lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1517-—bl ea=kky; dh fnukad 22&06&2014 dh
lela[;d vf/lwpuk ds vuqØe esa vkSj pyfp=k (izek.ku)
fu;e] 1983 ds fu;e 3 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp=k vf/fu;e] 1952
(1952 dk 37) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, rFkk Jh larks[k flag pkS/jh] lnL; }kjk vius
dk;ZHkkj ls R;kxi=k fn, tkus vkSj bl laca/ esa l{ke izkf/dkjh
}kjk mls LohÛÑr fd, tkus ds mijkar dsUnz ljdkj mUgsa rRdky
izHkko ls dsUnzh; fiQYe izek.ku cksMZ ds lnL; ds in ls gVkrh gS A
[iQk- la- 809@2@2010&,iQ (lh)]
fu:iek dksr:] funs'kd (fiQYe)
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND
BROADCASTING
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2014
S.O. 1517.—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification of even number, dated 22-6-2014 and in exercise
of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
1981 GI/2014
(3993)
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- 21]
ubZ fnYyh, ebZ 18—ebZ 24] 2014] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 28—T;s"B 3] 1936
No. 21]
NEW DELHI, MAY, 18—MAY 24, 2014, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 28—JYAISTHA 3, 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)
the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 3
of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 and
subsequent to his submitting resignation and acceptance
by the Competent Authority in this regard, the Central
Government hereby removes Shri Santokh Singh Chaudhary,
Member from the Board of the Central Board of Film
Certification with immediate effect.
[F. No. 809/2/2010-F(C)]
NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films )
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1518-—bl ea=kky; dh fnukad 29&03&2014 dh
lela[;d vf/lwpuk ds vuqØe esa vkSj pyfp=k (izek.ku)
fu;e] 1983 ds fu;e 7 vkSj 8 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp=k vf/fu;e]
1952 (1952 dk 37) dh /kjk 5 dh mi&èkkjk (1) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, rFkk Jh vkj- fxfjjktu }kjk vius
dk;ZHkkj ls R;kxi=k fn, tkus vkSj l{ke izkf/dkjh }kjk mls LohÛÑr
fd, tkus ds mijkar dsUnz ljdkj mUgsa rRdky izHkko ls dsUnzh;
fiQYe izek.ku cksMZ ds psUuS lykgdkj iSuy ls gVkrh gS A
[iQk- la- 809@7@2011&,iQ (lh)]
fu:iek dksr:] funs'kd (fiQYe)
3994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2014
S.O. 1518.—In continuation of this Ministry’s
Notification of even number, dated 29-03-2014 and in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read
with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification)
Rules, 1983 and subsequent to his submitting resignation
and acceptance by the Competent Authority in this regard,
the Central Government hereby removes Shri R. Girirajan
from the Chennai Advisory panel of the Central Board of
Film Certification with immediate effect.
[F. No. 809/7/2011-F(C)]
NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films )
lapkj ,oa lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;
(Mkd foHkkx)
ubZ fnYYkh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1519-—jktHkk"kk fu;e (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa
ds fy, iz;ksx)] 1976 ds fu;e 10 esa mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnz ljdkj] Mkd foHkkx ds v/huLFk dk;kZy; eq[; iksLV
ekLVj tujy] fcgkj] iVuk&800001 ds v/hu 941 mi&Mkd?kj]
ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d
Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr djrh gS %
fcgkj Mkd lfdZy ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr
v/huLFk mi&Mkd?kjksa (ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d
deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS)
dks jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e 4 ds
vUrxZr vf/lwfpr djus ds fy, vuqjks/ A
lhrke<+h eaMy] lhrke<+h
Øe
Mkd/jksa ds uke (fgUnh esa)
fiu dksM
la-
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
vFkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
843311
2.
cSjxfu;k¡] mi&Mkd?kj
843313
3.
cSjxfu;k¡ cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
843313
4.
cktiV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
843314
5.
cjgjok] mi&Mkd?kj
843315
6.
csyl.M] mi&Mkd?kj
843316
7.
Hkwrgh] mi&Mkd?kj
843317
8.
cq/uxjk Msmjh] mi&Mkd?kj
843318
9.
pksjkSr] mi&Mkd?kj
843319
10.
tudiqj jksM] mi&Mkd?kj
843320
11.
tkudh LFkku] mi&Mkd?kj
843302
12.
dksV cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
843302
13.
e>kSfy;k LVsV] mi&Mkd?kj
843322
14.
ekfud pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
843323
15.
estjxat] mi&Mkd?kj
843332
16.
ukuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843333
17.
ifjgkj] mi&Mkd?kj
843324
18.
ijlkSuh] mi&Mkd?kj
843325
19.
fiijkgh] mi&Mkd?kj
843334
20.
iqijh cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
843320
21.
jk;iqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843326
22.
jhxk] mi&Mkd?kj
843327
23.
:UUkh lSniqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843328
24.
f"kogj] mi&Mkd?kj
843329
25.
lhrke<+h cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
843302
26.
lksucjlk] mi&Mkd?kj
843330
27.
lqjl.M] mi&Mkd?kj
843331
28.
'kfDrihB p.Mh/ke dSyk'kiqjh]
mi&Mkd?kj
843301
iw£.k;k¡ eaMy] iw£.k;k¡
29.
vjfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
854311
,
30.
vjfj;k vkj- ,l-
854312
31.
ck;lh] mi&Mkd?kj
854315
32.
cuSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
854201
33.
cueu[kh] mi&Mkd?kj
854202
34.
cjgjk dksBh] mi&Mkd?kj
854203
35.
Hkokuhiqj jkt/ke] mi&Mkd?kj
854204
36.
HkV~Bk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
854301
37.
cFkukgk] mi&Mkd?kj
854316
38.
iQkjfclxat] mi&Mkd?kj
854318
39.
tykyx<+] mi&Mkd?kj
854327
40.
tksxcuh] mi&Mkd?kj
854328
41.
tksdhgkV] mi&Mkd?kj
854329
42.
dqlkZdkaVk] mi&Mkd?kj
854331
43.
dqavkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
854332
44.
enuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
854333
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
3995
45.
esjhxat] mi&Mkd?kj
854334
46.
ujirxat] mi&Mkd?kj
854335
47.
uckcxat] mi&Mkd?kj
854336
48.
pksiM+k jkeuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
854301
49.
/enkgk] mi&Mkd?kj
854205
50.
x<+ cuSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
854315
51.
xqykcckx] mi&Mkd?kj
854326
52.
dlck] mi&Mkd?kj
854330
53.
iw£.k;k¡ pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
854304
54.
iw£.k;k¡ ikWfyVsdfud] mi&Mkd?kj
854303
55.
jkuhirjk] mi&Mkd?kj
854337
56.
ljlh] mi&Mkd?kj
854306
57.
iw£.k;k¡ flVh] mi&Mkd?kj
854302
58.
iw£.k;k¡ Mh- ch-] mi&Mkd?kj
854301
59.
,l- vkj- iQkjfclxat] mi&Mkd?kj
854318
60.
[kq'kdhckx] mi&Mkd?kj
854305
61.
iw£.k;k¡ dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
854301
62.
ckjlksbZ?kkV] mi&Mkd?kj
854317
63.
ckjlksbZ] mi&Mkd?kj
854102
64.
Mgsfj;k feYl] mi&Mkd?kj
854103
65.
nqxkZxat] mi&Mkd?kj
855105
66.
xq# cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
854104
67.
ch- ,e- ih- dSEi] mi&Mkd?kj
854106
68.
dfVgkj feYl] mi&Mkd?kj
854107
69.
dks<+k] mi&Mkd?kj
854108
70.
efugkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
854113
71.
egknsoiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
854116
72.
iksfB;k] mi&Mkd?kj
854114
73.
jks'kuk] mi&Mkd?kj
854117
74.
'kkyekjh] mi&Mkd?kj
855113
75.
lsekiqj iQSDVªh] mi&Mkd?kj
854115
76.
cgknqjxat] mi&Mkd?kj
855101
77.
fd'kuxat eq[;] mi&Mkd?kj
855107
78.
fd'kuxat cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
855108
79.
lksuFkk] mi&Mkd?kj
855115
80.
Bkdqjxat] mi&Mkd?kj
855116
81.
rS;ciqj] mi&Mkd?kj
855117
82.
lksuSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
855114
83.
xyxfy;ka] mi&Mkd?kj
855106
84.
dfVgkj dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
854105
85.
dfVgkj cM+k cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
854105
86.
venkckn] mi&Mkd?kj
854112
87.
v;ksè;kxat cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
854010
88.
dfVgkj vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
854105
89.
dfVgkj dkWyksuh] mi&Mkd?kj
854105
.
eqtÝiQjiqj eaMy] eqtÝiQjiqj
90.
<ksyh] mi&Mkd?kj
843105
91.
eksrhiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843111
92.
jeuk] mi&Mkd?kj
842002
93.
,e-vkbZ-Vh-] mi&Mkd?kj
842003
94.
nsofj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
843120
95.
dkaVh] mi&Mkd?kj
843109
96.
djukSy] mi&Mkd?kj
843125
97.
flykSr] mi&Mkd?kj
843119
98.
vkSjkbZ] mi&Mkd?kj
843312
99.
ck?kh] mi&Mkd?kj
844112
100.
c[kjk] mi&Mkd?kj
843101
101.
fcgkj ;qfuoflZVh] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
102.
ckspgk] mi&Mkd?kj
843103
103.
pUnuiV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
843104
104.
X;kliqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843107
105.
tSariqj LVsV] mi&Mkd?kj
843123
106.
dVjk] mi&Mkd?kj
843321
107.
dq<uh] mi&Mkd?kj
844120
108.
ehukiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843128
109.
eksrh>hy] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
110.
irkgh] mi&Mkd?kj
843113
111.
ihvj] mi&Mkd?kj
843112
112.
ik:] mi&Mkd?kj
843115
113.
jkeiqj gfj] mi&Mkd?kj
843117
114.
ljS;k iQSDVªh] mi&Mkd?kj
843126
115.
ljiQqn~nhuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843118
116.
rqdhZ] mi&Mkd?kj
844127
117.
v?kksfj;k cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj.
842001
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
3996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
118.
vkexksyk] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
119.
cfj;kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843102
120.
fcjfgek cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
843127
121.
ch- ,e- ih-&6] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
122.
Nkrk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
123.
Mh- ,- dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
843121
124.
fx¼k] mi&Mkd?kj
843106
125.
gjnh] mi&Mkd?kj
843122
126.
beyhpV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
127.
ttqvkj] mi&Mkd?kj
843360
128.
dyokjh] mi&Mkd?kj
843108
129.
dY;k.kh] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
130.
dUgkSyh vktjk] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
131.
dkaVh FkeZy ikoj LVs'ku] mi&Mkd?kj
843130
132.
dFkS;k] mi&Mkd?kj
843124
133.
ekyh?kkV] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
134.
,e- vkbZ- lh-] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
135.
eqtÝiQjiqj dyDVªsV] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
136.
eqtÝiQjiqj dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
137.
ujek] mi&Mkd?kj
843129
138.
iDdh ljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
139.
iqjkuk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
140.
vkj- Mh- ,l- dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
141.
ljS;kxat] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
142.
fldUnjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
143.
,l- ,l- ds- Hkou] mi&Mkd?kj
842001
144.
mekuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
842004
if'pe pEikj.k eaMy] csfr;k
145.
cxgk] mi&Mkd?kj
845101
146.
ujbZiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845105
147.
okYehdhuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
845107
148.
e/qcuh] mi&Mkd?kj
845104
149.
jkeuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
845106
150.
gfjuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
845103
151.
ijdfV;kxat] mi&Mkd?kj
845455
152.
Mh- ds- f'kdkjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845451
153.
ykSfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845453
154.
tksxkiV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
845452
155.
pqgM+h] mi&Mkd?kj
845450
156.
txnh'kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845459
157.
e>Sfy;k vkj-,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
845454
158.
puifV;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845449
159.
puifV;k cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
845449
160.
eSukVkM+] mi&Mkd?kj
845306
161.
fldrk] mi&Mkd?kj
845307
162.
yky cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
845438
163.
ehuk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
845438
164.
u;k Vhyk csfr;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845438
165.
csyckx] mi&Mkd?kj
845438
166.
csfr;k vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
845438
vkSjaxkckn eaMy] vkSjaxkckn
167.
nkmnuxj] eq[; Mkd?kj
824143
168.
'ksj?kkVh] eq[; Mkd?kj
824211
169.
uohuxj] ,y- ,l- th-
824301
170.
vkscjk] ,y- ,l- th-
824124
171.
nso] ,y- ,l- th-
824202
172.
jiQhxat] ,y- ,l- th-
824125
173.
xksg] ,y- ,l- th-
824203
174.
vEck] mi&Mkd?kj
824111
175.
ck:.k] mi&Mkd?kj
824112
176.
dksp] mi&Mkd?kj
824207
177.
dqVqEck] mi&Mkd?kj
824123
csxwljk; eaMy] csxwljk;
178.
cNokM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
851111
179.
c[kjh cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
848201
180.
cjkSuh] ,p- ,l- th-
851112
181.
xM+gkjk] mi&Mkd?kj
851126
182.
xq<+iqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
848204
.’
183.
xksxjh] mi&Mkd?kj
851202
184.
th- Mh- dkWyst] ,u- Mh- ,l- vks-
851101
.
185.
ts- xksxjh] mi&Mkd?kj
851203
186.
[kxfM+;k] ,e- Mh- th- ,l- th&1
851204
187.
es?kkSy] ,y- ,l- th-
851127
188.
ekulh] mi&Mkd?kj
851214
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
3997
189.
ealwjpd] mi&Mkd?kj
851128
190.
ea>kSy] mi&Mkd?kj
848202
191.
ijcÙkk] mi&Mkd?kj
851216
192.
jtkSM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
851131
193.
vkj- Vh- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
851117
194.
,l- deky] mi&Mkd?kj
851217
195.
Jhiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
851132
196.
Jhjke izsl] mi&Mkd?kj
851101
197.
ldjiqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
848203
198.
lqghnZ uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
851218
199.
rs?kM+k ,y- ,l- th-] mi&Mkd?kj
851133
200.
myko] mi&Mkd?kj
851134
201.
cjkSuh M~;ksf<+] mi&Mkd?kj
851113
202.
ch-vks-vkj-,y-,l-th-] mi&Mkd?kj
851114
203.
Hkxokuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
851120
204.
ch-Vh-ih-ih-] mi&Mkd?kj
851116
205.
ch- ;w- uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
851115
206.
ckjks] mi&Mkd?kj
851118
207.
csynkSj] mi&Mkd?kj
852161
208.
chgV] mi&Mkd?kj
851135
209.
pkSFke] mi&Mkd?kj
851201
210.
[kxfM+;k cktkj] ,u-Mh-,l-vks-
851204
211.
dks'kh dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
851205
212.
y[kfefu;k] mi&Mkd?kj
851211
213.
eguk] mi&Mkd?kj
851210
214.
egs'k[kq¡V] mi&Mkd?kj
851213
215.
csxwljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
851101
216.
,e- cUnqvkj] mi&Mkd?kj
851129
217.
eksgn~nhiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
851212
218.
ukodksBh] mi&Mkd?kj
851103
219.
u;kxk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
851215
eqaxsj eaMy] eaqxsj
220.
vyhxat] mi&Mkd?kj
811301
221.
cjch?kk] mi&Mkd?kj (,y-,l-th-)
811101
222.
cM+fg;k] mi&Mkd?kj
811302
223.
cfj;kjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
811211
224.
oklqnsoiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
811202
225.
pdkbZ] mi&Mkd?kj
811303
226.
psokM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
811304
227.
/jgjk] mi&Mkd?kj
811212
228.
xaxkn'kZu] mi&Mkd?kj
811201
229.
fx¼kSj] mi&Mkd?kj
811305
.
230.
gosyh [kM+xiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
811213
231.
tekyiqj ,eMhth] mi&Mkd?kj
811214
232.
teqbZ dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
811307
233.
>k>k cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
811308
234.
>k>k] mi&Mkd?kj
811308
235.
dtjk] mi&Mkd?kj
811309
236.
[kSjk] mi&Mkd?kj
811317
237.
fdmy vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
811310
238.
y[khljk; dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
811311
239.
y[khljk; ,eMhth] mi&Mkd?kj
811311
240.
ykynjoktk] Vh-,l-vks-
811201
241.
y{ehiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
811312
242.
eYgsiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
811313
243.
esgql] mi&Mkd?kj
811102
244.
eqaxsj dkWyst] Vh-,l-vks-
811201
245.
eqaxsj iQksVZ] Vh-,l-vks-
811201
246.
eqaxsj Vkmu] Vh-,l-vks-
811201
247.
,u- Mh- jksM] eqaxsj] Vh-,l-vks-
811201
248.
uheh] mi&Mkd?kj
811103
249.
ih- ch- y[khljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
811314
250.
ihjh cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
811112
251.
iqjcljk;] Vh-,l-vks-
811112
252.
,l- ch- tekyiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
811214
253.
ljesjk] mi&Mkd?kj
811104
254.
'ks[kiqjk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
811105
255.
'ks[kiqjk vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
811105
256.
'ks[kiqjk ,eMhth] mi&Mkd?kj.
811105
257.
fldUnjk] mi&Mkd?kj
811315
258.
fleqyryk] mi&Mkd?kj
811316
259.
fljkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
811107
260.
lksuks] mi&Mkd?kj
811314
261.
lqjtx<+k] mi&Mkd?kj
811106
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
3998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
floku eaMy] floku
262.
eSjok] mi&Mkd?kj
841239
263.
ehjxat] mi&Mkd?kj
841438
264.
egkjktxat] mi&Mkd?kj
841238
265.
clariqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841406
‘ ,
266.
gFkqvk] mi&Mkd?kj
841436
Hkkxyiqj eaMy] Hkkxyiqj
267.
vkneiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
812001
268.
vyhxat] mi&Mkd?kj
812005
269.
vkljxat] mi&Mkd?kj
813201
270.
cjkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
812003
271.
Hkkxyiqj lsaVªy tsy] mi&Mkd?kj
812001
272.
Hkkxyiqj baftfu;fjax dkWyst]
mi&Mkd?kj
813210
273.
Hkkxyiqj fMfLVªDV cksMZ] mi&Mkd?kj
812001
274.
Hkkxyiqj flVh] mi&Mkd?kj
812002
275.
fcgiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
853201
.
276.
cjgiqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
812001
277.
pEikuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
812004
.
278.
,dpkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
813204
279.
?kks?kk] mi&Mkd?kj
813205
280.
b'kkdpd] mi&Mkd?kj
812001
281.
b'khiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
813206
282.
txnh'kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
813105
283.
dgyxk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
813203
284.
[kjhd cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
853202
285.
[kjeupd] mi&Mkd?kj
812001
286.
eg£"k esgh vkJe] mi&Mkd?kj
812003
287.
eFkqjkiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
813222
288.
ek;kxat] mi&Mkd?kj
812001
289.
fejtkugkV] mi&Mkd?kj
812005
290.
ukjk;.kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
853203
291.
ukFkuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
812006
292.
uoxfN;k] mi&Mkd?kj
853204
293.
ihjiSarh] mi&Mkd?kj
813209
294.
lckSj] mi&Mkd?kj
813210
295.
lkgscxat] mi&Mkd?kj
812004
296.
'kkgdq.M] mi&Mkd?kj
813108
297.
lSnjiqj Vksyk xksfj;kj] mi&Mkd?kj
853205
298.
laxzkeiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
813212
299.
LVs'ku jksM lqYrkuxat] mi&Mkd?kj
813213
300.
lqYrkuxat] mi&Mkd?kj
813213
301.
lqtkxat cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
812002
302.
dgyxkao ,uVhihlh] mi&Mkd?kj
813214
303.
rkjkiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
813321
304.
Vh- ,u- ch- dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
812007
305.
rrkjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
812002
306.
frydkek¡>h] mi&Mkd?kj
812001
307.
vejiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
813101
308.
ckjkgkV] mi&Mkd?kj
813103
309.
csygj] mi&Mkd?kj
813202
310.
ckSalh] mi&Mkd?kj
813104
311.
pkUnu] mi&Mkd?kj
814131
312.
dVksfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
813106
313.
[kslj] mi&Mkd?kj
813207
,
314.
iatokjk] mi&Mkd?kj
813110
315.
iaqfl;k] mi&Mkd?kj
813109
316.
jtkSu] mi&Mkd?kj
813107
317.
'kaHkwxat] mi&Mkd?kj
813211
lkj.k eaMy] Nijk
318.
xkSjk] mi&Mkd?kj
841443
319.
blqvkiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841411
320.
[kSjk] mi&Mkd?kj
841414
321.
Hkxoku cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
841301
322.
fMfLVªd cksMZ] mi&Mkd?kj
841301
323.
[kksnkbZckx] mi&Mkd?kj
841415
324.
dksik lEgksrk] mi&Mkd?kj
841213
325.
uSuh] mi&Mkd?kj
841316
326.
uxjk] mi&Mkd?kj
841412
327.
iqjokjh rsyik] mi&Mkd?kj
841302
328.
l<+okjk] mi&Mkd?kj
841421
329.
tykyiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841412
330.
veukSj] mi&Mkd?kj
841401
331.
vigj] mi&Mkd?kj
841402
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
3999
332.
HkkFkk lksugks] mi&Mkd?kj
841460
333.
xM+[kk] mi&Mkd?kj
841311
334.
edsj] mi&Mkd?kj
841215
335.
fetkZiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841419
336.
ijlk] mi&Mkd?kj
841219
337.
iSxk] mi&Mkd?kj
841218
338.
cjstk] mi&Mkd?kj
841201
339.
pSuok¡] mi&Mkd?kj
841204
340.
nkmniqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841205
341.
,dek] mi&Mkd?kj
841208
342.
iQqyofj;k rktiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841209
343.
xjhck Vksyk] mi&Mkd?kj
841312
344.
tksfx;k] mi&Mkd?kj
841212
345.
dksik cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
841214
346.
egEeniqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841223
347.
ijlkx<+] mi&Mkd?kj
841220
348.
fjfoyxat] mi&Mkd?kj
841315
349.
jktsUn dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
841301
350.
ek¡>h] mi&Mkd?kj
841313
351.
cfu;kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841403
352.
n;kyiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841206
353.
Mwekj'ku caxjk] mi&Mkd?kj
841410
354.
txne dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
841301
355.
e'kj[k] mi&Mkd?kj
841417
356.
iafMriqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841224
357.
lgkftriqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841422
358.
rjS;k] mi&Mkd?kj
841424
359.
clar] mi&Mkd?kj
841202
360.
fn?kokjk] mi&Mkd?kj
841207
361.
xqYVsuxat] mi&Mkd?kj
841211
362.
ekSuk] mi&Mkd?kj
841301
363.
u;kxk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
841217
364.
ujkao] mi&Mkd?kj
841216
365.
izrkiiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841225
366.
lqfrgkj] mi&Mkd?kj
841222
367.
lksuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841101
368.
lksuiqj vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
841101
369.
'khryiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
841221
jksgrkl eaMy] lklkjke
370.
vdks<+h cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
821301
.
371.
ve>ksj dSEi] mi&Mkd?kj
821302
372.
cUtkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
821303
373.
HkHkqvk] eq[; Mkd?kj
821101
374.
ckSfy;k] mi&Mkd?kj
821304
375.
cHkukSy] mi&Mkd?kj
802211
376.
Hkxokuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
821102
377.
foØexat] mi&Mkd?kj
802212
378.
ch- ,e- ih- Msgjh] mi&Mkd?kj
821307
379.
pSuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
821103
380.
psukjh] mi&Mkd?kj
821104
381.
Mkyfe;kuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
821305
382.
nfjgV] mi&Mkd?kj
821306
383.
Msgjh vkWu lksu] mi&Mkd?kj
821307
384.
Msgjh vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
821307
385.
nkoFk] mi&Mkd?kj
802226
386.
fnukjk] mi&Mkd?kj
802213
387.
nqxkZorh] mi&Mkd?kj
821105
388.
xk¡/hiFk] mi&Mkd?kj
821115
389.
x<+uks[kk] mi&Mkd?kj
802215
390.
xksjkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
802214
391.
gkVk] mi&Mkd?kj
821106
392.
gfjgjxat] mi&Mkd?kj
821310
393.
bUnziqjh] mi&Mkd?kj
821308
394.
djxgj] mi&Mkd?kj
821107
395.
dNok] mi&Mkd?kj
821309
396.
dkspl] mi&Mkd?kj
821112
397.
dqnjk] mi&Mkd?kj
821108
398.
dqnjk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
821108
399.
dksvkFk] mi&Mkd?kj
802216
400.
eksguh;k] mi&Mkd?kj
821109
401.
es;kjh cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
802217
402.
uVokj] mi&Mkd?kj
802218
403.
ukljhxat] mi&Mkd?kj
821310
404.
U;w ,fj;k lklkjke] mi&Mkd?kj
821115
405.
uqvk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
802132
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
406.
jktiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802219
407.
jkex<+] mi&Mkd?kj
821110
408.
jksgrkl] mi&Mkd?kj
821311
409.
lklkjke cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
821115
410.
lklkjke yksdy cksMZ] mi&Mkd?kj
821115
411.
f'kolkxj] mi&Mkd?kj
821111
412.
la>kSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
802220
413.
lqjtiqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
802221
414.
rfd;k cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
821113
415.
frykSFkq] mi&Mkd?kj
821312
416.
rsUnquh pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
802212
ukyUnk eaMy] fcgkj'kjhiQ
417.
vyhuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
803101
.
418.
vEcsj] mi&Mkd?kj
803101
419.
vk'kkuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
803118
.
420.
vLrk] mi&Mkd?kj
803120
421.
vLFkkok¡] mi&Mkd?kj
803107
422.
vFkeyxksyk] mi&Mkd?kj
803211
423.
cf[r;kjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
803212
424.
ck<+] mi&Mkd?kj
803213
425.
ck<+ dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
803213
426.
ck<+ vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
803214
427.
HknkSj] mi&Mkd?kj
803307
428.
HkÙkgj] mi&Mkd?kj
801307
429.
paMh] mi&Mkd?kj
803108
430.
,daxjljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
801301
431.
gjukSr] mi&Mkd?kj
803110
432.
gfFknkg] mi&Mkd?kj
803301
433.
fgylk] mi&Mkd?kj
801302
434.
blykeiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
801303
435.
djk;ij'kqjk;] mi&Mkd?kj
801304
436.
eksxydq¡vk] mi&Mkd?kj
803118
437.
eksdkek] mi&Mkd?kj
803302
438.
eksdkekpd] mi&Mkd?kj
803302
439.
eksdkek?kkV] mi&Mkd?kj
803303
440.
uxjukSlk] mi&Mkd?kj
801305
441.
ukyank] mi&Mkd?kj
803111
442.
ukyank dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
803101
443.
,u- Vh- ih- lh- ck<+] mi&Mkd?kj
803215
444.
uwjljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
803113
445.
vkWfMusal iQSDVªh] jktxhj mi&Mkd?kj
803121
446.
iaMkjd] mi&Mkd?kj
803221
447.
ijoyiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
803114
448.
ikokiqjh] mi&Mkd?kj
803115
449.
jgqbZ] mi&Mkd?kj
803119
450.
jktxhj] mi&Mkd?kj.
803116
451.
jkepUnziqj] mi&Mkd?kj
803216
452.
ldqur] mi&Mkd?kj
803101
453.
le;kx<+] mi&Mkd?kj
803306
454.
flyko] mi&Mkd?kj
803117
455.
lksgljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
803118
456.
rsygkM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
801306
Hkkstiqj eaMy] vkjk
457.
vukbZB] mi&Mkd?kj
802302
458.
vfxvk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
802201
459.
vfxvk¡o cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
802202
460.
vkjk pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
802301
461.
vkjk dpgjh] mi&Mkd?kj
802301
462.
v[kxk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
802237
463.
cM+gjk] mi&Mkd?kj
802311
464.
csuofy;k¡] mi&Mkd?kj
802351
465.
fcfg;k¡] mi&Mkd?kj
802152
466.
pUnok] mi&Mkd?kj
802312
467.
pjiks[kjh] mi&Mkd?kj
802223
468.
pkSjkLrk fcfg;ka] mi&Mkd?kj
802154
469.
nyhiiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802155
470.
/ekj] mi&Mkd?kj
802156
471.
xM+guh] mi&Mkd?kj
802203
472.
xq.M+h] mi&Mkd?kj
802313
473.
xtjktxat] mi&Mkd?kj
802157
474.
xmQMk<+ :nzuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
802183
475.
,p- Mh- tSu dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
802301
476.
glu cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
802204
477.
txnh'kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802158
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4001
478.
ftrkSjk] mi&Mkd?kj
802159
479.
djFk] mi&Mkd?kj
802205
480.
dlki] mi&Mkd?kj
802206
481.
dk;eiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802314
482.
[kqVgk¡] mi&Mkd?kj
802222
483.
dksbZyoj] mi&Mkd?kj
802160
484.
egkjktk dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
802301
485.
ujgh pkUnh] mi&Mkd?kj
802161
486.
uoknk csu] mi&Mkd?kj
802162
487.
u;k eksgEeniqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802163
488.
idM+h] mi&Mkd?kj
802301
489.
ih:] mi&Mkd?kj
802207
490.
lgkj] mi&Mkd?kj
802208
491.
lans'k] mi&Mkd?kj
802164
492.
'kkgkckn fMLVªhd cksMZ] mi&Mkd?kj
802301
493.
'kkgiqj iV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
802165
494.
f'koxat] mi&Mkd?kj
802301
495.
flUgk] mi&Mkd?kj
802316
496.
rjkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
802209
497.
mejk¡oxat] mi&Mkd?kj
802166
498.
mnoUruxj] mi&Mkd?kj
802210
499.
vjd] mi&Mkd?kj
802111
500.
czãiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802112
501.
czãiqj pkSjkLRkk] mi&Mkd?kj
802112
502.
cM+dk jktiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802113
503.
cDlj xtk/jxat] mi&Mkd?kj
802103
504.
cDlj tsy] mi&Mkd?kj
802102
505.
pkSlk] mi&Mkd?kj
802114
506.
pkSxkbZ] mi&Mkd?kj
802115
507.
pqjkeuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802116
508.
/kulksbZ] mi&Mkd?kj
802117
509.
nqYygiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802118
510.
Mqejk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
802119
511.
Mqejk¡o VsDlVkbZy] mi&Mkd?kj
802136
512.
Mqejh] mi&Mkd?kj
802120
513.
fgrok jktiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802122
514.
bVk<+h] mi&Mkd?kj
802123
515.
dslB] mi&Mkd?kj
802125
516.
dksjkuljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
802126
517.
euksgjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802128
518.
eqjkj] mi&Mkd?kj
802127
519.
ubZ cktkj] cDlj] mi&Mkd?kj
802101
520.
ukokuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
802129
521.
fu;kthiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802131
522.
fuest] mi&Mkd?kj
802130
523.
iqjkuk Hkkstiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
‘802133
524.
j?kqukFkiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
802134
525.
flejh] mi&Mkd?kj
802135
526.
lksguh iV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
802101
oS'kkyh eaMy] gkthiqj
527.
vfu:¼ csylj] mi&Mkd?kj
844111
528.
vUtkuihj pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
844103
529.
ckyqdkjke] mi&Mkd?kj
844113
530.
cklqnsoiqj pansy] mi&Mkd?kj
844501
531.
Hkxokuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
844114
532.
fcnqiqj cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
844503
533.
fcnqiqj vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
844502
534.
pdfldUnj] mi&Mkd?kj
844115
535.
nsljh] mi&Mkd?kj
844504
536.
/jgjk] mi&Mkd?kj
844117
537.
Mqejh] mi&Mkd?kj
844116
538.
?kVkjks] mi&Mkd?kj
844119
539.
xksjkSy] mi&Mkd?kj
844118
540.
gkthiqj pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
844101
541.
gkthiqj vkS|ksfxd {ks=k] mi&Mkd?kj
844102
542.
tUnkgk] mi&Mkd?kj
844505
543.
dqekj ckthriqj] mi&Mkd?kj
844110
544.
ykyxat] mi&Mkd?kj
844121
545.
egukj] mi&Mkd?kj
844506
546.
egukj jksM+] vkj- ,l- mi&Mkd?kj
844507
547.
egqvk] mi&Mkd?kj
844122
548.
ikrsiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
843114
549.
izrkiVk¡M] mi&Mkd?kj
844123
550.
jk/ksiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
844508
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
551.
jktkikdM+] mi&Mkd?kj
844124
552.
jkeHknz] mi&Mkd?kj
844101
553.
lgnsbZ cqtqxZ] mi&Mkd?kj
844509
554.
ljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
844125
555.
fla?kkM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
844126
556.
;wlwiQiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
844101
557.
oS'kkyh] mi&Mkd?kj
844128
uoknk eaMy] uoknk
558.
/ekSy] mi&Mkd?kj
805101
559.
fxfj;d] mi&Mkd?kj
803109
.
560.
xksfoaniqj] mi&Mkd?kj
805102
561.
fglqvk] mi&Mkd?kj
805103
562.
dkfnjxat] mi&Mkd?kj
805104
563.
drjhljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
805105
564.
dkSokdksy] mi&Mkd?kj
805106
565.
dks'kh] mi&Mkd?kj
805107
566.
ykyfc?kk] mi&Mkd?kj
805108
567.
ukjfnxat] mi&Mkd?kj
805109
568.
uoknk dpgjh] mi&Mkd?kj
805111
569.
usenkjxat] mi&Mkd?kj
805121
570.
ujgV] mi&Mkd?kj
805122
571.
vksjguiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
805123
572.
idjhcjkoka] mi&Mkd?kj
805124
573.
ikj uoknk] mi&Mkd?kj
805112
574.
jtkSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
805125
575.
jtgV] mi&Mkd?kj
805126
576.
fljnyk] mi&Mkd?kj
805127
577.
rjoka] mi&Mkd?kj
805128
578.
rqaxh] mi&Mkd?kj
805129
579.
okfjlyhxat] mi&Mkd?kj
805130
580.
othjxat] mi&Mkd?kj
805131
iVuk eaMy] iVuk
581.
ch- lh- jksM] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
582.
ch- ih- ,l- lh-] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
583.
cSad jksM] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
584.
lh- vkj- fcfYMax] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
585.
fpjS;kVk¡M] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
586.
nk:y efYYkd] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
587.
xnZuhckx] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
588.
gksVy fjIcfyd] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
589.
bafM;u us'ku] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
590.
teky jksM+] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
591.
fdnobZiqjh] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
592.
jke t;iky uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
593.
feBkiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
594.
uo'kfDr] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
595.
