lsok;sa lekIr djus dk U;k;ksfpr vk/kkj FkkA

48- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vo/kkfjr fd;k fd loZizFke

lE;d lk{; ds vk/kkj ij bl rF; ij fu"d"kZ fn;s fcuk fd izR;FkhZ

us lsok lekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls T;knk dke fd;k

gS Je U;k;ky; }kjk vihykFkhZ ij fl) djus dk nkf;Ro Mkyuk Bhd

ugha Fkk] ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us mYys[k fd;k gS fd deZpkjh dk

;g dFku Fkk fd mlus 240 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z fd;k gS ftls vihykFkhZ

us bUdkj fd;k gSA blds ckn deZpkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro Fkk fd og

lk{; izLrqr djs fd mlus lsoklekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ ,d o"kZ esa 240

fnu ls T;knk dke fd;k gSA 'kiFk&i= ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS] deZpkjh }kjk 'kiFk&i= dh izLrqfr

Lo;a deZpkjh dk vius i{k esa fd;k gqvk dFku gS vkSj ,sls 'kiFk&i=

dks fdlh U;k;ky; ;k fVªC;wuy ds fy, bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapus ds fy,

fd deZpkjh us 240 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z fd;k gS] i;kZIr lk{; dh laKk

ugha nh tk ldrh gSA lokZsPp U;k;ky; us ;g mYys[k Hkh fd;k gSa fd

deZpkjh }kjk osru dh jlhn] ;k 240 fnu dh osru ;k fu;qfDr dk

vkns'k ;k vfHkys[k] lcwr esa ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa vdsys bl

vk/kkj ij iapkV fujLr gksus ;ksX; FkkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds

le{k vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls mifLFkr Jh gsxM+s us c;ku fd;k fd jkT;

dh :fp okLro esa bl ekeys esa fof/kd fLFkfr ds fujkdj.k esa gS vkSj

fu.kZ; dh frFkh ls nks ekg ds vUnj izR;FkhZ dks mUgha 'krks± ij lsok esa

vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr nh tk;sxh ftu 'krks± ij vihykFkhZ

lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ fu;qDr FkkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us

mijksDrkuqlkj vihy fuLrkfjr dhA

49- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznÙk mDr fof/k O;oLFkk

ls ;g lqLi"V gS fd okLro esa fu;qfDr vkns'k izLrqr dj viuh fu;qfDr

vkSj mldh 'krsZ fl) djuk] fdlh lgdeZpkjh dks lk{; esa izLrqr

djuk] lsok lekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k mlls T;knk

vof/k rd dk;Z djus ;k ml vof/k ds fy, osru izkIr djus ls

lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k izLrqr djuk rFkk mls fl) djus dk Hkkj deZpkjh

ij gS vkSj dsoy 'kiFk&i= izLrqr dj nsus ls ;k ;g dg nsus ls fd

leLr vfHkys[k foi{kh ds dCts esa gS blfy, lsok dh vo/kkj.kk

xzg.k dj yh tk;] i;kZIr ugha gS vkSj u gh blls lsok dk ;k fu;qfDr

dk rF; fl) ekuk tk ldrk gSA

50- ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr vkjñ,eñ ;sYykV~Vh cuke

lgk;d vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ds ekeys esa nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk ls

;kph i{k dks dksbZ enn ugha fey ldrh gS D;ksafd bl ekeys esa

deZpkjh us vius 240 fnu dk;Z djus dk izek.k&i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk

tks lgk;d vf/k"kklh vfHk;Urk }kjk fuxZr Fkk ftls ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us lgh ik;k vkSj bl vk/kkj ij ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd

deZpkjh dh lsok lekfIr /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izkfo/kku dk ikyu fd;s

fcuk dh x;h Fkh tks voS/kkfud ^^NVuh** gSA rn~nuqlkj ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy Lohdkj dh x;h vkSj deZpkjh

dks 50% foxr osru ds lkFk lsok esa iqu% LFkkfir fd;k x;kA

2740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

51- bl ekeys esa Je U;k;ky; us nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh

dks 50% osru ds lkFk iquLFkkZfir fd;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k ftlds

fo:) ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us fnukad

7-6-2000 dks [kkfjt dj nhA

52- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us ,dyihB ds

fu.kZ; dks vikLr fd;k ftldk eq[; vk/kkj deZpkjh }kjk izLrqr

240 fnu ds dk;Z izek.k&i= dks xyr ik;k tkuk FkkA ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us izek.k&i= dks lgh ikrs gq, Lohdkj dhA

53- mDr leLr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij esa bl

fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd ;kph 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds rF; dks

fl) ugha dj ldk gS blfy, /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izkfo/kku 'kadjyky

ds ekeys esa vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs gSa] vr% okn&fcUnq la[;k 2 rn~uqlkj

;kph ds fo#) udkjkRed fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

54- tgka rd ^^vuqfpr Je O;ogkj** dk iz'u gS ;kph i{k

dh rjQ ls izLrqr n`"VkUr eSllZ =Ecd jcj bUMLVªht

fyfeVsMµvihykFkhZ cuke ukfld odZl ;wfu;u ,oa vU;&izR;FkhZx.k

esa Maharashtra recongnition of trade union and

prevention of unfair labour practices act ls lEcfU/kr

ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; ds le{k rhu f'kdk;rsa vuqfpr Je

O;ogkj ds lEcU/k esa fopkjk/khu Fkha ftlesa ,d f'kdk;r izcU/ku

rFkk nks f'kdk;rsa deZpkjh ;wfu;u dh rjQ ls izLrqr FkhaA mHk;i{k

}kjk ,d nwljs ds fo#) fofHkUu vkjksi yxk;s x;s FksA deZpkjhx.k

fnukad 14-8-89 ls izca/ku }kjk dke ij okil vkus ls rc rd ds

fy, jksd fn;s x;s Fks tc rd os izcU/ku }kjk fu/kkZfjr 'krks± dh

vUMjVsfdax ugha izLrqr djrsA izcU/k ds vuqlkj lHkh gVk;s x;s deZpkjh

izf'k{k.kkFkhZ FksA izcU/ku ds dFkuuqlkj izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa dh izf'k{k.k

fnukad 15-11-89 ls lekIr dj nh x;h FkhA ckn esa dqN nwljs deZpkjh

fu;qfDr esa izcU/ku }kjk fy, x;s FksA

55- mHk;i{k }kjk mRiUu fLFkfr ds fy, ,d nwljs dks ftEesnkj

crk;k tk jgk FkkA bl ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; us vUos"kd

vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr dh rFkk 25-4-90 dks deZpkfj;ksa dks dk;Z ij

okil ysus ds fy, vUrfje vkns'k ikfjr fd;k ysfdu vkS|ksfxd

U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa deZpkfj;ksa dks izcU/ku us dk;Z

ij okil ugha fy;kA vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; us rhuksa f'kdk;rsa fujLr

dhA

56- deZpkjh ;wfu;u us fu.kZ; ds fo#) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;

ds le{k Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vUrxZr fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dh tks

Lohdkj gqbZ vkSj deZpkjhx.k dks lsok esa iqu% LFkkfir djus ds fy,

funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k

fd bl ekeys esa izcU/ku }kjk vuqfpr Je O;ogkj fd;k x;k gSA

57- vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k

eq[; :i ls ;g iz'u fopkj.kh; Fkk fd tks deZpkjh izcU/ku }kjk

gVk;s x;s Fks os D;k Maharashtra recongition of trade union

and prevention of unfair labour practices act 1972 ^^lifBr

/kkjk 2 (S) vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr deZpkjh**

(employees) Fks\ vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k Fkk

fd gVk;s x;s deZpkjh izf'k{k.kkFkhZ Fks tSlk fd izcU/ku dk dFku FkkA

fo}ku vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; us mDr fu"d"kZ ds fy, izFke dkj.k ;g

n'kkZ;k fd izcU/ku vFkok ;wfu;u us fu;qfDr i= ugha izLrqr fd;k

ftls 1988 esa deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr ds le; tkjh gksuk pkfg, Fkk

vkSj nwljk dkj.k ;g fd ;wfu;u dk Lo;a dk ;g dFku Fkk fd

izcU/ku us 23-6-89 ds ckn gh izf'k{k.kkFkhZ ds :i esa fu;qfDr&i=

tkjh djuk 'kq: fd;k Fkk ftlls ;wfu;u dk Lo;a dk ;g dFku

udkjkRed tkfgj gksrk gS fd mUgsa crkSj etnwj fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA

fo}ku vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; dk ;g izs{k.k Fkk fd izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa dks

fu;fer dk;Z gsrq yxkus ek= ls os ^^deZdkj** ugha cu tk;saxsA ;g Hkh

izs{k.k Fkk fd ^^izf'k{k.kkFkhZ** ^^deZdkj** ds led{k ugha gS tc rd

fu;ksDrk ,oa deZdkj ds fj'rs dk i;kZIr lk{; u gksA ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd fo}ku vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; us

lk{; ds egRoiw.kZ va'kksa dh mfpr leh{kk ugha dh ftuesa [kklrkSj ls

izcU/ku ds lkf{k;ksa dh ^^Lohd`fr** Hkh 'kkfey FkhA lkFk gh ;g Hkh

vo/kkfjr fd;k fd gVk;s x;s deZpkjh ^^izf'k{k.kkFkhZ ugha cfYd

^^deZdkj** Fks vkSj mudh lsok lekIr djus ds fy, fof/kd izfØ;k

ugha viuk;h x;h rn~uqlkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;kfpdk Lohdkj

dh ftlds fo#) vihykFkhZ izcU/ku dh vihy ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us vLohdkj dhA

58- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznÙk fof/k O;oLFkk orZeku

ekeys esa ykxw ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd okLro esa vihykFkhZ ds ;gka

ogh O;fDr ^^deZdkj** Fks ftUgsa izcU/ku us ^^izf'k{k.kkFkhZ** crkdj

mudh lsok fof/k fo#) izfØ;k viukrs gq, lekIr dh FkhA ogka okLro

esa dksbZ izf'k{kd Hkh ugha Fkk vkSj u gh dfFkr izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa ds vfrfjDr

dksbZ vU; ^^deZdkj** FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa oLrqvksa dk mRiknu lEHko

u Fkk tcfd bl ckr dk lk{; Fkk fd oLrqvksa dk mRiknu bUgha

dfFkr izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa }kjk gksrk FkkA izkFkhZ 'kadjyky ds ekeys esa mDr

fof/k O;oLFkk ls dksbZ enn ugha yh tk ldrh gS fd 'kadjyky ds

ekeys esa ^^vuqfpr Je O;ogkj** dk vuqlj.k fd;k x;k gS D;ksafd

;kph us ;kfpdk ds izLrj 6¼?k½ esa ^^vuqfpr Je O;ogkj** dk

mYys[k rks fd;k gS ijUrq ml f'kdk;r ds Lo:i dk Li"V mYys[k ugha

fd;k gSA 'kiFk&i= esa iSjk 7 esa mlus ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mls gVkus

ds ckn foi{k us u;s Jfedksa dks mlh dk;Z ds fy, HkrhZ fd;k rFkk mls

uksfVl ugha nh x;hA bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh dh leh{kk ls ;g tkfgj

gS fd ;kph i{k }kjk fdlh Jfed dk uke vFkok fooj.k ugha fn;k

x;k gS ftls mlds gVus ds ckn izcU/ku }kjk yxk;k x;k gksA vr%

;kph Jfed ^^vuqfpr Je O;ogkj** dk dFku lkfcr ugha dj ldk

gS ,oa bl lEcU/k esa fdlh lgdeZpkjh ;k dk;Z ij yxs u;s deZpkjh

dks u rks lk{; esa izLrqr fd;k gSa u gh u;s deZpkfj;ksa ls lEcfU/kr

fooj.k dks izLrqr fd;k gSA

59- tgka rd fu;e 77 ,oa 78 ds ikyu u djus dk iz'u gS]

;kph bl rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy gS fd foi{k us /kkjk 25

¼,Q½ dk mYya?ku djrs gq, mls ekpZ 97 esa lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2741

vkSj mls volj fn;s fcuk /kkjk 25 ¼,p½ dk mYya?ku djrs gq,

fdlh vU; dks fu;qfDr ns nh] vr% fu;e 77 ,oa 78 ds mYya?ku dk

iz'u ugha mBrk] rFkk ;kph rn~uqlkj fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus dk gdnkj

ugha gSA

60- mijksDr leLr foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij esa bl

fu"d"kZ ij gwa fd izkFkhZ Jh 'kadjyky iq= Jh dUgS;kyky us ;g fl)

ugha fd;k gS fd mUgsa izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] dkWyst jksM] C;koj us

ekpZ 1997 esa voS/k ,oa vuqfpr rjhds ls lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k]

vr% mudk lsok ls c[kkZLr gksuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer gSA ;kph

foi{khx.k ls fdlh vuqrks"k ds ikus dk gdnkj ugha gS] U;k;fu.kZ;u

gsrq izsf"kr funsZ'k dk mÙkj mijksDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj

ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

61- iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17¼1½ ds vUrxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh

tk;sA

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1052.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwoZ jsyos

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufn"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@22@2007&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1052.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2007)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/03/2014.