U;w tDduiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
596.
iVuk dysfDVª;sV] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
597.
iksLVy ikdZ] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
598.
iqukbZpd] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
599.
vkj CykWd] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
600.
Jh Ñ".kk iqjh] mi&Mkd?kj
800001
601.
ts- lh- jksM] mi&Mkd?kj
800004
602.
eNqvk Vksyh] mi&Mkd?kj
800004
603.
u;k Vksyk] mi&Mkd?kj
800004
604.
ih- ,e- lh- ,p-] mi&Mkd?kj
800004
605.
,e- okbZ- lanyiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
800006
606.
MsUVy dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
800007
607.
pkSd f'kdkjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
.
608.
fnoku eksgYYkk] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
609.
dVjk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
.
610.
eNjgV~Vk] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
611.
egkohj LFkku] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
612.
ek:iQxat] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
613.
if'pe njoktk] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
614.
Jh ek?kksth feYl] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
615.
e[knqeiqj nh?kk] mi&Mkd?kj
800011
616.
iVuk ;sjksMªke] mi&Mkd?kj
800014
617.
'ks[kiqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
800014
618.
fp=kxqIr uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
800020
619.
ds- lsDVj] mi&Mkd?kj
800020
620.
vkj- ,e- ,l- dkWyksuh] mi&Mkd?kj
800020
621.
osLV yksfg;k uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
800020
622.
dqEgjkj] mi&Mkd?kj
800026
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4003
623.
uUeqfg;k] mi&Mkd?kj
800026
624.
[kxkSy cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
801105
625.
ch- vkj- lsUVj] mi&Mkd?kj
801501
626.
nkukiqj cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
801501
627.
iVsy uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
800029
628.
vfulkckn] mi&Mkd?kj
800002
629.
dnedq¡vk] mi&Mkd?kj
800003
630.
iVuk ;qfuo£lVh] mi&Mkd?kj
800005
631.
egsUnzq] mi&Mkd?kj
800006
632.
xqytkjckx] mi&Mkd?kj
800007
.
633.
iVuk flVh] mi&Mkd?kj
800008
634.
csxeiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
800009
635.
lnkde vkJe] mi&Mkd?kj
800010
636.
nh?kk ?kkV] mi&Mkd?kj
800011
637.
nh?kk] mi&Mkd?kj
800012
638.
ikVyhiq+=kk] mi&Mkd?kj
800013
639.
ch- Hkh- dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
800014
640.
iVuk lsØsVsfj;V] mi&Mkd?kj
800015
641.
ch- ,l- bZ- cksMZ] mi&Mkd?kj
800017
642.
ckVk xat] mi&Mkd?kj
800018
643.
lh- Mh- ,-] mi&Mkd?kj
800019
644.
yksfg;k uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
800020
,
645.
fo|qr ifj"kn] mi&Mkd?kj
800021
646.
ch- th- dSEi@jktHkou] mi&Mkd?kj
800022
647.
,y- ch- ,l- uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
800023
648.
ds'kjh uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
800024
649.
vkf'k;kuk uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
800025
650.
ch- ,p- dkWyksuh] mi&Mkd?kj
800026
651.
iVuk gkbZ dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
800028
652.
lfnlksiwj] mi&Mkd?kj
801111
653.
,- ,p- xkMZ] mi&Mkd?kj
801101
654.
csYgkSjh] mi&Mkd?kj
801102
655.
fcgVk] mi&Mkd?kj
801103
656.
fcØe] mi&Mkd?kj
801104
657.
[kxkSy] mi&Mkd?kj
801105
.
658.
eusj] mi&Mkd?kj
801108
659.
ukScriqj] mi&Mkd?kj
801109
660.
ikyhxat] mi&Mkd?kj
801110
661.
ybZ] mi&Mkd?kj
801112
662.
usmjk] mi&Mkd?kj
801113
663.
nkukiqj dSUV] mi&Mkd?kj
801503
664.
iQqyokM+h 'kjhiQ] mi&Mkd?kj
801505
665.
lgk; uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
801506
666.
iQrqgk] mi&Mkd?kj
803201
667.
[kq'k:iqj] mi&Mkd?kj
803202
668.
vykoyiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
803203
669.
rsyej] mi&Mkd?kj
803204
670.
gtjr lkabZ] mi&Mkd?kj
804451
671.
elkS<+h] mi&Mkd?kj
804452
672.
iquiqu] mi&Mkd?kj
804453
673.
unkSy] mi&Mkd?kj
804454
x;k eaMy] x;k
674.
vuqxzgiqjh dkWyksuh] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
675.
,- ,l- lh- lsUVj] mi&Mkd?kj
823005
676.
vrjh] mi&Mkd?kj
843311
677.
cSjkxh] mi&Mkd?kj
823002
678.
csykxat] mi&Mkd?kj
804403
679.
cks/x;k] mi&Mkd?kj
824231
680.
cqfu;knxat] mi&Mkd?kj
823003
681.
flfoy ,jksMªke] mi&Mkd?kj
823004
682.
flfoy ykbUl] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
683.
pkdUn] mi&Mkd?kj
824004
684.
pk¡n pkSjk] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
685.
pUnkSrh] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
686.
pkSd x;k] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
687.
psjdh] mi&Mkd?kj
824237
688.
MsYgk] mi&Mkd?kj
823002
689.
nqxkZLFkku] mi&Mkd?kj
823003
690.
iQrsgiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
824252
691.
x;k Mh- ch-] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
692.
x;k tsy] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
693.
x;k vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
823002
694.
xsoyfoxgk] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
695.
xqjk: feYl] mi&Mkd?kj
824118
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
696.
gqyklxat] mi&Mkd?kj
804407
697.
djhexat] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
698.
f[ktjljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
824233
699.
[kj[kqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
823002
700.
em] mi&Mkd?kj
824235
701.
ex/ ;qfuo£lVh] mi&Mkd?kj
824234
702.
ubZ xksnke] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
703.
ijS;k] mi&Mkd?kj
824209
.
704.
iqjkuh xksnke] mi&Mkd?kj
823001
705.
Vsdkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
824236
706.
tgkukckn vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
804417
707.
vjoy] mi&Mkd?kj
804401
708.
cSnjkckn] mi&Mkd?kj
804402
709.
cU/qxUt] mi&Mkd?kj
804432
710.
/jkmr] mi&Mkd?kj
804405
711.
?kks"kh] mi&Mkd?kj
804406
712.
tgkukckn dpgjh] mi&Mkd?kj
804403
713.
dkdks] mi&Mkd?kj
804418
714.
djih] mi&Mkd?kj
804419
715.
dkthljk;] mi&Mkd?kj
804420
716.
dqFkkZ] mi&Mkd?kj
804421
717.
e[knqeiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
804422
718.
uxyk fdatj] mi&Mkd?kj
804423
719.
usgkyiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
804429
720.
ikbZ foxgk] mi&Mkd?kj
804424
721.
'kdqjkckn] mi&Mkd?kj
804425
722.
'kadjiqj bekexat] mi&Mkd?kj
804426
723.
VsgVk] mi&Mkd?kj
804427
724.
mljh] mi&Mkd?kj
804428
725.
esu] mi&Mkd?kj
804435
lgjlk eaMy] lgjlk
726.
cyqvk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
854330
727.
fcgkjhxat] mi&Mkd?kj
852101
728.
cuxk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
852212
729.
HkifV;kgh cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852105
730.
Hkhe uxj cSjst] mi&Mkd?kj
854334
731.
chjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
854340
732.
ch- ,u- ,e- ;w- e/siqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
852113
733.
cq/ek] mi&Mkd?kj
852114
734.
pijk¡o] mi&Mkd?kj
852106
735.
pkSlk] mi&Mkd?kj
852213
736.
/ckSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
852107
,
737.
xairxat] mi&Mkd?kj
852109
738.
x<+ c:vkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
852110
739.
Xokyikjk] mi&Mkd?kj
852115
740.
xEgfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
852108
741.
tfn;k] mi&Mkd?kj
852214
742.
ft;kjke jk/ksiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
852111
743.
djtSu cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852215
744.
dqekj[kaM] mi&Mkd?kj
852112
745.
e/siqjk eq[; Mkd?kj] mi&Mkd?kj
852113
746.
e/siqjk dpgjh] mi&Mkd?kj
852113
747.
efgf"k] mi&Mkd?kj
852216
748.
eaxokj] mi&Mkd?kj
852217
.
749.
eBkgh] mi&Mkd?kj
852121
750.
eqjyhxat] mi&Mkd?kj
852122
751.
ukSgV~Vk] mi&Mkd?kj
852123
752.
iqjSuh cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852116
753.
ipxfN;k] mi&Mkd?kj
852124
754.
izrkixat] mi&Mkd?kj
852126
755.
fiijk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852218
756.
lgjlk dpgjh] mi&Mkd?kj
852202
757.
lqikSy] eq[; Mkd?kj
852131
758.
lgjlk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852201
759.
lgjlk fMfLVªDV cksMZ] mi&Mkd?kj
852201
760.
lgjlk iwjc cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852201
761.
ly[kqvk cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852126
762.
lkg vkye uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
852219
763.
flejh cf[r;kjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
852127
764.
lkSj cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852221
765.
lq[kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
852130
766.
lqikSy cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
852131
767.
lksucjlk jkt] mi&Mkd?kj
852129
768.
fla?ks'oj] mi&Mkd?kj
852118
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4005
769.
lqjirxat] mi&Mkd?kj
852137
770.
FkjfcV~Vk] mi&Mkd?kj
852138
771.
f=kos.khxat] mi&Mkd?kj
852139
772.
Vh- ih- dkWyst e/siqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
852113
773.
mnfd'kquxat] mi&Mkd?kj
852220
leLrhiqj eaMy] leLrhiqj
774.
nyflagljk;] eq[; Mkd?kj
848114
775.
iqlk] mi&Mkd?kj
848125
776.
iVksjh] mi&Mkd?kj
848504
777.
gluiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
848205
778.
dklhiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
848101
779.
ijgu] mi&Mkd?kj
848211
780.
jksM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
848210
781.
flaf/;k] mi&Mkd?kj
848209
782.
rktiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
848130
783.
fo|kifruxj] mi&Mkd?kj
848503
784.
dqls'oj LFkku] mi&Mkd?kj
848213
785.
mft;kjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
848132
786.
flaf/;k ?kkV] mi&Mkd?kj
848236
787.
ih- gybZ] mi&Mkd?kj
848505
788.
eksghmn~nhu uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
848501
789.
eksghmn~nhu uxj vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj 848502
790.
ftrokjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
848134
791.
bYekluxj] mi&Mkd?kj
848117
792.
fcjgk] mi&Mkd?kj
848216
793.
eaxyx<+] mi&Mkd?kj
848208
794.
eks/ksiqj fn/:vk] mi&Mkd?kj
848122
795.
dqaMy] mi&Mkd?kj
848206
796.
fdluiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
848301
797.
dY;k.kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
848160
798.
dY;k.kiqj pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
848302
799.
fn?kjk] mi&Mkd?kj
848115
800.
uojaxk] mi&Mkd?kj
848102
801.
fcjkSyh :jy baLVhP;wV] mi&Mkd?kj
848113
802.
iVksjh cktkj flusek pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
848504
803.
c?kjk] mi&Mkd?kj
848506
804.
eksjok] mi&Mkd?kj
848121
805.
okfjluxj] mi&Mkd?kj
848133
806.
oSuh] mi&Mkd?kj
848131
807.
laHkqiV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
848129
808.
ljk;jatu] mi&Mkd?kj
848127
809.
leLrhiqj cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
848101
810.
jkslM+k Fkkuk] mi&Mkd?kj
848210
811.
nyflagljk; cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
848114
812.
fcFkku] mi&Mkd?kj
848207
813.
eksghmn~nhu uxj cyqvkgh] mi&Mkd?kj 848207
pEikj.k eaMy] eksfrgkjh
814.
vknkiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845301
815.
vjsjkt] mi&Mkd?kj
845411
816.
cSfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845401
817.
ch- ds- txr] mi&Mkd?kj
845413
818.
ckjk pfd;k] mi&Mkd?kj.
845412
819.
Hksyok lfdZy] mi&Mkd?kj
845315
820.
pSrk] mi&Mkd?kj
845414
821.
NkSM+knkuks] mi&Mkd?kj
845302
822.
fpjS;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845415
823.
nkeksnjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845416
824.
nfj;kiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845417
825.
<kdk] mi&Mkd?kj
845418
826.
xqyckjk] mi&Mkd?kj
845420
827.
xksfcUnxat] mi&Mkd?kj
845419
828.
?kksMklnu] mi&Mkd?kj
845303
829.
gjfl/h] mi&Mkd?kj
845422
830.
gqlSuh] mi&Mkd?kj
845423
831.
tSriqj ykSdfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845440
832.
dslfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845424
,.
833.
dqauMok pSuiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845304
834.
e>fj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845401
835.
eykgh] mi&Mkd?kj
845425
836.
eaxqjkgk] mi&Mkd?kj
845458
837.
esglh] mi&Mkd?kj
845426
838.
eksrhgkjh flVh] mi&Mkd?kj
845401
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
839.
eksrhgkjh pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
845401
840.
eksrhgkjh dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
845401
841.
eksfrgkjh dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
845401
842.
ip idM+h] mi&Mkd?kj
845427
843.
idM+h n;ky] mi&Mkd?kj
845428
844.
irkgh] mi&Mkd?kj
845457
845.
iQsugkjk] mi&Mkd?kj
845430
846.
fiijk iQDVªh] mi&Mkd?kj
845429
.
847.
j?kqukFkiqj cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
845431
848.
jktiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845432
849.
jktiqj pEikj.k] mi&Mkd?kj
845406
850.
jex<+ok] mi&Mkd?kj
845433
851.
jDlkSy] mi&Mkd?kj
845305
852.
laxzkeiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
845434
853.
lsejk] mi&Mkd?kj
845435
854.
lqxSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
845456
855.
rsrfj;k iQSDVªh] mi&Mkd?kj
845436
856.
rqjdkSfy;k] mi&Mkd?kj
845437
njHkaxk eaMy] njHkaxk
857.
vkuUniqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847101
858.
cgsM+h] mi&Mkd?kj
847105
859.
csark lkmFk] mi&Mkd?kj
846003
860.
fcjkSy] mi&Mkd?kj
847203
861.
fo'uqiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847407
862.
Mh- ,e- lh-] mi&Mkd?kj
846003
863.
/u';keiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847427
864.
gk;k?kkV fcykliqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847301
865.
bekeckM+h] mi&Mkd?kj.
846001
866.
dqlksFkj] mi&Mkd?kj
846001
867.
dqlksZ ufn;keh] mi&Mkd?kj
847405
868.
ygsfj;kljk; dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
846001
869.
yksguk jksM+] mi&Mkd?kj
847407
870.
euhxkNh] mi&Mkd?kj
847422
871.
usgjk] mi&Mkd?kj
847233
872.
iqrbZ] mi&Mkd?kj
847423
873.
,l- ,p- ,e- lh-] mi&Mkd?kj
846002
874.
cgsM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
847201
875.
csuhiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847103
876.
HkjokM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
847104
877.
HkjkVH] mi&Mkd?kj
847106
878.
foLiQh] mi&Mkd?kj
847122
879.
lh- ,e- dkyst] mi&Mkd?kj
846004
880.
njHkaxk pkSd] mi&Mkd?kj
846004
,
881.
njHkaxkk flVh] mi&Mkd?kj
846004
882.
njHkaxk cM+k cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
846004
883.
tkys] mi&Mkd?kj
847302
884.
;ksfx;kjk] mi&Mkd?kj
847303
885.
ds- Mh- ,l- ;w-] mi&Mkd?kj
846008
886.
derkSy] mi&Mkd?kj
847404
887.
dalh flejh] mi&Mkd?kj
847106
888.
dosVlk c:vkjh] mi&Mkd?kj
847107
889.
fdyk?kkV] mi&Mkd?kj
846004
890.
dVgyokM+h] mi&Mkd?kj
846004
891.
dsoVh juos] mi&Mkd?kj
847121
892.
y{ehlkxj] mi&Mkd?kj
846009
.
893.
eqfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
847115
894.
ih- Vh- lh-] mi&Mkd?kj
846005
895.
fi.Mk:p] mi&Mkd?kj
847306
896.
jruiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847307
897.
jS;ke iQSDVªh] mi&Mkd?kj
847337
898.
lkjkeksguiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
846007
899.
'kqHkadjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
846006
900.
flagokM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
847123
e/qcuh eaMy] e/qcuh
901.
vkU/zk] mi&Mkd?kj
847401
902.
vjsM+gkV] mi&Mkd?kj
847222
903.
ckcqcjgh] mi&Mkd?kj
847224
904.
clSB pkuiqjk] mi&Mkd?kj
847102
905.
cklksiV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
847225
906.
csuh iV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
847223
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4007
907.
HkkSvkM+k] mi&Mkd?kj
847212
908.
xk¡/h cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
847214
909.
?kks?kjMhgk] mi&Mkd?kj
847402
910.
t;uxj cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
847226
911.
t;uxj] mi&Mkd?kj
847226
912.
>a>kjiqj dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
847404
913.
>a>kjiqj vkj- ,l-] mi&Mkd?kj
847403
914
>a>kjiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847404
915.
dyqokgh] mi&Mkd?kj
847229
916.
[ktkSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
847228
917.
f[kjgj] mi&Mkd?kj
847230
918.
[kqVkSuk] mi&Mkd?kj
847227
919.
dqukSyh] mi&Mkd?kj
847451
920.
ynfu;k¡] mi&Mkd?kj
847232
921.
ykSdgk] mi&Mkd?kj
847421
922.
yksgV] mi&Mkd?kj
847231
923.
e/siqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847408
924.
e/qcuh dksVZ] mi&Mkd?kj
847211
925.
e/okiqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847305
926.
e/qcuh cM+k cktkj] mi&Mkd?kj
847213
927.
ujfg;k] mi&Mkd?kj
847108
928.
fueZyh] mi&Mkd?kj
847452
929.
isMkSy] mi&Mkd?kj
847234
930.
iQqyijkl] mi&Mkd?kj
847409
931.
vkj- ds- dkWyst] mi&Mkd?kj
847215
932.
jfgdk] mi&Mkd?kj
847238
933.
jktuxj] mi&Mkd?kj
847235
934.
jkeiV~Vh] mi&Mkd?kj
847236
935.
:nziqj] mi&Mkd?kj
847411
936.
lkgj?kkV] mi&Mkd?kj
847308
937.
ldjh] mi&Mkd?kj
847239
938.
lfjloikgh] mi&Mkd?kj
847424
939.
reqfj;k] mi&Mkd?kj
847410
940.
rqykirxat] mi&Mkd?kj
847109
941.
mexkao dksBh] mi&Mkd?kj
847240
[iQk- la- 17017&1@2011&jk-Hkk-]
vuqyk dqekj] mi egkfuns'kd (fiQySVyh@jktHkk"kk)
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND IT
(Department of Post)
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O. 1519.—In pursuance of Rule 10(4) of the
Official Language (use for Official Purposes of the Union)
Rule, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies following
941 Sub Post Offices, which are under Office of the Chief
Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna-800001 of the
Department of Posts where more than 80% staff has
acquired the working knowledge of Hindi : —
Request of notifying the following Sub-ordinate
Post Offices under Bihar Postal Circle whose
80% employees have already obtained working
knowledge in Hindi
Sitamari Division, Sitamari
Sl.
Name of Post Offices
Pin Code
No.
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
Athari S.O.
843311
2.
Bairgania S.O.
843313
3.
Bairgania Bazar S.O.
843313
4.
Bajpatti S.O.
843314
5.
Barharwa S.O.
843315
6.
Belsand S.O.
843316
7.
Bhutahi S.O.
843317
8.
Budhnagara Deorhi S.O.
843318
9.
Choraut S.O.
843319
10.
Janakpur Road S.O.
843320
11.
Janaki Asthan S.O.
843302
12.
Koat Bazar S.O.
843302
13.
Majhulia Estate S.O.
843322
14.
Manik Chowk S.O.
843323
15.
Mejarganj S.O.
843332
16.
Nanpur S.O.
843333
17.
Parihar S.O.
843324
18.
Persauni S.O.
843325
19.
Piprahi S.O.
843334
20.
Pupri Bazar S.O.
843320
21.
Raipur S.O.
843326
22.
Riga S.O.
843327
23.
Runni Saidpur S.O.
843328
(1)
(2)
(3)
4008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24.
Sheohar S.O.
843329
25.
Sitamarhi Bazar S.O.
843302
26.
Sonbarsa S.O.
843330
27.
Sursand S.O.
843331
28.
Shaktipitha Chandidham
Kailashpuri S.O.
843301
Purnea Division, Purnea
29.
Araria S.O.
854311
,
30.
Araria R.S
854312
31.
Baisi S.O.
854315
32.
Banaili S.O.
854201
33.
Banmankhi S.O.
854202
34.
Barhara Kothi S.O.
854203
35.
Bhawanipur Rajdham S.O.
854204
36.
Bhatta Bazar S.O.
854301
37.
Bathnaha S.O.
854316
38.
Forbesganj S.O.
854318
39.
Jalalgarh S.O.
854327
40.
Jogbani S.O.
854328
41.
Jokihat S.O.
854329
42.
Kursakanta S.O.
854331
43.
Kuari S.O.
854332
44.
Madanpur S.O.
854333
45.
Maryganj S.O.
854334
46.
Narpatganj S.O.
854335
47.
Nababganj S.O.
854336
48.
Chopra Ramnagar S.O.
854301
49.
Dhamdaha S.O.
854205
50.
Garhbanaili S.O.
854315
51.
Gulabbag S.O.
854326
52.
Kasaba S.O.
854330
53.
Pumia Chowk S.O.
854304
54.
Pumia Politechnic S.O.
854303
55.
RaniPatra S.O.
854337
56.
Sarsi S.O.
854306
57.
Pumia City S.O.
854302
58.
Pumia D.B. S.O.
854301
59.
S.R. Farbesganj S.O.
854318
60.
Khuskibagh S.O.
854305
61.
Pumia Court S.O.
854301
62.
Barsoighat S.O.
854317
63.
Barsoi S.O.
854102
64.
Daheria Mills S.O.
854103
65.
Durgaganj S.O.
855105
66.
Guru Bazar S.O.
854104
67.
B.M.P.Camp S.O.
854106
68.
Katihar Mills S.O.
854107
69.
Korha S.O.
854108
70.
Manihari S.O.
854113
71.
Mahadeopur S.O.
854116
72.
Pothia S.O.
854114
73.
Roshna S.O.
854117
74.
Salmari S.O.
855113
75.
Semapur Factory S.O.
854115
76.
Bahadurganj S.O.
855101
77.
Kishnganj MDG
855107
78.
Kishangaj Bazar S.O.
855108
79.
Sontha S.O.
855115
80.
Thakurganj S.O.
855116
81.
Taiyabpur S.O.
855117
82.
Sonaili S.O.
855114
83.
GalgatiaS.O.
855106
84.
Katihar Court S.O.
854105
85.
Katihar Barabazar S.O.
854105
86.
Amdabad S.O.
854112
87.
Ayodhyaganj Bazar S.O.
854010
88.
Katihar R.S. S.O.
854105
89.
Katihar Colony S.O.
854105
.
Muzzafarpur Division, Muzzafarpur
90.
Dhoti S.O.
843105
91.
Motipur S.O.
843111
92.
Rarnna S.O.
842002
93.
M.I.T.S.O.
842003
94.
Deoria S.O.
843120
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4009
95.
Kanti S.O.
843109
96.
Kurnowl S.O.
843125
97.
Silaut S.O.
843119
98.
Aurai S.O.
843312
99.
Baghi S.O.
844112
100.
Bakhra S.O.
843101
101.
Bihar University S.O.
842001
102.
Bochaha S.O.
843103
103.
Chandanpatti S.O.
843104
104.
Geyaspur S.O.
843107
105.
Jaintpur State S.O.
843123
106.
Katra S.O.
843321
107.
Kurhani S.O.
844120
108.
Minapur S.O.
843128
109.
Motijheel S.O.
842001
110.
Patahi S.O.
843113
111.
Piar S.O.
843112
112.
Paroo S.O.
843115
113.
Rampurhari S.O.
843117
114.
Saraiya Factory S.O.
843126
115.
Sarfuddinpur S.O.
843118
116.
Turki S.O.
844127
117.
Aghoria Bazar S.O.
842001
118.
AamgolaS.O.
842001
119.
Bariyarpur S.O.
843102
120.
Brihima Bazar S.O.
843127
121.
B.M.P. Vl S.O.
842001
122.
Chhata Bazar S.O.
842001
123.
D.A. College S.O.
843121
124.
Gidha S.O.
843106
125.
Hardi S.O.
843122
126.
Imalichatti S.O.
842001
127.
Jajuar S.O.
843360
128.
Kalwari S.O.
843108
129.
Kalyani S.O.
842001
130.
Kanhauli Azara S.O.
842001
131.
Kanti Tharmal Power Station S.O.
843130
132.
Kathaiya S.O.
843124
133.
Malighat S.O.
842001
134.
M.I.C. S.O.
842001
135.
Muzaffarpur Collectorate S.O.
842001
136.
Muzaffarpur Court S.O.
842001
137.
Narma S.O.
843129
138.
Pakki Sarai S.O.
842001
139.
Purani Bazar S.O.
842001
140.
R.D.S. College S.O.
842001
141.
Saraiyaganj S.O.
842001
142.
Sikandarpur S.O.
842001
143.
S.S.K.Bhawan S.O.
842001
144.
Umanagar S.O.
842004
West Champaran Division, Bettia
145.
Bagaha S.O.
845101
146.
Naripur S.O.
845105
147.
Valmikinagar S.O.
845107
148.
Madhubani S.O.
845104
149.
Ramnagar S.O.
845106
150.
Harinagar S.O.
845103
151.
Narkatiyaganj S.O.
845455
152.
D.K. Sikarpur S.O.
845451
153.
Lauria S.O.
845453
154.
Jogapatti S.O.
845452
155.
Chuhari S.O.
845450
156.
Jagdishpur S.O.
845459
157.
Majhuliya R.S. S.O.
845454
158.
Chanpatiya S.O.
845449
159.
Chanpatiya Bazar S.O.
845449
160.
Mainatard S.O.
845306
161.
Sikta S.O.
845307
162.
Lal Bazar S.O.
845438
163.
Mina Bazar S.O.
845438
164.
Naya Tola Betiah S.O.
845438
165.
Belbag S.O.
845438
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
166.
Betiah RS S.O.
845438
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
167.
Daudnagar MDG
824143
168.
Sherghati MDG
824211
169.
Navinagar LSG
824301
170.
Obara LSG
824124
171.
Dev LSG
824202
172.
Rafiganj LSG
824125
173.
Goh LSG
824203
174.
Arnba S.O.
824111
175.
Barun S.O.
824112
176.
Koch S.O.
824207
177.
Kutumba S.O.
824123
Begusarai Division, Begusarai
178.
Bachhwara S.O.
851111
179.
Bakhri Bazar S.O.
848201
180.
Barauni HSG II
851112
181.
Garhara S.O.
851126
182.
Garhpura S.O.
848204
.’
183.
Gogari S.O.
851202
184.
G.D. College ND S.O.
851101
.
185.
J. Gogari S.O.
851203
186.
Khagaria MDG HSG.-l
851204
187.
Meghual LSG S.O.
851127
188.
Mansi S.O.
851214
189.
Mansoorchak S.O.
851128
190.
Manjhaul S.O.
848202
191.
Parbatta S.O.
851216
192.
Rajaura S.O.
851131
193.
RTS S.O.
851117
194.
S. Kamal S.O.
851217
195.
Sripur S.O.
851132
196.
Sriram Press S.O.
851101
197.
Sakarpura S.O.
848203
198.
Suhird Nagar S.O.
851218
199.
Teghra LSG S.O.
851133
200.
Ullao S.O.
851134
201.
Barauni Deorhi S.O.
851113
202.
B.O.R. LSG S.O.
851114
203.
Bhagwanpur S.O.
851120
204.
B.T.P.P. S.O.
851116
205.
B.U.Nagar S.O.
851115
206.
Baro S.O.
851118
207.
Beldaur S.O.
852161
208.
Bihat S.O.
851135
209.
Choutham S.O.
851201
210.
Khagaria Bazar N.D.S.O.
851204
211.
Koshi College S.O.
851205
212.
Lakhminia S.O.
851211
213.
Mahna S.O.
851210
214.
Maheshkhunt S.O.
851213
215.
Begusarai Court S.O.
851101
216.
M.Banduar S.O.
851129
217.
Mohaddipur S.O.
851212
218.
Naokothi S.O.
851103
219.
Nayagaon S.O.
851215
Munger Division, Munger
220.
Aliganj S.O.
811301
221.
Barbigha S.O.(LSG)
811101
222.
Barahiya S.O.
811302
223.
Bariyarpur S.O.
811211
224.
Basudeopur T.S.O.
811202
225.
Chakai S.O.
811303
226.
Chewara S.O.
811304
227.
Dharhara S.O.
811212
228.
Ganga Darsan T.S.O.
811201
229.
Gidhaur S.O.
811305
.
230.
Haveli Kharagpur S.O.
811213
231.
Jamalpur MDG S.O.
811214
232.
Jamui Court S.O.
811307
233.
Jhajha Bazar S.O.
811308
234.
Jhajha S.O.
811308
235.
Kajra S.O.
811309
236.
Khaira S.O.
811317
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4011
237.
Kiul RS S.O.
811310
238.
Lakhisarai Court S.O.
811311
239.
Lakhisarai MDGI S.O.
811311
240.
Lal Darwaja TS.O.
811201
241.
Laxmipur S.O.
811312
242.
Mallehpur S.O.
811313
243.
Mehus S.O.
811102
244.
Munger College T.S.O.
811201
245.
Munger Fort T.S.O.
811201
246.
Munger Town T. S.O.
811201
247.
ND Road Munger T.S.O.
811201
248.
Nimi S.O.
811103
249.
PB Lakhisari S.O.
811314
250.
Piri Bazar S.O.
811112
251.
Purabsarai T.S.O.
811112
252.
S B Jamalpur S.O.
811214
253.
Sarmera S.O.
811104
254.
Sheikhpura Bazar S.O.
811105
255.
Sheikhpura RS S.O.
811105
256.
Sheikhpura MDG S.O.
811105
257.
Sikandra S.O.
811315
258.
Simultala S.O.
811316
259.
Sirari S.O.
811107
260.
Sono S.O.
811314
261.
Surajgarha S.O.
811106
Siwan Division, Siwan
262.
Mairwa S.O.
841239
263.
Mirganj S.O.
841438
264.
Maharajganj S.O.
841238
265.
Basantpur S.O.
841406
‘ ,
266.
Hathua S.O.
841436
Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur
267.
Aadampur S.O.
812001
268.
Aliganj S.O.
812005
269.
Aasarganj S.O.
813201
270.
Barari S.O.
812003
271.
Bhagalpur Central Jail S.O.
812001
272.
Bhagalpur Engineering
College S.O.
813210
273.
Bhagalpur Distt. Board S.O.
812001
274.
Bhagalpur city S.O.
812002
275.
Bihpur S.O.
853201
.
276.
Barahpura S.O.
812001
277.
Champanagar S.O.
812004
.
278.
Ekchari S.O.
813204
279.
Ghogha S.O.
813205
280.
Ishakchak S.O.
812001
281.
lshipur S.O.
813206
282.
Jagdishpur S.O.
813105
283.
Kahalgaon S.O.
813203
284.
Kharik Bazar S.O.
853202
285.
Kharmanchak S.O.
812001
286.
Maharshi Mehi Ashram S.O.
812003
287.
Mathurapur S.O.
813222
288.
Mayaganj S.O.
812001
289.
Mirjanhat S.O.
812005
290.
Narayanpur S.O.
853203
291.
Nathnagar S.O.
812006
292.
Navgachhiya S.O.
853204
293.
Pirpanti S.O.
813209
294.
Sabaur S.O.
813210
295.
Sahebganj S.O.
812004
296.
Shahkund S.O.
813108
297.
Saidpur Tola Goriyar S.O.
853205
298.
Sangrampur S.O.
813212
299.
Station Road, Sultanganj S.O.
813213
300.
Sultanganj S.O.
813213
301.
Sujaganj Bazar S.O.
812002
302.
Kahalgon NTPC S.O.
813214
303.
Tarapur S.O.
813321
304.
TNB College S.O.
812007
305.
Tatarpur S.O.
812002
306.
Tilkamanjhi S.O.
812001
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
307.
Amarpur S.O.
813101
308.
Barahat S.O.
813103
309.
Belhar S.O.
813202
310.
Bounshi S.O.
813104
311.
Chandan S.O.
814131
312.
Katoria S.O.
813106
313.
Khesar S.O.
813207
,
314.
Panjwara S.O.
813110
315.
Punsiya S.O.
813109
316.
Rajoun S.O.
813107
317.
Shambhuganj S.O.
813211
Saran Division, Chapra
318.
Gaura S.O.
841443
319.
Ishuapur S.O.
841411
320.
Khaira S.O.
841414
321.
Bhagwan Bazar S.O.
841301
322.
District Board S.O.
841301
323.
Khodaibag S.O.
841415
324.
Kopa Samhota S.O.
841213
325.
Naini S.O.
841316
326.
Nagra S.O.
841412
327.
Purwari Telpa S.O.
841302
328.
Sarhwara S.O.
841421
329.
Jalalpur Bazar S.O.
841412
330.
Amnaur S.O.
841401
331.
Aphar S.O.
841402
332.
Bhatha Sonho S.O.
841460
333.
Garkha S.O.
841311
334.
Maker S.O.
841215
335.
Mirjapur S.O.
841419
336.
Parsa S.O.
841219
337.
Paiga S.O.
841218
338.
Bareja S.O.
841201
339.
Chainwa S.O.
841204
340.
Daudpur S.O.
841205
341.
Ekma S.O.
841208
342.
Phulwariya Tajpur S.O.
841209
343.
Gariba Tola S.O.
841312
344.
Jogia S.O.
841212
345.
Kopa Bazar S.O.
841214
346.
Mahmadpur S.O.
841223
347.
Parsagarh S.O.
841220
348.
Rivilganj S.O.
841315
349.
Rajendra College S.O.
841301
350.
Manjhi S.O.
841313
351.
Baniapur S.O.
841403
352.
Dayalpur S.O.
841206
353.
Dumarshan Bangra S.O.
841410
354.
Jagdam College S.O.
841301
355.
Mashrakh S.O.
841417
356.
Panditpur S.O.
841224
357.
Shajitpur S.O.
841422
358.
Taraiya S.O.
841424
359.
Basant S.O.
841202
360.
Dighwara S.O.
841207
361.
Gultenganj S.O.
841211
362.
Mauna S.O.
841301
363.
Nayagaun S.O.
841217
364.
Naraon S.O.
841216
365.
Pratappur S.O.
841225
366.
Sutihar S.O.
841222
367.
Sonepur S.O.
841101
368.
Sonepur RS S.O.
841101
369.
Shitalpur S.O.
841221
Rohtas Division, Sasaram
370.
Akorhi Bazar S.O.
821301
.
371.
Amjhor Camp S.O.
821302
372.
Banjari S.O.
821303
373.
Bhabhua MDG
821101
374.
Baulia S.O.
821304
375.
Babhnaul S.O.
802211
376.
Bhagwanpur S.O.
821102
377.
Bikramganj S.O.
802212
378.
B.M.P. Dehri S.O.
821307
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4013
379.
Chainpur S.O.
821103
380.
Chenari S.O.
821104
381.
Dalmianagar S.O.
821305
382.
Darihat S.O.
821306
383.
Dehri on Sone S.O.
821307
384.
Dehri RS S.O.
821307
385.
Dawath S.O.
802226
386.
Dinara S.O.
802213
387.
Durgawati S.O.
821105
388.
Gandhipath S.O.
821115
389.
Garhnokha S.O.
802215
390.
Gorari S.O.
802214
391.
Hatta S.O.
821106
392.
Harihar Ganj S.O.
821310
393.
Indrpuri S.O.
821308
394.
Kargahar S.O.
821107
395.
Kachchawa S.O.
821309
396.
Kochas S.O.
821112
397.
Kudra S.O.
821108
398.
Kudra Bazar S.O.
821108
399.
Koath S.O.
802216
400.
Mohania S.O.
821109
401.
Meari Bazar S.O.
802217
402.
Natwar S.O.
802218
403.
Nasriganj S.O.
821310
404.
New Area Sasaram S.O.
821115
405.
Noan S.O.
802132
406.
Rajpur S.O.
802219
407.
Ramgarh S.O.
821110
408.
Rohtas S.O.
821311
409.
Sasaram Bazar S.O.
821115
410.
Sasaram Local Board S.O.
821115
411.
Sheosagar S.O.
821111
412.
Sanjhauli S.O.
802220
413.
Surajpura S.O.
802221
414.
Takia Bazar S.O.
821113
415.
Tilouthu S.O.
821312
416.
Tenduni Chowk S.O.
802212
Nalnda Division. Biharsarif
417.
Alinagar S.O.
803101
.
418.
Amber S.O.
803101
419.
Ashanagar S.O.
803118
.
420.
Asta S.O.
803120
421.
Asthawan S.O.
803107
422.
Athmalgola S.O.
803211
423.
Bakhtiyarpur S.O.
803212
424.
Barh S.O.
803213
425.
Barh Court S.O.
803213
426.
Barh RS S.O.
803214
427.
Bhadaur S.O.
803307
428.
Bhathar S.O.
801307
429.
Chandi S.O.
803108
430.
Ekangarsarai S.O.
801301
431.
Hamaut S.O.
803110
432.
Hathidah S.O.
803301
433.
Hilsa S.O.
801302
434.
IsIampur S.O.
801303
435.
Karaipershurai S.O.
801304
436.
Mogalkuan S.O.
803118
437.
Mokama S.O.
803302
438.
Mokamachowk S.O.
803302
439.
Mokamaghat S.O.
803303
440.
Nagarnausa S.O.
801305
441.
Nalanda S.O.
803111
442.
Nalanda College S.O.
803101
443.
NTPC Barh S.O.
803215
444.
Noorsarai S.O.
803113
445.
Ordanance Factory Rajgir S.O.
803121
446.
Pandarak S.O.
803221
447.
Parwalpur S.O.
803114
448.
Pawapuri S.O.
803115
449.
Rahui S.O.
803119
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
450.
Rajgir S.O.
803116
451.
Ramchandrapur S.O.
803216
452.
Sakunat S.O.
803101
453.
Samyagarh S.O.
803306
454.
Silao S.O.
803117
455.
Sohsarai S.O.
803118
456.
Telhara S.O.
801306
Bhojpur Division, Ara
457.
Anaith S.O.
802302
458.
Agiaon S.O.
802201
459.
Agiaon Bazar S.O.
802202
460.
Ara Chowk S.O.
802301
461.
Ara Kutchery S.O.
802301
462.
Akhgaon S.O.
802237
463.
Barahara S.O.
802311
464.
Benwalia S.O.
802351
465.
Bihia S.O.
802152
466.
Chandwa S.O.
802312
467.
Charpokhari S.O.
802223
468.
Chaurasta Bihia S.O.
802154
469.
Dalippur S.O.
802155
470.
Dhamar S.O.
802156
471.
Garahani S.O.
802203
472.
Gunari S.O.
802313
473.
Gajrajganj S.O.
802157
474.
Gaudarh Rudra Nagar S.O.
802183
475.
H.D. Jain College S.O.
802301
476.
Hasan Bazar S.O.
802204
477.
Jagdishpur S.O.
802158
478.
Jitaura S.O.
802159
479.
Karath S.O.
802205
480.
Kasap S.O.
802206
481.
Kayam Nagar S.O.
802314
482.
Khutahan S.O.
802222
483.
Koilwar S.O.
802160
484.
Mharaja College S.O.
802301
485.
Narhi Chandi S.O.
802161
486.
Nawada Ben S.O.
802162
487.
Naya Mohamadpur S.O.
802163
488.
Pakari S.O.
802301
489.
Piru S.O.
802207
490.
Sahar S.O.
802208
491.
Sandesh S.O.
802164
492.
Sahabad District Board
802301
493.
Shahpur Patti S.O.
802165
494.
Sheoganj S.O.
802301
495.
Sinha S.O.
802316
496.
Tarari S.O.
802209
497.
Umaraonganj S.O.
802166
498.
Udwantnagar S.O.
802210
499.
Arak S.O.
802111
500.
Brahmpur S.O.
802112
501.
Brahmpur Chaurasta S.O.
802112
502.
Barka Rajpur S.O.
802113
503.
Buxar Gajadharganj S.O.
802103
504.
Buxar Jail S.O.
802102
505.
Chusa S.O.
802114
506.
Chaugain S.O.
802115
507.
Churamanpur S.O.
802116
508.
Dhansoi S.O.
802117
509.
Dullahpur S.O.
802118
510.
Dumaraon S.O.
802119
511.
Dumaraon Textiles S.O.
802136
512.
Dumari S.O.
802120
513.
Hitwa Rajpur S.O.
802122
514.
Itarhi S.O.
802123
515.
Kesath S.O.
802125
516.
Koransarai S.O.
802126
517.
Manoharpur S.O.
802128
518.
Murar S.O.
802127
519.
Nai Bazar Buxar S.O.
802101
520.
Nawanagar S.O.
802129
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4015
521.
Neazipur S.O.
802131
522.
Nimej S.O.
802130
523.
Purana Bhojpur S.O.
802133
524.
Raghunathpur S.O.
802134
525.
Simari S.O.
802135
526.
Sohani Patti S.O.
802101
Vaishali Division, Hajipur
527.
Anirudh Belsar, S.O.
844111
528.
Anjanpir Chowk, S.O.
844103
529.
Balukaram, S.O.
844113
530.
Basudeopur Chandel, S.O.
844501
531.
Bhagwanpur, S.O.
844114
532.
Bidupur Bazar, S.O.
844503
533.
Bidupur R.S. S.O.
844502
534.
Chaksikandar, S.O.
844115
535.
Desari, S.O.
844504
536.
Dharhara, S.O.
844117
537.
Dumari, S.O.
844116
538.
Ghataro, S.O.
844119
539.
Goraul, S.O.
844118
540.
Hajipur Chowk, S.O.
844101
541.
Hajipur Industrial Area, S.O.
844102
542.
Jhandaha, S.O.
844505
543.
Kumar Bajitpur, S.O.
844110
544.
Lalganj, S.O.
844121
545.
Mahnar, S.O.
844506
546.
Mahnar Road R.S. S.O.
844507
547.
Mahua, S.O.
844122
548.
Patepur, S.O.
843114
549.
Prataptand, S.O.
844123
550.
Raghopur, S.O.
844508
551.
Rajapakar, S.O.
844124
552.
Rambhadra, S.O.
844101
553.
Sahdei Buzurg, S.O.
844509
554.
Sarai, S.O.
844125
555.
Singhara, S.O.
844126
556.
Yusufpur, S.O.
844101
557.
Vaishali, S.O.
844128
Nawada Division, Nawada
558.
Dhamoul S.O.
805101
559.
Giriyak S.O.
803109
.
560.
Govindpur S.O.
805102
561.
Hasua S.O.
805103
562.
Kadirganj S.O.
805104
563.
Katrisarai S.O.
805105
564.
Kowakol S.O.
805106
565.
Kosi S.O.
805107
566.
Lal Bigha S.O.
805108
567.
Nardiganj S.O.
805109
568.
Nawada Kutchery S.O.
805111
569.
Nemdarganj S.O.
805121
570.
Nurhat S.O.
805122
571.
Orahanpur S.O.
805123
572.
Pakribarawan S.O.
805124
573.
Par Nawada S.O.
805112
574.
Rajauli S.O.
805125
575.
Rajhat S.O.
805126
576.
Sirdala S.O.
805127
577.
Tarwan S.O.
805128
578.
Tungi S.O.
805129
579.
Warisaliganj S.O.
805130
580.
Wazirganj S.O.
805131
Patna Division, Patna
581.
B.C. Road S.O.
800001
582.
B.P.S.C S.O.
800001
583.
Bank Road S.O.
800001
584.
C.R. Building S.O.
800001
585.
Chiraiyatand S.O.
800001
586.
Darul Malick S.O.
800001
587.
Gardanibagh S.O.
800001
588.
Hotel Republic S.O.
800001
589.
Indian Nation S.O.
800001
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
590.
Jarnal Road S.O.
800001
591.
Kidwaipuri S.O.
800001
592.
Ramjaipal Nagar S.O.
800001
593.
Mithapur S.O.
800001
594.
Navshakti S.O.
800001
595.
New Jakkanpur S.O.
800001
596.
Patna Collectriate S.O.
800001
597.
Postal Park S.O.
800001
598.
Punai Chak S.O.
800001
599.
R. Block S.O.
800001
600.
Sri Krishnapuri S.O.
800001
601.
J.C. Road S.O.
800004
602.
Machua Toli S.O.
800004
603.
Naya Tola S.O.
800004
604.
P.M.C.H S.O.
800004
605.
M.Y. Sandalpur S.O.
800006
606.
Dental College S.O.
800007
607.
Chowk Shikarpur S.O.
800008
.
608.
Diwan Mohalla S.O.
800008
609.
Katra Bazar S.O.
800008
.
610.
Machharhatta S.O.
800008
611.
Mahavir Asthan S.O.
800008
612.
Marufganj S.O.
800008
613.
Pachhim Darwaza S.O.
800008
614.
Maghaji Mills S.O.
800008
615.
Makhdumpur Digha S.O.
800011
616.
Patna Aerodrame S.O.
800014
617.
Sheikhpura S.O.
800014
618.
Chitrra Gupt Nagar S.O.
800020
619.
K. Sector S.O.
800020
620.
R.M.S Colony S.O.
800020
621.
West Lohia Nagar S.O.
800020
622.
Kumhrar S.O.
800026
623.
Nanmuhia S.O.
800026
624.
Khagaul Bazar S.O.
801105
625.
B. R. Centre S.O.
801501
626.
Danapur Bazar S.O.
801501
627.
Patel Nagar S.O.
800029
628.
Anisabad S.O.
800002
629.
Kadam Kuan S.O.
800003
630.
Patna University S.O.
800005
631.
Mahendru S.O.
800006
632.
Gulzarbagh S.O.
800007
.
633.
Patna City S.O.
800008
634.
Begampur S.O.
800009
635.
Sadakat Ashram S.O.
800010
636.
Digha Ghat S.O.
800011
637.
Digha S.O.
800012
638.
Patliputra S.O.
800013
639.
B. V. College S.O.
800014
640.
Patna Secretariate S.O.
800015
641.
B.S.E. Board S.O.
800017
642.
Bataganj S.O.
800018
643.
C.D.A. S.O.
800019
644.
Lohia Nagar S.O.
800020
,
645.
Vidut Parishad S.O.
800021
646.
B.G. Camp/Raj Bhawan S.O.
800022
647.
L.B.S. Nagar S.O.
800023
648.
Keshri Nagar S.O.
800024
649.
Aashiana Nagar S.O.
800025
650.
B.H. Colony S.O.
800026
651.
Patna High Court S.O.
800028
652.
Sadisopur S.O.
801111
653.
A.H. Guard S.O.
801101
654.
Belhauri S.O.
801102
655.
Bihta S.O.
801103
656.
Bikram S.O.
801104
657.
Khagaul S.O.
801105
.
658.
Maner S.O.
801108
659.
Naubatpur S.O.
801109
660.
Paliganj S.O.
801110
661.
Lai S.O.
801112
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4017
662.
Neora S.O.
801113
663.
Danapur Cant S.O.
801503
664.
Phulwari Sharif S.O.
801505
665.
Sahay Nagar S.O.
801506
666.
Fatwa S.O.
803201
667.
Khushrupur S.O.
803202
668.
Alawalpur S.O.
803203
669.
Telmar S.O.
803204
670.
Hajrat Sain S.O.
804451
671.
Masaurhi S.O.
804452
672.
Punpun S.O.
804453
673.
Nadaul S.O.
804454
Gaya Division, Gaya
674.
A.P. Colony S.O.
823001
675.
ASC Center S.O.
823005
676.
Atri S.O.
843311
677.
Bairagi S.O.
823002
678.
Belaganj S.O.
804403
679.
Bodh Gaya S.O.
824231
680.
Buniyadganj S.O.
823003
681.
Civil Aerodram S.O.
823004
682.
Civil Lines S.O.
823001
683.
Chakand S.O.
824004
684.
Chand Chowra S.O.
823001
685.
Chandauti S.O.
823001
686.
Chowk Gaya S.O.
823001
687.
Cherki S.O.
824237
688.
Delha S.O.
823002
689.
Durga Asthan S.O.
823003
690.
Fatehpur S.O.
824252
691.
Gaya D.B. S.O.
823001
692.
Gaya Jail S.O.
823001
693.
Gaya RSS.O.
823002
694.
Gewabigha S.O.
823001
695.
Guraru Mills S.O.
824118
696.
Hulasganj S.O.
804407
697.
Karimganj S.O.
823001
698.
Khizersarai S.O.
824233
699.
Kharkhura S.O.
823002
700.
Mow S.O.
824235
701.
Magadh University S.O.
824234
702.
New Godown S.O.
823001
703.
Paraiya S.O.
824209
.
704.
Purani Godown S.O.
823001
705.
Tekari S.O.
824236
706.
Jahanabad RS S.O.
804417
707.
Arwal S.O.
804401
708.
Baiderabad S.O.
804402
709.
Bandhuganj S.O.
804432
710.
Dharaut S.O.
804405
711.
Ghoshi S.O.
804406
712.
Jahanabad Kutchery S.O.
804403
713.
Kako S.O.
804418
714.
Karpi S.O.
804419
715.
Kazisarai S.O.
804420
716.
Kurtha S.O.
804421
717.
Makhdumpur S.O.
804422
718.
Nagla Kinzer S.O.
804423
719.
Nehalpur S.O.
804429
720.
Paibigha S.O.
804424
721.
Shakurabad S.O.
804425
722.
Shankarpur Imamganj S.O.
804426
723.
Tehta S.O.
804427
724.
Usari S.O.
804428
725.
Main S.O.
804435
Saharsa Division, Saharsa
726.
Balua Bazar S.O.
854330
727.
Bihariganj S.O.
852101
728.
Bangaon S.O.
852212
729.
Bhaptiyahi Bazar S.O.
852105
730.
Bhim Nagar Barrage S.O.
854334
731.
Birpur S.O.
854340
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
732.
BNMU Madhepura S.O.
852113
733.
Budhma S.O.
852114
734.
Chapraon S.O.
852106
735.
Chousa S.O.
852213
736.
Dhabauli S.O.
852107
,
737.
Ganpatganj S.O.
852109
738.
Garh Baruari S.O.
852110
739.
Gwalpara S.O.
852115
740.
Gamaharia S.O.
852108
741.
Jadia S.O.
852214
742.
Jia Ram Raghoupur S.O.
852111
743.
Karjain Bazar S.O.
852215
744.
Kumarkhand S.O.
852112
745.
Madhepura MDG
852113
746.
Madhepura Collectrate S.O.
852113
747.
Mahishi S.O.
852216
748.
Mangwar S.O.
852217
.
749.
Mathahi S.O.
852121
750.
Murliganj S.O.
852122
751.
Nauhatta S.O.
852123
752.
Puraini Bazar S.O.
852116
753.
Panchgachia S.O.
852124
754.
Pratapganj S.O.
852126
755.
Pipra Bazar S.O.
852218
756.
Saharsa Collectrate S.O.
852202
757.
Supaul MDG
852131
758.
Saharsa Bazar S.O.
852201
759.
Saharsa District Board S.O.
852201
760.
Saharsa Purab Bazar S.O.
852201
761.
Salkhua Bazar S.O.
852126
762.
Sah Alam Nagar S.O.
852219
763.
Simri Bakhtiyarpur S.O.
852127
764.
Sour Bazar S.O.
852221
765.
Sukhpur S.O.
852130
766.
Supaul Bazar S.O.
852131
767.
Sonbersa Raj S.O.
852129
768.
Singheshwar Raj S.O.
852118
769.
Surpatganj S.O.
852137
770.
Tharbitta S.O.
852138
771.
Triveniganj S.O.
852139
772.
T.P. College Madhepura S.O.
852113
773.
Uda Kishunganj S.O.
852220
Samastipur Division, Samastipur
774.
Dalsinghsrai MDG
848114
775.
Pusa S.O.
848125
776.
Patori S.O.
848504
777.
Hasanpur Sugar Mills S.O.
848205
778.
Kashipur S.O.
848101
779.
Narhan S.O.
848211
780.
Rosera S.O.
848210
781.
Singhia S.O.
848209
782.
Tajpur S.O.
848130
783.
Vidyapati Nagar S.O.
848503
784.
Kuseshwar Asthan S.O.
848213
785.
Ujiarpur S.O.
848132
786.
Singhia Ghat S.O.
848236
787.
P.Halai S.O.
848505
788.
Mohiuddin Nagar S.O.
848501
789.
Mohiuddin Nagar R.S S.O.
848502
790.
Jitwarpur S.O.
848134
791.
llmasnagar S.O.
848117
792.
Bhirha S.O.
848216
793.
Mangalgarh S.O.
848208
794.
Madhopur Dighrua S.O.
848122
795.
Kundal S.O.
848206
796.
Kishanpur S.O.
848301
.
797.
Kalyanpur S.O.
848160
798.
Kalyanpur Chowk S.O.
848302
“
799.
Dighra S.O.
848115
800.
Nauraga S.O.
848102
801.
Birouli Rural Institute S.O.
848113
802.
Patory Bazar Cinema Chowk S.O.
848504
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4019
803.
Baghra S.O.
848506
804.
Morwa S.O.
848121
805.
Warish Nagar S.O.
848133
806.
Waini S.O.
848131
807.
Shambhupatti S.O.
848129
808.
Sarairanjan S.O.
848127
809.
Samastipur Bazar S.O.
848101
810.
Rusera Thana S.O.
848210
811.
Dalsinghsarai Bazar S.O.
848114
812.
Bithan S.O.
848207
813.
Mohiuddin Nagar Baluahi S.O.
848207
Champaran Division, Motihari
814.
Adapur S.O.
845301
815.
Areraj S.O.
845411
816.
Bairia S.O.
845401
817.
B. K. Jagat S.O.
845413
818.
Bara Chakia S.O.
845412
819.
Bhelwa Circle S.O.
845315
820.
Chaita S.O.
845414
821.
Chauradano S.O.
845302
822.
Chiraiya S.O.
845415
823.
Damodrpur S.O.
845416
824.
Dariyapur S.O.
845417
825.
Dhaka S.O.
845418
826.
Gulbara Madhuban S.O.
845420
827.
Gobindganj S.O.
845419
828.
Ghorasahan S.O.
845303
829.
Harsidhi S.O.
845422
830.
Hussaini S.O.
845423
831.
Jaitpur Laukaria S.O.
845440
832.
Kesariya S.O.
845424
,.
833.
Kundawa Chainpur S.O.
845304
834.
Majharia S.O.
845401
835.
Malahi S.O.
845425
836.
Manguraha S.O.
845458
837.
Mehsi S.O.
845426
838.
Motihari City S.O.
845401
839.
Motihari Chawk S.O.
845401
840.
Motihari College S.O.
845401
841.
Motihari Court S.O.
845401
842.
Pachpakri S.O.
845427
843.
Pakari Dayal S.O.
845428
844.
Patahi S.O.
845457
845.
Phenhara S.O.
845430
846.
Pipra Factory S.O.
845429
.
847.
Raghunathpur Bazar S.O.
845431
848.
Rajpur S.O.
845432
849.
Rajepur Champaran S.O.
845406
850.
Ramgarhwa S.O.
845433
851.
Raxaul S.O.
845305
852.
Sangrampur S.O.
845434
853.
Semra S.O.
845435
854.
Sugauli S.O.
845456
855.
Tetaria Factory S.O.
845436
856.
Turkaulia S.O..
845437
Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga
857.
Anandpur S.O.
847101
858.
Baheri S.O.
847105
859.
Benta South S.O.
846003
860.
Biraul S.O.
847203
861.
Bishnupur S.O.
847407
862.
D.M.C. S.O.
846003
863.
Ghanshyampur S.O.
847427
864.
Hayaghat Bilashpur S.O.
847301
865.
Imambari S.O.
846001
866.
Kusothar S.O.
846001
867.
Kurso Nadiami S.O.
847405
868.
Lahariyasarai Court S.O.
846001
869.
Lohna Road S.O.
847407
870.
Manigachi S.O.
847422
871.
Nehra S.O.
847233
872.
Putai S.O.
847423
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
4020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
873.
SHMC S.O.
846002
874.
Bahera S.O.
847201
875.
Benipur S.O.
847103
876.
Bharwara S.O.
847104
877.
Bharathi S.O.
847106
878.
Bisfi S.O.
847122
879.
C.M College S.O.
846004
880.
Darbhanga Chowk S.O.
846004
,
881.
Darbhanga City S.O.
846004
882.
Darbhanga Bara Bazar S.O.
846004
883.
Jalley S.O.
847302
884.
Jogiara S.O.
847303
885.
KDSU S.O.
846008
886.
Kamtaul S.O.
847404
887.
Kansi Simri S.O.
847106
888.
Keotsa Baruary S.O.
847107
889.
Kilaghat S.O.
846004
890.
Kathalwari S.O.
846004
891.
Keoti Ranway S.O.
847121
892.
Laxmisagar S.O.
846009
.
893.
Muria S.O.
847115
894.
PTC. S.O.
846005
895.
Pindaruch S.O.
847306
896.
Ratanpur S.O.
847307
897.
Rayam Factory S.O.
847337
898.
Saramohanpur S.O.
846007
899.
Subhankarpur S.O.
846006
900.
Singhwara S.O.
847123
Madhubani Division, Madhubani
901.
AndharaS.O.
847401
902.
Arerhat S.O.
847222
903.
Babu barahi S.O.
847224
904.
Basaith Chanpura S.O.
847102
905.
Basopatti S.O.
847225
906.
Benipatti S.O.
847223
907.
Bhowara S.O.
847212
908.
Gandhi Bazar S.O.
847214
909.
Ghogardiha S.O.
847402
910.
Jay Nagar Bazar S.O.
847226
911.
Jay Nagar S.O.
847226
912.
Jhanjharpur Court S.O.
847404
913.
Jhanjharpur RS S.O.
847403
914
Jhanjharpur S.O.
847404
915.
Kaluwahi S.O.
847229
916.
Khajauli S.O.
847228
917.
Khirhar S.O.
847230
918.
Khutauna S.O.
847227
919.
Kunauli Bazar S.O.
847451
920.
Ladania S.O.
847232
921.
Laukaha S.O.
847421
922.
Lohat S.O.
847231
923.
Madheypur S.O.
847408
924.
Madhubani Court S.O.
847211
925.
Madhawapur S.O.
847305
926.
Madhubani Bara Bazar S.O.
847213
927.
Narahiya S.O.
847108
928.
Nirmali S.O.
847452
929.
Pandaul S.O.
847234
930.
Phul Paras S.O.
847409
931.
R.K.College S.O.
847215
932.
Rahika S.O.
847238
933.
Rajnagar S.O.
847235
934.
Ram Patti S.O.
847236
935.
Rudrapur S.O.
847411
936.
Sahar Ghat S.O.
847308
937.
Sakari S.O.
847239
938.
Sarisvapahi S.O.
847424
939.
TamuriaS.O.
847410
940.
Tulapatganj S.O.
847109
941.
Umgaon Kothi S.O.
847240
[F. No. 11017-1/2011-OL]
ANULA KUMAR, Dy. Director General (Philately/OL)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4021
okf.kT; ,oa m|ksx ea=kky;
(okf.kT; foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 12 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1520-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa okf.kT; foHkkx ds v/hu bZ lh th lh ds
fuEufyf[kr 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa dks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS]
ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjho`an us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d
Kkr izkIr dj fy;k gS %
1- csaxywj (fu;kZrd) 'kk[kk]
ok;qnwr psEclZ] f=kfuVh ldZy]
,e- th- jksM] csaxywj&560 001
Vsyh % (080)25589775@2558 1729@2558
iQSDl % (080) 2558 9779
bZ&esy % [email protected]
2- ubZ fnYYkh y?kq o eè;e fu;kZrd 'kk[kk]
,uchlhlh Iysl] lkmFk VkWoj]
4 Fkh eafty] izxfr fogkj] Hkh"e firkeg ekxZ]
ubZ fnYYkh&110003
Vsyh % (011) 49284000@4928 4016&4027
iQSDl % (011) 4928 4020
bZ&esy % [email protected]
3- ubZ fnYYkh (cM+s fu;kZrd) 'kk[kk]
,uchlhlh Iysl] lkmFk VkWoj]
4 Fkh eafty] izxfr fogkj] Hkh"e firkeg ekxZ]
ubZ fnYYkh&110003
Vsyh % (011) 4928 4011@4928 4012
iQSDl % (011) 4928 4013
bZ&esy % [email protected]
4- fnYYkh cSad dkjksckj 'kk[kk]
rhljh eafty] galky;k fcfYMax] 15] ckjk[kack jksM]
ubZ fnYYkh&110001
Vsyh % (011) 4533 3666@601] 603] 605
iQSDl % (011) 4533 3600
bZ&esy % [email protected]
5- ckanzk y?kq ,oa eè;e fu;kZrd 'kk[kk]
fn esVªksiksfyVu] 7oha eafty]
IykWV ua- lh&26@27] ^bZ* CykWd]
ckanzk&dqykZ dkWEysDl] ckanzk (iwoZ)] eqcbZ&400 051
Vsyh % (022) 61448181@61448110
iQSDl % (022) 6144 8156
[iQk- la- bZ&11013@1@2008&fgUnh]
Jherh nsodh] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 12th May, 2014
S.O. 1520.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
the following branch offices of ECGC Ltd. under
Department of Commerce, whereof more than 80% staff
have acquired a working knowledge of Hindi :—
1.
Bangalore (Exporter) Branch,
Vayudoot Chambers, Trinity Circle,
M.G. Road, Bangaluru.
Tele : (080) 25589775/2558 1729/2558,
Fax : (080) 2558 9779
Email : [email protected]
2.
New Delhi (Small and Medium Exporters)
Branch,
NBCC Place, South Tower,
4th Floor, Pragati Vihar, Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
New Delhi-110003
Tele : (011) 4928 4000/4928 4016-4027
Fax : (011) 4928 4020
Email : [email protected]
3.
New Delhi (Large Exporters) Branch,
NBCC Place, South Tower,
4th floor, Pragati Vihar, Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
New Delhi-110003
Tele : (011) 4928 4011/4928 4012
Fax : (011) 4928 4013
Email : [email protected]
4.
Delhi Bank Business Branch,
Third floor, Hansalaya Building,
15, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001
Tele : (011) 4533 3666/601, 603, 605
Fax : (011) 4533 3600
Email : [email protected]
5.
Bandra Small and Medium Exporter Branch,
The Metropolitan, 7th floor, Plot No. C-26/27
‘‘E’’ Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051
Tele : (022) 6144 8181/6144 8110
Fax : (022) 6144 8156
[F. No. E-11013/1/2008-Hindi]
SMT. DEVKI, Director (O.L.)
4022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1521-—lkoZtfud ifjlj (vuf/d`r dCtk/kfj;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3 }kjk
izkIr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx rFkk Hkkjr ds xtV esa fnukad 28-5-2007 dh dk-vk- la[;k 2592 ds varxZr izdkf'kr isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl
ea=kky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dh fnukad 15-9-2007 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k% vkj&25015@1@2007&vks-vkj-&2 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/u djrs gq, dsUnz
ljdkj bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu lkj.kh esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS tks bl izdkj gS %
lkj.kh
Øe la-
;wfuV@dk;kZy;
vf/dkjh dk in
lkoZtfud ifjljksa dh Jsf.k;ksa rFkk
dk uke
LFkkuh; {ks=kkf/dkj dh {ks=k lhek,a
Øe
ikjknhi
ofj"B izca/d (iz'kklu) & bafM;u
mM+hlk jkT; ds vanj rFkk vklikl
la[;k 9
fjiQkbujh
vkW;y dksiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ikjknhi
bafM;u vkW;y dksiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds
ifj;kstuk
fjiQkbujh] fct;pUæiqj] ikjknhi]
iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k okys lkoZtfud
ftyk&txrflagiqj mM+hlk&754142
ifjlj
buds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr dks j[kk tk, %&
Øe la-
;wfuV@dk;kZy;
vf/dkjh dk in
lkoZtfud ifjljksa dh Jsf.k;ksa rFkk
dk uke
LFkkuh; {ks=kkf/dkj dh {ks=k lhek,a
ikjknhi
ofj"B izca/d (ekuo lalk/u) &
mM+hlk jkT; ds vanj rFkk vklikl
fjiQkbujh
bafM;u vkW;y dksiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]
bafM;u vkW;y dksiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds
ifj;kstuk
ikjknhi fjiQkbujh] ih-vks- f>ekuh]
iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k okys lkoZtfud
ck;k dqtkax] ftyk txrflagiqj
ifjlj
mM+hlk&754141
¹iQk- la- vkj&25015@1@2007&vksvkj&Iº
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O. 1521.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized
Occupants) Act-1971 (40 of 1971) in addition to the earlier notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Petroleum &
Natural Gas No. R- 25015/1/2007-OR-2 dated 28.5.2007 published vide S.O. 2592 dated 15.9.2007 in the Gazette of India, the
Central Government makes the following amendments in the table annexed to this notification as under namely:-
TABLE
Sl.
Name of the
Designation of the Officer
Categories of public
No.
Unit/Office
premises and local
limits of jurisdiction
S. No. 9
Paradip
Sr. Manager (Admn.), Indian
Public premises under the
Refinery
Oil Corporation Ltd., Paradip
administrative control of
Project
Refinery, Bijaychandrapur,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Paradip, Distt. Jagatsinghpur,
within the State of Orissa.
Orissa - 754 142.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4023
Shall be Substituted as under:
Sl.
Name of the
Designation of the Officer
Categories of public
No.
Unit/Office
premises and local
limits of jurisdiction
Paradip
Sr. Human Resources Manager
Public premises under the
Refinery
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
administrative control of
Project
Paradip Refinery, P.O.: Jhimani,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Via-Kujang, Distt. Jagatsinghpur,
within the State of Odisha.
Odisha - 754 141.
[F.No. R-25015/1/2007-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
dks;yk ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1522-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe ls dks;yk
vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS _
vkSj mDr vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr Hkwfe ds {ks=k ds varxZr vkus okys js[kkad la[;k lh&1(bZ)III@thvkj@899& 0713] rkjh[k 31
tqykbZ] 2013 dk fujh{k.k] osLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo foHkkx)] dksy bLVsV] flfoy ykbZUl] ukxiqj& 440 001] egkjk"Vª ;k eq[;
egkizca/d ([kkst izHkkx)] lsUVªy ekbu Iykfuax ,aM fMtkbu bULVhV~;wV] xksaMokuk Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph&834 001 ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1]
dkamfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700 001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k ftyk dyDVj] fNUnokM+k] eè;izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS_
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)s dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk
(1) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ls dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS _
mDr vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ dksbZ O;fDr]&
(i) mDr vf/lwpuk dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds v/hu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k gksus okyh laHkkfor fdlh {kfr ds
fy;s vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 ds v/hu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk _ vFkok
(ii) mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/ esa ;k mDr
vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (4) ds v/hu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mls mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 13 dh mi/kjk (1) ds [kaM (i) ls [kaM (iv) esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls
lacaf/r lHkh ekufp=kksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxk A
bl vf/lwpuk ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj] {ks=kh; egkizca/d] osLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] isap {ks=k]
iksLV vkWfiQl ijkfl;k] rglhy ijkfl;k] fty fNUnokM+k] eè;izns'k ;k egkizca/d (Hkfe vkSj jktLo)] osLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] dksy
bZLVsV] flfoy ykbZUl] ukxiqj& 440 001] egkjk"Vª dks Hkstsaxs A
4024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
fFklxksjk ^lh* CykWd]
isap {ks=k
ftyk & fNUnokM+k (eè; izns'k)
¹js[kkad la[;k lh&1(bZ)III@thvkj@899& 0713] rkjh[k 31 tqykbZ] 2013º
lHkh vf/dkj %
Øe
xzke dk
iVokjh
rglhy
ftyk
{ks=k (gsDVj
fVIi.kh
la-
uke
gYdk
esa)
la[;k
1-
>qjS jS;~;rokjh
32
ijkfl;k
fNUnokM+k
15-876
Hkkx
2-
>qjS
32
ijkfl;k
fNUnokM+k
218-295
Hkkx
3-
rqeM+h
31
ijkfl;k
fNUnokM+k
204-402
Hkkx
4-
eksgyh
27
ijkfl;k
fNUnokM+k
11-906
Hkkx
5-
ekFkuh
32
ijkfl;k
fNUnokM+k
114-931
Hkkx
dqy % 565-410 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 1397-16 ,dM+ (yxHkx)
lhek o.kZu%µ
d&[k%
js[kk fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke >qjS ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke >qjS vkSj 'kkldh; ou dh lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj
xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gS A
[k&x%
js[kk xzke >qjS ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke >qjS vkSj xzke >qjS jS;~;rokjh dh lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^x* ij
feyrh gS A
x&?k%
js[kk xzke >qjS jS;~;rokjhs ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke >qjS jS;~;rokjhs vkSj xzke >qjS dh lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq
^?k* ij feyrh gS A
?k&M-%
js[kk xzke >qjS ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke >qjS vkSj xzke rqeM+h dh lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^M-* ij feyrh
gS A
M-&p%
js[kk xzke rqeM+h ls xqtjrh gqbZ exjgh ukyk dks ikj djrh gS vkSj iqu% xzke rqeM+h ls xqtjrh gqbZ xqUuksj unh ds fdukjs ls
tkrh gqbZ exjgh ukys dks ikj djrh gS vkSj xzke rqeM+h ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke rqeM+h rFkk xzke eksgyh dh lfEefyr lhek ls
gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^p* ij feyrh gS A
p&N%
js[kk xzke rqeM+h vkSj xzke eksgyh dh lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ eksgyh vkSj xzke ekFkuh dh lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj
xqtjrh gS rFkk fcUnq ^N* ij feyrh gS A
N&d%
js[kk xzke ekFkuh ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke ekFkuh vkSj xzke >qjS dh lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d*
ij feyrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 43015@31@2010&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1º
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014
S.O. 1522.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the
locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And, Whereas, the plan bearing number C-1 (E)III/GR/899-0713, dated the 31 st July, 2013 of the area described in
the said Schedule may be inspected at the Office of the Western Coalfields limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4025
Lines, Nagpur- 440 001, Maharashtra or at the Office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine
Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi - 834 001 or at the Office of the Coal Controller, 1
Council House Street, Kolkata - 700 001 or at the Office of the District Collector, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from land described in the said Schedule;
Any persons interested in the land described in the Schedules may -
(i)
claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any
action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the thereof; or
(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license
ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and
deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of
items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,
to the Office of the Area General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Pench Area, Post Office Parasia, Tahsil
Parasia, District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh or General Manager (Land and Revenue), Western Coalfields Limited, Land
and Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001, Maharashtra within ninety days from the date of
publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
THESGORA 'C' BLOCK
PENCH AREA
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
[Plan bearing number C-1(E)III/GR/899- 0713, dated 31st July, 2013]
All rights:
Sl.