[No. L-41012/22/2007-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

DR. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 32/2007

Ref. No. L-41012/22/2007-IR(B-I) dated 24.07.2007

BETWEEN

Sri Jai Prakash Dixit

S/o Sri Upaindra Nath Dixit

R/o T-61/F, Khaley Colony, Locoshed Mailini

Distt. Lakhimpur-Khiri

Mailani.

AND

1. The Divisional Railway Manager

I.D. No. 32/2007

North East Railway

Ashok Marg, Lucknow

2. The Loco Foreman

Loco Shed, North Eastern Railway

Distt. Lakhimpur-Khiri

Mailani

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/22/2007-IR(B-I) dated

24.07.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between Sri Jai Prakash Dixit, S/o Sri

Upaindra Nath Dixit, R/o T-61/F, Khaley Colony, Locoshed

Mailani, Distt. Lakhimpur-Khiri, Mailani and the Divisional

Railway Manager, North East Railway, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow & the Loco Foreman, Loco Shed, North Eastern

Railway, Distt. Lakhimpur-Khiri, Mailani for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF

NORTH EAST RAILWAY IN NOT GIVING TEMPORARY

STATUS TO THE WORKMAN SHRI JAI PRAKASH

DIXIT EVEN THOUGH HE COMPLETED 120 DAYS AND

TERMINATION HIS SERVICES W.E.F. 13.07.1994 IS

JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF HE IS

ENTITLED?"

3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that the

workman, Jai Prakash Dixit was appointed in pursuance to

the General Manager's order dated 29.09.1983 along with

400 labourers to meet up the requirement of large number

of labours, aroused due to dismantling of rail track due to

heavy rains. It is submitted by the workman that he worked

up to 15.04.85; and thereafter, he was re-employed w.e.f.

17.07.84 and worked continuously up to 15.10.84 and further

he was re-employed w.e.f. 17.12.1984 to 15.01.85 then from

18.01.85 to 07.02.85 and from 10.02.85 to 15.04.85 with

artificial breaks. Thus, his total working comes to 222 days;

but the management instread of granting him temporary

status, terminated his services. he has alleged that the

management further availed his services from 10.01.86 to

12.07.94 under some contractor. It is further submitted by

2742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman that when the management did not pay any

heed to his request for regularization, he filed a case before

the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed

on the ground of alternate remedy. It has been alleged by

the workman that he worked for 222 days even then he was

not called for screening and on the other hand juniors to

the workman viz. Mo. Qamrudding, Upendera Nath Pathak,

Abdul Khaliq Ram Prasad, Surendera Pratap Singh, Vijay

Bahadur Singh, Dwarika Prasad, Bashir Ahmad and

Bhagwant Saran Trivedi are still working on regular basis

after screening. The workman has submitted that he was

also entitled for grant of temporary status when he has

completed 120 days services as a casual labour and ought

to have been regularized after screening. Accordingly, the

workman has prayed that the management of railways be

directed to grant him temporary status when he completed

120 days' services with consequential benefits and further

be regularized after screening at par with other workmen

junior to him.

2. The management of the railway has denied the

claim of the workman by filing its written statement, wherein

it has submitted that the workman has worked under

Engineering Department of the railways as casual labour

on daily basis on sanction of extra labour requisition. It

was also submitted that the workman himself left the job

on his own accord; hence, not entitled for regularization. It

is also pleaded by the management that the workman

resorted his services as casual worker through a contractor

viz. M/s Uttam Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti. It is very

specifically stated that the workman worked with the

Engineering Branch from 01.08.84 to 15.10.84, from 17.12.84

to 15.01.85 and from 01.03.85 to 15.04.85 for 122 days in

total with breaks on 16.12.84, 16.01.85 to 17.01.85; and

accordingly not entitled for grant of temporary status.

Therefore the management has prayed that the claim of the

workman be rejected being devoid of merit.

3. The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has

submitted the averments already made in the statement of

claim and has stated nothing new.

4. The parties filed documentary evidence in support

their cases. The workman has examined himself; whereas

the management has examined Shri Lalta Prasad, Office

Superintendent in support of their respective claim. The

parties have cross-examined the witnesses of each other

and forwarded their oral arguments.

5. Heard representatives of the parties and perused

entire evidence available on record.

6. The authorized representative has argued that the

workman has worked for 220 days with the management of

NER with artificial breaks and the management has granted

temporary status to many of the workmen junior to the

workman but has spared the workman; whereas he too was

entitled for grant of temporary status when he completed

120 days of services as casual labour. It was also submitted

that the plea of the management that the workman worked

through some contractor is nothing but just to defeat the

claim of the workman as there was no contract between the

management and the contractor.

7. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the workman has

contributed his services through some contractor and

received payment through him. It has also submitted that

the workman worked for 122 days from 01.08.84 to 15.04.85;

but his services could not be regularized due to intermittent

breaks.

8. I have scanned pleadings and evidence of the

respective parties in light of their contentions.

9. The management has come up with the case that

the workman worked with it through a contractor M/s Uttam

Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. and was paid by it;

therefore, it is answerable to the contactor only in terms of

contract and not otherwise. On the contrary the workman

has contended that there was no such contract between

the alleged contractor and railways. In this regard the

management has tried to establish their case by cross-

examining the workman who sated during his cross-

examination that after working with railways from 1983 to

1986, he worked with said agency. It was also admitted that

he worked from 10.10.86 to 12.07.94 with said agency and

he had been given certificate to the effect. The management

witness in his affidavit has stated that the workman worked

for and on behalf of the M/s Uttam Sahkari Shram Samvida

Samiti and in cross-examination it has been stated that

payment to contract labour is made by the contractor only.

But no record in this respect has been filed during the

proceedings to substantiate this fact that the management

of the NER had even undergone any contract with the

M/s Uttam Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti nor the

registration certificate as principal employer has been filed

by it nor any license to supply labour by the contractor

has been filed by the management. The workman has relied

on Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 1981 of 1997

decided on 29.09.2000, 2001 (1) SCT 1943 has held that 'in

case the contractor has not taken a license as required

under Section 12 of the Act, then the contract labour shall

be treated as direct employees of the Principal employer'.

It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Suresh &

others 1999 (81) 1016. The head notes read as under:

"...............Contractor not a licensed contractor under

the Act. The so called contract system was a mere

camouflage, smoke and a screen and disguised in

almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2743

and the real contractual relationship between the

Haryana State Electricity Board on the one hand and

the employees on the other hand could be clearly

visualized."

Since no document or agreement between the

management of NER and M/s Uttam Sahkari Shram Samvida

Samiti has been filed by the management, therefore, I am of

the opinion that the plea of existence of any contract was

nothing but a camouflage to deprive the workman of their

legitimate rights.

10. The authorized representative of the workman

has argued that the schedule of reference, referred to this

Tribunal is to adjudicate the term as to whether the workman

was entitled for grant of temporary status on completion of

120 days or not and it has to confine itself within the

parameters of the schedule of reference and should not

enlarge the scope of reference in any case. Hon'ble Apex

Court in Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs.

Harmesh Kumar (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 128 observed as

under:

"The Labour Court derived its jurisdiction from the

terms in reference. It ought to have exercised its

jurisdiction within the four corners thereof."

In view of the case law case law cited above, this

Tribunal has to decide only as to whether the workman is

entitled for grant of temporary status on completion of 120

days of working.

11. The workman has come up with the case that he

worked as a casual worker with the management of North

Eastern Railway with artificial breaks for different span of

time. In this regard during his cross-examination he has

stated that the duration for which he has worked is

mentioned in paper No. 03/33. The details of working period

in respect of workman provided in the paper No. 03/33 is

under:

Period of working Days

Authority & place of working

30.09.83 to 15.10.83

IOW/Tikunia, at Breach

17.07.84 to 15.10.84

kms. 184/10-13 TQN Majra

17.12.84 to 15.01.85

Purwa, Tikunia

18.01.85 to 07.02.85

10.02.85 to 15.04.85

10.10.86 to 12.07.94

2827 Loco foreman/Loco shed

Mailini

In rebuttal, the management witness has come up

with the evidence that the workman has worked from 01.08.84

to 15.04.85, with breaks, for 122 days in total. It has relied

on paper No. 22/01, which provides details of ex-casual

labour's working. The working details in respect of the

workman is given as under:

Period of working

Days

Absence

01.08.84 to 15.10.84

—

17.12.84 to 15.01.85

16.12.84

16, 17.01.85

01.03.85 to 15.04.85

—

Total

122

As per railway rules, a casual worker who is in

continuous service of the railways for 120 days becomes

entitled for the grant of temporary status. In the present

case, admittedly, the workman has been in employment of

the opposite party as it has been pleaded by the

management that the workman has not completed 120 days

continuously under Engineering Branch, which amounts

to presumption that the workman was engaged as casual

worker. The management has further pleaded that the

workman has worked only for and on behalf of the M/s

Uttam Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. and is not an

employee of the railway; but as observed in the foregoing

paragraphs, that the management failed to substantiate its

pleading that there was any valid contract for labour supply

between the railway and M/s Uttam Sahkari Shram Samvida

Samiti Ltd.; hence, in view of failure of the management, it

is assumed that the workman was an employee of the

principle employer i.e. North Eastern Railway. The

contention of the management that there was a contract

between the NER and M/s Uttam Sahkari Shram Samvida

Samiti Ltd. appears to be a camouflage to deprive the

workman of his rights which might have accrued to him

due his services as casual labour with the management.

The management cannot escape from its responsibility

particularly when it has itself has relied on paper No. 22/01

which provides that the workman has worked for 122 only

with breaks of 03 days. If the said paper, relied upon by the

management, is considered, for the grant of temporary

status then even if the breaks are being deducted, the

workman's working comes to 119 days working i.e. only

one day short in 120 days, mandatory for grant of

temporary status. Furthermore, the management has not

mentioned any working details in respect of the workman;

however, the workman has relied on paper No. 03/33 wherein

the working detail of the workman with Loco foreman/Loco

shed Mailini shown as 2827 days. The workman has also

pleaded that the management has granted temporary status

to the number of workmen who were junior to him and this

fact was not denied by the management. Hence, keeping in

view the fact that the workman had worked with the

management of railways in Loco Foreman/Loco Shed,

Mailini though through some contractor for number of days

and in view of non-availability of any evidence regarding

2744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contract for labour supply, as per law laid down by the

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 2001 (1) SCT 1943, the workman

is treated to be the workman of the principle employer i.e.

of North Eastern Railways.

12. The workman has stated that he had worked for

222 days while as per the document relied upon by the

management; the workman had 122 days working with 3

days' break. As such, as per document of the management

itself the working days of the workman comes to 119 days.

The plea of the management about the existence of any

contract for labour supply is just smoke and camouflage to

deprive the workman of his legal rights. Hence, it could be

well assumed that the worked for more that 120 days

continuously as he worked for a long time with the so

called contractor and on treating him as an employee of the

NER it would be well ascertained that the workman

completed the mandatory period for grant of temporary

status.

13. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances

mentioned above, I am of considered opinion that the action

of the management of North Eastern Railway in not granting

temporary status to the workman was illegal and

unjustified; and accordingly the workman is entitled for

grant of temporary status w.e.f. 15.04.85. Also, since the

workman was required to be granted temporary status on

15.04.1985, therefore, his termination w.e.f. 13.07.1994 was

again illegal and unjustified; and accordingly, the workman

is entitled for reinstatement. On reinstatement the workman

shall be entitled for grant of temporary status w.e.f. 15.04.85

and shall also be entitled for consequential benefits.

14. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

24th February, 2014.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1053.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eekZxksok iru

U;kl 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; eqacbZ ds iapkV

¼ds- l- vkS- v-&2@01@2012½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 13-03-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&36025@01@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O. 1053.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 2/01/

2012 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 Mormugao Port Trust

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/03/2014.

[No. L-36025/01/2014-IR(B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/1 of 2012

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT-2/29 of 2012)

The President

Mormugao Port & Railway Workers Union

Main Administrative Office Building

Mormugao Port Trust

Headland Sada

Goa-403 804

...Complainant

V/s.

The Chairman

Mormugao Port Trust

Mormugao Harbour

Goa 403 803

...Opponent

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Mr. G.

Vijaychandran,

Advocate.

FOR THE OPPONENT

: Mr. M.B. Anchan,

Advocate.

Camp: Goa dated the 28th October, 2013.

AWARD

1. This complaint is filed under Section 33-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the complainant

despite the order of the Ministry of Labour, the management

of Mormugao Port Trust had placed the matter of dispute

before the Board on 22/6/2012 and passed a resolution no.