Name of Village
Patwari
Tahsil
District
Area
Remarks
No.
Circle
(in hectares)
number
1.
Jhurrey Raitwari
32
Parasia
Chhindwara
15.876
Part
2.
Jhurrey
32
Parasia
Chhindwara
218.295
Part
3.
Tumri
31
Parasia
Chhindwara
204.402
Part
4.
Mohli
27
Parasia
Chhindwara
11.906
Part
5.
Mathni
32
Parasia
Chhindwara
114.931
Part
Total Area: 565.410 hectares (approximately)
or 1397.16 acres (approximately)
Boundary description:
A-B:
Line starts from Point 'A' and passes through village Jhurrey and meets on common boundary of village
Jhurrey and Government forest at Point 'B'.
B-C:
Line passes through village Jhurrey and meets at common boundary of villages Jhurrey and Jhurrey Raitwari at
Point 'C'.
4026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C-D:
Line passes through village Jhurrey Raitwari and meets on common boundary of villages Jhurrey Raitwari and
Jhurrey at Point 'D'.
D-E:
Line passes through village Jhurrey and meets on common boundary of villages Jhurrey and Tumri at Point 'E'.
E- F:
Line passes through village Tumri, crosses the Magrahi Nallah then again passes through village Tumri and
proceeds along the bank of river Gunnor then again crosses the Magrahi Nallah and passes through village Tumri
and meets on common boundary of villages Tumri and Mohli at Point 'F'.
F-G:
Line along the common boundary of villages Tumri and Mohli and meets on common boundary of villages Mohli
and Mathni at Point 'G'.
G-A:
Line passes through village Mathni and meets on common boundary of villages Mathni and Jhurrey at Point 'A'.
[F. No. 43015/31/2010-PRIW -I]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1523-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)s (ftls blesa blds
i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti=k] Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii)]
rkjh[k 13 vDrwcj] 2012] esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3119] rkjh[k 8 vDrwcj] 2012
n~okjk ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr ifj{ks=k] ftldk eki 82-116 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 202-908 ,dM+ (yxHkx) dh Hkwfe esa]
[kfutksa ds [kuu] [knku] cksj djus] mudh [kqnkbZ vkSj ryk'k djus] mUgsa izkIr djus] mu ij dk;Z djus vkSj mUgsa ys tkus ds vf/dkjksa ds
vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh _
vkSj l{ke izkf/dkjh us mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 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 eè; izns'k ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku
gks x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 82-116 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 202-908 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe [kfutksa ds [kuu] [knku]
cksj djus] mudh [kqnkbZ vkSj ryk'k djus] mUgsa izkIr djus] mu ij dk;Z djus vkSj mUgsa ys tkus ds vf/dkj v£tr fd, tkus
pkfg, _
vr%] vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 dh /kjk 9 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 82-116 gsDVj ;k 202-908 ,dM+ eki okyh Hkwfe esa
[kfutksa ds [kuu] [knku] cksj djus] mudh [kqnkbZ vkSj ryk'k djus] mUgsa izkIr djus] mu ij dk;Z djus vkSj mUgsa ys tkus ds vf/dkj v£tr
fd, tkrs gSa A
bl vf/lwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k lh&1(bZ)III @,iQ,iQvkj@906&0114] rkjh[k 13 tuojh] 2014 dk
fujh{k.k dysDVj] cSrwy] eè; izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa ;k {ks=kh; egkizca/d] osLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ikFkk[ksM+k {ks=k] iksLV ikFkk[ksM+k]
rglhy ?kksM+kMksaxjh] ftyk cSrwy eè; izns'k ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk] fiu&700 001 ds
dk;kZy; esa ;k egkizca/d] osLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] (jktLo foHkkx)] dksy ,LVsV] flfoy ykbUl] ukxiqj &440 001] egkjk"Vª ds
dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vuqlwph
rkok&III vaMjxzkmaM ekbZu
ikFkk[ksM+k {ks=k
ftyk & cSrwy (eè; izns'k)
¹js[kkad la[;k lh&1(bZ)III @,iQ,iQvkj@906&0114] rkjh[k 13 tuojh] 2014º
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4027
[kuu vf/dkj %
Øe
xzke dk
iVokjh
dEikVZ
rglhy
ftyk
Hkwfe dk o.kZu
fVIif.k;ka
la-
uke
ldZy
esaV
futh
ljdkjh
ou
dqy
la[;k
la[;k
Hkwfe
Hkwfe
Hkwfe
1-
HkxksbZ
22
&
?kksM+k
cSrwy
40-820
0-190
0-000
41-010
Hkkx
[kkik
Mksaxjh
2-
xka/hxzke
78
&
?kksM+k
cSrwy
11-601
3-639
0-000
15-240
Hkkx
Mksaxjh
3-
xka/hxzke
78
174@2
?kksM+k
cSrwy
0-000
0-000
25-866
25-866
Hkkx
vkSj 11
Mksaxjh
dqy % 82-116 gsDVj
;k 202-908 ,dM+
xzke HkksxbZ [kkik eas v£tr fd, x, IykWV la[;kad %
217(Hkkx), ljdkjh, 218(Hkkx), 219(Hkkx), 220/1(Hkkx), 221(Hkkx), 225(Hkkx), 226, 227, 228, 229/1 (Hkkx), 229/2, 229/3, 229/4,
230/1(Hkkx), 230/2, 230/3 (Hkkx), 230/4, 230/5, 232 (Hkkx), 233(Hkkx), ljdkjh, 234(Hkkx) A
xzke xka/hxzke esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykWV la[;kad %
11(Hkkx) ou, 12 ljdkjh, 13(Hkkx), 15, 17(Hkkx), 19(Hkkx), 169(Hkkx), 170 ljdkjh, 171, 172, 173 ljdkjh] 174/1 ljdkjh]
174/2(Hkkx) ou A
lhek o.kZu%µ
d&[k&x
js[kk xzke HkksxbZ [kkik vkSj xzke xak/hxzke dh lfEefyr xzke lhek ij fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS] fiQj xzke xka/hxzke esa
ou {ks=k ls gksdj fon~;eku rkok&III dh lhek ls yxdj [kljk la[;k 11 (ou) ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj fcUnq ^^[k** ls
yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj IykV la[;kad 19] 17 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj IykV la[;k 15 dh ckg~; lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS
fiQj [kljk la[;k 11 (ou) ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gS A
x&?k
js[kk xzke xak/hxzke esa ou {ks=k ds [kljk la[;k 11 (ou) ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj IykV la[;k 13 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj
ou {ks=k ds [kljk la[;k 11 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj IykV la[;k 169 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj ou {ks=k esa [kljk la[;k
174@2 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj js[kk [kljk la[;k 170 (ljdkjh) ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj ou {ks=k ds [kljk la[;k 174@2
ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj xzke xka/hxzke ,oa xzke HkksxbZ [kkik dh lfErfyr xzke lhek ij fcUnq ^^?k** ij feyrh gS A
?k&Ä
js[kk xzke xka/hxzke ,oa HkksxbZ [kkik dh lfEefyr xzke lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^Ä* ij feyrh gSA
Ä&p&N&d
js[kk xzke HkksxbZ [kkik esa IykWV la[;kad 229@1] 232] 230@3] 230@1] 217 (ljdkjh)] 218 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj fcUnq
^p* ds ikl ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fiQj IykV la[;kad 219] 220@1] 221] ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj fcUnq ^N* ds ikl ls
yxdj xqtjrh gS fiQj IykV la[;k 225 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 43015@4@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th May, 2014
S.O. 1523.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal No. S. O. 3119, dated the
8th October, 2012, 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 Gazette of India, Part -II, Section 3,
4028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sub-section (ii) dated the 13th October, 2012, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the rights to
mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for win, work and carry away minerals in the land measuring 82.116 hectares (approximately)
or 202.908 acres (approximately) in the locality specified in the Schedule appended 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
Madhya Pradesh is satisfied that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for win work and carry away minerals in the
lands measuring 82.116 hectares (approximately) or 202.908 acres (approximately) described in Schedule appended hereto,
should be acquired;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby declares that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig
and search for win work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 82.116 hectares or 202.908 acres described in the
Schedule appended hereto are hereby acquired.
The plan bearing number C-1 (E)III/FFR/906- 0114, dated the 13th January, 2014 of the area covered by this notification,
may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Betul, Madhya Pradesh or in the Office of the Area General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited, Pathakhera Area, Post Pathakhera, Tahsil Ghoradongri, District Betul, Madhya Pradesh or in
the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata, Pin 700 001 or in the Office of the General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001, Maharashtra.
SUHEDULE
TAWA - III UNDERGROUND MINE
PATHAKHERA AREA
DISTRICT BETUL, MADHYA PRADESH
[Plan bearing number C-1(E)III/FFR/906- 0114, dated the 13th January, 2014]
MINING RIGHTS :
Sl.
Name of
Patwari
Compart-
Tahsil
District
Description of land
Total
Remarks
No.
Village
Circle
ment
Ten.
Govt.
Forest
Number
Number
land
land
land
1
Bhogai
22
-
Ghora-
Betul
40.820 0.190
0.000
41.010
Part
Khapa
dongri
2
Gandhi-
78
-
Ghora-
Betul
11.601 3.639
0,O00
15.240
Part
gram
dongri
3
Gandhi-
78
174/2 and
Ghora-
Betul
0.000
0.000
25.866
25.866
Part
gram
11
dongri
Total: 82.116 Hectares
or
202.908 Acres
Plot numbers acquired in village Bhogai Khapa :
217(P) Govt., 218(P), 219(P), 220/1(P), 221(P), 225(P), 226, 227, 228, 229/1(P), 229/2, 229/3, 229/4, 230/1 (P), 230/2, 230/3(P),
230/4, 230/5, 232(P), 233(P) Govt., 234(P).
Plot numbers acquired in village Gandhigram :
11(P) Forest, 12 Govt., 13(P), 15, 17(P), 19(P), 169(P), 170 Govt., 171, 172,173 Govt., 174/1 Govt., 174/2 (P) Forest.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4029
Boundary description:
A-B-C
: Line starts from Point 'A' on common village boundary of villages Bhogai Khapa and Gandhigram, then passes
in village Gandhigram along the Existing Tawa - III Mine boundary through forest area's Khasra No. 11 (Forest),
then passes nearby Point 'B' and passes through plot numbers 19, 17 then passes along the outer boundary of
plot number 15 then passes through Khasra number 11 (Forest) and meets at Point 'C'.
C-D
: Line passes in Gandhigram through Khasra No. 11 of forest area then passes through plot number 13, then
passes through Khasra number 11 of forest area, then passes through plot number 169, then passes through
Khasra number 174/2 of forest area, then passes through Khasra number 170 (Govt.), then passes through
Khasra No. 174/2 of forest area and meets at Point 'D' on common village boundary of villages Gandhigram and
Bhogai Khapa.
D-E
: Line passes along with the common village boundary of villages Gandhigram and Bhogai Khapa and meets at
Point 'E'.
E-F-G-A : Line passes in village Bhogai Khapa through plot numbers 229/1, 232,230/3,230/1,217 (Govt.), 218, then passes
nearby Point 'F', then passes through plot numbers 219, 220/1, 221, then passes nearby Point 'G', then passes
through plot number 225 and meets at starting Point 'A'.
[ F. No. 43015/4/2011- PRIW- I ]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG,Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1524-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd blls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe esa ls dks;yk
vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS _
vkSj mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe ds varxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds O;kSjs js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@449]
rkjh[k 15 uoEcj] 2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk dksjck (NÙkhlx<+) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkma¯ly gkÅl LVªhV]
dksydkrk& 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ dskyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM (jktLOk vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 (NÙkhlx<+)
ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS_
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa dks;ys
dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS _
mi;qZDr o£.kr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ dksbZ O;fDr bl vf/lwpuk ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh
vof/ ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/d vf/dkjh ;k foHkkxkè;{k (jktLOk)] lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM+] fcykliqj&495006
(NÙkhlx<+)ls &
(i)
mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds v/hu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k laHkkO; gksus okyh fdlh {kfr
ds fy, vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 ds v/hu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk _ ;k
(ii)
mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (1) v/hu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ;k mDr vf/fu;e dh
èkkjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (4) ds v/hu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/ esa izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vSj mls mDr vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [akM (i) ls [kaM (iv) esa fofu£n"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;; dks min£'kr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls
lacaf/r lHkh ekufp=kksa] pkVks± vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnÙk dj ldsxk A
vuqlwph
fjlnh&lksuiqjh CykWd] dqleq.Mk {ks=k]
ftyk & dksjck (NRrhlx<+)
¹js[kkad la[;k & ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@449] rkjh[k 15 uoEcj] 2013º
(iwosZ{k.k ds fy, vf/lwfpr Hkwfe n'kkZrs gq,)
4030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(d) jktLo Hkwfe %
Øe
xzke dk
xzke
iVokjh
rglhy
ftyk
{ks=k gsDVj esa
fVIi.kh
la-
uke
la[;k
gYdk
(yxHkx)
la[;k
1-
vexkao
95
23
dV?kksjk
dksjck
107-798
iw.kZ
2-
pqjSy
93
21
dV?kksjk
dksjck
119-235
iw.kZ
3-
[kksMjh
92
21
dV?kksjk
dksjck
103-335
iw.kZ
4-
[kSjHkkouk
121
22
dV?kksjk
dksjck
199-340
iw.kZ
5-
xsojk
91
20
dV?kksjk
dksjck
448-939
Hkkx
dqy % 978-647 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 2418-23 ,dM+ (yxHkx)
([k) jktLo ou Hkwfe (lhtsts@chtsts) %
Øe
xzke dk
xzke
iVokjh
rglhy
ftyk
{ks=k gsDVj esa
fVIi.kh
la-
uke
la[;k
gYdk
(yxHkx)
la[;k
1-
[kksMjh
92
21
dV?kksjk
dksjck
17-709
iw.kZ
2-
xsojk
91
20
dV?kksjk
dksjck
131-226
Hkkx
dqy%148-935 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 368-02 ,dM+ (yxHkx)
dqy ;ksx (d+[k) % 1127-582 gsDVj (yxHkx)
;k 2786-25 ,dM+ (yxHkx)
lhek o.kZu%µ
Cykd &I%
d&[k%
js[kk ^^d** fcUnq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke xsojk&ujbZcks/ ds lfEefyr lhek] xzke xsojk ds mRrjh Hkkx] xzke xsojk
&cjikyh] [kksMjh&cjikyh ds lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh gS A
[k&x%
js[kk ^^[k** fcUnq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kksMjh&nqjik] pqjSy&fjlnh] vexkao&fjlnh ds lfEefyr lhek] xzke
vexkao&tisyh ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gS A
x&?k%
js[kk ^^x** fcUnq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vexkao&ckVk] pqjSy&ckVk ds lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^?k** ij
feyrh gS A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4031
?k&d%
js[kk ^^?k** fcUnq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke pqjSy&lhjchnk] pqjSy&iaMjhikuh] [kksMjh&iaMjhikuh] xsojk&iaMjhikuh ds
lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gS A
Cykd &II%
M-&p%
js[kk ^^M-** fcUnq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjHkkouk&iMuh;k ds lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^p** ij feyrh
gS A
p&N%
js[kk ^^p** fcUnq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjHkkouk&lksuiqjh ds lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^N** ij feyrh
gS A
N&Ä%
js[kk ^^N** fcUnq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjHkkouk&ducsjh ds lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^M-** ij
feyrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 43015@15@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th May, 2014
S.O. 1524.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the
locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/ LAND/449, dated the 15th November, 2013 containing
details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Korba
(Chhattisgarh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the South
Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 (Chhattisgarh);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may-
(i) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action
taken under sub-section (3) of Section 4 thereof; or
(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting licence
ceasing to have effect or under sub- section (4) of Section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect
and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred
in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act,
to the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-
495006 (Chhattishgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
Risdi-Sonpuri Block, Kusmunda Area
District- Korba (Chhattisgarh)
(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/Land/ 449, dated the 15th November, 2013)
(Showing the land notified for prospecting).
4032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A. REVENUE LAND :
Sl.
Name of
Village
Patwari
Tahsil
District
Area in
Remarks
no.
village
number
Halka
hectares
number
(approxi-
mately)
1.
Amgaon
95
23
Katghora
Korba
107.798
Full
2.
Churail
93
21
Katghora
Korba
119.235
Full
3.
Khodri
92
21
Katghora
Korba
103.335
Full
4.
Khairbhawna
121
22
Katghora
Korba
199.340
Full
5.
Gevra
91
20
Katghora
Korba
448.939
Part
Total:- 978.647 hectares (approximately) or 2418.23 acres (approximately)
B. REVENUE FOREST LAND (CJJ/ BJJ) :
Sl.
Name of
Village
Patwari
Tahsil
District
Area in
Remarks
no.
village
number
Halka
hectares
number
(approxi-
mately)
1.
Khodri
92
21
Katghora
Korba
17.709
Full
2.
Gevra
91
20
Katghora
Korba
131.226
Part
Total:- 148.935 hectares (approximately) or 368.02 acres (approximately)
Grant Total (A+B) = 1127.582 hectares (approximately)
or 2786.25 acres (approximately)
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION:
Block-I:
A-B
Line starts from point 'A' and passes along common boundary of villages Geora- Naraibodh, through northern
part of village Geora, along common boundary of villages Geora-Barpali, Khodri-Barpali and meets at point
"B".
B-C
Line starts from point 'B' and passes along common boundary of villages Khodri-Durpa,Churail-Risdi, Amgaon-
Risdi, partly common boundary of villages Amgaon-Japeli and meets at point "C".
C-D
Line starts from point 'C' and passes along common boundary of villages Amgaon-Bata, Churail-Bata and
meets at Point "D".
D-A
Line starts from point 'D' and passes along common boundary of villages Churail- Sirbida, Churail-Pandripani,
Khodri-Pandripani, Geora-Pandripani and meets at startingPoint "A".
Block-II:
E-F
Line starts from point 'E' and passes along common boundary of villages Khairbhawna- Padania and meets at
point "F".
F-G
Line starts from point 'F' and passes along common boundary of villages Khairbhawna-Sonpuri and meets at
Point "G".
G-E
Line starts from point 'G' and passes along common boundary of villages Khairbhawna-Kanberi and meets at
starting Point "E".
[ F. No. 43015/15/2013- PRIW- I ]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG,Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4033
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1525-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
ch,l,u,y] gtkjhckx ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28 vkWiQ 2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@24@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014
S.O. 1525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 28 of
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of BSNL, Hazaribagh and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 05/05/2014.
[No. L-40011/24/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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. 28 of 2011
Employers in relation to the management of BSNL,
Hazaribagh
AND
Their workmen.
PRESENT :
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES:
For the Employers
: Sri S. Prasad, Advocate
For the workman
: Sri R.R.Ram , Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Telecom
Dated 15/4/2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-40011/24/2010-IR(DU), dated.25/04/
2011, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :—
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Giridih in not providing
employment to Shri Jitendra Pandit the dependant
son of Late Bishwanath Ram is fair and justified?
What relief Shri Jitendra Pandit the dependent son
of Late Bishwanath Ram is entitled to?”
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 16.05.2011. After notice, both parties appeared, the
Sponsoring Union files their written statement on
14.06.2011. Thereafter the management files written
statement-cum-rejoinder on 23.11.2012.
3. The short point involved in this reference case is
whether the applicant who is the dependent of the
deceased workman who died while in service to get
appointment under compassionate appointment scheme.
It is submitted by the applicant that, after the death of his
father his family is in harness and he be given employment
on compassionate ground .
4. On the other hand it is submitted by the learned
counsel of the management is that the workman does not
come under the guide lines of the BSNL to be given
compassionate employment and files the annexure to the
counter which has been prepared and taken as per DOPT
guide lines.
5. Sri Rabi Kant Prasad (MW-1) stated in chief that
the guideline for compassionate appointment was issued
on 27.06.2007 by corporate office of the BSNL but in the
cross examination he stated that this rule is enforced in
Sept. 2007. Now it is proved that the weightage point
system is enforce in BSNL from Sept. 2007 he is also
submitted in his evidence that the workman died on
14.10.2004 and he files the application on 04.03.2005
alongwith death certificate but without another annexure.
6. On Scrutiny of the same, it is seen that for
Schedule Tribe different standard i.e liberal attitude is taken
than that of others. Present workman is in OBC category
he should be shown liberal attitude. But this sort of
discriminatory attitude for workman is not warranted.
7. On the light of the evidence of the management,
the guideline is enforced in Sept. 2007 and the deceased
workman was died on 14.10.2004 and he also filed the
petition on 04.03.2005. Therefore in this case the
applicant’s application should be considered without
giving weightage to subsequent Rules as the workman
applied for job much before and that was not considered
by the management promptly.
4034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. Considering the facts and circumstance of this
case, I hold that the action of the management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Giridih in not providing
employment to Shri Jitendra Pandit the dependant son of
Late Bishwanath Ram is not fair. Hence the applicant be
given compassionate appointment in place of his deceased
father within one month from the date of publication of
the award in the gazette, as death of a earning member
gives untold tragedy to a family.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1526-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
lqifjUVsUMsUV vkWiQ iksLV vksfÝiQlsl ,aM vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;]psUUkbZ] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@88@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014
S.O. 1526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 28/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Superintendent of Post Offices and
Others and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 05/05/2014.
[No. L-40012/88/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 21st April, 2014
PRESENT :
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 28/2011
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between
the Management of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
and their workman.]
BETWEEN
Sri S. Raja
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Superintendent of Post Offices
D/o Post, Dindigul Division
Dindigul-624001
...2nd Party/1st Respondent
2.
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
D/o Post, Kovilpatti Division (ADA)
Kovilpatti-628501
...2nd Party/2nd Respondent
APPEARANCE :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s R.
Malaichamy,
Advocate
For the 1st & 2nd Party/
:
Sri B. Sekar,
Management
CGSC
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/88/2010-IR(DU)
dated 28.03.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices, Kovilpatty Division
and Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul in
terminating the services of their workman Sri S. Raja
w.e.f. 28.02.2007 is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID No. 28/2011 and issued notices to
both sides. Both sides have entered appearance through
their counsel and have filed Claim and Counter Statement
respectively. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder after the
Counter Statement was filed.
3. The petitioner has examined himself and also
marked three documents on his side. Documents were
marked on the side of the Respondent also. However, in
spite of repeated postings, the petitioner and counsel has
been absent continuously. There was no representation
for the Respondent also. The petitioner seems to be not
interested in pursuing the case. In the absence of the parties
this Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the case.
Therefore, the ID is only to be closed.
4. In the result the ID is closed. The reference is
answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 21st April, 2014)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4035
Witnesses Examined :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/
:
None
1st and 2nd Management
Documents Marked :
On the Petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1527-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk phiQ
tujy eSustj] ch,l,u,y] dsjyk ldZy ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
,.kkZdqye] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@27@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014
S.O.
1527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 7/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Chief General Manager, BSNL, Kerala
Circle and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 05/05/2014.
[No. L-40012/27/2009-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding Officer
(Monday the 31st day of March, 2014/10th Chaitra,
1936)
ID 7/2010
Union/Workman
:
The District Secretary, BSNL
Casual Contract Labours Union
Palakkad District Committee,
Palakkad
By Adv. Shri M R Sudheendran
Management
:
The Chief General Manager,
BSNL, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum
By Adv. Shri Saji Varghese
This case coming up for final hearing on 28.03.2014
and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.03.2014 passed
the following:
AWARD
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 (14 of 1947), the
Government of India/Ministry of Labour vide Order No-L-
40012/27/2009-IR(DU) dated 30.11.2009 referred this
industrial dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. The dispute is :
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, BSNL, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum,
in terminating the services of Shri V Chellamani
w.e.f.12.06.2008 is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
3. BSNL Casual Contract Labourers Union raised
this industrial dispute as to the alleged termination of
service of the workman Shri V Chellamani. After appearance
before this tribunal union filed claim statement alleging
that the workman was engaged as a full time casual labourer
in the Telecom Department during the period from 1984 to
1989 for various works under the supervision of the
departmental officers in different telephone exchanges in
the Palakkad SSA. There was no uniform procedure in the
matter of engaging casual labourers in the Telecom
Department. The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ernakulam Bench by order dated 20.12.1994 in OA No.1402/
93 directed the Department to maintain a panel of casual
employees from which employees to be chosen for
engagement. The casual employees who were engaged
were directed to be included in the panel. The workman
had submitted application enclosing all the relevant
records for inclusion in the panel. But he was not
empanelled. His representations for regularisation were
not considered. The workman continued to be engaged
in the Telecom Department which is now the BSNL. There
existed master servant relationship between the workman
and the BSNL and he was working for more than 240 days
4036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in every year of his engagement. The work was of perennial
nature. The workman was not paid pro-rata wages. As he
was not regularized he filed WP(C) No. 36078/2005 before
the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the same was
disposed of by judgment dated 06.07.2007 with a direction
to move the appropriate authorities. While so services of
the workman was orally terminated w.e.f. 29.06.2009 without
notice and without following the procedure established
by law. Hence he may be directed to be reinstated and be
regularized in service with retrospective effect paying pro-
rata wages to him as applicable to Group D employees.
4. Management filed written statement contending
that the union in this case is not a union of the
workmen of the BSNL and has no right to espouse the
dispute. The reference is incompetent and invalid. The
Department of Telecom was a Department of the Govt. of
India and hence it is not an industry as defined in the
Industrial Disputes Act. BSNL was formed on 01.10.2000
and it is a company owned by the Govt. of India. The
allegation that the workman was not engaged in the
Telecom Department is denied. He was never been an
employee of the BSNL. In the Department of telecom the
engagement of casual labourers was prohibited from 1985
and the same practice was continued even after the
formation of BSNL. There was no master and servant
relationship between the workman and the BSNL. It is
incorrect to say that he had worked for more than 240
days in every year of engagement. He has not worked as
a casual worker under the BSNL and was not paid by the
BSNL. The work is not of a perennial nature as alleged in
the claim statement. The workman is not entitled to the
wages of Group D employees or for regularisation. The
allegation that the service of the workman was orally
terminated w.e.f. 29.06.2009 without following the requisite
procedure is incorrect. As he was not engaged by the
BSNL there is no question of any termination. The workman
is not entitled to reinstatement or regularisation or for any
other relief as claimed by him.
5. Union filed rejoinder denying the contentions in
the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in
the claim statement.
6. Both sides adduced evidence, oral and
documentary. From the side of the union two witnesses
were examined as WW1 and WW2 and Exbts.W1 to W12
were got marked. On the side of the management one
witness was examined as MW1 and Exbts. M1 to M11
were marked.
7. The points for determination are:-
(i)
Whether the union in this case is competent to
raise the dispute?
(ii)
Whether the Department of Telecom is an
industry coming within the purview of ID Act?
(iii)
Whether the workman was engaged by the
Telecom Department or BSNL at any time and
whether there was continuous engagement for a
period of 240 days in the twelve months
preceding the date of termination?
(iv)
Whether the action of the management in
terminating his services is legal and justified?
(v)
What relief, if any, he is entitled to?
8. Point No. I : BSNL Casual Contract Labourers
Union is the union which espoused this industrial dispute.
It is a union of the casual labourers of the BSNL. The
contention that they being casual labourers cannot be
treated as workmen of the BSNL and that the union not
being a recognized union the industrial dispute cannot be
espoused by such union or workmen cannot be accepted.
A casual worker even if he be engaged through agency
including a contractor then also he is to be treated as a
workman in view of the definition of industry in Section
2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The union of
such labourers even if not recognized by the management
has the right to raise the industrial dispute. There is
nothing in the Industrial Disputes Act, which requires that
a dispute to be an industrial dispute should be raised by a
recognized union or a majority union. It would suffice if
there is controversy between the employer on the one
side and the workmen on the other. It is not even necessary
that a registered body should raise the dispute. Once it is
shown that a batch of workmen either acting through their
union or otherwise has sponsored the dispute it becomes
an industrial dispute. In the decision reported in Workmen
of M/s. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (Sangandhi) Vs.
M/s. Dharam Pal Prem Chand (Sangandhi) AIR 1966 SC
182 the Hon’ble Supreme Court enunciated the following
principles :
“(a)
Notwithstanding the width of the words used by
the Act in defining an ‘industrial dispute’, in order
to become an industrial dispute, the dispute
should have been raised by a union or in the
absence of a union by a member of workmen.
(b)
a union may raise a valid dispute though it may
be a minority union of the workmen of the
establishment.
(c)
if there is no union of workmen in an
establishment, a group of employees can raise
the dispute in which case the dispute becomes
an industrial dispute even though it is a dispute
relating to an individual workman.
(d)
where the workmen of an establishment have no
union of their own and some or all of them have
joined another union of another establishment,
belonging to the same industry that union can
validly raise an industrial dispute on behalf of
the workmen of the establishment”.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4037
9. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a
registered trade union or a recognized trade union for the
dispute becoming a valid industrial dispute.
10. At the time of argument learned counsel for the
management was also fair enough to concede that the
union in this case is competent to espouse the industrial
dispute. Nothing is stated in the proof affidavit of MW1
about the incompetency of the union in this case to raise
the industrial dispute. Hence I find that the union in this
case is competent to raise this industrial dispute.
11. Point No. II : The contention in the written
statement that the Department of Telecom is not an
industry coming within the purview of the definition of
industry in the Industrial Disputes Act is wholly
unsustainable in view of the decision reported in General
Manager, Telecom Vs. S. Srinivasa Rao and Others AIR
1998 SC 656. Therein it was held that the Telecom
Department of union of India is engaged in commercial
activity and is not discharging any sovereign functions
of State and hence it is an industry coming within the
definition of “industry” in Section 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Hence it can very well be held that
Department of Telecom is an industry as defined under
Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
12. Point Nos. III & IV : It is the case of the union
that the workman was engaged by the Department of
Telecom as a full time casual labourer from 1984 onwards
and he had continuously worked for more than 240 days
in every year of his engagement. After denying the
allegations in the claim statement as to his engagement it
is contended by the management in the written statement
that he was never been engaged as a casual labourer by
the BSNL and hence there exists no master and servant
relationship. It is not specifically contended by the
management that he was not engaged by the Telecom
Department as a casual labourer at any time. The
allegations in the claim statement as to his engagement by
the Telecom Department are denied in the written statement
without raising any specific contention as to the denial of
engagement of the workman by the Telecom Department.
13. In order to prove that he was engaged by the
Telecom Department there is documentary evidence apart
from the testimony of the workman as PW1. Ext.W1 is a
certificate stated to have been issued by the Junior Telecom
Officer, Vadakkanchery who was examined as MW1. The
certificate is dated 15.03.1989. It is seen that it was signed
by Shri K Balakrishnan-II, LMP, Puthucode. It is certified
that the workman worked for 1300 days in the Sub-Division,
during the period from 1985 March to 1989 March under
him for Line work. It is seen to have been countersigned
by the Junior Telecom Officer, Vadakkanchery with his
official seal. The genuineness of Exbt.W1 is questioned
by the management stating that it is a fabricated one. Since
it bears the office seal and signature the burden is on the
management to prove that it is not a genuine one. Even
though it bears the signature of Shri K. Balakrishnan-II he
was not cited or examined as a witness in this case to
prove that it is not his signature. It cannot easily be said
to be a fabricated one based merely on the version given
by MW1 in view of the proved facts and circumstances in
this case. MW1 has stated that it was not signed by him.
That by itself is not sufficient to say that it does not bear
his signature in view of the office seal and the resemblance
of the signature in it when compared with his signature in
his deposition. In his deposition MW1 has stated that
the Junior Telecom Officer has no authority to issue such
a certificate. It is not proved by producing any
documentary evidence. For that reason it cannot be said
that it was not issued to the workman and is a fabricated
one.
14. Exbt.W5 is another certificate stated to have been
issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Phones, Alathur
certifying that the workman had been working in Alathur
Telecom Division for the last 5years and is very proficient
in cable faults attending and joining works. It is dated
20.11.2002. It bears the signature and the office seal of the
Sub-Divisional Engineer. It has come out in evidence that
it was issued by one Prasad. He was not examined as a
witness from the side of the management to prove that it is
not a genuine one. Instead Ext.M5 explanation stated to
have been given by him to MW1 stating that it was not
signed by him though there is close resemblance in the
signature was produced to challenge its genuineness. No
explanation was offered by the management for his non-
examination. It cannot in any way be said that Ext.W5 is
not a genuine one without his examination as a witness
before this tribunal. Ext.W5 can be relied on to prove that
the workman was engaged by the BSNL as it is seen issued
after the formation of BSNL.