7 approving the amendment to the post of Welfare Officer

much in contravention of Section 33-A of the Industrial

Dispute Act. The management has proceeded further to

conduct the DPC and promote the candidate on ad-hoc

basis even after notice dated 29/06/2012. The complainant

therefore prays to pass appropriate orders against the

opponent.

2. Opponent management filed their written statement

at Ex-8 stating that the amendments in Recruitment Rules

for the post of Welfare Officer is the prerogative of the

management and it has inherent power to do so. And as

such the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore they

prayed that the complaint may be rejected.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2745

3. Advocate for the opponent filed application Ex-9

for disposing of the complaint and enclosing therewith

application of the union dated 3/9/2013 for withdrawing

the complaint. By his application dated 03/09/2013 President

of Mormugao Port & Railway Workers Union, stated that

they do not want to pursue the matter any further and

prayed to dispose of the matter as withdrawn. In the

circumstances, I think it proper to dispose of the complaint

as withdrawn. Thus the order:

ORDER

Complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Camp: Goa

Date: 28th October, 2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1054.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

ds izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 134@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-03-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@32@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2014

S.O. 1054.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 134/

1997) 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 State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07/03/2014

[No. L-12012/32/1996-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 134 of 1997

Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of

India, Patna

AND

Their workmen

Present:— SHRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,

Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers : Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhayay,

For the workman

: None

State: Jharkhand

Industry:

Coal.

Dated 12/02/2013

AWARD

By Order No.L-12012/32/1996-IR (B), dt. 23/06/1997,

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 SBI in not absorbing the

service of Shri Subhash Chandra Ghosh is justified

or not? If not then what relief he is entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference on 11.7.97 both parties

are noticed, Written statement of the workman/Union

received by post on 02.09.99, then rejoinder and document

filed. Two witnesses examined on behalf of the workman

and one witness examined on behalf of the management.

3. The case of the workman is; the workman has

been working as a canteen boy in the state Bank of India,

Kadamkuan branch Patna. it is the case of the workman

that while working he was performing the work of

messenger. His work was satisfactory in the bank. It has

been stated that the Bank use to employ the canteen boys,

in the post of messenger and posted them in pay roll. But

though many of his juniors have been given the regular

post, the present workman has been deprived.

4. It is the case of the management that though there

is canteen run near the bank, It is for the welfare of the

bank staff and for others But the employees working there

are not the employees of the bank nor they have any claim

to be employed. But it is submitted that, where the strength

of the bank employees was more then one hundred, some

relaxations are shown. But the present Kadamkuan branch

of Patna is running with only 20 staff, therefore the question

of employing the workman as bank staff does not arise at

all.

5. On the other hand the workman witness speaks

regarding sincerity of the workman, who is to be deserved

to be regularised in the post of messenger. But the

management stated that the workman was paid a monthly

wages of Rs. 100/- and marked the photocopy of the

cheque issued saying that a messages of Bank never gets

Rs. 100 P.M. from the Bank.

2746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6. In the present case both the management and

workman rely on a decision of the Apex Court i.e. State

Bank of India & others Vrs State Bank of India canteen

employees Union(Bengal circle) and others.

Labour and Industrial—workman—State Bank of

India Act, 1955 and Industrial Disputes Act. 1947—Whether

employees of canteens of some of branches of State Bank

of India can claim to be absorbed as employees of State

Bank of India—no statutory obligation on employer to

provide for canteen—there is difference between promotion

and providing facilities—bank only promotes canteen

activities and does not provide for it —existence of canteen

facility on basis of bipartite agreement is matter of policy

decision and may depend on circumstances—canteen

employees are not employees of bank.

7. From the placitum mentioned above the canteen

employees are not the employees of the Bank, never be the

employees of the Bank. If Bank formulate any policy that

may help the canteen employees. In simple form, Bank has

no obligation or it is not bound to employ a canteen boy in

the Bank. This is the position of law now.

8. Accordingly the action of the State Bank of India

in not absorbing the service of Sri Subhash Chandra Ghosh

is justified, Hence the present workman is not entitled to

any relief what so ever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1055.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn cSad]

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ]Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2009½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[Qk- la- ,y&12011@27@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2014

S.O. 1055.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. No. 24/2009]

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/03/2014.

[No. L-12011/27/2009-IR (B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Disrpute Case No. 24/2009

Date of Passing Award - 14th February, 2014

Between:

The Dy. General Manager,

Allahabad Bank, Head Office,

2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001.

.... 1st Party - Management

(And)

The General Secretary,

All India Allahabad Bank Employees Coordination

Committee,

323, Lingaraj Nagar,

Bhubaneswar-751002 Orissa.

... 2nd Party - Union

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.K. Nayak, ....... For the 1st Party - Management.

Chief Manager.

Shri Niranjan Mishra ........... For the 2nd Party - Union

Vice President.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank

and their workmen 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 vide its

letter No. L-12011/27/2009 IR(B-II) dated 17.6.2009 in respect

of the following matter:—

"Whether the demand of the Union to incorporate a

retired employee as a representative of the union in

IR negotiation machinery at zonal level is legal and

justified? What relief the Union is entitled to".

2. Later by corrigendum dated 08.01.2010 the Ministry

has revised the schedule regarding the disputed matter in

the following words:—

"Whether the demand of Union to incorporate a

retired employee as a representative of the Union in

IR negotiation machinery at zonal level in the light of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2747

MOS dated 19.6.2006 is legal and justified ? What

relief the Union is entitled to?

3. In pursuance of the letter of reference the 2nd

Party-Union filed its statement of claim alleging that a

bilateral settlement was signed between the management

of Allahabad Bank and All India Allahabad Bank Employees

Co-ordination Committee on 19.6.2006 under the provisions

of Section 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 read with Section 57 of I.D. Central Rules, 1957

pronouncing the policy on (a) Negotiating Committee and

(b) Industrial Relations Committee. In the said settlement

the representation of retired employees was considered as

per the directions issued by the Government of India vide

their letter D.O. No. 6/7/2005/IR dated 4.7.2005 through

Indian Banks Association. The said settlements along with

other settlement was circulated on 26.6.2006 among all

Branches and Offices of the Bank. While other settlements

were implemented smoothly as per terms of the settlement,

the settlement on Industrial Relations Machinery was not

implemented properly and timely at Nodal Zonal Level and

Zonal Level in different states for which the 2nd Party-

Union raised the dispute during Head Office Level

Industrial Relations Committee Meeting on 25.9.2007. After

discussion the 1st Party-Management informed that

instructions have been issued to Field Functionaries to

hold the I.R.M. Meeting timely and strictly as per provisions

of the Settlement dated 19.6.2006 and issued communication

to Nodal Zonal Offices and the Zonal Office on 5.2.2008

containing guidelines to implement the said settlement.

When the 2nd Party-Union observed that the 1st party-

Management has acted on this issue contrary to the

provisions contained in the Settlement dated 19.6.2006 they

lodged strong protest before the Management vide their

letter dated 1.5.2008 requesting therein to revoke the

objectionable and illegal guidelines. But the 1st Party-

Management unfortunately issued another letter dated

5.5.2008 reiterating their earlier stand. Thereafter the 2nd

Party-Union raised an industrial dispute before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar.

But the conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the

failure report was submitted to the Ministry of Labour,

Government of India on 29.1.2009 whereupon this reference

was made. As per provisions contained in Para 3.2, 4.2 of

the Settlement dated 19.6.2006 the names of the

representatives of the Union sent by the State Unit of

AIABECC do not come in the discretionary power of the

1st Party-Management to allow or disallow any such

representatives. There has not been made any distinction

between the representative of the Union who are in service

of the Bank and those who have retired from service in the

matter of reimbursement of travelling conveyance and

halting expenses etc. There is also no mention about the

duration of the meeting in the aforesaid settlement as it

depends upon the time taken for completion of agenda of

both the sides and the Convener of the meeting is the

authority to decide the duration of such meeting. Hence

objectionable and illegal stipulations contained in the

guidelines issued by the Management vide their letters

No. 131, dated 05.02.2008 and 505, dated 05.05.2008 be

nullified and direction be issued to the 1st Party-

Management to uphold the sanctity of the settlement

without any violation or dilution.

4. The 1st Party-Management in its written statement

has stated that the crux of the claim of the Union out of

which the present dispute arose is limited/related to a matter

concerning Industrial Relations Machinery. In the backdrop

of clause 3.2 the Head Office of the 1st Party-Management

issued an Inter Office Memorandum dated 05.02.2008,

wherein it was stipulated that:—

(a) Where the representation in such meeting

includes the name of ex-employee, you may

consider his participation provided he is either

President or General Secretary of the State Unit of

AIABECC. The participation in such meeting of

ex-employee who is an office bearer of AIABECC

is solely at Bank's discretion.

(b) The duration of meeting should be for one day

only.

expenses to the ex-employee where ex-employee

visits from outstation to attend the meeting, the

conveyance expenses/travel expenses should be

considered as per the entitlement of the cadre

from where they have been retired.

5. On careful perusal of the wordings of Clause 3.2 of

the bilateral settlement, it is crystal clear that the right of

representation of the representatives of the Union in the

Nodal Zonal Committee has not been articulated by any

qualifying words only composition of committee is

described. But then being alive to the settled proposition

of law that an employee ceasing to be in employment cannot

represent an employee in bilateral discussion. However

the 1st Party-Management being accommodative allowed

one ex-employee holding the post of President or General

Secretary of the 2nd Party-Union to participate in the Zonal

Level Committee Meeting in order maintain a cordial

industrial relationship between the employer and the

employee. But this concession cannot be construed as a

matter of right to be extended to any number of ex-employee.

The 1st Party-Management may at discretion can recall the

said IOM whereby no ex-employee can represent in the

State Level Zonal Committee Meeting. The law as stands

today is that an employee ceasing to be in employment

cannot represent employee to negotiate with the

Management as a representative of the Union. An ex-

employee even though an office bearer cannot claim as a

matter of right to negotiate with the management as a

2748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

representative of the Union. The Management is within its

right and authority to decline to negotiate with them.

However the 1st Party-Management at its discretion allowed

an ex-employee who is an office bearer (President/General

Secretary) of the Union to participate in bilateral meeting.

The demand of the 2nd Party to incorporate retired employee

as a representative of the Union in IR negotiation machinery

at the Zonal Level is being followed by the Management.

The only stipulation the management makes is that the

retired employee can represent the Union provided he is

either the General Secretary or President. Hence the demand

of the Union as contained in the schedule of reference

does not survive.

6. The 2nd Party-Union it its rejoinder has alleged

the averments made by the 1st Party-Management in its

written statement as misconceived and false.

7. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed:—

ISSUES

1. Whether the demand of the Union to incorporate

a retired employee, as a representative of the

Union in IR negotiation machinery at Zonal Level

in the light of M.O.S. dated 19.6.2006 is legal and

justified?

2. What relief the Union is entitled to?

8. The 2nd Party-Union examined Shri Sudhir Kumar

Das as W.W.-1 and relied upon seven documents marked

as Ext.-1 to 7.

9. The 1st Pary-Management examined M.W.-1

Shri Hara Prasanna Tripathy and M.W.-2 Shri Baidyanath

Sahu and relied upon two documents marked as Ext.-A and

Ext.-B.

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. 1

10. Here the issue involved is as to whether a retired

employee can represent the Union in I.R. Negotiations

Machinery at Zonal level. A settlement is said to have been

signed by the Management of Allahabad Bank and

representatives of All India Allahabad Bank Employees

Coordination Committee on 19.6.2006. In clause 3.2 it has

been provided that a nodal zonal committee will be

composed of maximum five representatives from each side

and the name of the union representative will be sent by

the concerned state unit of AIABECC. In clause 4.2 it has

been provided that I.R.M. Zonal level committee will be

composed of maximum three representatives from each side

and the names of the Union representatives will be sent by

the concerned state unit of AIABECC. These two clauses

are silent on the question as to whether the union

representatives will be serving employees or retired

employees? Hence it cannot be presumed that ex or retired

employees cannot be the Union representative in I.R.M.

Zonal level committee. However instructions issued by

I.O.M. No. Per/HR/Spl. Asstt./131, dated 05.02.2008 clarified

that where the representation in such meeting includes the

name of ex-employee, the General Manager/Deputy General

Manager/Assistant General Manager of Zonal Office may

consider his participation provided he is either President

or the General Secretary of the State unit of AIABECC

within the total number fixed for representation in the said

meeting i.e. five and three at Nodal Office and Zonal Office

level respectively. The participation in such meeting of

ex-employee who is an office hearer of AIABECC is solely

at Banks discretion.