15. Reliance was placed on Ext.W3 by the union to
satisfy that the workman was employed by the Telecom
Department. It is the copy of the Order dated 20.04.1999
with regard to the rejection of the applications for
empanelment submitted by several persons including the
workman in this case. His application was rejected for the
reason that the attested copies of certificate of engagement
issued by the competent gazetted officer were not
submitted along with the application. Learned counsel
for the union has submitted that it can be seen from Ext.W3
that his application was not rejected for the reason that he
was not engaged by the management as in the case of the
rejection of some other applications. It can also be
accepted as a reason to place reliance on Ext.W3 to support
the case of the union that the workman was engaged by
the Telecom Department.
16. Ext.W2 letter dated 04.05.1991 is also relied on
by the learned counsel for the union to satisfy that the
workman was engaged as a casual mazdoor in the
4038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Department of Telecom. It is a reply letter addressed to
the workman by the SDO Telegraphs, Palakkad wherein it
is stated that he was not employed under his instruction
but by the concerned officers made mention of in the
records submitted along with his representation dated
26.04.1991. It will also throw some light over the case put
forward by the union as to his engagement when construed
in the light of the other evidence in this case.
17. Exts.W9 to W12 were produced in this case by
the union to prove that the workman received articles from
the Alathoor SSA store of the BSNL. Those are store
requisition slips wherein the name of the workman is seen
written. There is inconsistent version with regard to the
receipt of the same by the workman. It is not from proper
custody. Different versions were given by WW1 as to
how he got those store requisition slips. Hence not much
reliance can be placed on those documents to prove the
case as to his engagement by the BSNL.
18. There is evidence in this case to prove that the
workman was engaged by the Telecom Department as well
as by the BSNL. There was a futile attempt on the part of
the management to disprove the case as to his engagement
through the production of Exts.M1 to M4. Ext.M1 is the
copy of the letter dated 25.03.2003 inviting attention of
the ban on account of engagement of casual labourers
w.e.f.22.06.1988 and informing that there would not be any
illegal engagement of casual labourers. Ext.M1 itself may
go to show that there was engagement of casual labourers
even after the ban w.e.f.26.02.1988. Exts.M2 to M4 were
produced to satisfy that certain works were given on
contract basis by the BSNL. Exts.M1 to M4 cannot in any
way be sufficient to hold that the workman in this case
was not engaged by the Telecom Department or by the
BSNL after its formation.
19. Workman has succeeded in proving that he was
engaged by the Telecom Department as well as by the
BSNL earlier. In order to prove that there was illegal
termination he must also prove that there was continuous
engagement for 240 days in the year preceding to the date
of termination. The burden is on him to prove that he had
in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding to the
date of termination. In the decision reported in Range
Forest Officer Vs. S T Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25 it was held
by the Apex Court that the claimant is to lead evidence to
show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. Unless it is proved he is not
entitled to claim the benefit under Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
20. In Surendranagar Panchayat and another Vs.
Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005(107) FLR 1145(SC) Hon’ble
Apex Court held that where the workman failed to prove
that he had been in employment with the employer for a
period of 240 days uninterruptedly he is not entitled to
protection in compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It was also held that the scope of the
enquiry was confined only to 12 months preceding the
date of termination to decide the question of the
continuous service for the purposes of Section 25F of the
said Act. In that decision it was observed :
“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not
produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary
or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment
or engagement for that year to show that he has
worked with the employer for 240 days to get the
benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant
to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination”.
21. Learned counsel for the management has placed
reliance on the decisions reported in Rajasthan State Ganga
Nagar S. Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and another
(2004) 8 SCC 161 and Batela Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.
Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 SCC 481 in support of his argument
that it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from
examining himself or filing an affidavit to show that he has
worked with employer for 240 days preceding the date of
termination.
22. Here in this case it is difficult to enter into a
finding that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding to his date of termination. The justifiability of
the action of the management in terminating his services
w.e.f.12.06.2008 is legal and justified is to be considered
as per the reference. Neither in the claim statement nor in
the evidence there is no case that the date of termination
of service was on 12.06.2008. In it the allegation is that his
service was orally terminated w.e.f.29.06.2009. In the proof
affidavit of WW1 it is averred that his service has been
orally terminated w.e.f.12.06.2010. During his cross-
examination also it was stated by him that his service was
terminated on 12.06.2010. There is no consistent case for
him with regard to his termination from service. There is
no evidence in this case to prove that he had worked for
240 days in the year preceding his date of termination.
The case put forward by him in the claim statement as to
date of termination is not supported by any evidence. It is
not in consonance with the date of termination given in
the reference order. There is no documentary evidence in
this case to prove the date of termination or that he was in
continuous service of 240 days preceding the date of
termination. During his cross examination it was stated
by him that it is not correct to say that he had worked for
240 days in a year. Union has miserably failed to prove
that the workman was in continuous service for 240 days
preceding the date of termination. Hence it is not necessary
to comply with the procedure under Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the termination of his
service. Even if his service was terminated w.e.f.12.06.2008
it can only be held that it is legal and justifiable.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4039
23. Point No. 5 : As it has not been proved that
there was illegal termination of the service of the workman
he is not entitled to any relief.
The Award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31st
day of March, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the Workman
WW1
-
10.10.2011
Shri Chellamani
WW2
-
19.11.2012
Shri Babu Varkey
Witness for the Management
MW1
-
29.05.2012
Shri K. Balakrishnan
Exhibits for the Workman
W1
-
Certificate dated 15.03.1989 issued
by JTO, Vadakanchery
W2
-
Letter No.E-10/91-92/89 dated
04.05.1991 issued by the SDO
Telegraphs, Palakkad
W3
-
Order No.OA-1108/98-PGT/1999-
2000/25 dated 20.04.1999 issued by
the Assistant General Manager
(Administration), Telecom, Palakkad
W4
-
Copy of Order in OA 1241/1999
dated 09.11.1999 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench
W5
-
Certificate dated 20.11.2002 issued
by Sub-Divisional Engineer, Phones,
Alathur
W6
-
Copy of the representation dated
02.09.2003 submitted by the
workman to the General Manager,
BSNL, Telecom, Palakkad
W7
-
Certified copy of the judgment dated
06.07.2007 in WP(C) No.36078/
2005(T) of the Hon’ble High Court
of Kerala,Ernakulam
W8
-
Work order slip No.SF 7002164B
dated 23.04.2007
W8(a)
-
Work order slip No.SF 7002395 dated
07.09.2007
W8(b)
-
Work order slip No.NP7011503 dated
24.05.2007
W8(c)
-
Work order slip No.ZP7007324 dated
02.08.2007
W8(d)
-
Work order slip No.SF7002321 dated
06.07.2007
W8(e)
-
Work order slip No.SF 7002216 dated
21.05.2007
W8(f)
-
Work order slip No.NP7011523 dated
02.06.2007
W9
-
Store requisition slip dated
22.02.2002
W10
-
Store requisition slip dated
03.05.2002
W11
-
Store requisition slip dated
11.05.2002
W12
-
Store requisition slip dated
06.07.2002
Exhibits for the Management
M1
-
Copy of letter No.TFC/ST II/63-1/
2000/Rlgs/Pt.I dated 25.03.2003
issued by the General Manager(TS),
BSNL
M2
-
Copy of Agreement dated 22.11.2002
between BSNL and contractor Shri
O V Mathew
M3
-
Copy of Agreement dated 15.01.2003
between BSNL and contractor Shri
K J Chacko
M4
-
Copy of Agreement dated 14.08.2006
between BSNL and contractor Shri
E K Moideen Koya
M5
-
Copy of the letter dated 30.09.2011
addressed to the Assistant General
Manager (admn), O/o the GMT,
Palakkad by Shri T Prasad
M6
-
Copy of page No.6 of the Stock
Register for stores of the
management for the year 2002
M7
-
Copy of page No.29 of the Stock
Register for stores of the
management for the year 2002
M8
-
Copy of page No.89 of the Stock
Register for stores of the
management for the year 2002
M9
-
Copy of page No.104 of the Stock
Register for stores of the
management for the year 2002
4040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
M10
-
Copy of page No.114 of the Stock
Register for stores of the
management for the year 2002
M11
-
Copy of page No.149 of the Stock
Register for stores of the
management for the year 2002
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1528-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
lqifjUVsMsUV vkWiQ iksLV lqifjUVsUMsUV vkWiQ iksLV vksfÝiQlsl] csYykjh
fMohtu ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
126@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@5@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@21@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014
S.O. 1528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 126/2007)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Superintendent of Post Offices, Bellary
Division and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 05/05/2014.
[No. L-40011/21/200-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated : 22nd April, 2014
PRESENT :
Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 126/2007
I Party
II Party
1.
Smt. Shanthamma,
The Superintendent
W/o Sh. Thimappa,
of Post Offices,
Opp. P & T Staff Quarters,
Department of Posts,
Cant, Bellary
Bellary Division,
Fort, Bellary
2.
Shri ARM Ismail, General
Secretary, AITUC,
Bellary Dist., Council,
Saptgiri Complex,
K C Road, Bellary
APPEARANCES :
I Party
:
Shri Muralidhara, Advocate
II Party :
Shri K. Prakash Rao, Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-40011/
21/2007-IR(DU) dated 03.09.2007 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 demand of the All India Trade Union
Congress for regularisation of services of Smt.
Shanthamma is legal and justified? If yes, to what
relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?”
2. Persuant to the notices issued to both sides they
entered their appearances through their respective
advocate and I party filed claim statement on 09.02.2007
whereas II party its counter statement on 25.02.2007. The
I party claims in the claim statement that Smt. Shantamma
was appointed by the II party as Sweeper w.e.f. 07.05.1985
on consolidated wages and she was removed from service
w.e.f. 01.10.1991 without assigning any reasons but she
was asked to do the same work of sweeping on a daily
wage basis. Aggrieved by the same she filed Original
Application No. 10193 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore and as the same came to be disposed
off on 20.01.1994 with a direction to the II party to ensure
that the next suitable vacancy was offered to her and
thereafter II party engaged her as part time contingent
employee instead of honouring the verdict of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore to employ her against
next vacancy inspite of her number of representations from
time to time to higher authorities seeking regularisation of
service as also for granting better wages and other
statutory benefits. It is further alleged that her total wages
as on July 2006 was Rs. 797.00 for doing gardening work
and Rs. 398.00 for doing sweeping which is far below the
statutory wages. It is further alleged that her repeated
appeals to regularise her service failed she approached
the Labour and conciliation officer through AITUC seeking
intervention and as he submitted failure report it resulted
in this reference. With these allegations it is prayed for
direction to the II party to regularisation of her services
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4041
from the date on which a vacancy arose as per the orders
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.
3. The II party in its counter statement contending
that it engaged the services of the I Party to carry out the
contingent work such as sweeping, water carrying, garden
work for a period of 30 minutes/1 hour and paid wages as
per the supreme court order and as the contingent post
came to be abolished w.e.f. 01.10.1991, thereafter her
services was taken for sweeping and gardening at its
division office paying as per work load of one hour as
such she is not entitle either for regularisation or
absorption in any cadre. It is further contended that there
is no provision for absorbing daily wage workers as
Gramina Dak Sewak (GDS) even in Group D Employment
without any qualification and any amount of length of
service as contingent worker or casual worker being criteria
to consider the appointment hence the question of
violation of minimum wages act as alleged has no legal
relevancy. It is also contended the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in plethora of decisions having expressed the II party is
not an industry this reference is also not maintainable.
4. After close of the pleadings when the I party was
called upon to lead evidence substantiating its claim for
regularisation of services of Smt. Shantamma its learned
advocate while filing the affidavit of Smt. Shantamma the
workman covered in the reference examining her on oath
as WW 1 got exhibited copy of her representation dated
02.02.1998; letters of II party addressed to her dated
13.02.1998, 23.02.1999; copy of her petition to ALC(C),
Bellary dated 06.07.1999; reply by Supdt. Of Post Office
to ALC(C), Bellary dated 02.08.1999; Conciliation Petition
given by her to ALC(C), Bellary dated 13.01.2000, Order of
the Supdt. Of post Office, Bellary dated 01.07.2002; copy
of her three letters to Supdt. Of Post Offices, Bellary
Division, dated 17.07.2002, 17.07.2002, 17.07.2004; copy of
reply received by her from Supdt. Of post Office dated
14.07.2006 and 05.12.2006 as Ex W-1 to Ex W-12 respectively.
Interalia, the learned advocate appearing for the II party
while filing the affidavit of Sh. V Srinivasulu,
Superintendent of Post Office, Bellary examining him on
oath as MW 1 got exhibited Photostat copies of
Appointment Order issued to the I party dated 10.06.1985;
Memo regarding abolition of the post of Contingent
Sweeper dated 04.09.1991; Order appointing Smt.
Shanthamma as Contingent Gardener, Bellary dated
10.11.1992; Direction letter by Assistant Director (SR), to
NK Region dated 04.08.2005 and Letter of direction of
Superintendent of Post Offices, Bellary Division, Bellary
dated 01.06.2011 regarding drawing of allowances
pertaining to I party as Ex M-1 to Ex M-5 respectively.
5. With the above pleadings and evidence the
learned advocate appearing for the II party while taking
me through the pleadings and evidence urged that Smt.
Shantamma was being engaged temporarily for 30 minutes/
1 hour for sweeping and gardening on payment as per the
Supreme Court Guidelines her claim for regularisation is
baseless and reference is liable to be rejected. Interalia,
the learned advocate appearing for the I Party urged that
since there is no dispute the services of Smt. Shantamma
being availed by the II party as contingent Gardener-cum-
Sweeper on payment of Rs. 100.00 w.e.f. 11.06.1985 till its
abolition upto 01.10.1991 and thereafter on daily wages
she may not be entitled for regularisation but she should
be ensured of minimum wages payable for the work.
6. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence placed by both the sides, in the
light of the arguments addressed by their learned
advocates, I have arrived at conclusion of Rejecting the
Reference for the following
REASONS
7. It is borne out from the undisputed documentary
evidence that the II Party appointed Smt. Shantamma to
work as contingent gardener cum sweeper w.e.f. 11.06.1985
on Rs. 100.00 and by virtue of Memo No. A/14 dated
04.09.1991 subsequently it availed her services as casual
labourer paying the wages admissible for her work. Since
the I Party failed to bring to my notice any provision or
settlement entitling such worker for regularisation of the
service and on the other hand the learned advocate
appearing for I party fairly submitted during the course of
arguments that the claim of regularisation may not be
possible but she should be ensure of minimum wages and
thereby he himself conceded the claim of regularisation of
her service has no basis. Since the schedule of reference
do not cover to consider whether she has been paid with
wages payable for her work or not, his argument that she
should be ensured of minimum wages is outside the scope
of this reference. Under the circumstances, the demand of
the All India Trade Union Congress for regularisation of
services of Smt. Shantamma being not supported by any
provision cannot be legal and justified as such she is
entitle for any relief. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
The reference is Rejected holding that the demand
of the All India Trade Union Congress for regularisation
of services of Smt. Shanthamma is not legal and justified
and that she is not entitle for any relief.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 22nd April 2014)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1529-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk iQyM
viQlj ,u-lh-bZ-vkj-Vh-] vgenkckn ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
4042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh, 48@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012(30)82&Mh&II (ch)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 6th May, 2014
S.O. 1529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. CGITA
48/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Field Officer, NCERT, Ahmedabad
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 24/04/2014.
[No. L-42012(30)82-D-II(B)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-
Labour Court
Ahmedabad, Dated 24th February, 2014
Reference: (CGITA) No-48/2005
Reference (I.T.C.) No. 3 of 1984 (old)
Reference (I.T.C.) No. 1289 of 2008
Adjudication Order No. L-42012(30}82-D-II(B) dated
11.01.1984 of Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
1. The Field Advisor,
National Council of Educational Research &
Training (N.C.E.R.T)
(I-B Chandra Colony,
Behind Law College,
Ahmedabad 380006)
At present-Navjeevan Press Compound,
B/h C.U .Shah College,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad . . .First Party
AND
Their Workman ,
Sh. Bipinchandra Kantilal Patel,
House No. 2350/2, Ranchodji’s Khandki,
Near Maliwada’s Pole,
Shahpur,
Ahmedabad - 380001 .... Second Party
For the first party
: Shri Pravinchandra M. Rami,
Advocate
For the second party : Shri B.B. Shah, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Governrnent/Ministrv of Labour, New
Delhi by its adjudication order No. L-42012(30) 82-D-1I (B)
dated 11.01.1984 in exercise of the powers conferred by
section 7 A and clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 constituting an
Industrial Tribunal presided over by Shri G.S. Barot with
head quarter at Ahmedabad, referred the dispute for
adjudication on the terms of reference specified in the
Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of Field Advisor, National
Council of Educational Research & Training,
Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri
Bipinchandra Kantilal Patel, Office Assistant with
effect from 1.04.1978 is justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled ?”
2. This reference case remained pending in the
Industrial Court, Ahmedabad until the year 2011. Thereafter
on the request letter No. ADT-1/2011/10530 dated
16.11.2011 of Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, the Central
Government/Ministry of-Labour & Employment vide order
dated 20.01.2012 withdrew the proceeding in relation to
the said dispute, pending before the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad and transferred the same to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad for adjudication with the
direction that the said CGIT-cum-Labour Court shall
proceed from the stage at which the said was received on
reference is transferred. This transfer order on 6th February,
2012 (Ext.126) and since thereafter further proceeding
started from 06.02.2012 in this Tribunal.
3. The case of the workman (2nd party) as per
statement of claim dated 13.02.1984/16.02.1984 is that he
joined the services of N.C.E.RT. as an office Assistant by
the letter dated 21.12.1976 from the council. In view of the
said letter, he was appointed in the council. In view of the
said letter, he was appointed in the council as an office
Assistant temporarily. Thereafter he was given another
order dated 20.04.1977 stating that he is appointed on
probation when he was given the first appointment by
letter dated 21.12.1976 and thereafter he joined the duty
and was working as an office Assistant in the office of the
Field Advisor of the council. Without terminating his
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4043
services, the council issued another order appointing him
on the same post afresh on probation. Further case is that
second order appointing him on probation is itself illegal.
He was serving in the council honestly and diligently. But
Shri B.P. Mishra, Field Advisor of Ahmedabad suddenly
issued an order dated 01.04.1978 terminating stating therein
that he failed to avail the opportunities given to him to
improve himself but he indulged himself in inciting the
other member of the staff against the officer and submitted
false report and complaints to various dignitaries in the
state and central Government under false signature. Such
order of termination dated 01.04.1978 is illegal, capricious,
malafide and amounting to victimization and has been
passed without following any procedure and in flagrant
violation of principles of natural justice. He was not given
any memo ‘or show cause with regard to allegation made
in the order of termination. His services have been
terminated without giving him any opportunity showing a
cause or making any defence. The order though contains
that the services are terminated forth with under the terms
and conditions given in the appointment order issued to
him dated 20.04.1977, but one month’s notice or one
month’s notice pay was no given which was one of
condition in the first order of appointment and so the order
of termination dated 01.04.1978 is illegal, null and void. He
was not given retrenchment compensation as per
provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. He had
completed 240 days of service. Further case is that the
field Advisor, Shri B.P. Mishra always carried grudge
against him and wanted to remove him anyhow. The
termination order passed in violation of rules and regulation
and standing orders. The Field Advisor is not competent
Authority to terminate him from the service rather Field
advisor is merely a conveying authority with regard to
appointment, termination, confirmation, transfer,
promotion etc. for the Head office and the power of
appointment, termination etc. are with the Regional college
of Education, Bhopal. Further case is that termination order
was accepted by him under protest, since he has made
correspondence on 04.04.1978 to the principal, R.C.E.
Bhopal for cancelling the order of termination of his
services. The provisions of I.D. Act is applicable to the
N.C.E.R.T. On these grounds prayer is for declaring the
order dated 01.04.1978 to be illegal and to set aside that
order and to reinstate him (2nd Party) in services to his
original post with full back wages and with continuity of
service.
4. As against this the contention of the 1st party
(Council) as per written statement dated 21.03.1984 is that
the N.C.E.R.T. is not an industry under section 2K of the
I.D. Act, 1947 , the claim made by Shri Bipinchandra Kantilal
Patel are time barred. In reply to Para-1 of S/c it is submitted
that Bipinchandra was offered the temporary post of office
Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 in the office of
the Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T., Ahmedabad vide
memorandum dated 21.12.1976 which he accepted and
joined the office on 30.12.1976. Thereafter the appointment
order was issued by the Field Advisor, Ahmedabad vide
order dated 21.01.1977. It is a fact that a revised
memorandum dated 20.04.1977 was served on Shri
Bipinchandra offering him the post of Assistant on the
revised terms and conditions and offering him the higher
scale of pay 425-800 instead of 425-700. This was a
standard form of offer of appointment which was in vogue
at that time. The said revised offer of appointment was
accepted by him vide his letter of acceptance. On
acceptance of the said offer, appointment order was issued
by the Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T., Ahmedabad vide order
dated 23.07.1977. The allegation at para 2 of S/c is baseless.
The 2nd letter of appointment was not issued as a step
towards victimization. It is denied that Shri Bipinchandra
was serving honestly and diligently rather his work and
conduct was not blameless as at least on two occasions
he was reprimanded for his conduct as per letters
(Annexure iv). The allegation in the S/c is denied that
termination order was issued all of a sudden, rather the
Field Advisor N.C.E.R.T., Ahmedabad issued him memos
and warnings orally as well as in writings several times
directing him (Mr.Patel) to improve upon his conduct,
behaviour and work and Mr. B.K.Patel vide his letter dated
22.12.1977 addressed to Field Advisor, apologised for his
mistakes as per Annexure V. Mr. B.K. Patel had been served
with so many warnings/memos/oral instructions to improve
in the behaviour, attitude, work etc. which he failed and
was therefore, issued an order in February,1978 by the
Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T. vide his order dated 15.02.1978.
But vide this order he was given another opportunities to
improve himself as it appears from letter of Shri B. K. Patel
dated 14.02.1978 addressed to the Assistant Field Advisor,
N.C.E.R.T., Ahmedabad as per Annexure vi. There was no
question of malafides and victimisation rather Shri B.K.
Patel failed to improve inspite of various warnings and
memos. Shri B.K. Patel could not even complete the
probation period satisfactorily. The allegation made in para
5 to 9 of S/c is baseless. The service of Shri Bipinchandra
was terminated in accordance with the terms of conditions
of the appointment accepted by him and that too under
probation period. The order of termination dated 01.04.1978
is proper and justified. The Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T,
Ahmedabad had powers and authority to terminate the
services of Shri Bipinchandra , because the Field Advisor,
N.C.E.R.T is the appointing authority for class iv and class
iii posts (Group D and C) and the said Bipinchandra was
falling under group ‘C’ category as per relevant extracts
from the delegation of powers vested with the Field
Advisor (Annexure vii). More so, body of the N.C.E.R.T
now known as Executive committee adopted in its meeting
held on 31.08.1961, all appointment shall be expressed to
have been made in the name of N.C.E.R.T. The allegation
of para 11 of S/c is denied that termination was accepted
by Shri B.K. Patel under protest rather by his letter dated
4044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
03.04.1978 Shri Patel acknowledged the termination order
dated 01.04.1978 and handed over the charge as per
(Annexure viii). The case of the 1st party further is that
principal, Regional College of Education, Bhopal was
neither Disciplinary/Appellate Authority of Shri B.K. Patel
and so if Shri B.K .Patel sent letter dated 04.04.1978 to the
principal, it was not appropriate for principal even to reply
to that letter to Shri B.K. Patel. Denying para 12 of S/c it is
stated that the order of termination has been passed by
Field Advisor as an Appointing Authority/ Disciplinary
Authority and as per rules and so cannot be treated as
malafide. The principles of natural justice have been
followed as Shri Patel was given ample opportunities to
improve himself, but he failed. The termination order was
passed during the probation period of Shri B.K. Patel. On
these scores prayer is made to dismiss the reference since
the 2nd party (Shri B.K. Patel) is not entitled to any relief
in this case. Shri B.K. Patel has remained in gainful
employment since after termination.
5. This may not be out of place to mention that the
long pendency of this reference case has got a checkerred
history. Earlier by the award dated 02.02.1999 passed by
Smt N.J. Shelat, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad, the reference I.T.C. No 3/89 was dismissed-
for non-prosecution and was disposed of since the
workman Bipinchandra Kantilal Patel failed to appear for
his cross examination on his affidavit Ext.26 and remained
absent. Subsequently under misc. case No. ITC 1/2001 in
reference ITC 3/84 applicant/workman filed the misc. case
for restoration of the reference case no. 3/84 to its original
file and number but that misc. case (ITC) no1/2001 was
dismissed by Shri M.P. Chavda, Presiding officer of
Industrial Tribunal by order dated 26.04.2004. Thereafter
the workman Bipinchandra Kantilal Patel preferred special
Civil Application No. 9585 of 2004 before the Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court challenging the order dated 3rd
February 1999 by which the reference was dismissed for
default and also the subsequently order dated 26th April,
2004 by which the application of the petitioner
(Bipinchandra) for restoration of the reference was rejected
by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court by the order dated 03.12.2004. quashed
and set-aside the impugned order dated 3rd February, 1999
and 26th April, 2004 respectively passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the Industrial
Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal on merits
with such observation/direction that the petitioner himself
was not present before the Industrial Tribunal on earlier
occasion due to which the entire period from 3rd February,
1999 onwards has been consumed, it is provided that even
in case finally the Industrial Tribunal finds that the
petitioner is entitled to any relief, the petitioner shall not
receive any monetary benefits the respondent (N.C.E.R.T)
for the period from 3rd February, 1999 till today
(03.12.2004).
6. The record of this reference case was put up
before the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad for disposal on
merit. But on filing of an application (Ext.115) by the 1st
party raising the preliminary objection that this tribunal
does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference since
the 1st party is an autonomous body and has been
registered under the provision of Registration of society
Act and over and above the 1st party is also sponsored
by the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare,
Government of India and therefore the present Industrial
Tribunal cannot proceed with the present matter. Reply
rejoinder was also filed by the 2nd party vide Ext.116.
After hearing both side Shri K.K. Pandey, Member
Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad passed order below Ext.115
allowing the application of the 1st party and giving findings
that this Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to
adjudicate the reference and passed order to transfer the
present reference to the contractual Administrative
Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench having jurisdiction to
adjudicate the present reference. Accordingly entire record
of the reference case was transferred to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, by order
passed on 21.12.2009 by Shri K.K. Pandeya, Member
Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
7. The record of this reference case was received in
the office of the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench and was
registered as T.A. No. 01/10 while the case T.A. 01/10 was
pending before the Hon’ble Bench of CAT, the applicant
remained absent as a result the T.A. 1/10 was dismissed
for want of prosecution by order dated 17.08.2010.
Thereafter MA No. 363/10 was filed on behalf of the
applicant for restoration of T.A. 01/10 and by order dated
21.09.2010 M.A. 363/10 was allowed and T.A. 01/10 was
restored. Thereafter the Bench of the Hon’ble CAT,
Ahmedabad passed order dated 04.02.2011 ... “ In view of
express provision under the administrative Tribunals Act
particularly in the shape of section 28, we are of the firm
view that Industrial Tribunal (Central) Ahmedabad was
not justified in holding that it ceased to have jurisdiction,
power or authority to adjudicate the issues raised under
reference pending before it... the order dated 21.12.2009
passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Gujarat,
Ahmedabad in Reference, is held to be without any
authority of law. Accordingly, the entire reference case
with the record of T.A. 01/10 and final order dated
04.02.2011 was remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal
(Central) Ahmedabad for proper adjudication. Thereafter
the entire record of reference case was received in this
CGIT-cum-Iabour Court, Ahmedabad on 06.02.2012 as per
order of the appropriate Government dated 20.01.2012 form
the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Ahmedabad.
8. In view of the rival contention of the parties as
per pleadings, the following issues are taken up for
discussion and determination :
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4045
ISSUES
(i)
Is the reference maintainable?
(ii)
Has the 2nd party Bipinchandra Patel valid cause
of action?
(iii)
Whether the order of termination of the services
of Shri Bipinchandra Kantilal Patel, Office
Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.1978 by the 1st part is
justified?
(iv)
Whether the 2nd party Shri Bipinchandra K .Patel
remained in gainful employment since after
termination from his services of office Assistant
N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad?
(v)
Whether the 2nd party is entitled to the relief in
this case?
9. ISSUE No. iii:-It has been argued by Shri
B.B.Shah, Advocate for the 2nd party that Bipin K. patel
had been appointed for the sanctioned post by calling
names from the office of the employment exchange,
conducting written test etc and he was selected by the
selection committee and that he was issued another
appointment order dated 20.04.1977 as regular employee,
he was performing duty sincerely, but the Field officer
was carrying grudge against him and had issued
termination letter dated 01.04.1978 without issuing notice
or without making payment of monetary compensation in
lieu of one month notice and retrenchment compensation.
And so the termination order is unjustified and illegal and
the 2nd party Bipin is entitled for reinstatement with full
back wages. On the other hand, it has been argued by Shri
P. M.Rami, AGP, Learned counsel for the 1st party that as
per terms and condition of the offer of appointment dated
20.04.1977, the 2nd party was to undergo probation period
for two years and during probation period the services
can be terminated by the appointing authority without
any notice and without any reason being assigned
therefore and after completion of the period of probation
and till he/she is conformed the services can be terminated
any time without any reason being assigned therefore by
one month’s notice on either side. By this appointment
order Bipin was put on probation in the scale of pay Rs.
425-800. Shri Rami further argued that as per delegation of
power the Field advisor of N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad was the
appointing authority for the post of Gr. III and IV and the
2nd party had been appointed in clerical grade III by the
Field Advisor who being appointing authority was
competent to terminate the services of Bipin office
Assistant in probation (Gr. III staff) and even after service
of’ memos issued to him he was not mending himself and
that the Field Advisor had earlier passed termination order
against Bipin but on seeking apology by him it was not
brought in to force but even then Bipin did not improve
his behaviour and sincerely to his work and then he was
terminated w.e.f. 01.04.1978 during probation period and
the action of the Field Advisor is justified one.
10. ln the light of argument so advanced by the
learned counsels of the parties now coming to examine
the documentary and oral evidence of the parties. The
2nd party Bipinchandra K. Patel submitted his affidavit
(Ext.26) in lieu of examination in chief support of his case
as per statement of claim. The 1st party submitted 24
documents as per list (ext. 22) and the 2nd party in his
cross examination admitted all those documents produce
by the 1st party by Ext.22. The documents SI. No. 1 to 24
have been given pacca exts. 83 to 106. Ext, 83 is copy of
offer of appointment dated 21.12.1976 with condition that
the appointment is temporary and will not confer any title
to permanent employment. This offer of appointment was
in the pay scale of 425-700. Ext. 84 is copy of acceptance
of first offer dated 22.12.1976. Ext. 85 is joining report of
Bipin dated 30.12.1976(FN) as office assistant. Ext. 86 is
second offer of appointment dated 20.04.1977 for the post
of assistant in the scale of 425-800/- issued by Field
Advisor N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad with condition the
appointment will be on probation for a period of two years
from the date during the period of probation, the service
can be terminated by the appointing authority without
any notice and without any reason. Ext. 87 is acceptance
letter of 2nd party Bipin dated 16.05.1977 as per terms and
condition of the council, Ext.88 is second acceptance letter
of Bipin Patel dated 13.12.1977 as per terms and condition
of the council. Ext.89 is appointment order dated 23.07.1977
of Field Advisor N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad on the terms and
condition contained in the offer of appointment order dated
20.04.1977 (Ext.86) w.e.f. 30.12.1976 (FN). It is quite clear
that the probation peridp of Bipinchandra K. Patel office
Assistant started w.e.f. date 30.12.1976 on his joining and
the terms and condition of 2nd offer of appointment
(Ext.86) came into force as per appointment order dated
23.07.1977 (Ext.89). So without any ambiguity the probation
period of Bipinchandra started from his date of joining on
30.12.1976 (FN) and so the appointing Authority Field
Advisor N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad was competent enough
to take action in terminating the services of Bipin during
probation period of two year without assigning any
reason. As such the probation period of two years 2nd
party Bipin was up to 30.12.1978. From perusal of Ext.90
memo dated 28.11.1977 issued to Bipin and Bipin’s reply
dated 15.12.1977 (ext.91), office note of Field Advisor dated
15.12.1977 (Ext.92) asking assurance from Bipin to give
full cooperation to his officers and again reply letter of
Bipinchandra to Field Advisor dated 15.12.1977 (Ext.93)
asking to point out details of mistakes which are unlawful.
Then noting of Field Advisor dated 16.12.1977 (Ext.94)
refers two letters of Bipin dated 15.12.1977 in not
acknowledging that he has committed any mistake terming
the allegation of Field Advisor baseless, speaks a volume
about arrogance and non-cooperative attitude on part of
the 2nd party (Bipinchandra) Again Bipinchandra vide his
4046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reply letter dated 16.12.1977 to Field Advisor (Ext.95) go
to show some sort of arrogancy on part of Bipinchanra to
question about his mistake and the letter(memo} dated
19.12.1977 of Field Advisor (Ext.96) to Bipinchandra go to
show that good many things have already been explained
to him (Bipin) orally and the authorities at Delhi and Bhopal
also know it. But you (Bipin) are still adamant about legality
of things. Ext. 97 is letter of sorry dated 15.02.1977 of 2nd
party (Bipinchandra) to the Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T,
Ahmedabad asking to allow him to resume his duty as an
Assistant in view of the termination order dated 14.02.1978
issued by Field Advisor (ext. 99) when Bipinchandra in
spite of several memo failed to mend his behaviour and
refrain from arrogant attitude. Ext.98 is letter of Bipin dated
22.12.1977 to Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad
begging pardon for the mistakes committed by him. Ext.100
is letter of Field Advisor dated 14.02.1.978 given to
Shri K.M. Gupta, Assistant Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T,
Ahmedabad asking to call the Assistant (Bipinchandra K.
Patel) to see if he realises his mistakes\since I am not
interested in termination of services of any body. Then as
per apology letter of Bipinchandra dated 15.02.1978 (ext.
97) addressing to the Field Advisor writing sorry for the
things happened yesterday and requesting for allowing
to resume duty as an assistant then vide order dated
15.02.1978 (Ext.101) the termination order dated 14.02.1978
of Shri Bipinchandra was cancelled by the Field Advisor.