11. The 2nd Party-Union being aggrieved by these

instructions raised industrial dispute and come up to this

Tribunal. Their contention is that there is no stipulation

regarding number of representative of the Union being

serving or retired in Zonal level I.R.M. meeting. According

to them only elected office bearers can be the members of

the I.R.M. meeting. They may either be serving employee

or retired employee of the management. The Management

has agreed to the demand of the 2nd Party-Union to allow

the President or General Secretary of the State units who

are retired to participate in the nodal zonal committee or

nodal committee meeting. It has been admitted by M.W.-2

Shri Baidyanath Sahoo in his cross examination that the

retired employee of the Bank are attending the meeting at

the Head Office level. But the question remains as to

whether other office bearers except the President and the

General Secretary of the State Unit can participate in the

zonal level committee meeting. The 1st Party-Management

vide its instructions dated 5.2.2008 only allowed the

President or General Secretary of the State Unit of AIABECC

to particpate in the zonal level committee meeting subject

to discretion of the General Manager/Deputy General

Manager/Assistant General Manager. These instructions

further stipulate that the participation in such meeting of

ex-employee, who is an office bearer of AIABECC is solely

at Bank's discretion which means that besides the President

and the General Secretary other office bearers of the State

Unit can participate in such meeting at the Bank's sole

discretion. Since the 1st Party-Management has adopted

practice of allowing the President or General Secretary of

the state Unit in zonal level meeting there remains nothing

for consideration of the Management regarding their

participation. The other ex-employees who are office bearers

of AIABECC within the fixed number can also participate

in the zonal level meeting at the discretion of the Bank. The

Government has sent this reference only on the point of

incorporation of retired employee as a representative of

the Union in I.R. negotiations machinery at zonal level in

the light of M.O.S. dated 19.6.2006 which therefore is held

to be legal and justified in the light of the above discussion.

This issue is decided accordingly.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2749

12. The Union has also raised the point of putting a

limit on duration of meeting to one day only and

reimbursement of travelling expenses as per entitlement of

the cadre from where they have been retired, but these two

points have not been referred to this Tribunal for

adjudication. Hence no decision on these points can be

given. However Management witnesses No. 1, Shri Hara

prasad Tripathy and M.W.-2 Shri Baidyanath Sahoo have

stated in their cross examination that the retired employees

being leaders of the AIAEBCC who are attending the

meeting at Head Office level are being reimbursed TA/DA

at par with the regular employees of the Bank. So far limiting

the duration of the meeting to one day it is for the Convener

of the meeting to decide taking into consideration the

discussions needed for the agenda of the meeting.

ISSUE No. 2

13. The 2nd Party-Union, as per conclusions derived

under Issue No. 1, is entitled to incorporate retired employee

as a representative of the Union in I.R. negotiations

machinery at zonal level in the light of the M.O.S. dated

19.6.2006. The 1st Party-Management is accordingly

directed to uphold the sanctity of the above settlement.

14. The reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1056.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qfu;u cSad vkWQ+

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 426@2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@136@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O. 1056.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 426/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Union Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13.03.2014.

[No. L-12012/136/2001-IR(B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st January, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 426/2004

Reference (I.T.C) No. 92/2001 (old)

The Regional Manager,

Union Bank of India,

171/1, Premchand House, Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380009

...First Party

AND

Their workman

Shri Jeebhai K. Desai

6, Janardan Row House,

Sector-6, Chanakyapuri, Ghatlodia,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 380061

...Second Party

For the First Party : Shri Bhushan K. Oza, Advocate

For the Second Party : Shri Binod J. Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by its Order No. L-12012/136/2001 IR (B-II) dated

31.10.2001 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute to

Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) for adjudication

on the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India in terminating the services of

Shri Jeebhai K. Desai is legal, proper and justified?

Whether the management's action to treat him as a

personal Driver and to deny him wages as applicable

to the regular Driver employed by the bank can be

termed as unfair labour practice? If so, what relief is

the concerned workman entitled to and what

directions are necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the 2nd party as per statement of claim

(Extr. 5) is that he was engaged as driver on 01.07.1998 in

the Zonal office of Union Bank of India (1st party) and he

was getting Rs. 1600 p.m. towards wages which was

enhance to Rs. 3250 his duty hour was from 8 a.m. to

6 p.m. with chief manager of the Bank and was performing

duty of driver delinquently. He was getting fixed wages of

Rs. 3250 per month. He worked as driver in the Zonal office

of UBI for 4 years and thereafter he was engaged as

2750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

driver at S.S.I. branch of B.O.I. at Ashram Road and there

he worked up to 13.02.2001. He worked continuously from

01.07.1998 to 13.02.2001 and completed 240 working days

every year. He drives different vehicles of Bank and he

worked as a driver of vehicle G.J. 1 HD 8567 under different

Branch Manager and he was bringing Branch Manager to

bank from residence and from bank to residence daily. He

was also doing works of peon when Vehicles remained

parked in Bank premises. He was paid monthly wages

through vouchers. He also filled up the form for appointment

to the post of regular driver in the Bank and submitted the

filled up form in the Bank but no decision was taken for his

regular appointment. Subsequently he was verbally

removed from the work of driver of the Bank's vehicle. He

was not given any notice or notice pay in lieu of notice and

retrenchment compensation. Further case is that Ashokbhai

Patel, Arjunbhai Marwani, Rameshbhai Solanki were

initially engaged as driver on daily wages, they also filled

up form for regular class IV employees and out of them

Rameshbhai Solanki and Arjunbhai Marwani were

regularised as peon and thereafter Ashokbhai was

appointed as regular driver who were engaged as daily

rated drivers like him. Further case is that after his verbal

termination in his place Juniors Bipinbhai, Hareshbhai and

Sumanbhai were engaged as drivers as being paid on

vouchers. Thereafter he raised industrial dispute before

Central Labour commissioner for his appointment in the

bank which was not accepted by the bank is conciliation.

He had worked as driver with Bank manager's Shri N.S.

Mehta, Shri K.S. Upadhyay, Shri K.D. Pagi,

Shri Harshadbhai Shah but Bank manager Shri Desai replied

to labour commission that he was working as personal

driver which is untrue fact. On these scores Jeebhai

K. Desai has claimed relief for declaring the action of

termination by the 1st party against the principles of natural

justice and is illegal, improper and for the relief of

reinstatement with full back wages as regular employee

with cost and to any other relief to which he is found

entitled.

3. As against this the case of the 1st party (Bank) as

per written statement (Ext. 8) is that the reference is not

maintainable, there is no relationship of master and servant

between bank and the 2nd party. Since 2nd party was not

kept/engaged as driver of vehicle by the bank, rather he

was personal driver of the bank manager and the Bank

manager used to reimburse the fixed payment made by him

to his personal driver through cash vouchers. Bank was

not paying salary/wages to the 2nd party. The 1st party

has denied para-1 to 8 of the statement of claim that 2nd

party was not engaged as driver in the Zonal Office from

01.07.1998 on monthly wages of Rs. 1600/- and the 2nd

party has no duty in Bank branches from 8 a.m, to 6 p.m.

and that 2nd party was not doing work in Bank as peon

when he had no duty of driver. It has also been denied that

the 2nd party was being transferred from one branch to

another by the Bank management of Zonal office. The 2nd

party was doing work of personal driver of chief manager

on the vehicle provided to executive officers by the Bank

and it chief manager in personal capacity removed the 2nd

party from the work of private driver, the management of

U.B.I. (1st party) is not at all liable for any violation of the

provision of I.D. Act as alleged by the 2nd party. It has

been denied that the 1st party terminated the 2nd party

verbally on 13.02.2001. On these scores prayer is made to

dismiss the reference since the 2nd party is not entitled to

any relief.

4. In view of the rival contention of the parties in

respective pleadings, the following issues are taken for

discussion and determination:

ISSUES

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Has the 2nd party valid cause of action in this

case?

(iii) Is there exist master and servant relationship

between the 1st party and 2nd party?

(iv) Whether the Bank management's action to treat

Jeebhai K. Desai as a personal driver and to deny

him wages as applicable to the regular drivers

employed by the bank can be termed as unfair

labour practice?

(v) Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India in terminating of services of Shri

Jeebhai K. Desai is legal, proper and justified?

(vi) Whether the 2nd party is entitled to the relief as

claimed? If so, what directions are necessary in

the matter?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE No. iii and iv:—The parties have adduced

evidence to support respective case. The 2nd party

submitted two documents as per list Ext. 12. Ext. 12/1 is

biodata of personal driver of Mr. K.K. Khanna, Chief

Manager, S.S.I. Branch, Ahmedabad that go to show that

Jeebhai K. Desai (2nd party) was engaged as personal driver

from 16.07.1998 to 16.05.1999 by Mr. K.K. Khanna for the

car provided to him. The 2nd party was not registered with

employment exchange. Though Biodata from is of Union

Bank of India but the contents of the form is used by Bank's

executive who have been allowed to keep personal driver.

So this Ext. 12/1 does not establish master and servant

relationship between 1st party and 2nd party. Ext. 12/2 is

staff circular dated 25.06.1999 of Union Bank of India, Head

office, Mumbai in connection with wages/salary of personal

drivers of Bank's executive, clearly go to show those

executive officers of Bank to whom Bank car has been

made available but driver is not available, they will make

payment of salary per month to their personal driver from

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2751

01.06.1999 according to category of cities and they will get

reimbursement accordingly from the bank and that Bank

executive will also reimburse per month Rs. 200/- towards

charge of vehicle washing. These two documents filed by

the 2nd party clearly go to discard his claim that he was

kept/engaged by the 1st party bank rather on the contrary

prove that he was personal driver of Bank's executive and

the executive was paying monthly salary to him from their

pocket and then executives got reimbursement of paid

amount from Bank through cash vouchers. The 21 cash

vouchers produced by the 1st party with list Ext. 14 speaks

clearly that Union Bank of India, S.S.I. branch Ahmedabad

was reimbursing through cash vouchers of the monthly

amount of fixed salary as per circular of Head office,

Mumbai amount paid by chief manager to his personal

driver. Those are Ext. 14/1 to 14/21. Ext. 14/22. 14/23 and 14/

24 are staff circulars regarding enhancement of salary of

personal drivers dated 25.06.1999, 23.01.2001 and 29.08.2002

respectively that go to show that Head office, Mumbai

used to enhance monthly salary of personal driver of

Executive engaged by them they were being reimbursed

the expenses through cash vouchers (Ext. 14/1 to 14/21).

The 2nd party Jeebhai in his oral evidence Ext. 13 during

cross examination by the 1st party's lawyer has clearly

admitted that his name was not sponsored by employment

exchange for appointment in the Bank of India and he had

not filed any application. He admitted that he was engaged

by Chief Manager Mr. K.K. Khanna as driver and that his

attendance was not marked as that of regular staff of the

Bank and that he has not been given any salary letter by

bank. He admitted that Bank (1st party) has not issued any

termination letter/order. He clearly admitted he was driving

vehicle in the capacity of personal driver of bank's officer

Mr. K.K. Khanna. He admitted that he has no paper to

show that he completed 240 days of work under

management of 1st party. More so, Ext. 16/1 which is letter

of Union Bank of India to the 2nd party Jeebhai K. Desai

regarding settlement of his loan account with Bank taken

by him in capacity of a customer and not in the capacity of

Bank's employee.

6. On consideration of the evidence and material

discussed above, I find and hold that no master and servant

relationship was existing between the 1st party and the

2nd party. I find and hold that Jeebhai was a personal driver

of chief manager and he was being paid monthly salary by

chief manager as per circular issued from Head officer of

U.B.I., Mumbai for personal driver from pockets and that

the 1st party never directly paid the salary to the 2nd party.

I, further find and hold that the management of Union Bank

of India was rightly treating Jeebhai. K. Desai as a personal

driver and has no any responsibility to pay to Jeebhai

wager as applicable to the regular drivers employed by the

Bank.

7. Accordingly Issue No. iii and iv are answered in

negative that there exist no relationship of master and

servant between 1st and 2nd party and that action of the

management of U.B.I. to treat Jeebhai K. Desai as a personal

driver of Bank executive and to deny him wages as

applicable to the regular drivers employed by the bank

cannot be termed as unfair labour practice.

8. ISSUE No. V: In view of the findings to Issue No.

iii & iv in the foregoings, I further find and hold that there

was no any action of the management of Union Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri Jeebhai K. Desai

because he was personal driver of Bank's executive and it

all depend upon like or dislike of keeping him as personal

driver or to change another personal driver and so there

was no question of observing seniority of personal drivers.

This issue is answered accordingly.

9. ISSUE No. i, ii, & vi:—In view of the findings to

issue No. (iii), (iv) and (v) in the foregoings, I further find

and hold that the reference is not maintainable and the 2nd

party has no cause of action against the 1st party and that

the 2nd party is not entitled to any of the relief in this case.

There is no any question of giving any direction in favour

of the 2nd party or against the 1st party.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order as

to any cost.