Ext. 102 is extract from schedule of powers delegated to
the Field advisors N.C.E.R.T in the states regarding
appointment of Group C (class III) and group D (class IV)
staff. Such argument on behalf of the 2nd party falls to
the ground that the Field Advisor N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad
is no appointing authority of class III staff. Ext.103 is
copy of final termination order of the 2nd party
Bipinchandra dated 01.04.1978 giving reasoning as to
termination of services of Bipinchandra though it was not
required to mention during probation period of
Bipinchandra which ‘was up to 30.12.1978. The 2nd party
was asked to immediately hand over the charge to the
undersigned (Field Advisor). Ext.104 is copy of letter of
Bipinchandra dated 03.04.1978. Ext. 105 is copy of
memorandum of association of N.C.E.R.T and Ext; 106 is
copy of Rules and Regulations of N.C.E.R.T which also
corroborate as to appointing authority being Field Advisor
for class III and class IV staff of N.C.E.R.T. The letter of
Bipinchandra K. Patel addressed to the Field Advisor,
N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad dated 03.04.1978 go to show that
he handed over the charge of his post as Assistant with
full details in pursuance to termination of his service w.e.f.
01.04.1978. The 1st prty also produced 11 documents
through a list Ext.75 and its copy was received by the
lawyer of the 2nd party and those documents have been
taken in evidence. Ext.75/1 clarifies that since there was
no uniformity in the offer of appointment to selected
candidate in the N.C.E.R.T so a model offer of appointment
was prepared and as such offer of appointment to
Bipinchandra K. Patel had been sent dated 20.04.1977
regarding appointment with two years’ probation period
and likely to be extended for more periods. Ext. 75/2 is
confidential letter dated 29.08.1977 of Field Advisor Shri
B.P. Mishra to Prof. S.N. Saha principal RCE, Bhopal
attached with another letter of Field Advisor Shri B.P.
Mishra dated 25.08.1977 to Prof S.N. Saha principal, REC,
Bhopal making complaint against Shri Bipin K. Patel (2nd
party) who is lacking in integrity in financial matters
besides other charges that stand against him and
requesting to transfer him (Bipin) from Ahmedabad to
Bhopal and if Shri Bipin Patel is not transfer, he shall have
no alternative but to dismiss him. Ext.75/3 is confidential
memo dated 06.12.1977 of Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T,
Ahmedabad to Shri Bipin Patel regarding his role not
upto the mark and not helpful to administration rather anti
disciplinary and by that memo giving Bipinchandra Patel
a chance to improve himself otherwise drastic action shall
be taken. Ext. 75/4 is same as Ext. 100 already discussed
above. Ext. 75/5 is letter dated 02.01.1978 of G.R. Das,
Under Secretary N.C.E.R.T, new Delhi to Field Advisor,
Ahmedabad informing about sending of telegram dated
15.12.1977 by Shri Bipinchandra Patel. This reveals
arrogancy of 2nd party to such high “magnitude in
sending telegram being a probation Assistant. The matter
of telegram sent by Bipin is FA required to hand over the-
charge to him personally kindly advice urgently what
should do. The 2nd party being a probationer instead of
mending his behaviour as per series of memo issued to
him by FA, Ahmedabad had gone to the extent of sending
telegram to Head quarter of N.C.E.R.T that itself peaks a
volume about his arrogant behaviour against his senior
officer including his controlling officer Field Advisor Shri
B.P. Mishra. Ext.75/6 is letter dated 06.01.1978 of FA Shri
B.P. Mishra to the secretary N.C.E.R.T, New Delhi informing
that Shri Patel has tendered unconditional apology (copy
enclosed) so I have given him one more chance to serve
in this office. Ext. 75/7 is letter dated 09.02.1978 of
undersecretary N.C.E.R.T to F.A. Ahmedabad for keeping
a close watch on the work and conduct of Shri B.K. Patel,
Assistant in your office during the remaining period of
probation and to inform the council whether he is
progressing or not during probation period. Ext. 75/8 is
confidential report by the F.A. N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad
regarding much arrogant behaviour of Shri Patel even
giving out threat to file court case and his action asking
to sign approval papers against the rules etc. after the
visit of Shri G.R. Das from the councils. Ext. 75/9 is office
order of FA N.C.E.R.T., Ahmedabad dated 23.03.1978
regarding changes in duties of ministerial staff including
of Shri B.K. Patel his duty of looking after accounts and
General administration was taken off and given to Miss
S.P Choksi, LDC Ext. 75/10 is another confidential letter
dated 21.03.1978 of FA, Ahmedabad to Shri R.P. Shourie,
A.O. RCE, Bhopal, informing about rude behaviour of
Shri B.K. Patel as his case fit for dismissal. Ext. 75/11 is
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4047
letter dated 19.04.1978 from FA N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad to
Shri C.R. Das, N.C.E.R.T, New Delhi regarding brief facts
of each acts of commission and commission by Shri B.K.
Patel against staff and other officers of N.C.E.R.T,
Ahmedabad having with non-cooperation attitude and not
to behave in right manner inspite of so many memo warning
and verbal request. The 1st party also submitted 10
documents with list Ext.79 and its copy furnished to the
2nd party lawyer Shri B.B. Shah endorsing no objection
for production. Ext. 79/1 is memo dated 01.06.1977 to Shri
B.K .Patel by FA Shri B.P. Mishra of as many as six
irregularities including coming late in office and entering
the correct time 10:30 a.m. making purchase of materials
from open market rather than from approved agency Apna
Bazar co-operative bodies etc. Ext. 79/2 is notice regarding
distribution of work dated 05.08.1977 and duly assigned
to Shri B.K. Patel. Ext. 79/3 is letter of miss S.P. Choksi,
LDC, regarding handing over the A/c’s file to Shri B.K.
Patel and taking over of charge by Shri B.K. Patel. Ext.
79/4 is confidential letter/circular dated 05.08.1977
enclosing therewith circular dated 18.10.1975 regarding
principles in r/o investigation. Ext. 79/5 is the confidential
letter dated 17/18.06.1977 of FA, Ahmedabad to Shri B.K.
Patel asking reply regarding writing secret letters to higher
officers. Ext. 79/6 is memo dated 13/14 .07.1977 given to
Shri B.K. Patel by FA, Ahmedabad regarding series of
misconduct. Ext. 79/7 is letter dated 01.06.1977 of B.K.
Patel to the principal of RCE, Bhopal without routing
through proper channeI.Ext.79/8 is notice dated 15.09.1977
of FA, Ahmedabad circulated among staff of N.C.E.R.T,
Ahmedabad for preparing bills and its checking and
verification which are duty of staff and not duty of FA to
check each and every point and that if any irregularity the
staff will be held responsible. Ext.79/9 is swami’s book,
extract- chapter 20 probation on appointment regarding
period of probation of two years is conformity with the
offer of appointment dated 20.04.1977 of Shri B.K. Patel as
per Ext.86. Ext. 79/10 is on the subject issue of offers of
appointments and appointment to the candidates selected
on regular basis which have already been discussed above
as to reason of issue of 2nd offer of appointrnent to Shri
B.K. Patel dated 20.04.1977 Ext.86.
11. Now coming to examine the documents filed by
the 2nd party. The 2nd party on filing of. statement of
claim dated 13.02.1984 attached copy of termination order
dated 01.04.1978 and representation made by Shri B.K.
Patel (2nd party) to the principal RCE, Bhopal dated
04.04.1978. The termination order dated 01.04.1978 has
already been discussed in the forgoing paras that the
action of the Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad in
terminating Shri B.K .Patel, Probationer Assistant during
probation period was justified even after giving so many
memo and warning to keep right behaviour in the office.
The representation dated 04.04.1978 was directly sent by
Shri B.K. Patel to the principal RCE, Bhopal for which he
was not competent to ask for cancelation of his termination
order directly rather being a probationer assistant he ought
to have made representation to be routed through proper
channel. This also shows his sheer arrogancy of making
a high dream like treating him to be a future officer and not
mere probationer Assistant. There was no question of
starting domestic enquiry against him since he was a
probationer and during probation period he was to be
terminated any time without assigning any reason as per
offer of appointment (Ext.86) which was accepted by him
vide Ext.87. Ext. 4,5 and 6 are application on the letter head
of N.C.E.R.T before Shri G.S. Barot, p.a., Industrial Tribunal
seeking for time to file written statement are not important
document to be discussed vide Ext. 6 the copy of written
statement was also served upon Shri B.K. Patel, Ex.
Assistant.
12. The 2nd party Shri Bipin K .Patel during his
cross examination on 02.08.2007 has admitted the
documents produced by the 1st party vide Ext.75 series.
He also admitted about document produced by Ext.74.
However, stated that it is not true that I was appointed on
probation and was terminated during probation observing
work not satisfactory. The 2nd party’s such saying is a
futile attempt to unjustified his termination w.e.f. 01.04.1978
by F.A., N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad but the 2nd party has failed
to do so. In the foregoing paras it has been seen that the
action of the Field Advisor Shri B.P. Mishra in terminating
the services of the 2nd party Bipin K. Patel is justijfied
and legal. The 2nd party Bipin in his evidence during cross
examination at page 13 admitted that he received probation
order dated 20.04.1977 and it was in the scale of pay 425 to
800. He also admitted about/serving of memo on him. He
admitted that he was to be terminated by order dated
14.02.1978 but was cancelled. On question as to when he
was confirmed in service he replied that vide Ext. 22/7
dated 23.07.1977 he was confirmed. But it has been
considered in the foregoing paras that Ext. 22/7 is not
order of his confirmation in service rather Field Advisor
N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad appointed Bipin K. Patel as office
Assistant in the pay scale of 425-800 on the terms and
condition of the offer of appointment dated 20.04.1977
w.e.f. 30.12.1976 FN. So apparently on acceptance of offer
of appointment (Ext. 86) by Bipin vide Ext.87 the period of
probation started with effect from 30.12.197~. for two years
upto 30.12.1978 and during the period of probation as per
terms and condition of offer of appointment dated
20.04.1977 Ext. 86 he can be terminated by the appointing
Authority i.e. Field Advisor without assigning any reason.
But it appears that the Appointing Authority (Field
Advisor) had given number of opportunity to him to
improve in the behaviour and to mend himself through
series of memo, warning, verbal conversation and even
issuing termination order dated 14.02.1978 which was
cancelled all these go to show that the appointing and
controlling officer Field Advisor Shri Mishra was so kind
4048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
hearted in giving pardon to Bipin his mistakes and ill
behaviour but eventually the F.A. was left with no option
rather to terminate the services of Bipin (2nd party) during
probation period. There was no need to start departmental
proceeding against Bipin as per offer of appointment date
20.04.1977 accepted by Bipin. The 2nd party Bipinchandra
was not a casual worker for counting his days of works
exceeding 240 days in calendar year and so there is no
scope of applicability of the provision of section 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any contravention of
section 25F on part of the 1st party. Such argument
advanced on behalf of the 2nd party has no leg to stand.
13. The 1st party’s witness namely Shri V.M.
Martode, Business Manager in his oral evidence (Ext.133)
has fully supported its case and justification of
termination of Bipinchandra K. Patel form the services by
order dated 01.04.1978 of the Field Advisor. He has been
cross examined at length by the lawyer of,the 2nd party
but nothing could have been gained by the 2nd party to
discredit his testimony. He supported that the then Field
Advisor B.P. Mishra is no more and he died on 12.06.2011
so could not be called as witness on behalf of the 1st
party. The case laws cited on behalf of the 2nd party
reported in (1) A.J.R. 2002 SC 1147 (2) AJR 2008 SC 836 and
(3) 1988(1) LLJ SC 329 are not applicable in the instant
case.
14. Thus as per discussion and consideration of the
oral and documentary evidence of the parties in the
foregoings I am of the considered view and therefore find
and hold that the action of the Field Advisor, N.C.E.R.T.,
Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri
Bipinchandra K. Patel, Office Assistant with effect from
01.04.1978 is justified and legal. This Issue No. iii is
answered in favour of the 1st party.
15. ISSUE NO. iv : The 2nd party Shri Bipinchandra
K. Patel, deposed during cross examination by the 1st
party’s lawyer on his affidavit at Ext 26 at Page 26 that he
served with Gujarat State seeds corporation Gandhinagar
w.e.f. 13.11.1978 to 13.04.1995 and from 1996 onward he
remained serving in private institution and that he is
getting Rs. 5000 per month and that still he is working in
this post. On behalf of the 1st party seven documents
were produced with a list Ext.132 of which Ext. 132/6 and
132/7 are regarding gainful employment of the 2nd party
since after termination. Ext. 132/6 is letter dated 28.10.2004
of Managing Director of Gujarat state Beej Nigam Ltd.
addressing to Business Manager, N.C.E.R.T, Navjiavan
Trust, Ahmedabad 380014 with reference to letter No. F2-
25/RCPDA/2001/305/15.10.2004 informing on the subject
of service of Shri B.K. Patel in Gujarat state Beej Nigam
Ltd. that Shri B.K. Patel (2nd party) was employed in
service as UDC since 1978 and he (Bipin) was served
show cause notice on 19.11.1984 he (Shri Patel) was
reinstated in service of G.S. Beej Nigam Ltd. after
withholding of three increments. Ext. 132/7 go to show
that Shri B.K. Patel was in service in Jay carriers and he
was on duty on 28.01.1999 this information was given in
connection restoration application No. 1/2002 in
connection with the reference case. As per admission
during cross examination Shri B.K. Patel is still in gainful
employment. From the admission of the 2nd party in his
oral evidence during cross examination and as per Ext.132/
6 it is evident that since after termination of service on
01.04.1978 by the FA, N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad, 2nd party
was not sitting unemployed rather joined the services of
G.S. Beej Nigam Ltd. as UDC w.e.f. 13.11.1978 and onward
till the present period is in gainful employment. More so,
from the reference order dated 11.01.1984 it appears that
as per the chief labour commissioner (Central) New Delhi.
Their file No. 36(17) 182-con.1 the adjudication order of
the appropriate government dated 11.01.1984 was referred
for adjudication. In other words the 2nd party Shri
Bipinchandra K. Patel raised the Industrial Dispute after
joining as UDC in Gujarat State Beej Nigam Ltd. on
13.11.1978 and so there remained no relation of employer
and workman existing rather ceased to be in existence
since after joining new service in Beej Nigam with gainful
employment. So as per discussion, and considerations
made above I find and hold that the 2nd party Shri
Bipinchandra K .Patel remained in gainful employment
since after termination from his services of office assistant
N.C.E.R.T , Ahmedabad. Thus this issue is decided against
the 2nd party.
16. ISSUE NO. (i), (ii) and (v) : In view of the
findings to Issue No. iii and iv in the foregoing paras. I
further find and hold that the reference is not maintainable
and the 2nd party has no cause of action in this case since
after remaining in gainful employment after termination
order dated 01.04.1978 of N.C.E.R.T, Ahmedabad (1st party)
and even raised Industrial dispute much after remaining
in gainful employment under different employer. I further
find and hold that the 2nd party is not entitled to get any
relief in this case.
The reference is devoid of any merit and so the same
is dismissed. No. order as to any cost.
This is my award.
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] 8 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1530-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk phiQ
tujy eSustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4049
gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@15@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014
S.O. 1530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 75/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the Chief General Manager, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 07/05/2014.
[No. L-40011/15/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 2nd day of April, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 75/2012
BETWEEN
The Circle Secretary,
NUBSNLW(FNTU),
2-2-1167/2,
Tilaknagar, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad – 500044.
….Petitioner
AND
The Chief General Manager,
B.S.N.L., Office of the CGM,
Telecom, A.P. Circle,
Hyderabad – 1.
….Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
: NIL
For the Respondent
: Smt. Ch. Lakshmi Kumari,
Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by
its order No. L-40011/15/2012-IR(DU) dated 5.12.2012
referred the following dispute between the management
of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and their workman under
section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to
this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of CGMT,
BSNL, Hyderabad in not granting the compassionate
appointment to the four dependents of the deceased
of the West Godavari BSNL District is justified? If
not, what relief the dependents are entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 75/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for appearance of
Petitioner and for filing of claim statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no
representation. Petitioner is not appearing before the court
even though notice is served on him again and again and
is not making any claim. Petitioner is not at all taking
interest in the proceedings, though he got knowledge of
the same. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got
no claim to be made, a ‘Nil’ Award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 2nd
day of April, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presididng Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1531-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
tujy eSustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ,.M vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@94@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
4050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014
S.O. 1531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 22/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited and Others and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 07/05/2014.
[No. L-40012/94/2004-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of April, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 22/2005
BETWEEN
Sri T. Butchi Babu,
S/o Raja Rao,
K.D. Peta (P.O.),
Kummari Veedhi,
Kongasingi Mandal,
Visakhapatnam (A.P.)
….Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Telecom District,
Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam – 530020.
2.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecom, M/s. BSNL,
Nampally Road, Abids,
Hyderabad – 1.
3.
The S.D.O. Telecom,
M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Narsipatnam,
Visakhapatnam.
….Respondents
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
: M/s. Sridhar Tummalapudi
& K. Venkateswarlu,
Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri Karoor Mohan, Advocate
AWARD
In pursuance of the claim made by the Petitioner
workman Sri T. Butchi Babu, the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/94/2004-
IR(DU) dated 22.12.2004 referred the following dispute
under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this
forum to decide the question :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Telecom District,
Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sh. T.
Butchi Babu, Ex. Part time workman (Sweeper), KD
Peta w.e.f. 2.1.2001 is legal and/or justified? If not,
to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
On receiving this reference by issuing notice to the
workman as well as the Management this Tribunal secured
their respective presence before this Tribunal. The
workman has engaged the services of M/s. Sridhar
Tummalapudi & K. Venkateswarlu, Advocates, whereas
Respondent/ Management has engaged the services of
Sri Karoor Mohan, Advocate with the leave of the court.
2. The Brief averments of the claim statement filed
by the workman are as follows :—
The workman was appointed as part time
worker(sweeper) with effect from 1994 on a monthly wage
of Rs.35/-. He worked at K D Peta. During his employment
he made a representation to the Management for
enhancement of monthly wages. Thereon the Divisional
Engineer(Telecom) Maintenance-5, Anakapalli enhanced
his monthly wage from Rs,.35/- to Rs.75/- with effect from
July, 1995 vide their letter No. E-6/95-96/62 dated 20.7.1995.
The workman worked as sweeper at K D Pet, SDO,
Telecom, Narsipatnam from 1994 to December, 2000. His
service record is very good. All of a sudden without any
written notice the Management terminated his services
with effect from January, 2001. He made several
representations requesting to reinstate him into service
and for payment of back wages but in vain. The
Management gave arrogant reply. Thereon the workman
approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central)
at Visakhapatnam by filing a petition. Management
attended before the said authority in answer to the notice
given by them. The efforts of conciliation made by such
authority resulted in failure. Thus, the reference. The
workman could not secure any other employment inspite
of his best efforts. The Management did not follow
principles of natural justice. They simply terminated the
services of the workman without any notice which is
arbitrary and illegal action. Thus, the workman is entitled
for reinstatement into service with back wages and
continuity of service and also for grant of all allowances.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4051
3. The Respondents filed their counter with the
averments in brief as follows :
The contention of the Petitioner that he was
appointed as part time sweeper in June, 1994, that his
wages were enhanced from Rs.35/- to Rs.75/- are all
incorrect. Petitioner’s services were not engaged in
temporary manner. They were engaged for specific work
on daily/monthly basis. As such, it can not be construed
as temporary engagement. The workman’s contention that
he worked from 1994 to December, 2000 as Sweeper at K D
Pet, Narsipatnam and that his services were terminated
without any notice in January, 2001 are all incorrect. His
further contention that his service record was good also
is not correct. His further contention that he approached
the Management several times and that he could not get
any other employment and further that Respondent did
not follow principles of natural justice and that their action
is arbitrary and illegal are all false. Workman can not claim
employment by way of regularization which would be
contrary to constitutional provisions and the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi’s rules
and it precludes the workman from making any claim. The
claim is to be dismissed with costs.
4. Since a nil award has been passed on 6.3.2009,
on the ground that both parties were called absent, the
workman challenged the said award by filing WP
No.10078/2011 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P..
By virtue of order dated 15.4.2011 the said writ petition
was allowed and the order of this Tribunal dated 6.3.2009
was set aside directing this Tribunal to give one more
opportunity to the workman to produce his evidence.
Accordingly opportunity has been given to adduce
evidence.
5. To substantiate the contentions of the workman
he examined himself as WW1 and got marked Ex.W1 to
W7. On behalf of the Management MW 1 was examined
and Ex.M1 and Ex.X1 are marked.
6. Heard the arguments of either party. Written
arguments are also filed for the workman and the same are
received and considered.
7. The points that arise for determination are :
I.
Whether the action of the Management of M/s.
BSNL, Telecom District, Visakhapatnam in
terminating the services of Sri T. Butchi Babu,
Part time worker, KD Pet, with effect from 2/1/
2001 is legal and justified?
II.
To what relief the workman is entitled?
8. Point No.I:
It is the contention of the workman that he was
appointed as part time worker (sweeper) with effect from
June, 1994 and in that capacity he worked at K D Pet, SDO
Telecom, Narsipatnam until December, 2000.
9. Whereas the Respondent/Management is
contending that Petitioner was never appointed on part
time basis and that his services were utilized only for
specific work on daily /monthly basis. That means, it is
the contention of the Management that the workman’s
services were never utilized by them continuously. Their
pleading is devoid of particulars like the nature of “specific
work” and period of the said work, for which the services
of the workman were utilised by them. Thus, their pleading
with this regard is to be considered as vague.
10.As WW1, the workman has categorically claimed
that he worked as part time sweeper for the Management
at KD Pet, with effect from June, 1994. While he was
under cross examination it is put to him that Ex.W6 is the
order of the Labour Commissioner whereunder workman’s
request was rejected. But a perusal of this document shows
that this is a letter given to the ALCC by the Asst. General
Manager(Admn) for GM, Telecom District, Visakhapatnam
in answer to the addressee’s letter 18.12.2003 whereunder
for the reasons given in Ex.W6 the case of the workman
was to be rejected. That means Ex.W6 is only a reply of
the Management to the claim put forth by the workman
before the ALC(C) but not any rejection order passed by
the ALC(C).
11.No doubt, the workman as WW1 claimed that he
has been given an appointment letter and that he would
produce the same before this Tribunal but failed to do so.
It is not the contention of the Management that any
appointment letter has been issued. Irrespective of
inability of the workman to produce the appointment letter,
in the light of the other documents produced by him, this
Tribunal has to consider whether his contentions have
been established or otherwise.
12.Ex.W1 is the proceeding of the Divisional
Engineer, Telecom Maintenance-V, Anakapalli, dated
20.7.1995 where under the wages of the workman herein,
who has been described as “Part time worker”, have been
enhanced from Rs. 35/- to Rs.75/- with effect from July,
1995. In this letter it is referred that “Sri T. Butchi Babu,
Part Time Worker(Sweeper) KD pet, made a representation
regarding enhancement of monthly wages and that the
same has been forwarded by the SDO, Telecom,
Narsipatnam to the Divisional Engineer, Telecom,
Maintenance– 5, Anakapalli.” Thus, it is very much clear
that by producing this proceeding which is evidently
marked to the workman by the authority who received the
same, the workman could establish his contentions that
he has been working as part time worker(Sweeper) K D Pet
continuously and his wages were enhanced from Rs. 35/-
to 75/- with effect from July, 1995.
4052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. Ex.W2 is termed as a Service Book of the
workman. It is a note book wherein entries for the months
ranging from June, 1994 to December, 2000 are made which
are all signed by the office Incharge, Telephone Exchange,
KD Pet. All these entries are to the effect that the workman
has attended to the duties of sweeping the exchange,
switch room, switch board, MDF, battery room engine room
and waranda daily and to the cleaning of rooms with
water once in a week and was bringing one pot of water
for drinking etc., during the given month. Thus, it is very
much clear that the workman has worked as part time
sweeper for the Respondent Management from June 1994
to December, 2000. In this context it is not out of place to
mention that there is no cross examination of WW1 in
respect of Ex.W2.
14. Ex.M1 is the document which is confronted to
WW1 for the Management while WW1 was under cross
examination. This is the application of the workman to the
Management whereunder he sought for the employment
as part time sweeper in KD Peta since the said post has
fallen vacant owing to transfer of one Tufaan, who was
working as part time sweeper there until then, to another
exchange. This document is rendering support to the
version of the workman.
15.MW1, the only witness examined for the
Management has admitted that Ex.W1 indicates that the
monthly wages paid to the part time worker were enhanced
from Rs.35/- to 75/- with effect from July, 1995 and further
that Ex.W2 bears the endorsement made by the department
people. He stated that the RM is not competent to make
any such endorsement. But the office incharge is the
person who made the various endorsement in Ex.W3 as
per the official seal affixed. Certainly the office incharge
will be the competent person to make such entries. There
is substantial cross examination of MW1 regarding the
time which one takes for attending to various duties which
the workman has been attended to, as per various entries
in Ex.W2. A perusal of the said entries coupled with the
answers given by MW1 in his cross examination to the
questions put to him regarding the time required for
attending to such works, give rise to a reasonable
understanding that atleast 4 to 5 hours per day time is
required for one to attend to all these duties. MW1 got
no knowledge that 48 batteries were there to be cleaned
each day apart from filling them up with distilled water.
Ex.W2 shows that Several rooms ought to be cleaned daily,
a pot of water is to be brought for drinking, apart from it,
the staff were to be attended to, by supplying them with
coffee, tea etc.. as per the contentions put forth before
the court.
16.In view of the above discussed evidence on
record, one can clearly understand that Petitioner has
been engaged as part time sweeper for the KD Peta
exchange of Narsipatnam by the Respondent Management
and he worked so from June, 1994 to December, 2000 and
during this period his wages were also revised by the
Respondent officials and further that he was not allowed
to work since January, 2001 and thus, he could not attend
to the same since then. He was not explained the reason
why his services were so terminated by the Respondent
Management, evidently.
17.The workman, who worked for more than five
years continuously for the Respondent Management, is
certainly entitled for the benefits provided for by the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He can not be retrenched/
removed from service without complying with the
mandatory pre-requisites provided for under Sec.25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, Respondent has
not complied with these mandatory pre-requisites. Thus,
there is violation of law. Further, there is violation of
principles of natural justice, since, the workman is kept in
dark as to the reason why his services were abruptly
terminated by the Respondent Management. Therefore,
this action on their part is arbitrary and unjust.
This point is answered accordingly.
18. Point No.II :
In view of the finding given in Point No.I the action
of the Respondent Management in terminating the services
of the workman with effect from January, 2001 is illegal,
arbitrary and unjust. Therefore, the workman is entitled
for reinstatement into service with all attendant benefits.
19.It is the specific contention of the workman that
he could not secure any other employment inspite of his
best efforts. There is no contra evidence to show that he
could secure alternative employment. In the circumstances
the workman is entitled for back wages as well.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result, the reference is answered accordingly.
The action of the Management of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam, in terminating the services
of the workman Sri T. Butchi Babu, part time
worker(Sweeper) KD pet, with effect from 2.1.2001 is
hereby declared as illegal and unjustified and therefore, it
is hereby set aside. The workman shall be reinstated into
service with effect from 2.1.2001. He is entitled for all
attendant benefits including back wages.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th
day of April, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI , Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4053
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Tangeti Butchi
MW1 : Sri U. Rama Krishna
Babu
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1
:
Appointment letter issued by Div.
Engineer dated 20.7.1995
Ex.W2
:
Service Register from 1994 to 2000
Ex.W3
:
Office copy of conciliation proceedings
dt.4.6.2004
Ex.W4
:
Office copy of conciliation proceedings dt.
20.3.2004
Ex.W5
:
Office copy of conciliation proceedings dt.
25.3.2004
Ex.W6
:
Office copy of letter by GM to ALC(C)
dt.18.12.2003
Ex.W7
:
Photostat copy of reference order dt.
22.12.2004
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1
:
Photostat copy of the representation of the
Petitioner dt. 31.10.94
Documents marked by the Court
Ex.X1
:
Photostat copy of the Lr.No.E-9/Genl/SDE/
2011-13/49 dated 8.5.2013 approval reg.
relief of MW1 for cross examination.
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1532-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
deh'uj E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1]
fnYYkh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 161@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@55@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014
S.O. 1532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 161/
2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 07/05/2014.
[No. L-42012/55/2012-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.161/2012
The General Secretary,
Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,
Delhi Pardesh, P-2/624,
Sultanpuri, Delhi - 110045
…..Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi – 110006
…Management
AWARD
On 22.05.1993, Shri Jitender, S/o Shri Jag Saran was
engaged as a daily wager safai karamchari by Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
Corporation). He served the Corporation as daily wager
safai karamchari for a considerable period. His services
were regularized as safai karamchari on 02.06.2006. After
regularization of his services as safai karamchari, Shri
Jitender joined duties in Shahdara (South) Zone of the
Corporation. After about six years, Shri Jitender
approached the Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh
(hereinafter referred as the union) with a grievance that
his services should have been regularized by the
Corporation from the date of his initial engagement. The
union raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer in
that regard. Since the Corporation contested the dispute,
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-42012/55/2012-IR(DU), New Delhi dated 08.11.2012
with following terms :
“Whether action of the management of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in denying
regularization of services in proper pay scale
alongwith consequential benefit to Shri Jitender S/o
Shri Jag Saran, safai karamchari, from the date of
initial appointment of the workman i.e. from
22.05.1993 till he was regularized with effect from
02.06.2006 is justified or not. If not, what relief is he
entitled to and from which date?”
4054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. In the reference order, the appropriate
Government commanded the parties to the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list
of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of
such statement of claim to the opposite party involved in
the dispute. Despite directions, so given, Shri Jitender
opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. Notice was sent to Shri Jitender by registered
post on 03.12.2012, calling upon him to file claim statement
before the Tribunal on or before 02.01.2013. This notice
was sent to him through the union at its address P-2/624,
Sultanpuri, Delhi, the address provided by the appropriate
Government in order of reference. Neither the claimant nor
the union responded to the notice, so sent.
4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant
to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by
registered post on 02.01.2013 calling upon him to file claim
statement before the Tribunal on 29.01.2013. Notice was
again transmitted to the claimant by registered post on
31.01.2013 asking him to file his claim statement on or
before 20.02.2013. Lastly, notice dated 22.02.2013 was sent
by registered post commanding the claimant to file his
claim statement before the Tribunal on or before 22.03.2013.
Neither the postal articles, referred above, were received
back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained affected in the period, referred above.
Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact
that the above notices were served upon the claimant.
Despite service of these notices, claimant opted to abstain
away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed
on his behalf.
5. Since onus of the question referred for
adjudication was there on the Corporation, it was called
upon to file its response to the reference order. In its
response, the Corporation presents that the claimant was
regularized as safai karamchari vide office order No.98/
AC/DEMS/DA-V dated 02.06.2006 in Shahdara (South)
Zone, when vacancy was available in that regard. Since
services of the claimant have been regularized on
availability of a vacancy, claimant is not entitled to any
relief or regularization of his services from the date of
initial engagement on 22.05.1993, pleads the Corporation.
6. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came
forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.
Shri Umesh Gupta, authorized representative, raised
submissions on behalf of the Corporation. 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:
7. As projected by Shri Gupta, the Corporation
follows policy of regularization in a phased manner, of its
employees who are engaged on daily wages. Policy of the
Corporation is based on resolution passed in that regard.
When a vacancy is available, senior most employee
engaged as daily wager is regularized against it. As
highlighted by the Corporation, vacancy was available
for regularization of services of the claimant on 02.06.2006
and as such his services were regularized as safai
karamchari. Prior to that date, there was no vacancy
available, hence services of the claimant could not be
regularized. To rebut submissions advanced, claimant has
not come forward even to present his claim statement, not
to talk of establishing his cause by way of evidence in
that regard. No material has been projected before the
Tribunal on behalf of the claimant to highlight that there
was a vacancy on the date when he engaged as daily
wager. In the absence of a regular vacancy, services of the
claimant were not regularized by the Corporation. There is
nothing over the record to suggest that vacancy was
available for the claimant prior to 02.06.2006. Hence, action
of the Corporation in not regularizing services of the
claimant prior to 02.06.2006 cannot be faulted.
8. The dispute under reference has been raised in
the year 2012 and cause for regularization of service relates
to the year 1993. As is obvious section 10(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) does not
prescribe any period of limitation for making reference of
the dispute for adjudication. The words ‘at any time’
used in sub section (1) of section 10 of Act does not admit
of any limitation in making an order of reference. Law of
limitation, which might bar any Civil Court from giving
remedy in respect of lawful rights, cannot be applied by
Industrial Tribunals. However, policy of industrial
adjudication is that stale claim should not be generally
encouraged or allowed unless there is satisfactory
explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works Ltd. [1959 (2) LLJ
26], the Apex Court pointed out that though there is no
limitation prescribed in making reference of the dispute to
Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only reasonable that
disputes should be referred as soon as possible after
having arisen and on failure of conciliation proceedings.
In Western India Match Company [1970 (2) LLJ 256] the
Apex Court observed that in exercising its discretion,
Government will take into account time which has lapsed
between its earlier decision and the date when it decides
to consider it in the interest of justice and industrial peace
to make the reference for adjudication. Same view was
taken in Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [1975 (2) LLJ 326]. In
Gurmail Singh [2000 (1) LLJ 1080] Industrial Adjudicator
dismissed the reference on the ground that there was delay
of 8 years in raising the dispute, which delay was condoned
by the Apex Court and it was ordered that the workman
would not be entitled to any back wages for the period of
8 years but would be entitled to 50% of wages from the
date it raised the dispute till the date of his reinstatement.
In Prahalad Singh [2000 (2) LLJ 1653], the Apex Court
approved the award of the Tribunal in not granting any
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4055
relief to the workman who preferred the claim after a period
of 13 years without any reasonable or justifiable grounds.
From above decisions, it can be said that the law relating
to delay in raising or reference of dispute is bereft of any
principles, which can be easily comprehended by the
litigants.
9. As emerge out of the reference order claim for
regularisation relates to the year 1993. The claimant
approached the union in 2012 and thereafter matter was
raised before the Conciliation Officer. It is evident that the
claimant approached the union after a period of 6 years,
on being regularized on the post of a safai karamchari. His
steps in that regard highlights that he slept over the matter
for an unreasonable period. No explanation has been
advanced for the delay. It is crystal clear that claim for
regularisation was stale, when the claimant knocked the
door of Conciliation Officer. His claim is to be thrown away
on account of delay and latches.
10. In view of reasons detailed above, it is clear that
the claimant has not been able to establish that he was
entitled for regularization of services since the date of his
initial engagement as daily wager. It has also not been
shown that there was a vacancy for regularization of his
services even prior to the date when his services were in
fact regularized. As such, claimant is not entitled to any
relief. Even otherwise a stale cause has been referred for
adjudication, which fact disentitle the claimant for relief of
regularization from the date of his initial engagement. An
award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication.
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated : 28.03.2014
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1533-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
lqifjaVsafMax bathfu;j (dksvkfMZus'ku) bysfDVªdy lhihMCY;wMh ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYYkh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 162@2011) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@16@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014
S.O. 1533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 162/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Superintending Engineer
(Coordination), Electrical, CPWD and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 07/05/2014.
[No. L-42011/16/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO. I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS
COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No.162/2011
CPWD Karamchari Union,
President, Plot No.1, Aram Bagh,
Near Udasin Mandir, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110055.
....Workman
Versus
The Superintending Engineer (Co-ordination),
Electrical, C.P.W.D.,
Room No.401 A, 4th Floor, IP Bhawan,
New Delhi-110002.
.....Management
AWARD
Central Public Works Department (hereinafter
referred to as the management) engages casual employees
on muster roll/hand receipt basis. Shri Satbir Singh,
Shri Jai Inder, Shri Sahi Ram and Shri Chander Shekhar
were engaged on 11.08.1986, 04.08.1986, 02.10.1986 and
16.10.1986 respectively. All of them were engaged as
khalasi/E & M Operator on hand receipt basis. One
Shri Mohd. Zafar was engaged as pump operator on
26.03.1987 on muster roll. His services were regularized
by the management on 29.12.1994. Feeling aggrieved by
that act of the management, aforesaid employees raised a
demand seeking regularization of their services, which
demand was not conceded to. Ultimately, they approached
the Conciliation Officer. However, the management
contested their claim and as such conciliation proceedings
ended into a failure. On consideration of failure report, so
submitted, by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate
Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication vide order No.L-42011/16/2000/IR(DU), New
Delhi dated 30.06.2000 with following terms:
“Whether the action of Executive Engineer
(Electrical), Division No.8, Supdt. Engineer (Co-
ordination) Electrical and DG, CPWD, New Delhi in
not regularizing the services of Shri Satbir Singh,
Khalasi, Regn. No.T/8450/89-Pusa S/o Shri Khem
Chand, Shri Jai Inder, EM Operator (On hand receipt)
Regn. No.T/1273/81, S/o Shri Charan Singh Gaur,
Shri Sahi Ram, Khalasi Regn. No.T/1147/Pusa S/o
4056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Kale Ram and Shri Chander Shekhar, Khalasi
S/o Shri Satyavart with effect from 11.08.1986,
04.08.1986, 28.10.1986 and 16.10.1986 respectively is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said
workmen are entitled and from what date?”
2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Satbir
Singh, Shri Jai Inder, Shri Sahi Ram and Shri Chander
Shekhar, pleading therein that they joined as Khalasi/E&M
Operator with the management on hand receipt basis.
Shri Satbir Singh joined on 11.08.1986, Shri Jai Inder joined
on 04.08.1986, Shri Sahi Ram joined on 02.10.1986 and
Shri Chander Shekhar joined on 16.10.1986. Claimants
project that they rendered continuous service for more
than 240 days in almost all calendar years, except the year
1986. No steps were taken by the management to regularize
their services when juniors to them in service were made
regular. Pick and choose policy was adopted by the
management for regularization of services of casual
employees. Fundamental rights, accorded to them under
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, were violated. They
claim that an award may be passed commanding the
management to regularize their services since the date of
their initial engagement(s).
3. Claim was resisted by the management pleading
that the Government has imposed ban on engagement of
casual employee on muster roll/hand receipt basis, vide
order dated 19.11.1985. On account of imposition of that
ban, services of the claimants could not be regularized.
However, it was not disputed by the management that
Shri Satbir Singh was engaged on 11.08.1986, Shri Jai Inder,
on 04.08.1986, Shri Sahi Ram on 02.10.1986 and Shri Chander
Shekhar was engaged on 16.10.1986. It has been pleaded
that the claimants were being paid wages and allowances
equal to regular employees. On account of imposition of
the ban, as aforesaid, their services could not be
regularized. It has been claimed that the dispute raised by
them is not maintainable, hence it may be dismissed.
4. Vide order dated 21.05.2002, the Tribunal ordered,
on application moved by the management, that no fresh
written statement can be filed. However, the Tribunal
opined that the management may file additional written
statement. Pursuant to the said order, additional written
statement was filed by the management on 02.07.2002.
5. As projected above, management was permitted
to plead additional facts than those not pleaded in its
written statement, by way of filing additional written
statement. In its so called additional written statement,
the management tried to take away admissions made in
the written statement relating to the period for which the
claimants had worked with it. These facts cannot be termed
as additional written statement, as permitted by the
Tribunal. Therefore, contents of the additional written
statement cannot be read to adjudicate the controversy.
6. Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR( C II), New Delhi
dated 11.02.2008, the case was transferred to Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, New Delhi, for
adjudication by the appropriate Government. It was
retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order
No.L-42011/16/2000/IR(DU), New Delhi dated 30.03.2011
by the appropriate Government.
7. It would not be out of place to mention here that
the claimant Shri Sahi Ram expired on 09.01.2004 and his
widow, namely, Ms. Sudesh Devi was impleaded in the
matter.
8. To substantiate the claim, Shri Satbir Singh,
Ms. Sudesh Devi, Shri Jai Inder and Shri Chander Shekhar
entered the witness box. To rebut facts presented by the
aforesaid witnesses, Shri Ranbir Singh, Executive Engineer,
testified facts. No other witness was examined by either of
the parties.
9. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B.K. Prasad,
authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf
of the claimants. Shri S.S. Popli, authorized representative,
raised submissions on behalf of the management. I have
given my careful considerations to the arguments
advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records.
My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as
follows:
10. This Tribunal has to try the question of which
parties are at issue and not on those on which they have
agreed. It is settled proposition of law that no proof need
to be given on facts which the parties or their agents agree
to admit at the hearing or which before the hearing, they
agree to admit by writing under their hands or by any
pleadings in force at that time or are deemed to have been
admitted by them. Admission in pleadings stand on a higher
footing than evidentiary admission. Such admissions are
fully binding on the parties that made them and constitute
waiver of proof. They, by themselves, can be made the
foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand,
evidentiary evidence which are receivable at the trial as
evidence are by themselves not conclusive and they can
be shown to be wrong. Law to this effect was laid by the
Apex Court in Nagin Das (AIR 1974 SC 471).
11. As noted above, the management, in its written
statement filed on 09.02.2001, admits the details of work
done by the claimants as correct, as pleaded by them in
para 5 of their claim statement. By this admission, the
management makes it apparent that the claimants worked
continuously for 240 days in every calendar year from
1987 till 1997. Even otherwise, Shri Satbir Singh, Shri Jai
Inder, Shri Chander Shekhar deposed that they worked
continuously with the management since 1986 till 1997.
Ms. Sudesh Devi also deposed that her husband worked
continuously from October 1986 till 2004. Facts unfolded
by these witnesses were not assailed by the management
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4057
when their depositions were purified by an ordeal of cross
examination. Therefore, it is concluded that the claimants
continuously worked for 240 days in every calendar year
with the management from 1986 to 1997.
12. As testified by the claimants, services of
Shri Satbir Singh, Shri Chander Shekhar and Shri Jai Inder
were regularized with effect from 11.12.2006. Shri Sahi
Ram expired on 09.01.2004, as testified by Ms. Sudesh
Devi, his widow. He was granted temporary status with
effect from 01.09.1993. After death of Shri Sahi Ram, death
cum retirement gratuity amount was released in favour of
Ms. Sudesh Devi. She unfolds that services of her
husband were never regularized by the management.
These facts are not in dispute.
13. Claim of the claimants, for regularization of their
services prior to December 2006 have been denounced by
the management. Shri Popli argued that since services of
Shri Satbir Singh, Shri Jai Inder and Shri Chander Shekhar
have been regularized, which action of the management
was not assailed by them, hence it does not lie in their
mouth to assert that they were entitled to regularization of
their services since the date of their initial engagement.
Since Shri Sahi Ram breathed his last in January 2004, he
could not be regularized thereafter. According to Shri Popli,
there was no vacancy for regularization of Shri Sahi Ram
till January 2004. Contra to it, Shri Prasad projects that
Shri Mohd. Zafar, junior to the claimants, was regularized
in December 1994. They have been discriminated and the
management is to be commanded to regularize services of
the claimants from the date when their junior was
regularized.
14. Shri Ranbir Singh unfolds in his affidavit
Ex. MW1/A, tendered as evidence, that Shri Mohd. Zafar
was engaged as khalasi on muster roll on 26.03.1987. It is
not a disputed fact that he was engaged much after the
date(s) when claimants were engaged by the management.
His services were regularized on 29.12.1994, deposed
Shri Ranbir Singh. He explains that Mohd. Zafar was not
engaged on hand receipt basis, hence, claimants were
placed differently than him.
15. Service conditions and recruitment rules in
respect of work charged staff are detailed in Volume III of
CPWD Manual(in short the Manual). Work charged staff
is employed on actual execution of a specific work, sub-
works of specific works etc. Work charged staff is quite
comparable to an employee of regular category. Paragraph
26.01 of Volume III of the Manual details as to how a
muster roll employee can be engaged. It has been detailed
therein that muster roll employee should be engaged only
for seasonal work or on original works done departmentally
and to the barest minimum on a wage notified by the Central
Government/State Government, whichever is higher, from
time to time. An employee engaged on a muster roll is not
a regular Government employee but is a casual employee
engaged on day to day basis. Vacancies of muster roll
should be filled through nominees of the nearest
Employment Exchange unless the Employment Exchange
certifies that they are unable to supply candidates.
Paragraph 23.02 of the Manual makes it apparent that in
certain matters, powers have been delegated to the
Assistant Engineers to employ muster roll labour without
reference to the Employment Exchange.
16. Paragraph 26.03 of the Manual lays down limits
of service and other conditions for muster roll employees,
which are reproduced thus :
26.03 Limits of service and other conditions
(i)
Normally the Muster Roll staff should be
employed on jobs of purely casual nature and for
short durations. However, whenever the work for
which such labour is required is likely to continue
for long period or is of a continuous nature, the
services of Muster Roll labour should not be
dispensed with merely to avoid payment of
retrenchment compensation.
(ii)
The requirement regarding recording of
certificate about the employment not exceeding
90/180 days is done away with. However,
certification regarding engagement of labour on
Government Works and through Employment
Exchange is to be continued.
(iii)
The terminal benefits, if and when admissible
under the statutory rules should be paid to muster
roll employees while terminating their services.
(iv)
The muster roll workers should be paid
compensation under Workmen Compensation
Act, 1923, where admissible.
(v)
The acceptance are otherwise of muster roll
labour and the date of employment and
terminating of services of muster roll labour
should be recorded in the identity card of the
candidate supplied by the Employment
Exchange.
(vi)
Registers and records as required under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Minimum Wages
(Central) Rules 1950 in respect of workers covered
under the Act and Rules should be maintained.
Also wage slips as prescribed under Minimum
Wages (Central) Rules 1950, should be issued to
the worker concerned under the Act.
(vii)
The muster roll labour should not be employed
on overtime work except with prior approval of
the Chief Engineer or D.G.(W). In an extreme
urgency where it is not possible to obtain prior
approval, it should be obtained immediately
thereafter.
4058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(viii)
The muster roll labour should be paid wages as
notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 from
time to time by Central/State Government/Union
Territory, whichever is higher.
(ix)
The muster roll labour should not be appointed
in sensitive places, like Rashtrapati Bhavan,
Parliament House, P.M. House without the
antecedents of the workers having been verified.
(x)
In the Divisional offices, a chronological record
of service of each employee on muster roll should
be maintained in a register indicating clearly date
of appointment, the date of termination of service
etc.
17. Rules relating to engagement of an employee,
on hand receipt basis, nowhere finds place in Volume III of
the Manual. When ban was imposed by the Government
on engagement of an employee on muster roll, vide order
dated 19.11.1985, officers started engaging casual
employees on hand receipt basis. Therefore, engagement
of an employee for day to day casual jobs was made by
the management and a new category was devised, namely,
employee engaged on hand receipt basis. This category
of employees was akin to employees engaged on muster
roll, as is evident from documents, appreciated herein
under. Ex.MW1/5 deals as to how an employee engaged
on muster roll/hand receipt basis would be regularized in
services of the management. Ex.MW1/3, Ex.MW1/4 and
Ex.WW2/M3 are orders issued by the management on the
strength of which services of the aforesaid claimants were
regularized. These documents make it apparent that for
the purpose of regularization of their service, muster roll/
hand receipt employees are treated at par by the
management. Ex.WW1/5 also bring it to light that for the
purpose of regularization, employees engaged on muster
roll are treated at par with the employee engaged on hand
receipt basis. These facts being it to light that the
management treated muster roll employees at par with an
employee engaged on hand receipt basis.
18. Now, on turning to facts, it came to light that
Shri Ranbir Singh concedes that Shri Dinesh Lal joined
services of the management for the first time on 12.08.1986
on hand receipt basis. Services of Shri Dinesh Lal was
regularized with effect from 06.09.1992. As projected
above, Shri Satbir Singh joined on 11.08.1986 while
Shri Jai Inder joined on 04.08.1986. Thus, both of them
were senior to Shri Dinesh Lal. It is emerging over the
record that when services of Shri Dinesh Lal, junior to
Shri Satbir Singh and Shri Jai Inder, was regularized above
claimants were at par with him.
19. Equality before law and equal protection of laws
are fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14
of the Constitution. The guiding principles laid in Article
14 are that persons, who are similarly situated, shall be
treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability
imposed, which means that amongst equals the law should
be equal and should be equally administered and that like
should be treated alike. Article 16 of the Constitution
guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the State. What is guaranteed is the equality
of opportunity. Like all other employers, government is
also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large
number of candidates offering themselves for employment.
But the selection process must not be arbitrary. The
guarantee given by clause (a) of Article 16 of the
Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments (b)
promotions (c) termination of employment (d) and matters
relating to salary, periodical increments, leaves, gratuity,
pension, age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to
employment or appointments include all mattes in relations
to employment both prior and subsequent to the
employment which are incidental to the employment and
form part of the terms and conditions of such employment.
20. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14
forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification
or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of
discretion. Classification is the recognition of the relations,
and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide
latitude of discretion and judgment. In a way, the
consequences of such classification would undoubtedly
be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from
others. The classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or
things that are grouped together from others left out of
the group and the differentia must have a rational relation
to the object sought to be achieved. Classification may be
made according to the nature of persons, nature of
business, and may be based with reference to time.
21. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 of
the Constitution is something more than formal equality
and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share
by having more than equal chance and enables the State
to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving
real equality with reference to social needs. ‘Protection
discrimination’ enabled the State to adopt new strategy to
bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society,
by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to
them. Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential
treatment in the matter relating to employment or
appointment. There cannot be rule of equality between
members of separate and independent group of persons.
Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in
terms of nature of persons, nature of business and with
reference to time.
22. As per facts unfolded by Shri Ranbir Singh,
Shri Dinesh Lal joined services with the management on
hand receipt basis, while Shri Satbir Singh and Shri Jai Inder
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4059
also joined services with the management on hand receipt
basis. Shri Dinesh Lal joined on 12.08.1986, while Shri Jai
Inder and Shri Satbir Singh joined on 04.08.1986 and
11.08.1986 respectively. Both of them were on that very
pedestal on which Shri Dinesh Lal was on the date when
services of the latter were regularized. Therefore, their
cases are identical to the case of Shri Dinesh Lal. All of
them are in the same bracket. It cannot be said that there
were disparity in facts and circumstances of the case of
Shri Dinesh Lal on one hand and Shri Satbir Singh and
Shri Jai Inder on the other.
23. Can management be permitted to discard seniors
and regularize services of a junior? Answer lies in negative.
In Bal Kishan [1990 (I) LLJ 61] the Apex Court announced
that no junior shall be confirmed or promoted without
considering the case of his senior. The observations made
by the Apex Court are reproduced thus :
“In service, there could be only one norm for
conferment or promotion of persons belonging to
the same cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or
promoted without considering the case of his senior.
Any deviation from this principle will have
demoralizing effect in service apart from their being
contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution.”
24. In view of the above facts and law, it is evident
that Shri Satbir Singh and Shri Jai Inder were not persons
of different category than the one in which Shri Dinesh
Lal was. They cannot be treated differently. Steps of the
management in ignoring them in the matter of their
regularization are uncalled for and arbitrary. Resultantly,
the management is commanded to regularize services of
Shri Satbir Singh and Shri Jai Inder with effect from the
same date on which Shri Dinesh Lal was regularized. In
case of no vacancy, supernumerary posts be created and
their services be regularized with effect form 06.09.1992,
with all consequential benefits.
25. As noted above, employees engaged on muster
roll/hand receipt basis are casual employees and treated
at par by the management in the matter of regularization of
their services. Hence it does not lie in the mouth of the
management to claim that Shri Mohd. Zafar was placed
differently than Shri Sahi Ram and Shri Chander Shekhar
were placed, relating to their status in service. They would
be regularized in service by the management with effect
from 29.12.1994, the date on which Shri Mohd. Zafar was
regularized. In case of no vacancy for them too,
supernumerary posts be created and their services be
regularized with effect from 29.12.1994 with all
consequential benefits. An award is, accordingly, passed.
It be sent to the appropriate Government.
Dr. R.K.YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated : 28.04.2014
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1534-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
fMikVZesaV vkWiQ iksLV~l] nkftZfyax fMohtu ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@38@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014
S.O. 1534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 09 of
2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Department of Posts, Darjeeling
Division and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 07/05/2014.
[No. L-40012/38/2009-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 09 of 2010
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of D/o
Posts, Darjeeling Division
A N D
Their workmen.
PRESENT :
Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCE :
On behalf of the
: None
Management
On behalf of the
: None
Workmen
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Port & Dock.
Dated: 24th April, 2014
AWARD
By Order No.L-40012/38/2009-IR(DU) dated
24.06.2009 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
4060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of
the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Head
Post Office, Siliguri, in terminating the services of
Shri Chandan Roy, w.e.f. 28/08/2008 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?”
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing,
none appears on behalf of either of parties. It appears
from the record that on the last date, i.e., on 19.03.2014
none appeared on behalf of the workman. Considering the
above facts and circumstances and the conduct of the
union it may reasonably be presumed that the union/
workman is not interested to proceed with the instant
reference case further. Perhaps the workman has no
grievance against the management at present.
3. Considering the above facts and circumstances,
instant reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute
Award”.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 24th April, 2014.
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1535-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j uks,Mk lsaVªy fMohtu lhihMCY;wMh ds izcaèkra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&1] fnYYkh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 201@2012) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@73@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014
S.O. 1535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 201/
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the Executive Engineer Noida Central
Division, CPWD and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 07/05/2014.
[No. L-42012/73/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
COURT NO. I KARKARDOOMA COURTS
COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 201/2012
The General Secretary,
All India CPWD (MRM)
Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.),
No.4823, Gali No.13,
Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdara, New Delhi – 110032
....Workman
Versus
The Executive Engineer,
Noida Central Division, CPWD,
I.P. Bhawan, New Delhi.
. . . Management
AWARD
One Shri Shiv Nandan was engaged by Central
Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the
management) on muster roll with effect from 1985 purely
on temporary basis. He was granted temporary status
with effect from 01.09.1993. His services were regularized
by the management on 14.08.1995, on which date he gave
his joining report. However he could not get a medical
fitness certificate and expired on 20.08.1995. Despite
request of his widow, the management opted not to grant
family pension in her favour. She approached the All India
CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (in short the union)
for redressal of her grievance. The Sangh raised a dispute
before the Conciliation Officer, who entered into
conciliation proceedings. Since the management
contested the claim, 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-42012/73/2012-IR(DU), New Delhi dated
03.12.2012, with following terms:
“Whether the action of the management of Central
Public Works Department (CPWD) Central Division,
CPWD IP Bhawan, New Delhi in not granting the
‘Family Pension’ to Smt. Asha Devi, wife of late
Shri Shiv Nandan, Beldar (although he joined as
regular beldar with effect from 14.08.1995(A/N) and
unfortunately died on 20.08.1995) is justified or not?
If not, what relief the Smt. Asha Devi W/o late
Shri Shiv Nandan is entitled to and from which date?”
2. Claim statement was filed by Smt. Asha Devi,
widow of late Shri Shiv Nandan pleading that Shri Shiv
Nandan joined services of the management as beldar on
muster roll on 07.05.1985. He worked continuously for 240
days in each year from the date of his employment till his
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4061
regularization on 14.08.1995. The claimant pleads that as
per judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Surender Singh and others vs. CPWD, the management
issued order dated 25.08.1988 for regularization of such
workmen within six months. It was also desired that
necessary trade test, medical check up etc., whichever is
applicable, be conducted at the time of regularizing services
of eligible workmen so that necessary appointment letter
could be issued to them. Name of Shri Shiv Nandan
appeared in the said list. An appointment letter was issued
in his favour on 14.08.1995 and he joined duties on the
same day. However, he was not referred for medical
examination by the management even after his joining.
Immediately after joining duties, he fell ill and unfortunately
met his death on 20.08.1995. While calculating terminal
benefits, the management failed to consider service of
Shri Shiv Nandan, rendered on muster roll with effect from
07.05.1985 to 31.08.1993. His legal heirs approached the
Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, who vide
order dated – directed the management for payment of
gratuity, with interest. Payment was made by the
management in that regard. Shri Shiv Nandan fulfilled the
eligibility criteria for grant of family pension. Smt. Asha
Devi claims that family pension may be granted to her,
including terminal benefits.
3. In the counter, the management projects that
Shri Shiv Nandan was engaged as beldar on muster roll
with effect from 07.05.1995 purely on temporary basis. He
was granted temporary status on 01.09.1993 and he worked
as such till 14.08.1995. Considering his earlier services as
beldar, an appointment letter was issued on 14.08.1995 on
temporary basis in work charged staff for the post of beldar,
subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. After submitting
his joining report on 14.08.1995(A/N) he was admitted to
Dayal Hospital & Maternity Centre, Sector 3, Rohini, New
Delhi. He lapsed into deep coma and finally expired on
20.08.1995. There were various conditions stipulated in
the appointment letter, which were to be fulfilled before
joining regular service. His appointment was to be treated
as ineffective without fulfilling those conditions. Shri Shiv
Nandan could not fulfil those conditions and his
appointment remained ineffective. Above facts were
conveyed to Smt. Asha Devi, his widow. Smt. Asha Devi
was appointed as beldar on compassionate grounds in
Ghaziabad Central Division, CPWD, Hindon. Gratuity
amount was calculated for muster roll period only and not
for so called regular service.
4. The management pleads that Shri Shiv Nandan
was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for grant of family
pension. He had not completed the essential condition,
contained in his appointment letter, hence his service
could not be treated as regular service. The claim statement
may be discarded being devoid of merits, pleads the
management.
5. The claimant examined herself to substantiate her
claim. Shri D.B. Gupta was examined on behalf of
management.
6. 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. 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:-
7. As brought over the record by the management,
Shri Shiv Nandan was working as beldar on muster roll on
temporary basis. He was working on casual basis with
effect from 01.09.1993. He was converted to work charged
staff (beldar) on 14.08.1995. He expired on 20.08.1995.
Shri D.B.Gupta deposes that requisite formalities, as
specified in the appointment letter, were not completed by
late Shri Shiv Nandan. His appointment remained ineffective,
hence his widow is not entitled to family pension.
8. In appointment letter Ex.WW1/6, there are
various service conditions, which were to be fulfilled by
Shri Shiv Nandan before joining regular service. When
appointment letter Ex.WW1/6 is scanned, it came to light
that Shri Shiv Nandan had to fulfil certain conditions before
being absorbed in regular service. The following
conditions, in addition to others, were to be complied
with :
Condition No.7 : Prior to his appointment, he is to
submit a character certificate on the prescribed
format, duly attested by a first class magistrate,
District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Condition No.16 : His appointment shall be
temporary, subject to production of medical fitness
certificate.
Condition No.28 : Formal appointment order shall
be issued on completion of all conditions stipulated
in the appointment letter.
Condition No. 29: His appointment shall be
temporary till he submits medical fitness certificate.
Police verification certifying his character, is to be
submitted.
9. Smt.Asha Devi could not dispel the facts testified
by Shri Gupta. She herself proved appointment letter
Ex.WW1/6. It is not her case that her husband was
medically examined and thereafter, he submitted his joining
report on 14.5.1995. She could not make out a case to the
effect that above conditions were fulfilled by her husband,
namely, Shri Shiv Nandan. When facts testified by
Shri Gupta and these detailed by the claimant are
appreciated it became evident that aforesaid conditions,
laid down in appointment latter Ex.WW1/6, were not
4062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fulfilled by Shri Shiv Nandan. Shri Shiv Nandan did not
acquire status as a regular employee, since conditions,
referred above, were not fulfilled by him. He submitted his
joining report in the afternoon of 14.08.1995 and thereafter
on the same day was hospitalized, where he breathed his
last after six days, on 20.08.1995.
10. Question for consideration would be as to
whether Smt. Asha Devi is entitled to family pension?
Family pension is granted to the family of a Government
service in the event of his death while in service or after
retirement. Family Pension Scheme 1964 was introduced
with effect from 01.01.1964. As per the Scheme, in the event
of death of a Government servant while in service or after
retirement, his family will get family pension if-
(i)
In the case of death while in service-
(a)
He has completed a minimum period of one
years’ service; or
(b)
He had been medically examined and found fit
for appointment in Government service when
his death occurred before completion of one
years’ service.
(ii)
In case of death after retirement-
He was on the date of death in receipt of pension
or compassionate allowance.
11. Family pension is payable to the family of the
deceased Government servant/pensioner. In the scheme,
family has been defined to mean—
(i)
Wife (whether marriage took place before or after
retirement in the case of male Government servant,
(ii)
Husband (whether marriage took place before or
after retirement) in the case of female Government
service,
(iii)
Unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughters (born
before or after retirement) who have not attained
the age of 25 years.
(iv)
Widowed daughters/divorced daughter (born
before or after retirement) without any age
restriction.
(v)
Parents who were wholly dependent on the
Government servant when he was alive, provided
that the deceased Government servant had left
behind neither the widow/widower nor an eligible
son or daughter or a widowed/divorced daughter
and that the earnings of the parents is not more
than Rs.3500.00 per month.
Unmarried son(s) below the age of 25 years or
married daughter below the age of 25 years include such
sons and daughters adopted before or after retirement.
Wife or husband shall include respectively judicially
separated wife and husband.
12. From January, 2006, period for which family
pension is payable is as follows :
(i)
In the case of childless widow, for life or till her
independent income from all sources becomes
equal to Rs.3500.00 per month or more, i.e. even
after remarriage.
(ii)
In the case of widow with child (ren) or widower
upto to the date of death or remarriage, whichever
is earlier.
(iii)
In the case of unmarried son/unmarried daughter,
until he/she attains age of 25 years or upto to the
date of his/her marriage or till the date from which
her/his income becomes equal to Rs.3500.00 or
more per month.
(iv)
In the case of widow (including widowed/
disabled) /divorced daughter(s) (including
disabled) for life up to the date of her remarriage
or till the date his/her income becomes equal to
Rs.3500.00 or more per month, or death, whichever
is earlier. Such daughter shall not be required to
come back to her parental home.
(v)
In the case of wholly dependent parents (till his/
her death).
13. When facts of the present controversy are
gauged through provisions of the scheme referred above,
it came to light that Shri Shiv Nandan never rendered
service on a civil post. Therefore, his widow is not entitled
to any relief of family pension under the scheme. All these
aspects make it clear that action of the management in
denying family pension to Smt.Asha Devi with all
consequential benefits is legal and justified. Smt. Asha
Devi is not entitled to any family pension. An award is,
accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication.
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated : April 28, 2014
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1536-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
eSustesaV vkWiQ ch,l,u,y fMczqx<+ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 08@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 07@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@112@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4063
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2014
S.O. 1536.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 08 of
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the BSNL, Dibrugarh and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 07/05/2014.
[No. L-40012/112/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,
ASSAM
PRESENT :
Shri L.C.Dey, M.A., LL.B.
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
Ref. Case No.08 of 2011
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-
The Management of BSNL, Dibrugarh.
-Vrs-
Their Workman Shri Rantu Rajkonwar, Dibrugarh.
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman.
: Mr. S. K. Barkataki,
Advocate
Ms. B. Sarma, Advocate
For the Management. : Mr. B. C. Pathak, Advocate
Date of Award: 30.04.2014
AWARD
1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial
Dispute raised between the employer in relation to the
Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short
BSNL), Dibrugarh, and their workman, which was referred
by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi
vide their order No. L-40012/112/2010-IR(DU) dated
05.05.2011. The Schedule of this Reference is as under.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Dibrugarh represented by the
General Manager, BSNL, Dibrugarh, terminating the
Services of Shri Rantu Rajkonwar w.e.f. May, 2009,
is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the order of Reference, this
Reference case has been registered and notices were
served upon both the parties. Accordingly the workman
and the Management appeared and submitted their claim
statement/written statement respectively.
3. The case of the workman as it revealed from the
Claim Statement submitted by him, in brief, is that the
workman was in continuous service under BSNL,
Dibrugarh since 2005 to May, 2009 at a monthly payment
of Rs. 2500, and suddenly he was terminated without
serving any notice or assigning any reason whatsoever
from the end of the BSNL, Dibrugarh. Thereafter, the
workman raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh, who after receiving the
written complaint from the workman notified the same to
the Manager, BSNL, Dibrugarh asking to file written
comment on the said complaint while the BSNL, Dibrugarh
submitted written comment before the ALC(C), Dibrugarh
stating therein, amongst other irrelevant things, that the
workman was working under a contractor on contract basis
but they could not prove in any manner whatsoever that
the workman was working under any contractor or that he
was a temporary worker. In the mean time the workman
was given chance by the ALC (C), to submit Addl. W.S. in
support of his claim while the workman applied for official
information regarding his service in the BSNL under the
R.T.I. Act but the same was refused by the BSNL. During
conciliation proceeding the ALC(C), Dibrugarh tried to
settle the dispute amicably but failed. Ultimately this
dispute was referred to by the Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi to this Tribunal. The workman stated that due to the
illegal termination from his service he suffered irreparable
loss and economic hardship; and unless appropriate
adjudication is made after taking into account all the
relevant documents submitted by him along with his claim
statement considering all the aspects including the
workman’s age, qualification, length of service and
humanitarian ground, the workman will suffer grate loss
and injustice.
The workman by filing additional written statement
mentioned that he entered the job as Data Entry Worker in
BSNL, Telephone Mobile and others since January,2006
and initially he was paid for Rs. 1500 per month and for the
next one and half year he received Rs. 2000 per month and
it was increased to Rs. 2,500 for a period of 16 month
during his service under SDE (mobile), Dibrugarh and all
on a sudden he was terminated from his service on 31.03.09.
He also mentioned that he obtained certificate from the
Divisional Engineer(mobile), GMTT, BSNL Dibrugarh
confirming his employment. The workman stated that he
worked under BSNL, Dibrugarh in various capacities with
such a meager payment anticipating that his job would be
regularized. It is also mentioned that the Management
appeared before the ALC (C), Dibrugarh and submitted
their written statement along with voluminous documents
4064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
relating to appointment of contractors and execution of
work has nothing to do with the appointment and
termination of the present workman since the workman
was not appointed by any contractor. He further pleaded
that the management could not place a single document
to rebut the claim of the workman regarding his service as
stated above. The workman also stated that it was the
duty of the Management to submit the attendance records
and all alike documents regarding service rendered by
the workman and suppression of which will give rise to
serious complexities and also to ascertain the certificate
concerned which is a manufactured one or not. Hence, the
workman prayed for passing award directing reinstatement
of the workman with back wages along with compensation
to the extent of Rs.5,00,000.
4. The Management, on the other hand, contested
the proceeding by filing written statement stating, inter-
alia, that the BSNL is a Corporation of the Government of
India and a Government Company registered under
Companies Act having its head office at Bharat Sanchar
Bhawan, New Delhi-1 and the Management is a State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and the Government of India is having a direct and
pervasive control over the finance, administration and
constitution of the Board of Directors of the said
Corporation. It is stated that the workman being a contract
labourer engaged by the contractor should have
impleaded the contractor as his immediate employer, and
hence the reference with the schedule appended is not
maintainable in this Forum for proper adjudication of the
matter and as such, it is liable to be answered against the
workman.
The Management averred that considering the
increase in works of contingent nature, it decided to get
the work done through the contractor by tender system
and accordingly the Management floated tender by issuing
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 22.12.2006 for the work of
Data Feeding and record creation in computer in various
offices of Telecom District, BSNL, Dibrugarh. The said
bids were opened on 16.1.2007 by the Tender Opening
Committee where as many as six contractors participated
but the said NIT was cancelled. Thereafter another NIT
was issued on 29.9.2007 for the similar works and on similar
terms and conditions for getting the works to be done
through the contractor with the price fixed for each and
every item against the said NIT. As many as six contractors
participated and they were recommended by the Technical
Evaluation Committee . Accordingly agreement was
executed on 2.1.2008 with the contractors namely M/S H.I.
Electrical, Dibrugarh, Electro Power Associates, Dibrugarh,
R.M. Enterprise, Dibrugarh, Data Com Computer Services,
Dibrugarh, S.M. Electrical, Dibrugarh and R.K.Traders,
Dibrugarh. During the period of operation of work order,
certain modification of works order were made mutually
and all the 6 contractors were accordingly intimated the
modification vide letter dated 28.7.2008. Again NIT was
issued on 21.11.2008 for Data Feeding and record creation
in computer for the Management while the contractors
namely Elector Power Associates, R.K. Traders, Data Com
Computer Services, H.I. Electricals and Data Computech
were found qualified. Accordingly the work order was
issued on those five contractors on 21.8.2009. It is also
mentioned that the Corporate Office of BSNL vide their
Circular letter dated 28.8.2008 made it clear that the
contractor is the immediate employer of the contract
labourer though BSNL is the principal employer. In any
dispute, the contractor is the main person to be involved
for redressal of such dispute and he is to be impleaded.
The Management further stated that on receipt of a notice
from the ALC (C), Dibrugarh along with the documents
appeared before the ALC(C), Dibrugarh and submitted the
written statement; and in this connection a conciliation
was held but it failed.
It is also pointed out by the Management that the
workman along with his written statement submitted a copy
of certificate allegedly issued by one Sri Ambika Deori,
SDE (Phones), Dibrugarh, BSNL on 24.8.2007 and one
Sri Kanak Saikia of BSNL, Tinsukia by certifying the
workman to be working in BSNL Tower appeared from
February,2009 to June, 2009 and as a helper under
contractor for underground cable work. Thereafter, the
Management issued show cause notice upon the said 2
officers who alleged to have issued the certificate. While
the Officers concerned namely Ambika Deori and Kanak
Saikia explained that they never issued any such
certificate. Thereafter the Management with their all
sincerity and promptness tried to find out if there was any
evidence available in support or against the workman, at
least if there was any evidence with the contractor, the
Management issued letter to such contractors seeking
details of the workmen, if any, were engaged by them for
Date Entry and record creation in computer as per contract
agreement but none of the contractors did response to
the said letter except M/S Electro Power Associates who
stated in writing that they have no any details of record of
manpower who were entrusted to carry out the work of
Data Feeding and Record Creation.