Let copy of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1057.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ+

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k

423@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@135@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O.1057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 423/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, AHMEDABAD as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the management of Union

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/135/2001-IR(B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

2752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st January, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 423/2004

Reference (I.T.C.) No. 88/2001 (Old)

The Regional Manager,

Union Bank of India,

171/1, Premchand House, Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380009

.....First Party

And

Their workman

Shri Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai

At. Naranpura Village, Sola Road,

Rabari Vas, Near Ravikunj Society,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380009

.....Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Bhushan K. Oza,

Advocate

For the Second Party :

Shri Binod J. Patel,

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by its Order No. L-12012/135/2001-IR (B-II) dated

17/19.10.2001 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute to

Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) for adjudication

on the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the aciton of the management of Union

Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri

Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai is legal, proper and

justified? Whether the management's action to treat

him as a personal Driver and to deny him wages as

applicable to the regular Driver employed by the bank

can be termed as unfair labour practice? If so, what

relief is the concerned workman entitled to and what

directions are necessary in the matter?"

2. The case of the 2nd party as per statement of claim

(Ext. 4) is that he was engaged as driver on 22.09.1993 at

Ellisbridge branch of Bank at Karak building, Mithakhali

Six Road and he was getting fixed salary of Rs. 1600 p.m.

which was enhanced to Rs. 3250 as fixed salary p.m. His

duty hour was from 8.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m. during bank

working hours with Chief Manager of the Bank and was

performing duty of Driver delegently. He worked as driver

for 4 years at Ellisbridge branch thereafter he was

transferred to June Vadaj Branch as driver where he also

worked for 4 years and thereafter he was engaged as Driver

at Ashram Road branch where he worked till 13.02.2001. He

worked continuously from 22.09.1993 to 13.02.2001 and

completed 240 working days every year. He was driving

vehicle No. GJ-1 PP-6227 under branch manager. He drives

different vehicles. He was bringing Branch Manager to

bank from residence and from bank to residence and was

driving vehicle to different places. He was doing works of

peon when vehicles remained parked in Bank premises. He

was paid monthly salary through vouchers. He also filled

up the forms for appointment to the post of regular driver

in the Bank and submitted the filled up form in the Bank but

no decision was taken for his regular appointment.

Subsequently he was verbally removed from the work of

driver of the Bank's vehicle. He was not given and notice

or notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment

compensation. Further case is that Ashokbhai Patel,

Arjunbhai Marwani, Rameshbhai Solanki were initially

engaged as driver on daily wages, they also filled up form

for regular class IV employees and out of them Rameshbhai

Solanki and Arjunbhai Marwani were regularised as peon

and thereafter Ashokbhai was appointed as regular driver

who were engaged as daily rated drivers like him. Further

case is that after his verbal termination in his place Juniors

Bipinbhai, Hareshbhai and Sumanbhai were engaged as

drivers as being paid on vouchers. Thereafter he raised

indusrial dispute before Central Labour Commissioner for

his appointment in the bank which was not accepted by

the bank in conciliation. He had wroked as driver with Bank

Manager's Shri N.S. Mehta, Shri K.S. Upadhyay, Shri K.D.

Pagi, Shri Harshadbhai Shah but Bank Manager Shri Desai

replied to labour commissioner that he was working as

personal driver which is untrue fact. On these scores

Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai has claimed relief for

declaring the action of termination by the 1st party against

the principles of natural justice and is illegal, improper and

for the relief of reinstatement with full back wages as regular

empoyee with cost and to any other relief to which he is

found entitled.

3. As against this case of the 1st party (Bank) as per

written statement (Ext. 6) is that the reference is not

maintainable, there is no relationship of master and servant

between bank and the 2nd party. Since 2nd party was not

kept/engaged as driver of vehicle by the bank, rather he

was personal driver of the bank manager and the Bank

manager used to reimburse the fixed payment made by him

to his personal driver through cash vouchers. Bank was

not paying salary/wages to the 2nd party. The 1st party

has denied para-1 to 8 of the statement of claim that 2nd

party was not engaged as driver in the Branch of Mithakhali

Six Road, Juna Vadaj branch and Ashram Road branch of

bank by the management of the 1st party and the 2nd party

has no duty in Bank branches from 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

and that 2nd party was not doing work in Bank as peon

when he had no duty of driver. It has also been denied that

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2753

the 2nd party was being transferred from one branch to

another by the Bank management of Zonal office. The 2nd

party was doing work of personal driver of chief manager

on the vehicle provided to executive officers by the Bank

and if chief manager/manager in personal capacity removed

the 2nd party from the work of private driver, the

management of U.B.I. (1st party) is not at all liable for any

violation of the provision of I.D. Act as alleged by the 2nd

party. It has been denied that the 1st party terminated the

2nd party verbally on 13.02.2001. On these scores prayer is

made to dismiss the reference since the 2nd party is not

entitled to any relief.

4. In view of the rival contention of the parties in

respective pleadings, the following issues are taken for

discussion and determination:

ISSUES

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Has the 2nd party valid cause of action in this

case?

(iii) Is there exist master and servant relationship

between the 1st party and 2nd party?

(iv) Whether the Bank management's action to treat

Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai as a personal driver

and to deny him wages as applicable to the regular

drivers employed by the bank can be termed as

unfair labour practice?

(v) Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India in terminating of services of Shri

Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai is legal, proper and

justified?

(vi) Whether the 2nd party is entitled to the relief as

claimed? If so, what directions are necessary in

the matter?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE No. iii and iv:—The parties have adduced

evidence to support respective case. The 2nd party

submitted seven documents as per list (Ext.7). Ext. 7/1 and

Ext. 7/2 are two vouchers. Ext. 7/1 is voucher dated

08.05.1998 of Vadaj branch of U.B.I. that shows that an

amount of Rs. 2500 as personal loan was sanctioned in the

name of Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai and was credited in

his account S/B 27943. This go to show that personal loan

was sanctioned to Karamshibhai in the capacity of customer

and not as bank staff. Ext. 7/2 is cash voucher of Rs. 2100

which was debited towards reimbursement of expenditure

of motor car to Chief Manager Shri V.S. Upadhyay of Vadaj

branch towards payment made by him to his driver. This

does not show that the cash voucher was prepared in the

name of 2nd party Karamshibhai. So Ext. 7/1 and 7/2 do not

show relationship of master and servant between 1st and

2nd party. Ext. 7/3 is circular dated 23.01.2001 of Head

Office, Mumbai of U.B.I. regarding enhancement of fixed

salary of personal drivers of Executive officers of the Bank

and also reimbursement of Rs. 250 towards monthly

washing of car provided to executives. Ext. 7/4 is copy of

certificate of registration of car 5297 in the designation

name of Chief Manager of Union Bank of India, Karaka

building No. 1, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ext. 7/5 is copy

of certificate of Insurance of vehicle in the designation

name Chief Manager (U.B.I.) Ellisbridge branch, Karaka

Building No. 1, Ashram Road for the period 15.10.1993 to

14.10.1994. Ext. 7/4 and Ext. 7/5 only go to show that U.B.I.

had purchased car in the name of Chief Manager for its

executive's use and bank had not provided any regular

driver to Chief Manager so Chief Manager was using that

car through engagement of personal driver for which

circular of Head Office, Mumbai has provided to all senior

executive officers of U.B.I. Ext. 7/7 is zerox copy of driving

licence of Karmasingbhai (2nd party) which can be said to

be a basis need even for personal driver to have valid

driving licence. Ext. 7/6 is filled up Biodata of Personal

driver showing name and residential address of the 2nd

party. This does not go to connect that this bio data is

meant for driver engaged by the Management of Union

Bank of India rather shows appointment as personal driver

of Bank's Executive. The documents filed by the 2nd party

clearly go to discard his claim that he was kept/engaged by

the 1st party bank rather on the contrary prove that he was

personal driver of Bank's executive and the executive was

paying monthly salary to him from their pocket and then

executive got reimbursement of the paid amount from the

Bank through cash vouchers. The three cash vouchers

Ext. 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3 produced by the 1st party with list

Ext. 13 and also 15 cash vouchers produced by the 1st

party with list Ext. 15 which are Ext. 15/1 to 15/15 speaks

clearly that Union Bank of India of Vadaj branch,

Ahmedabad was reimbursing to Bank executive (Chief

Manager) through cash vouchers of the monthly amount

of fixed salary as per circular of Head Office, Mumbai, paid

by Chief Manager to his personal driver. Ext. 15/16, 15/17,

15/18 are staff circulars of Head Office, Mumbai, regarding

enhancement of salary of personal driver dated 25.06.1999,

23.01.2001 and 29.08.2002 respectively that go to show that

Head Office, Mumbai to enhance monthly salary of personal

drivers of Bank's executives engaged by them. They were

being reimbursed the expenses through cash vouchers (Ext.

13/1 to 13/3 and 15/1 to 15/15 and also Ext. 7/1) produced

by the 2nd party. The 2nd party Karamshibhai Lallubhai

Desai in his oral evidence (Ext. 15) during cross examination

by the 1st party's lawyer has clearly admitted that his name

was not sponsored by employment exchange for

appointment in Union Bank of India and he had not filed

any application. He admitted that he was engaged by Chief

Manager as personal driver. He admitted that his attendance

was not marked as that of regular staff of the Bank and that

he has not been given salary letter by the Bank. He

2754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

admitted that the U.B.I. (1st party) has not issued any

termination letter/order. He clearly admitted that he was

driving vehicle in the capacity of personal driver of Bank's

executive. He admitted that he has no paper to show that

he completed 240 days of work under management of the

1st party. It was suggested to him in cross examination that

he is not employee of the U.B.I. (1st party).

6. On consideration of the evidence and material

discussed above, I find and hold that no master and servant

relationship was existing between the 1st party and the

2nd party. I find and hold that Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai

was a personal driver of chief manager and he was being

paid monthly salary by chief manager as per circular issued

from Head officer of U.B.I., Mumbai for personal driver

from pockets and that the 1st party never directly paid the

salary to the 2nd party. I, further find and hold that the

management of Union Bank of India was rightly treating

Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai as a personal driver and has

no any responsibility to pay to Karamshibhai wages as

applicable to the regular drivers employed by the Bank.

7. Accordingly Issue No. iii and iv are answered in

negative that there exist no relationship of master and

servant between 1st and 2nd party and that action of the

management of U.B.I. to treat Karamshibhai Lallubhai Desai

as a personal driver of Bank executive and to deny him

wages as applicable to the regular drivers employed by the

bank cannot be termed as unfair labour practice.

8. ISSUE No. V: In view of the findings to Issue No.

iii & iv in the foregoings, I further find and hold that there

was no any action of the management of Union Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri Karamshibhai

Lallubhai Desai because he was personal driver of Bank's

executive and it all depends upon like or dislike of keeping

him as personal driver or to change another personal driver

and so there was no question of observing seniority of

personal drivers. This issue is answered accordingly.

9. ISSUE No. i, ii, & vi: In view of the findings to

Issue No. (iii), (iv) and (v) in the foregoings, I further find

and hold that the reference is not maintainable and the 2nd

party has no cause of action against the 1st party and that

the 2nd party is not entitled to any of the relief in this case.

There is no any question of giving any direction in favour

of the 2nd party or against the 1st party.

Accordingly the reference is dismissed. No order as

to any cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1058.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼311@99½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-03-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@141@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O. 1058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 311/99)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/03/2014.

[No. L-12012/141/99 - IR(B-II)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/311/99

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE

Dy. General Secretary,

State Bank of India Staff Congress,

5/235, Pragati State Bank Staff Colony,

Vikasnagar,

Jabalpur

...Workman/Union

Versus

The Divisional Manager,

UCO Bank, Divisional office,

97, Anand Nagar,

Raipur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of January 2014

1. As per letter dated 6-10-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-12012/141/99-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the demand made by the State Bank of

India Staff Congress, Jabalpur for regularization of

the service of Shri Manoj Kumar Choutala, Temporary

Sweeper at Krishi Nagar Branch, Jabalpur as

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2755

Messenger/Sweeper by the Management of UCO

Bank is justified and legal? If so, what releif is the

said disputant entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed his statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/3. The case of 1st party workman is that he

was working as Messenger, Waterman, scavenger during

April 89 to March 90, 1-6-93 to 28-4-97 in IInd party Bank.

His services were appreciated by the management. Work

of messenger, waterman, scavenger were extracted from

him. He was paid Rs.360 per month till March 1990,

Rs. 200 per month from June 93 to November 94, Rs. 612

plus 200 from 30-11-94 till 28-4-97. His services were not

regularized. He was not paid salary of regular employee.

He was subjected to exploitation. Workman prays for

regularization of his services at payment of salary of regular

employee.

3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 5/1

to 5/4. IInd party submits that workman cannot be

represented by Union of SBI. There is recognized Union in

UCO Bank. The reference is not tenable. It is further

submitted that workman was engaged purely on need basis.

He was not appointed against any vacant post. Workman

was not continuously engaged. It is denied that workman

was working as messenger, waterman, scavenger. The

workman was not engaged dehors the rules. Any certificate

was not issued by the Bank about performance of service.

The allegation of exploitation are denied as false. It is denied

that article 39(d) of constitution has been violated by the

Bank. The management claims ignorance about contents

of circular dated 24-1-84 to 7-11-84, 18-2-97. It is submitted

that workman is not entitled for regularization of service.

Specific provisions of Desai Award, Sastry Award are not

pleaded. IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideraiton and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the demand made by

In Negative

the State Bank of India Staff

Congress, Jabalpur for regula-

rization of the service of Shri

Manoj Kumar Choutala, Temporary

Sweeper at Krishi Nagar Branch,

Jabalpur as Messenger/Sweeper

by the management of UCO Bank

is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Union is not

entitled to?"

entitled to

any relief.

REASONS

5. Present reference is made for ajudicating legality

of the demand of the Union - State Bank of India Staff

Congress. Workman Manoj Kumar Choutala filed affidavit

of evidence. However he has failed to remain present for

his cross-examination. Therefore his evidence cannot be

considered. Management filed affidavit of evidence of

Shri Rohit Praveen Ekka working as Manager in UCO Bank.

His affidavit is in nature of denial of claim of Union. That

workman was never appointed against vacant post. His

engagement was as casual sweeper. He had not completed

240 days service in any calendar year. The evidence of

management's witness remained unchallenged. Workman

has not adduced his evidence. Therefore the demand of

Union is not supported by any evidence. IInd party has

produced copies of Circular dated 19-10-89, 31-3-90 and

seniority list. Circular dated 19-10-89 contemplates that a

casual worker discharging duties more than 240 days

without interruption during period of 3 years immediately

preceding settlement deserves consideraiton for

absorption. No evidence is adduced by workman in

compliance of said circular. Therefore I record my finding

on Point No. 1 in Negative.

6. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The demand made by the State Bank of India Staff

Congress, Jabalpur for regularization of the service

of Shri Manoj Kumar Choutala, Temporary

Sweeper at Krishi Nagar Branch, Jabalpur as

Messenger/Sweeper by the management of UCO

Bank is not legal and proper.

(2) Union is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk-1059.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

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]

eqEcbZ ds ¼iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 3@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@3@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y-&12012@53@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2007)

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

1, Mumbai as shwon in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workman, received by the Central Government on

13/3/2014.

[No. L-12012/53/2006 - IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

2756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

MUMBAI

Present:

JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-1/3 of 2007

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

State Bank of India

And

Their workmen represented by State Bank of India Staff

Union

Appearances:

For the State Bank of India : Mr. Nadkarni, Adv.

For the State Bank of India :

Mr. Abhay Kulkarni,

Staff Union

Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 18th day of June, 2013

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central

Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of

sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The terms of the reference

given in the schedule are as follows:

Whether the action of the Management of State Bank

of India, Depository Participant and Global

Custodian Service Division, Mumbai by not

regularising the services of Shri Sanjay Pawar,

Santosh Kadam and Paresh P. Valantra is justified? If

not, what relief the applicants are entitled to?

2. According to the statement of claim filed by the

State Bank of India Staff Union (hereinafter referred to as

the Union) this reference concerns regularization of three

workmen, namely, Sanjay Pawar, Santosh Kadam and Paresh

Walantra who were performing their duties within the

premises of the Bank in the capacity of purported contract

labour. The workmen were performing the duties of house-

keeping, messenger and coolies and their job was full time

job. Santosh Kadam was a daily wager during the period

1994-1995 and thereafter the Bank treated him as a contract

labour from 1995-2006. Sanjay Pawar and Paresh Walantra

performed their duties continuously during the period 1996-

2006. In 2006 the services of the workmen were terminated

illegally. The workmen were performing the same duties as

were performed by the permanent workmen. The Bank

officials assigned duties to the workmen and supervised

their work. The attendance of the workmen was marked by

the officials of the Bank. The contractor was dummy and

the real employer was the Bank. There was direct employer-

employee relationship between the Bank and the workmen.

The purported contract was sham and camouflage to

deprive the workmen from the benefits given to the

permanent workmen. The fact that the Bank continued to

engage the workmen without any break for more than a

decade discloses that the work performed by the workmen

was of perennial and regular nature. The Bank did not

obtain registration and licence under the Contract Labour

Act. The provisions concerning retrenchment were not

applied. According to the statement of claim the workmen

are entitled to be regularized in the employment of the Bank.

3. According to the written statement filed by State

Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) two

sections of the Bank were functioning from a part of

permises known as Madhu Industrial Estate, Worli, Mumbai

from the year 1995 till February 2002. The area occupied

was approximately 23338 sq.ft. The sections got

housekeeping work done from a contractor, namely, M/s.

Unique Housekeeping who engaged seventeen persons

for the work. In February 2002 the two sections were shifted

to Verma Chambers and the area came to be occupied by

them was only 2000 s.q.ft. M/s. Unique Housekeeping

continued to provide housekeeping services at Verma

Chambers but reduced the number of persons to three.

These three persons were the workmen. On 4.7.2005 the

two sections were again shifted to Mumbai Main Branch.

As Mumbai Main Branch had full work force on its pay roll

M/s. Unique Housekeeping was informed that the contract

with them for providing housekeeping services would be

discontinued from 1.10.2005. A representative of M/s.

Unique Housekeeping called on the officials of the Bank

on 13.10.2005 and accepted the fact of termination of the

arrangement with them which was also acknowledged by

M/s. Unique Housekeeping vide letter dt. 5.12.2005. The

workmen are not employees of the Bank. They were

engaged by M/s. Unique Housekeeping and the payment

to them was made directly by the contractor. There was no

employer-employee relationship between the Bank and the

workmen. Moreover, the work done by the persons deputed

by the contractor was part time and was not of perennial

nature and was not incidental to the business of the Bank.

The Bank has denied the averments made by the Union

and has prayed that the reference be answered in their

favour.

5. The workman Santosh Kadam filed his affidavit

and he has been cross examined by learned counsel for the

Bank. The Bank has filed affidavit of Vilas Vishnupant Joshi

who has been cross examined by learned counsel for the

Union.

6. Heard Shri Abhay Kulkarni on behalf of the Union

and Shri Nadkarni on behalf of the Bank.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2757

7. The workman Santosh Kadam has stated in his

cross examination:

Unique Housekeeping engaged me in the year 1996

and sent me to State Bank of India, Mumbai Main Branch.

The Bank never interviewed me. The Bank never issued an

appointment letter in my favour.......... This is correct that a

man from Unique Housekeeping supervised my work in

the Bank. Ex-W-2 is not Bank muster roll but it is the muster

roll of the contractor. I was paid salary by Unique

Housekeeping. I am not a member of State Bank of India

Staff Union............ This is correct that I was not an employee

of the Bank.

8. It is not disputed that the engagement of contract

labour was not prohibited.

9. Two of the well recognised tests to find out

whether the contract labour are the direct employees of the

principal employer are (i) whether the principal employer

and not the contractor pays the salary of the workmen. (ii)

Whether the principal employer controls and supervises

the work of the workmen. In this case the workman Santosh

Kadam has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that

he was paid salary by Unique Housekeeping and that a

man from Unique Housekeeping supervised his work in

the Bank. The workman Santosh Kadam has also stated in

his cross-examination that the Bank never interviewed him

and never issued any appointment letter in his favour and

that he was not an employee of the Bank. There is thus no

doubt that the workmen were not the employees of the

Bank.

10. There is absolutely no evidence on record that

the contract between the Bank and Unique Housekeeping

was sham, nominal and camouflage and, therefore, the

question of directing the Bank to absorb or regularize the

services of the workman does not arise.

11. From the above discussion it is clear that the

workmen are not entitled to be regularized in the service of

the Bank and they are not entitled to get any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE G.. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1060.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos izcaèra=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

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

vfèdj.k @Je U;k;ky;]ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2007½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@03@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41012@48@2006&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2014

S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Central Railway, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/03/2014.

[No. L-41012/48/2006-IR(B-I]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

No. CGIT/13/2007

Party No. 1 :

The Divl. Railway Manager,

Central Railway, Nagpur Div.,

Nagpur,

Maharashtra

V/s

Party No. 2 :

Sh. Shankar S. Bahuria,

R/o Ambedkar Ward,

Post : Ballarpur,

Distt. Chandrapur

AWARD

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 Central Railways and their workman, Shri

Shankar Shivcharan Bahuria, for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-41012/48/2006-IR (B-I) dated 02.01.2007, with the

following schedule:—

"Whether the action of Rly Authorities of Central

Railway, Nagpur Divisional, Nagpur in dismissing

the services of Shri Shankar Shivcharan Bhuria, Ex-

Pointman w.e.f. 15.06.1990 on the ground of

absenteeism and not paying his GPF, NIGS etc. till

2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written statement,

in response to which, the workman, Shri Shankar Shivcharan

Bahuria, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of

claim and the management of Central Railways, ("party no.

1" in short) filed the written statement.

According to the claim of the workman his dismissal

from service w.e.f. 15.06.1990 on the ground of absenteeism

2758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is illegal and therefore he is entitled for reinstatement in

service with full back wages and also to get GPF, Gratuity

and pension.

3. The party no. 1 resisted the claim of the workman

by filing their written statement and pleading inter-alia

that their action in terminating the service of the workman

is legal and proper and the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

4. When the reference was pending for adjudication,

on 21.02.2013, advocate for the management filed a pursis

stating that the workman was a permanent employee of the

party no. 1 and he was dismissed from services, after

conducting of a departmental enquiry as per rules framed

under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such,

the dispute is not an industrial dispute and the applicant

can only agitate the matter before the Central

Administrative Tribunal. The learned advocate for the

workman made endorsement on the pursis stating that the

workman be granted liberty to file petition before the Central

Administrative Tribunal. Subsequently, the workman filed

an application supported with affidavit for grant of

permission to him to approach the Central Administrative

Tribunal for redressal, on the ground that the workman

was a permanent employee of party no. 1 and the reference

made by the Central Government as an Industrial Dispute

is not maintainable and therefore, it is necessary for the

workman to approach the appropriate forum i.e. Central

Administrative Tribunal for redress.

5. As admittedly, the workman in question was a

permanent employee of the party no. 1, it was necessary

for him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for

redress and as such, in the interest of justice, the application

filed by the workman is allowed. This reference is to be

disposed off as withdrawn and the workman is to be give,

the workman liberty to approach the appropriate forum for

redress. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The reference is disposed of as withdrawn. The

workman is given the liberty to approach the appropriate

forum for redress, if he so likes.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1061.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&03&2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@53@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi the 14th, March, 2014

S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2003)

of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

KOLKATA as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of South Eastern Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13-03-2014

[No. L-41011/53/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 30 of 2003

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management

of South Eastern Railway, Kolkata

A N D

Their workmen.

PRESENT:

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the :

Mr. Srijan Nayak, Advocate.

Management

On behalf of the :

None

Workmen

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Railway

Dated: 25th February, 2014

A W A R D

By Order No.L-41011/53/2002-IR(B-I) dated

06.10.2003 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its power under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"As per the direction of Supreme Court in Writ

Petition (C) No. 196 to 1995 dated 3.12.97 whether

the commission vendors working in various division

of S.E.Railway are entitled for weekly rest with pay

or not? if so, what relief they are entitled?

2. Like previous day (13.01.2014) non appears on

behalf of the union/workmen when the case is taken up for

hearing today. Record goes to show that the notice has

duly been served upon the union. From the above conduct

of the union it may reasonably be presumed that the union

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2759

is not at all interested to proceed with the instant reference

case further.

3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the management of

South Eastern Railway has submitted that the directions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in connection with Writ

Petition (C) No. 196 of 1995 have already been complied

with by the management and an effidavit to that effect was

sworn and submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It

has been further submitted that on the basis of the said

affidavit sworn on behalf of the management, Hon'ble Court

was pleased to pass an order on 16.04.2001 in connection

with a Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 75/1999 in Writ Petition

the Hon'ble Court was satisfied that the orders of the

Hon'ble Court had been duly complied with.

4. On careful perusal of this reference case it appears

that there is nothing on record to show that after the said

order of the Hon'ble Court, workmen filed affidavit before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging that the statement made

in the affidavit of the management was not true.

5. Considering the above facts an circumstances and

since none appears on behalf of the workmen inspite of

opportunities being given, I do not find any reason to

proceed with this reference any further. Accordingly, instant

reference case is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute

Award".

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

25th February, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1062.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkWQ

gSnjkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd

vf/kdj.k caxykSj ds ¼iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 128@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&3&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ12012@69@2007&vkbZ vkj¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2014

S.O. 1062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 128/2007)

of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-com-Labour Court,

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of

Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13-3-2014

[No. L-12012/69/2007 - IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, BANGALORE

Dated

31st December, 2013

PRESENT :

Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C R No. 128/2007

I Party

II Party

Sh. Sharanappa Hosmani,

1. The Asstt. General

Opp. Chinranjeevi Methodist Manager,

School, Hederabad Road,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Gulbarga Distt.,

Gulbarga.

Yadir - 585 201.

2. The General Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

HQ, Gun Factory,

Hyderabad - 560 001.

Appearances:

1 Party

Shri L. P. Reddy, Advocate

II Party

Shri S K M Shetty, Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/

69/2007-IR(B-1) dated 06.09.2007 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of State Bank

of Hyderabad, Gulbarga in imposing the punishment

of compulsory retirement from service in respect of

Shri Sharanappa Hosmani, Clerk-cum-cashier is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in

C R 128/2007 when notices were issued to both the sides

they entered their appearance through their respective

2760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

advocates and I party filed the claim statement on

16.01.2007, whereas the II Party filed its counter statement

on 28.12.2007. After completion of the pleadings having

regard to certain allegations made in the claim statement

touching on the fairness of Domestic Enquiry while framing

a Preliminary issue as to "Whether the Domestic Enquiry

conducted by the II Party against the I Party is fair and

proper" and receiving the evidence adduced by both the

sides and hearing their learned advocates by Order dated

02.12.2010 the said issue came to be answered in the

affirmative i.e., the Domestic Enquiry held against the I

party by the II Party is fair and proper. In view of the finding

on the Domestic Enquiry issue the points that now remains

to be considered are:

Point No. 1 :

Whether the finding of the

Enquiry Officer charges being proved is perverse?

Point No. 2 :

If not, whether the punishment

of compulsory retirement imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority

is disproportionate?

Point No. 3 :

What Order/Award?

3. The brief facts leading to this reference and award

are that while the I Party was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier

at Yadgir Branch of the II Party on a complaint filed by a

customer of the said branch by name Smt. Mallamma copy

of which is marked as exhibit DE 20 in the Domestic Enquiry

wherein it was alleged that she has deposited the proceeds

that she had received consequent to the death of her

husband working in the KSRTC and that as she was in

financial need on 14.05.1998 with an intention to avail loan

on the said FD with the Assistance of the Bank Employee

Sh. Nepalji (examined as MW 2) she had given all the

documents relating to the loan putting her signatures with

him and after one hour of the handing over the documents

Sh. Nepalji told her that it is not possible to disburse the

loan that day and asked her to come on the next day and

accordingly on the next day when she came to the bank

and enquired Sh. Nepalji was not there and again on the

next day she came to the bank and learnt that he had not

come and apprehending some foul she made enquiry with

Sh. Chandrashekar Naik another employee in the Bank who

happens to have come from her village and he told that she

could get the amount only on the return of Nepalji and she

may come after two to three days and subsequently

in spite she visiting the bank on several occasions she was

not given the loan amount and ultimately when she caught

Nepalji at his house and enquired about her money he

expressed surprise and ignorance and thereby he has

cheated her and further requested to cancel all the

documents she had given with Nepalji and closing the FD

account prematurely to pay her amount and on the basis of

that complaint when the Branch Manager lodged a

complaint of impersonation and cheating without naming

any of the Bank Employees as accused to Sub-Inspector

of Town Police Station, Yadgir the Police taking the I party

into custody made enquiries and obtained his judicial

custody who came on bail on 15.06.1999 and thereafter the

Police completing the investigation submitted C Report to

the Court with observation the complainant Smt. Mallamma

having received the amount of deposit from the Bank she

has no complaint any more against the bank and that they

are unable to apprehend the imposter of Smt. Mallamma

and same was accepted by the jurisdictional magistrate by

his Order dated 03.08.2002. Thereafter the II Party issued a

show-cause notice to the I party dated 09-10-2002 alleging

that he has failed to ensure the delivery of Banker’s Cheque

bearing No. 825638 dated 14-05-1998 to the beneficiary and

caused issue of special TDR bearing No. 852617 for

Rs. 1,50,000.00 from the proceeds of Banker’s Cheque

bearing No. 825638 dated 14-05-1998 for Rs. 1,50,000.00

and availed demand loan against said term deposit receipt

resulting in loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs. 1,10,000.00

excluding interest. On reply by the I Party dated 03-12-2002

denying the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice

being not satisfied with the same the II Party issued him

Charge sheet dated 30-12-2002 as under :

‘‘Please refer to our letter No. AGM I/GR. II/3661,

dated 09-10-2002, advising you to show cause/written

statement in your defence, as to why disciplinary

action should not be taken against you, for the

alleged charges levelled against you.

We also refer your written defense statement dated

03-12-2002 which is not accepted by us.

Hence, it is now decided to initiate disciplinary action

against you for the following alleged irregularities/

lapses committed, in respect of impersonation case

while working at Yadgiri branch.

You failed to ensure the delivery of the Banker's

Cheque bearing No. 825638 dated 14.05.2008 for

Rs. 1,50,000-00 to the beneficiary.

You had caused to issue a Special Term Deposit,

bearing No. 852617 for Rs. 1,50,000.00 from the

proceeds of Banker's Cheque bearing No. 825638

dated 14-05-1998 for Rs. 1,50,000-00 and availed

demand loan against the said term deposit receipt.

Your above lapses resulted in the loss of about

Rs. 1,10,000-00 (excluding interest) to the Bank.

Sri S. C. Patil, Chief Manager, Nehru Gunj Branch,

Gulbarga is appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct

an enquiry into the allegations and submit his report.

He will advise you the date, time and venue of the

enquiry to be conducted by him.

Sr S. V. Math, Branch Manager, Wadi Branch

appointed as Presenting Officer to present the case

on behalf of the Bank before the Enquiry Officer and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2761

to lead the necessary evidence in furtherance of the

charges.

You may, if so desire, take the assistant of

representative of the trade union of the Bank

Employees to which you are a member to defend

your case in the enquiry.

Disciplinary Authority/

Asst. General Manager"

and ordered to hold the Domestic Enquiry by appointing

S. C. Patil as Enquiry Officer and S. V. Math as Presenting

Officer. Then the Enquiry Officer while observing the

formalities of preliminary hearing recording the evidence

of Sh. K.V. Nargund, Branch Manager, Sh. K. Nepalji,

Assistant Manager, Padmanabh H. Math, Deputy Manager,

Sh. R. S. Kulkarni, Cashier-cum-Clerk, Sh. Abdul Rahim, Ty.

Clerk, Sh. Chandrashekar Naik, Daftry as MW 1 to MW 6

and exhibiting ME-1 to ME-19 and exhibiting the documents

produced by the 1 Party/CSE as DE - 1to DE-41, the detailed

description of which are narrated in the annexure after

receiving the written briefs from the Presenting Officer

and Defence Representative submitted his report dated

16.11.2003 as charges being proved. Then the Disciplinary

Authority while enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer

issued show-cause notice dated 04.03.2004 to show cause

why he should not be imposed with punishment of

compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits and

on the reply of the 1 Party dated 22.03.2004 interalia

contending that Sh. Nepalji, Sh. K V Nargund, Sh. Abdul

Rehim, and Sh. P. H. Math were responsible for all the

happenings who have been let off with minor penalties the

proposed punishment of compulsory retirement against

him who is not even guilty is unprecedented, the

Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the same

by his order dated 26.03.2004 imposed the punishment of

Compulsory Retirement with superannuation benefits. Then

on appeal by the 1 party to Appellate Authorty the Appellate

Authority affording him an opportunity of hearing by its

Order dated 01.09.2006 confirmed the order of Disciplinary

Authority. Thereafter the conciliation proceedings initiated

by the 1 Party before ALC(C), Bellary since ended in his

failure report dated 30.04.2007 this reference came to be

made for adjudicaton.

4. After the issue of the Domestic Enquiry was

disposed off and matter was posted for arguments on merits

the learned advocates appearing for both sides filed their

written agruments. The learned advocate appearing for I

party in support of his arguments cited the decisions

reported in

"1 ILR 2010 Kar 2829 - Smt. B. C. Ammakka vs. State

of Karnataka

2. 2000 I LLJ 495 (SC) - Hardwari Lal vs. State of UP

and Ors.

3. 2006 AIR SCW 2709 - G. M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat

& Anr."

whereas the learned advocate appearing for the II party in

support of his arguments cited the decisions reported in

"1. AIR 2008 SC 1162 - West Bokaro Colliery of M/s.

TISCO Ltd vs. Ram Pravesh Singh.

2. 2010 I LLJ 807 (Bombay) - Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar

Karnataka Ltd., vs. Dashrath Bajirao Nirgude and

others".

5. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence made available in the Domestic

Enquiry with the arguments put forward by the learned

advocates appearing for both sides my finding on Point

No. 1 is in the Affirmative, Point No. 2 as does not survive

for consideration and Point No. 3 as per final order/award

for the following

REASONS

6. Point No. 1- Since as per the charges levelled

against the 1 Party who was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier

at Yadgir Branch of the II Party he failed to ensure the

delivery of the Banker's cheque bearing No. 825638 dated

14.05.1998 for Rs. 1,50,000.00 to the beneficiary i.e., Smt.

Mallamma and secondly he caused to issue a Special Term

Deposit bearing No. 852617 for Rs. 1,50,000.00 from the

proceeds of the banker's cheque bearing no. 825638 dated

14.05.1998 for Rs. 1,50,000.00 and availed demand loan

against the said receipt and the said lapse on his part

resulted in the loss of about Rs. 1,10,000 to the Bank, it has

to be seen whether this aspect has been proved by the

management/II Party in the Domestic Enquiry. At the outset

when the beneficiary i.e., Smt. Mallamma has not been

examined in the Domestic Enquiry to substantiate that the

Banker's Cheque was not delivered to her and that a Special

Term Deposit bearing No. 852617 for Rs. 1,50,000.00 from

the proceeds of the banker's cheque was issued to some

other person cannot be accepted by any laymen. Moreover

when the customer Smt. Mallamma in her complaint to the

Bank which is marked as DE 20 in the Domestic Enquiry

categorically stated that she had entrusted all the signed

papers for availing loan on her FD with another bank

employee Sh. Nepalji who has been examined as MW 2 in

Domestic Enquiry and that he has cheated her, by no stretch

of imagination it can be said that I Party failed to ensure the

delivery of the Banker's Cheque No. 825638 dated 14.05.1998

to the beneficiary. On the other hand when it has come in

the evidence of MW 3 Sh. Padmanabha Math that the

thumb impression of the customer was attested by him

nothing could be attributed to I Party as Clerk-cum-Cashier

having not ensured the delivery of Banker's Cheque to

customer. When this is the admission by MW 3 in his

evidence it is he who made the employee delivering the

banker's cheque that the customer is known to him and

thereby the question of the I Party creating an imposter for

the purpose of delivery of cheque does not arise at all. On

2762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

this admission of MW 3 the Disciplinary Authority in his

order states that this admission does not mean that he/

Padmanabha Math has delivered the instrument to the party

and it is the duty of the counter clerk to deliver the

instrument to the beneficiary but this observation by the

Disciplinary Authority is without any logic. When the

employee Padmanabha Math admits that he attested the

thum impression it is he who identified the person to whom

the instrument was delivered as the customer, therefore, if

at all the cheque was delivered to some other person other

than the customer it is Sh. Padmanabha Math who could

be blamed and not the 1 Party. Under these circumstances

the Enquiry Officer in my opinion on the evidence placed

before him erred in holding the charge No. 1 and 2 levelled

against 1 party being proved and the Disciplinary Authority

as well erred in accepting such finding and imposing the

impugned punishment. Under the circumstances, I arrive

at conclusion the finding of Enquiry Officer charge No. 1

and 2 are proved being perverse liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, I arrive at conclusion of answering Point No.

1 in the Affirmative.

7. Point No. 2 and 3: In view of my finding on Point

No. 1, the Point No. 2 does not survive for the

consideration. When the finding of the Enquiry Officer on

the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority imposed the

impugned punishment and same is upheld by the Appellate

Authority is found perverse they are liable to be set aside

and the 1 Party is entitle for reinstatement with full

backwages, continuity of service and all other conseqential

benefits that he would have received in the absence of his

compulsory retirement. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

The reference is allowed holding the action of the

management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga

in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement

from service in respect of Shri Sharnappa Hosmani,

clerk cum cashier is not justified and that he is entitle

for reinstatement, continuity of service, full

backwages and other consequential benefits that he

would have received in the absence of his compulsory

retirement.

(Dictated to U.D.C. transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 31st December, 2013)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

Documents exhibited in Domestic Enquiry on behalf of

management:

ME-1

Letter obtained from Sub-Inspector of Police,

Yadgir Town Police Station dated 18.06.1999

ME-2

Demand Loan Voucher dated 28.09.1998 for

Rs. 1,10,000

ME-3

Documents declared-illiterate Borrower

ME-4

Certificate of Documents executed

ME-5

Application for Advances against TDR HO

11.33

ME-6

Special TDR Application form

ME-7

SPL TDR No. 0852617 dated 24.09.1998

ME-8

Special TDR Credit voucher dated 24.09.1998

for Rs. 1,50,000

ME-9

Demand Loan Debit Voucher dated 14.05.1998

for Rs. 1,50,000

ME-10 :

Bankers Cheque or voucher dated 14.05.1998

for Rs. 1,50,000

ME-11 :

Bankers Cheque bearing No. 825638 dated

14.05.1998 for Rs. 1,50,000

ME-12 :

Demand Loan Sanction letter dated 14.05.1998

H.O. 1655

ME-13 :

Certificate of documents execution dated

14.05.1998

ME-14 :

DP Note dated 14.05.1998 HO 1191 for

Rs. 1,50,000

ME-15 : Documents declared-illiterate borrower HO

1393 dated 14.05.1998

ME-16 : DP note Delivery letter HO 1187 for Rs. 1,50,000

ME-17 : Letter of waver HO 1126 dated 14.05.1998

ME-18 : Application for Advance HO 1133 dated

14.05.1998

ME-19 : Folio 118 of Bank Payment Register dated

28.09.1998

Documents exhibited in Domestic Enquiry on behlaf of

the CSE:

DE-1

: Spl. TDR Application for Receipt No. 621669 for

Rs. 40490

DE-2

: Spl. TDR Application for Receipt No. 621670 for

Rs. 30316

DE-3

: Spl. TDR Application for Receipt No. 621667 for

Rs. 50000

DE-4

: Spl. TDR Application for Receipt No. 621666 for

Rs. 51050

DE-5

: Spl. TDR Application for Receipt No. 6025564 for

Rs. 40000

DE-6

: Spl. TDR No. 621666 dated 21.08.1997 for

Rs. 51050

DE-7

: Spl TDR No. 621667 dated 21.08.1997 for

Rs. 50000

DE-8

: Spl. TDR No. 621670 dated 21.08.1997 for

Rs. 30316

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2763

DE-9

: Spl. TDR No. 621669 dated 21.08.1997 for

Rs. 40490/-

DE-10 : Spl. TDR No. 0035564 dated 10.04.1996 for

Rs. 40000/-

DE-11 : Bank book of instruction chapter V

DE-12 : Circular No. GB/98-99/17 dated 31.08.1998

DE-13 : Circular No. GB-89-90/132 dated 24.02.1990

DE-14 : Circular No. GB-95-96/73 dated 24.02.1996

DE-15 : Circular No. GB-97-98/62 dated 05.03.1998

DE-16 : Circular No. GB-98-99/23 dated 08.09.1998

DE-17 : Circular No. GB-98-99/36 dated 02.12.1998

DE-18 : Circular No. GB-99-00/31 dated 29.09.1999

DE-19 : Account Opening form of Smt. Mallamma

DE-20 : Complaint of Smt. Mallamma in kannada

DE-21 : Translation of complaint of Smt. Mallamma

DE-22 : Complaint made by the Branch with Police

DE-23 : Demand loan ledger sheet a/c bearing No. 4-320

DE-24 : Transfer Scroll Page No. 156

DE-25 : Transfer Scroll Page No. 58

DE-26 : Circular No. GB 1996-97/51 dated 18.12.1996

DE-27 : Bank’s Book of Instruction Chapter II Page 116

DE-28 : Bank's Book of Instruction Chapter II Page 108

DE-29 : Bank's Book of Instruction Chapter V Page 252

DE-30 : Bank's Book of Instruction Chapter II Page 114

DE-31 : Court Order of Civil and JMFC, Yadgir

DE-32 : Demand Loan Ledger Sheet in respect of

Smt. Mallamma

DE-33 : Copy of FIR dated 17.04.1999

DE-34 : Transfer of Charge HO 1603(1), 1603(2)

DE-35 : Bank's Book of Instruction Chapter III Page 169

DE-36 : Attendance Register Page 37 and 38

DE-37 : Letter addressed to Enquiry Officer by the Branch

Manager, Yadgir, dated 22.03.2003

DE-38 : Bank's Book of Instruction Page 150

DE-39 : Demand Loan account bearing No. 109/98

DE-40 : Bank's Book of Instruction Chapter 16 Page 998

DE-41 : Bank's Book of Instruction Chapter V Page 262

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2014

dk- vk- 1063.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dk

14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ jsyos izca/k ra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k /kuckn

ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 5@2001 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12@03@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la[;k ,y& 41011@24@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2014

S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.5/2001) 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 Eastern Railway, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

12/03/2014.

[No. L-41011/24/2000-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 DHANBAD

Reference: No.5/2001

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.

1947, Employer in relation to the management of Eastern

Railway, Mugalsarasi

AND

Their workmen.

Present: Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer,

Appearances:

For the Employers

None

For the workman. :-

None

State: Jharkhand

Industry-Railway

Dated-10/2/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/24/2000/IR (B-I) dated

2/5-I-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 dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

''Whether S/Shri Basudeo paswan and 76 others

workmen (as detailed at Annexure-A enclosed) can

claim themselves as the workmen of Divisional

Railway manager, Eastern Railway, Mugalsarai if they

are workmen of DRM Eastern Raiway Mugalsarai, if

they are workmen of DRM, E.Railway, Mugalsarai,

whether the action of the management for not

regularizing their services was justified? If not to

what relief the workman are entitled?''

2764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2014/CHAITRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.L.

Name of the Designation

Date of

No.

Workmen

Appointment

Basdeb Paswam

Mechanic

01/09/1991

Shyam Bhadur Mistri

Fitter or Weldar

01/11/1989

Hari Singh

Denting Mistri

01/01/1991

Md. Shamsuddin

Auto Electric

20/08/1991

Md. Mansur Aalam

Electrical

01/01/1991

Ram Pyare Sharma

12/07/1991

Rajesh Jamuda

Mechanic Helper 01/09/1991

Sandeep Sarkar

01/11/1995

Umesh Paswan

01/09/1991

Nitayee Ojha

P/L operator

01/7/1991

Ramakant Singh

01/09/1991

Jagesar Paswan

01/01/1991

Yogendra Singh

01/06/1991

Bhola Mukherjee

01/10/1991

Suresh Sharma

Damper driver

11/1/1991

Anil Singh

01/06/1990

Satyajeet Rakshit

01/08/1993

Jugal Mahto

01/16/1991

Tulsi Mahto

01/09/1991

C.B. Singh

01/07/1991

Baban Singh

01/05/1989

Jeevan Mukharjee

Damper Helper

19/07/1990

Uday Chaudhary

01/10/1992

Md. Alam Khan

01/10/1990

Sajan Yadav

24/04/1991

Jeetu Ravat

01/07/1992

Ajay Kumar Singh

P/L Helper

01/07/1991

Anuj Kumar Baitha

01/11/1993

Satyendra Yadav

01/10/1993

Chinta ojha

01/07/1992

Girja Paswan

15/11/1996

Md. Samsad Ahmad

Genretar

10/10/1993

Operator

Hirdaya Chaudhary

Genre tar Helper

01/03/1998

Naresh Singh

Pitter plant

01/06/1991

Abdhesh Ram

01/01/1991

Shiv Kumar Sharma

19/09/1990

Prawesh Ram

Pitter Helper

01/07/1991

Yogendra Singh

Supervisor

19/11/1991

(Munshi)

Ashok Sharma

Supervisor

10/04/1994

Ram Vachan Sharma

01/06/1991

Bajrang Bali Ray

10/05/1995

Sujeet Nandi

Storekeeper

01/07/1989

Jarg Novel Kangaru

Storekeeper

01/11/1994

Sanjay Kumar Baidha

01/11/1996

Bindeshri Prasad

Plant Helper

01/07/1991

Ram Dhani Kumhar

01/06/1991

Jawahar Ravat

01/06/1991

Jagu Singh Bodra

01/07/1991

Lakshaman Ravat

01/08/1991

Sona Ram

01/01/1993

Akhila Nand Verma

15/07/1991

Krishna Baitha

27/04/1991

Bnadhan Ram

01/08/1991

Dukhi Chhaudhri

Cook Mesh

01/04/1990

Jagnarayan Chaudhari Do

01/03/1998

Ram Avdhesh Paswan Do

01/03/1998

Narayan Sarkar

Genre tar Helper 01/11/1998

Subrat Kumar Mishra

curiar

29/04/1994

Narayan Ram

Grad

01/04/1989

Sambhu Ram

01/05/1989

Sudhrshan Prasad

01/08/1991

Shiv Murath Singh

01/08/1991

Gopal Ram

01/10/1991

Ram Dayal Pal

01/08/1991

Jagdeesh Saw

Water Man

01/09/1991

Shyam Bihari Paswan

01/07/1991

Jagarnath Chaudhari

Deli Mazdoor

01/04/1995

Md Jahir Khan

10/05/1998

Amar Nath Mishra

12/04/1993

Ramesh Chaudhari

08/02/1999

Munna Yadav

01/01/1995

Bhagmani Devi

02/05/1998

Shiv Kumar Chaudhari Do

10/02/1999

Nagnedra Chaudhari

18/05/1999

Banshi Singh

05/04/1999

Manoj Kumar Ram

10/05/1995

Amar Nath Mishra

23/01/1996

S.L.

Name of the Designation

Date of

No.

Workmen

Appointment

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 22] 2014@pS=k 1] 1936

2765

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

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 26 Qjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 1064.—tcfd] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk fopkj gS fd

us'kuy ,fo,'ku daiuh vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds fu;ksDrkvksa ,oa

muds deZdkjksa ds chp fnukad 13-12-2012 dh lela[;d vuqlwph

ds laca/k esa ,d vkS|ksfxd fo|eku gS(

tcfd] bl fookn esa jk"Vªh; egRo dk iz'u 'kkfey gS vkSj ;g

fookn bl izd`fÙk dk gS fd dbZ jkT;ksa esa fLFkr us'kuy ,fo,'ku

daiuh vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM dh #fp blesa gks ldrh gS vFkok og

blls izHkkfor gks ldrh gS(

vkSj tcfd] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g fopkj gS fd mi;qZDr

fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk fd;k

tkuk pkfg,(

vkSj tcfd dsUnzh; ljdkj] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 7[k }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

Je ea=ky; ds fnukad 31-01-2013 ds vkns'k la[;k

,y&11012@44@2009&vkbZvkj¼lh&1½ ds ek/;e ls ,d jk"Vªh;

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k xfBr djrh gS ftldk eq[;ky; eqacbZ esa

gksxk vkSj U;k;ewfrZ Jh xkSjh 'kadj ljkZQ dks bldk ihBklhu

vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrh gS rFkk mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&10 dh

mi /kkjk ¼1&d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, mDr vkS|ksfxd

fookn dks U;k;&fu.kZ;u gsrq mijksDr jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k

dks lanfHkZr djrh gSA

vkSj tcfd U;k;ewfrZ Jh xkSjh 'kadj ljkZQ us mi;qZDr jk"Vªh;

U;k;kf/kdj.k dk izHkkj R;kx fn;k gSA

vr% vc ,d jk"Vªh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dk xBu fd;k

x;k gS ftldk eq[;ky; eqacbZ esa gksxk vkSj U;k;ewfrZ Jh lR;iwr

esgjks=k mlds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh gksaxs vkSj mi;qZDr fookn dks mDr

jk"Vªh; esa U;k;f/kdj.k esa U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy, bl funsZ'k ds lkFk

Hkstk x;k gS fd U;k;ewfrZ Jh lR;iwr esgjks=k bl ekeys dh dk;Zokgh

mlh Lrj ls 'kq: djsaxs tgka ij U;k;ewfrZ Jh xkSjh 'kadj ljkZQ us NksM+k

Fkk vkSj rnuqlkj bl ekeys dk fuiVku djsaxsA blds fy, le;lhek

vkSj vU; 'krs± fnukad 31-01-2013 ds lela[;d U;k;kns'k esa ;Fkk

mfYyf[kr ds vuqlkj jgsaxhA

[lañ ,yñ&11012@44@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]

,e-ds- flag ]vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh] vkbZ vkj¼lh& I]

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2014

S.O. 1064.—Whereas the Central Government is of

the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between

National Aviation Company India Ltd (NACIL) and their

workmen in respect to the Sechedule of even no. dated

13.12.2012.

And Whereas the dispute involves national

importance and is of such nature that the establishments

of National Aviation Company India Ltd (NACIL). situated

in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or

affected;

And Whereas the Central Government is of the

opinion that the said dispute should be adjudicated by a

National Industrial Tribunal;

And Whereas the Central Government, in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 7 B of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) constituted a National

Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L-

11012/44/2009-IR(C-I) dated 31.01.2013. with headquarters

at Mumbai and appointed Justice Shri Gauri Shankar Sarraf

as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers

conferred by Sub-Section 1A of Section of the said Act,

referred the saud Industrial Dispute to the said National

Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

And Whereas Justice Shri Gauri Shankar Sarraf

relinquished charge of the above National Industrial

Tribunal.

Now, Therefore, a National Industrial Tribunal is

constituted with headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri

Satya Poot Mehrotra as its Presiding Officer and above

said dispute is referred to the above said National Industrial

Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri

Satya Poot Mehrotra shall proceed in the matter from the

stage at which it was left by Justice Shri Gauri Shankar

Sarraf and dispose of the same accordingly. The schedule

and other terms and conditions shall be remain same as

mentioned in the Adjudication Order of even no. dated

31.01.2013.

[No. L-11012/44/2009-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer IR(C-I)

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.