The Management pleaded further that the contention
of the workman that he was engaged in BSNL Tower for
other subsidiary works by the BSNL authority under the
jurisdiction of SDE(Mobile) since 2005 and he continued
to work upto May, 2009; and that the workman was paid
Rs.2500 per month; and that the workman was terminated
suddenly from the service without any reason verbally
are not true. The Management also added that the workman
was waiting for regular absorption by the BSNL is also a
wild claim as he can not claim for regularization unless he
fulfilled certain criteria. Further where a workman is hired
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4065
in or in connection with the work of a establishment to
produce a given result or the contractor supplies workman
for any work of the establishment unless the contactor is
a mere camouflage, the workman cannot be treated as an
employee of the principal employer.
The Management by filing additional W.S. mentioned
that the claim of the workman that he entered into the job
as Data Entry worker in BSNL since January, 2006 is totally
false and baseless as a workman or an employee can not
enter into a job unless he is duly selected and appointed
by the employer through process of procedural law but
the workman has failed to show any advertisement,
requisition made through the employment exchange or
any vacancy under the management. The management
further stated that the workman cannot claim any benefit
under the I.D.Act, 1947 unless he can show on record/
evidence that he has completed 240 days in engagement
in any twelve calendar months proceeding to his
retrenchment and it is the duty of the workman to prove
this contention precedent that he has completed 240 days
in service during preceding 12 calendar months during
the date of his retrenchment. Hence, the management
prayed for rejecting the claim of the workman and to answer
the issue raised in the schedule of reference in affirmative.
5. The workman in order to establish his case
examined himself alone as W.W.1, while the management
in order to justify their pleadings examined three witnesses.
Let me examine the evidence of the witnesses adduced by
both the sides.
6. The workman witness Sri Rantu Rajkonwar
(W.W.1) in his deposition mentioned that he had entered
the job as Data Entry worker in BSNL, Telephone Mobile
since the month of January, 2006 on monthly payment
initially at Rs.1500 per month and for the next one and half
year @ 2,000 per month and it was increased to Rs.2,500
for a period of 16 months but suddenly he was terminated
on 31.3.2009 without assigning any reason. The workman
along with some other co-workers while discharging their
duties under the Divisional Engineer Mobile, GMT, BSNL,
Dibrugarh issued a certificate on 29.12.2007 confirming
their employment which he produced before the Court. He
also mentioned that he worked under the BSNL, Dibrugarh
in the capacity of Data Entry against which the workman
got his remuneration and inspite of getting law payment
he did not agitate as he was anticipating that his job would
be regularized; and he has no adverse record in his service
as he was sincere worker. After his termination he knocked
the door of the Labour Commissioner (Central), Dibrugarh
demanding his service to be reinstated, and raised this
dispute. The management did not submit any document
while the workman along with other co-workers tried to
get the documents by filing application under RTI but on
different pretext the matter has been delayed and there
was no sign of giving any documents. Later on the
management submitted the written statement and
voluminous documents before the learned Tribunal at
Dibrugarh and all the documents relate to contract work
and execution of the same with some contractors. The
Management stated that the workman was engaged
through the contractor and mentioned the name of a
number of contractors to whom they had given contract
but due to fertile exercise of the Management the
conciliation proceeding failed. The workman categorically
mentioned that he was never appointed by any contractor,
whereas the certificate dated 29.12.2007 were issued by
the Divisional Engineer Mobile GMT, BSNL certifying that
the workman have been engaged in Data Entry work in the
BSNL, Telephone and other since January, 2006 on
contractual basis. He also mentioned that the management
issued a show cause notice against the concerned officer
who retired from service asking explanation for issuing
certificate and in this way the management wants to brand
the certificate dated 29.09.2007 to be a manufactured one
thus it leads an expert opinion like hand writing expert in
order to break the service. The workman also said that the
Management could not place a single document to rebut
his claim regarding his service, on the contrary, the
management has placed a big hip of documents relating to
the execution of contracts by contractors. He also added
that it was the duty of the Management to submit the
Attendance, all allied documents regarding service
rendered by the workman; and suppression of which will
give rise to serious complexities and also to ascertain the
certificate which is a manufactured one or not. Hence, the
workman prayed for passing award for his reinstatement
with backwages and to pass an order for paying
compensation to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000.
During his cross-examination he stated that he was
engaged by the management as Data Entry Operator under
the management and was paid Rs. 1500 for about 4 months
and thereafter @ Rs. 2000 for about one year and @
Rs. 2500 for about 2 and half an years but he mentioned
that he has not got any written documents regarding his
appointment. He also said that he could not say the name
of the Divisional Engineer, Mobile, GMT, BSNL, Dibrugarh
who issued him certificate confirming his employment nor
could he produce any certificate in that behalf nor could
he say that whether he mentioned the date of issue of
certificate in his evidence on Affidavit-in-chief. He again
said that he was dis-engaged on 31.5.2009 but no dismissal/
disengagement letter was issued, one of the engineer came
to office and told him that his work was no more required
from following day. He also said that he could not produce
any document to show that he worked under the
management for 240 days or more continuously proceeding
to his dis-engagement but he categorically denied the
suggestion that he was engaged by a contractor for
performing the Data Entry Works and that the question of
issuing appointment letter as well as discharged letter does
4066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
not arise. The workman witness No.1 again mentioned
that the date of issue of the alleged certificate issued by
the Divisional Engineer, Mobile was issued on 29.12.2007
as he mentioned in his evidence-in-chief wrongly, which
should have been 29.9.2007. He also confirmed that he
has not submitted any certificate issued by the Divisional
Engineer, Mobile on 29.9.2007.
The Management witness Sri Ambika Deouri (MW.1)
who retired as SDO, North Dibrugarh Secondary Switching
Area (SSA) under BSNL, in his evidence stated in the
instant reference the workman has relied upon a certificate
allegedly issued by him to the effect that he was appointed
in the BSNL for Data Entry work for a particular period,
allegedly issued by him (MW.1); and on receipt of such
averment from the claimant the management made an
enquiry and discovered two photo copies of the certificates
one allegedly issued by him against the workman and
another allegedly issued by Sri Kanak Saikia in favour of
the workman. Then the show cause notice was issued by
the Management on 6.7.2011 asking him to show cause
under what circumstances the alleged certificates were
issued. Accordingly, he submitted a reply expressing his
denial and mentioned that the workman approached during
the month of December, 2008 and January, 2009 with
request for providing him against any type of casual works
under his control and supervision but he refused the
workman. He also mentioned in his report that there was
no provision for such work and he never issued any
certificate to the workman regarding his working in the
department in any period as alleged. He also stated that in
his reply he mentioned that if any certificate issued against
his name is totally false and fake. He has proved the notice
issued by the management vide Exhibit-A and his reply to
the said notice vide Exhibit-B. He further mentioned that
he did not know the workman prior to the appearance of
the workman before him seeking job. During his cross-
examination the MW.1 mentioned that he has been working
as SDO Phone at Dibrugarh since 2004 till the date of his
deposition but he did not know how & who had issued
the alleged certificate regarding engagement of the
workman. He also said that since he did not issue the
alleged certificate he did not consult the record of the
office, nor could he say from where the management have
received the copy of the alleged certificate enclosed with
Exhibit-A. It is also mentioned in his cross-examination
that the Attendance Register in respect of regular staff for
his office is being maintained and as they did not engage
any causal or temporary worker for which the question of
maintaining the Attendance Register for the casual/
temporary workers does not arise. The MW.1 denied the
suggestion tendered by the defence that there are separate
Register maintained by the management for regular staff
and casual/temporary workers. The Management witness
No.2, Mr. Konak Saikia, retired SDE, Cable, BSNL made
similar statement in course of his deposition that he did
not know the workman Rantu Rajkanwar, and he received
a show cause notice from the management vide Exhibit-C
wherein he was asked to submit the reply on the question
whether he issued any certificate in favour of the workman
during his tenure. On receipt of the show cause notice
(Exhibit-C) he submitted his reply stating that he did not
know the workman Rantu Rajkanwar nor did he issue any
certificate in favour of the workman vide Exhibit-D. He
also mentioned that he has no knowledge about the
reference. In course of his cross-examination he mentioned
that he had been working at Dibrugarh only for six months
with effect from March, 2008 to August, 2009 for which he
did not know who issued the certificate to the workman.
The Management witness No.3 Mr. Dimbeswar
Sonowal stated that he has been working as SDE (legal),
Office of the General Manager, Telephone, Dibrugarh since
18.2.2013 and prior to that date he was working as SDE
Administration under Dibrugarh District since Septemebr,
2009. He mentioned that he has gone through the record
and came to know that his predecessor Mr. Rajib Dutta
submitted the W.S. in this reference and he himself
submitted the additional W.S., but he do not know the
workman Rantu Rajkanwar nor could say whether the
workman worked under BSNL, Dibrugarh District. He also
said that he represented the management before the ALC
(C),Guwahati for the conciliation held regarding the matter
wherein he categorically mentioned that the workman was
not a worker under BSNL at any point of time. He added
that from 22.12.2006 to 21.11.2008 the management of BSNL
issued tender for work of Data Feeding and creation of
record etc. for the Dibrugarh Secondary Switching Area
and in response to those tender different contractors
submitted their tenders and the works for the purpose
was allotted to them issuing work order accordingly but
they did not maintain any record of the worker/labourer
engaged by the said contractor for the aforesaid works.
He also mentioned that after filing of this reference they
issued letters to the selected contractor for furnishing the
information regarding the name and other particulars in
respect of the manpower engaged by them on contractual
basis while the only contractor namely M/S Electro Power
Associates submitted their reply stating that they did not
maintain any record in respect of the workers engaged in
Data Feeding and Record creation works, but no other
contractors replied to the letter issued by the management.
The MW.3 further mentioned that there is no record
maintained by the management in respect of the casual
workers/contractual workers if the management engaged
at any point of time. He said as the workman was not a
worker under BSNL and he has made his claim without
any basis or genuine cause and hence, the workman is
not entitled to any benefit and is liable to be dismissed. In
his cross-examination the MW.3 mentioned that on his
transfer to Dimapur in the year 2009 he was posted SDE
and for a few days he was In-Charge SDE(Legal) but he
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4067
has not brought any record in this regard. He also
mentioned that he has been authorized to depose in this
case and to conduct the proceeding but he has not
produced any document regarding authorization by the
Management to conduct the case. He further stated that
although except M/S Electro Power Associates, the other
contractors did not submit the reply to their letter asking
the particulars of the manpower, the Management did not
issue any reminder to the said defaulting contractors. He
categorically mentioned that no Register in respect of Data
Entry workers was maintained by the management till date.
He also confirmed that he did not know the workman nor
had any knowledge whether the workman worked as Data
Entry Operator. He further mentioned that he had no
knowledge regarding the alleged certificate issued by
G.P.Chetia nor did he find any record in respect of the
alleged certificate. He categorically denied the suggestion
advanced by the learned Advocate for the workman that
the workman Rantu Rajkanwar was serving as Data Entry
Operator in BSNL, Dibrugarh since 2005 to May,2009.
7. I have perused the entire Case Record along with
the evidence adduced by both the sides as discussed
above. I have also heard arguments from both the sides
and perused the written arguments submitted by the
Learned Advocates for the workman and the Management.
During argument Mr. S. K. Barkataki, Learned
Advocate for the workman submitted that the workman
was engaged by the BSNL as Data Entry Operator without
issuing any appointment letter and served for a period of
about 4 years getting monthly salary @ Rs.2500/- per
month, and he was discharged illegally without service
any notice. He also mentioned that the plea of the
management that did neither appointed the workman
directly nor through any contractor but it is a fact that the
management got the work of Data Entry and Record
Creation work through the manpower engaged by the
contractors, and as such, it is the duty of the management
to produce all the relevant documents in connection with
the contract works such as Attendance Register, Pay Bill
Register, The allocation of works Register, etc., rather the
management produced a hip of documents before this
Tribunal relating to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) etc. Thus
the management has failed to justify their plea. Mr.
Barkataki also mentioned that the Management issued a
certificate showing that the workman worked under BSNL
during the relevant period but the management issued
show cause notice to Sri Ambika Deuri, SDE Phone and
Sri Konak Saikia, retired SDO, Phone who stated that the
said certificates were false and manipulated; but the
management did not make any further enquiry into the
matter in order to save their own skin. Thus the
management could not place a single piece of document
(such as Attendance Register, Wages and leave Register,
allocation of work Register,etc) to support their defence
and to rebut the claim of the workman since it is their duty
to rebut producing their own documents to which the
workman has no access. Mr. Barkataki, Learned Advocate
for the workman also said that the workman has been
successfully able to prove his case in support of his
engagement.
8. Mr. B.C.Pathak, Learned Advocate for the
management on the other hand, submitted that the
workman was never engaged by the management and if he
was a contract labour engaged by the contractor at all he
should implead contractor as his immediate employer.
Further the management is a Corporation of Government
of India and a Government Company incorporated under
Company’s Act, 1956 and it is a State within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such, it
has got its own policy and rules regarding appointment of
the officer, staff and workman and statutory formalities
are required to be fulfilled before taking any step for
appointment of manpower in the BSNL. The workman
although averred that he was engaged by the BSNL on
contractual basis, he has failed to produce any document
to the effect that he was appointed by the BSNL and that
he was paid monthly salary etc. He further mentioned that
the BSNL during the period from 2006 to 2009 flouted
tender by issuing NIT for the works of the Data Feeding
and Record Creation in computer in various offices of
Telecom Office, BSNL, Dibrugarh. In response to the NIT
issued from time to time during the aforesaid period, the
contractors namely S.M. Electricals, Dibrugarh, Date
Computech, Dibrugarh, R.M. Enterpirse, Dibrugarh, Dta
Com. Computer Services, Dibrugarh, H.I. Electricals,
Dibrugarh, R.K.Traders, Dibrugarh and Electro Power
Associate, Dibrugarh submitted their quotations and the
works were allotted to them accordingly after scrutiny and
acceptance of their quotations by the appropriate authority
but the management did not maintain any record regarding
the manpower engaged by the said contractors. He also
added that on receipt of the notice of this reference the
management issued letter asking the contractors for
submission of the particulars regarding the manpower
engaged by them in order to ascertain whether the workmen
worked actually in the BSNL under any contractor but
none of the contractors submitted their replies except
M/s. Electro Power Associates which also replied that they
have no any details of record of the manpower entrusted
to carry out the Data Entry and Record Creation in
computer. Mr. Pathak also submitted that if the workman
served as labourer under contractor there is no direct
relationship between the workman and the principal
employer i.e. the management and the relationship between
the workman and the principal employer comes to an end
on expiry of the contract as such, the workman has no
right to claim that he was a employee of BSNL directly. Mr.
Pathak, Learned Advocate in order to justify his argument
referred the decision held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National Union
4068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Waterfront Workers & Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 that
the contract labour has no right to claim regularization
service. Similar views are held by another Constitutional
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State
of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4
SCC 1. Mr. Pathak also relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors.
Vs. Somvir Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 493. Wherein it
was held that anybody which falls within the definition of
State under Article 12 is bound to comply with the
Constitutional requirement as enshrined in Articles 14 and
16, when recruitment rules are made employer are bound
to comply with the same; and any appointment in violation
of such rules would render such appointment in nullity.
Thus the workman has miserably failed to establish his
plea as regards his engagement by the BSNL as he failed
to prove that he was engaged by the BSNL observing the
statutory formalities as well as the departmental rules.
Hence, the Learned Advocate for the management
submitted that the claim of the workman is liable to be
rejected and the reference is to be answered in favour of
the management.
9. From the evidence on record it appears that the
claim of the workman that he had been in continuous
service on Dibrugarh, BSNL since 2005 to 2009 but he
could not show a single piece of papers or any other
supporting evidence in support of his contention as to
his engagement in the BSNL Dibrugarh on contractual
basis and the discharging of his duties for such a long
period from 2005 to 2009 except two purported certificates
alleged to have been issued by Mr. Ambika Deouri, the
then SDO, Phone, Dibrugarh and Kanak Saikia, (retired)
Cable, BSNL, Dibrugarh but the workman being the
custodian of the said 2 certificates, did not produce and
proved the said two certificates before the Court although
he relied upon these two documents as it appears from
both the pleadings and the evidence of the workman on
record. The Management, on the other hand, on receipt of
the said two purported certificates alleged to have been
issued by Ambika Deouri and Konak Saikia made an
enquiry asking explanation from the said two officers of
BSNL and in their explanation both Sri Ambika Deouri and
Kanak Saikai categorically denied that they issued the
purported certificate to the workman and this contention
of the management is found well established before this
Tribunal. On scrutiny of the purported certificate allegedly
issued by Sri Ambika Deouri and Kanak Saikai who
produced a copy of the said certificate along with his
reply to his show cause issued by the management vide
Exhibit-A. On scrutiny of the Xerox copy of the alleged
certificate it appears that the certificate was issued in favour
of the workman by one signatory i.e. SDO, Phone, BSNL
Dibrugarh in a plain paper without having any mention of
office memo, showing the workman had been working as
helper of BSNL Telephone line maintenance work for 5
months from February, 2009 to June, 2009 but this
document has not been proved producing the same before
the court by the workman. Another purported certificate
alleged to have been issued in favour of Rantu Rajkanwar
by Sri Kanak Saikia who produced a copy of the same
along with his reply to the show cause vide Exhibit-C to
the management and the said certificate also shows that
the certificate has been issued on a plain paper without
any official reference nor in any official pad. Further in the
said certificate there is no mention of the date of issue. For
argument shake if we accept the said 2 certificates as
genuine it is the duty of the workman to prove those
certificates, as it is the established principle of law that
one who alleges or asserts the onus is on him to prove.
But the workman relying upon the solitary testimony i.e.
purported certificates alleged to have been issued by Sri
Amibika Deouri and Kanak Saikia, in order to establish
that he was engaged by the BSNL in Data Entry and record
creation in computer for the period of about 4 years
but the workman did not even dare to produce and
prove the original certificates before the Court. In the light
of the submission of the Learned Advocate for the
management and having regard to the evidence of the
workman as discussed & decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court relied upon by the management, it is found that the
workman has miserably failed to establish his plea that he
was engaged by the management of BSNL at Dibrugarh
for the works of Data Entry and record creation in computer.
The workman in his written statement mentioned
that he was in continuous service under BSNL, Dibrugarh
since 2005 to May, 2009 on a monthly payment of Rs. 2500
per month while in his additional claim statement the
workman mentioned that he was working in BSNL,
Dibrugarh since the month of January, 2006 and he was
terminated on 31.3.2009 while in his evidence the workman
mentioned that he was engaged by the BSNL, Dibrugarh
since the month of January, 2006 till 31.3.2009. He has also
not been able to mention the date of his appointment rather
made such a contradictory statements. Further the
workman in his evidence on affidavit stated that the date
of issue of certificate by the Divisional Engineer mobile
on 29.12.2007 while in cross-examination he mentioned
that the date of issue of the alleged certificate on 29.12.2007
has been mentioned wrongly which should have been
29.9.2007. Thus the testimony of the workman witness is
also found contradictory which casts sufficient doubts as
to the credibility of the testimony of the workman. The
management vehemently objected to the said purported
experience certificate alleged to have been issued by Sri
Ambika Deouri and Kanak Saikia, and contended that these
are fake, fabricated and manufactured documents. From
the circumstances and the conduct of the workman as it
revealed from his evidence as discussed above I do not
find any reason to reject the plea of the management.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4069
Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned Advocate for the
workman again pointed out that the workman Rantu
Rajkanwar has been engaged for more than for about 4
years from 2006 to 2009 and he is entitled to regularization
since the workman having continuous service for more
than 240 days in a year gives him the right to get
regularization but that have been denied by the
management showing lame excuse. He also stated that in
a catena of judgment in our Supreme Court as well as
Hon’ble High Courts including the Gauhati High Court
specifically held that for continuation of service without
break for not less than 240 days the workman has the
legitimate right to get regularization under the management.
10. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National
Union Waterfront Workers’ published in (2001) 7 SCC 1
the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that where a workman is hired or in connection
with the work of an establishment to produce given result
or the contractor supplied the workman for any work of
the establishment, unless the contractor is a mere
camouflage, the workman cannot be treated as an employee
of the principal employer. In regard to the question of
regularization, permanent continuance of temporary,
contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employee
appointed/recruited and continued for a long in public
appointment dehorse the constitutional claim of public
employment has been elaborately discussed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka
and Ors Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors reported in (2006) 4 SCC
1 and it issued direction/guide lines in details to deal with
the said matters. In this case the Apex Court, amongst
others, held that :—
(i)
the contract labourer has no right to
regularization in service,
(ii)
the Court must be careful in ensuring that they
do not interfere unduly with the economic/
financial arrangement of the affairs of the State
or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the
instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional & statutory mandate.
(iii)
it cannot be said that the temporary, contractual,
casual or daily wages employees have been able
to establish a legal right to be made permanent
even though they have never been appointed in
terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ;
(iv)
a contractual appointment comes to an end at
the end of the contract, an appointment of daily
wages or casual basis comes to an end when it is
discontinued, and a temporary appointment
comes to an end on the expiry of its term.
(v)
when regular vacancies in posts are to be filled
up, a regular process of recruitment or
appointment has to be resorted to as per the
Constitutional Scheme, and cannot be done in a
haphazard manner based on patronage or other
consideration.
(vi)
the Court must be very careful not to allow
sympathy with the plaintiff to effect the judgment
of the Court, the sentiment is a dangerous will O’
the whisps to take as a guide in the search of
legal principles;
(vii)
temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad
hoc employees appointed dehorse the
Constitutional Scheme of public employment
claiming right of long continuance of such
employee on regular basis in public employment;
such employee cannot claim that they are
discriminated against vis-à-vis those who have
been regularly recruited on the basis of the
relevant rules or schemes to be treated at par
with the later;
(viii)
The temporary, contractual, casual, daily wager
employees do not have an enforceable legal right
to be permanently absorbed nor they can show
that the State has legal duty to make them
permanent; and a mandamus cannot be issued in
favour of the employees directing the
government to make them permanent.
(ix)
a total embargo on casual or temporary
employment is not possible, given the exigencies
of the Administration and if imposed, would only
mean that some people who at least get
employment temporary, contractually or casually,
would not be getting even that employment when
securing such employment brings at least some
soccour to them.
(x)
the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be
successfully advanced by temporary, contractual
or casual employees;
(xi)
in order to claim regularization the employee
concerned is to establish that he had worked
continuously duly engaged by the employer for
240 days within a period of 12 months preceding
his dismissal/discharge duly engaged by the
employer or under a contractor in a mere
camouflage, against the vacancy,
(xii)
the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be
successfully advanced by, casual or contractual
employee;
11. In the instant reference the workman could
neither established that he was engaged to perform the
job of Data Entry and record creation under the
4070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management of the BSNL, nor there is any iota of evidence
to show that the workman was engaged either directly or
through the contactor, or he worked under the direct
control and guidance of the management. Also there is
nothing on record to show that the workman worked
temporary or contractual basis against any permanent
vacancy, nor there is anything to show that due process
of advertisement and selection was followed by the
Management. In Ranip Nagar Palika Vs. Babuji Gabhaji
Thakore & Ors reported in (2007) 13 SCC 343 wherein the
Apex Court categorically observed that the burden of proof
lies on the workman to show that he had worked
continuously for 240 days for the preceding one year and
it was for the workman to adduce evidence apart from
examining himself to prove the factum of being in
employment of the employer. In Essen Deinki –vs—Rajib
Kumar, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 400 it was held that mere
statement made in an affidavit by the workman in his own
favour cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any
court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the
workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. In this
reference there is no evidence on record that the workman
was ever in employment of the Management. Thus the
workman has miserably failed to establish his claim that
he worked as data entry and record creation operator in
the BSNL Tower & subsidiaries for a period of 4 years
from 2005 to 2009.
12. In view of my above discussion and having
regard to the ratio of the decision of the cases as discussed
above it can safely be held that the workman has not been
able to prove that he was in continuous service of the
BSNL, Dibrugarh since 2005 to 2009 and performed the
works of Data Entry and Record creation and as such, the
workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Accordingly this reference is answered in affirmative
against the workman.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
30th day of April, 2014 at Guwahati.
Send the Award to the Government as per law.
L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1537-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
cM+ksnk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
584@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@05@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@114@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014
S.O. 1537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 584/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad 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 09/05/2014.
[No. L-12012/114/2003-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad, Dated 20th February, 2014
Reference: (CGITA) No-584/2004
Reference (I.T.C) No. 58 of 2003(old)
The Regional Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Opp. Reserve Bank of India,
Near ADC Bank,
Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 3800014
…First Party
AND
Their Workman
Sh. Amrutlal Sankarlal Parmar
14/4, Nava Vas, Pavagadh Chowk,
Rakhial, Ahmedabad (Guajrat)
….Second Party
For the first party
:
Shri Mahindra K. Patel,
Advocate
For the second party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/
114/2003-IR( B-II)) dated 20.11.2003, referred the
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter
specified in the Schedule :
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4071
SCHEDULE
“Whether it is a fact that Shri Amrut Shantilal Parmar
was engaged as sweeper during the period from 1996
to 2002 by the management of Baroda. If so, whether
the action of the management is terminating him from
the service w.e.f. 19.08.2002 is legal and justified? If
not, justified, what relief is the concerned workman
entitled to?”
2. The case of the workman (2nd party) as per
statement of claim (Ext.3) is that he was appointed by
Manager of the Kalupur branch of Bank of India as a
sweeper in the year 1996 on the vacant post of regular
sweeper and he worked as sweeper till 1997 is that branch
of Bank. Thereafter from 1998 he was engaged as daily
rated sweeper. He worked for 247 days is in the year 1999.
Thereafter he was engaged as daily rated Sweeper. He
worked for 247 days in the year 1999. Thereafter he was
engaged as daily wager under manager of Sadar branch
from 14.09.2000. He completed 240 days works in every
calendar year. He was not given any appointment letter or
I. Card and attendance card. He was getting Rs. 50 per
days through voucher. He put demand to bank manager to
get him permanent but no heed was paid and he was
terminated from 18.08.2002 by oral order. He was not given
notice pay and retrenchment compensation prayer is for
reinstatement with full back wages and also for any relief
to which he is found entitled.
3. The stand/case of the 1st party bank as per written
statement (Ext.6) is that there was no relationship of master
and servant with Bank, the 2nd party never completed 240
days service in the Bank calendar year. The 1st party has
not violated the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act,
1947. It has denied that 2nd party worked for 227 days in
1998 and 247 days in 1999. It has been denied that the 2nd
party was paid Rs. 50 per day on voucher. The 2nd party
was not appointed as per the Bank’s recruitment rules.
Branch manager of any branch has no power appoint any
employee. On these grows prayer made to reject the
reference since the 2nd party is not entitled to any relief.
4. On behalf of the 2nd party documents with list
(Ext. 7) was submitted on 13.12.2005 which are (1)
Certificate of Sr. Branch Manager, Swaminarayan Temple
Road branch, Kalupur of B.O.I. dated 29.07.1999 to the
effect that Amrut Parmar (2nd party) is staff member of
this branch of bank and he may be allowed to attend office
during Banking from any curfew bound areas. (2) This is
certificate granted by Sr. Manager of the branch of B.O.I.
to the effect that Mr. Amrut Parmar worked for 227 days in
1998 (January to December) and for 247 days in 1999
(January to December) (3) This is certificate given by Sr.
Branch Manager dated 10.05.2002 then Mr. A.S. Parmar is
doing temporary job for cleaning premises of bank branch.
(4) This zerox of school leaving certificate that 2nd party
leaving school on 30.04.1982 having birth date 20.12.1967
(5) This is caste certificate that the 2nd party belongs to
Schedule Caste (6) This is registration card of employment
exchange Ahmedabad District in the name of 2nd party (7)
This is Zerox of Joint S/B A/c in the name of the 2nd party
Amrut S. Parmar and his wife Madhuben A. Parmar running
at S.N. Temple branch showing statement from 12.07.2001
to 27.08.2003. This go to show that the 2nd party was paid
bonus of Rs. 629 on 19.09.2001 in his S.B .A/c and also an
amount of Rs. 417 on 18.04.2003 was deposited as bonus.
(8) This self-made zerox copy of statement regards days
of work by the 2nd party A.S .Parmar from 22.09.2000 till
19.08.2002 which is not authenticated by the S.N. Temple
branch of Bank of India.
5. The 2nd party A.S. Parmar remained absent since
pretty long time when the dates in this case was being
adjourned for leading evidence by the 2nd party (workman).
The 2nd party Amrut S. Parmar failed to attend the court
on date in spite of notice. The initial onus lies on the 2nd
party (A.S. Parmar) to substantiate the pleading through
oral and documentary evidence. Mere, pleading as per
statement of claim is not substantive evidence that the
2nd party worked for 240 days in calendar year preceding
his alleged oral termination on 19.08.2002. The document
shows that he worked for more than 240 days (247 days)
in the year 1999 only. But there is no supporting evidence
except pleading (not substantive evidence) that he worked
240 days in the year 2000 or 2001 or 2002. There is no
evidence that 2nd party was continuously working in view
of denial in the w.s. of the 1st party Bank. More show it
appears that the 2nd party has lost interest in this reference
case and is absent since long.
So the following order is passed :
(1)
The 2nd party has not worked for 240 days in
calendar year preceding his alleged oral
termination on 19.08.2002.
(2)
The 1st party has not contravened the provision
of section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947 and the 1st party
was not required to give notice or notice pay in
lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation.
(3)
The 2nd party Shri Amrut Shantilal Parmar was
not engaged as a Sweeper from 1996 rather he
worked in the bank branch at S.N. Temple Road,
Kalupur in the year 1999 for 247 days. Thereafter
in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002 he worked
intermittently of part time cleaning job and never
continuously worked.
(4)
Since the 2nd party Amrut Shantilal Parmar has
not complied 240 day in calendar year preceding
his termination w.e.f. 19.08.2002, so the action of
the management of Bank of Baroda is justified
and legal.
4072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(5)
The 2nd party is not entitled for reinstatement or
any back wage or for any compensation from the
1st party Bank.
This reference is dismissed.
This is my award.
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] 9 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1538-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2004)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&39025@1@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014
S.O. 1538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 23/2004)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Hyderabad 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 09/05/2014.
[No. L-39025/1/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 2nd day of April, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 23/2004
BETWEEN
Sri V. Rajendra Prasad,
R/o D.No.16/126, Sri Sai Nilayam,
Vejendla Ramulu Street,
Chilakaluripet – 522 616.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
Appellate Authority,
Union Bank of India,
Central Office, Mumbai.
2.
The Sr. Manager (P) & Disciplinary Authority,
Union Bank of India,
Regional Office,
2nd Floor, Lata Complex,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
….Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. K. Rama Reddy, H.
Anand, M. Narender Reddy
& Joshi Prahalad Rao,
Advocates
For the Respondent :
M/s. C.R. Sridharan, G.
Narender
Reddy,
S.
Ramesh, M. Srinivas Reddy
& G.V.S. Ganesh, Advocates
AWARD
Sri B. Rajendra Prasad who worked as Head Cashier
with the respondent bank has filed this petition against
the Respondents seeking for quashing the proceeding
No.NRO/PER/1048 dated 26/11/2002 issued by the
Respondent No. 2 and the order No.CO:IRD:1510 dated
13.3.2003 issued by the 1st respondent, the Appellate
Authority and to direct the respondent bank to reinstate
the Petitioner with all back wages and attendant benefits.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are
as follows :
Petitioner who joined the service of the respondent
bank as sub-staff has raised to the post of Head Cashier
with his hard work and sincerity. He got promoted as
Head Cashier during October, 2000 and in that capacity he
has been working at Pasumarru branch of the respondent
bank. While so, the bank issued charge sheet dated
20.2.2002 against the Petitioner alleging that :
(a)
the Petitioner altered the cash vouchers and
increased the amounts by prefixing “1”,
(b)
Petitioner had not written the denomination of
currencies paid on the reverse side of the cash
vouchers.
Petitioner was charged under charges of gross and
minor misconduct and there is no mention in the charge
sheet as to the specific causes of the misconduct and as
to under what provisions said charges were framed.
Petitioner sought for the Telugu version of the charge
sheet to enable him to submit his reply in defence but, he
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4073
was not supplied of the same. Respondents went ahead
with dept enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer as
well as the Management representative without affording
any opportunity to the Petitioner to submit his explanation
to the charges. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry
in which Petitioner was duly represented by his defence
representative. The enquiry officer had not followed the
principles laid down in respect of conduct of Departmental
enquiries and acted in a biased manner. Petitioner was
denied reasonable opportunity at all times inspite of the
protest raised by the defence by the representative. On
conclusion of enquiry he submitted his report holding the
Petitioner guilty of the charges without any basis and
without evaluating the issues of the facts brought forth
by the defence during the course of the enquiry and relied
more on the version of the Management representative
and the Management witnesses. On conclusion of the
enquiry the initial findings were forwarded to the Petitioner
proposing the punishment but without affording any
opportunity to the Petitioner to make his submissions
against the said initial report of the enquiry officer. In the
enquiry report the enquiry officer claimed that he had been
appointed as Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority
vide letter No. CO/IRD/AS/MISC/128 dated 20.2.2002. The
same clearly shows and speaks volumes about the
premeditated/ill-conceived decision of the respondent
bank to punish the Petitioner, thus, rendering the
Departmental enquiry as a mere formality. Petitioner
appeared before Disciplinary Authority on 23.11.2002 for
personal hearing and submitted his explanation. But, to
no avail. Disciplinary Authority did not take cognizance
of the same and completed the task given to him by his
higher authorities throwing all the norms and rules laid
down in respect of the Departmental enquiries to the winds
he held the Petitioner guilty of all the charges and awarded
the capital punishment of compulsory retirement from the
services of the bank. Petitioner preferred appeal, being
aggrieved by the said order. The Appellate Authority
afforded a personal hearing to the Petitioner on 25.2.2003.
Petitioner submitted his written submissions detailing all
the issues brought before the enquiry forum seeking for
justice. But, the Appellate Authority failed to apply his
mind to the issues involved, acted in mechanical manner
and confirmed the punishment awarded by the
Disciplinary Authority. These orders are liable to be
interfered with since charge sheet is incomplete, Petitioner
has not been informed of change in the Disciplinary
Authority though, required under the provisions of service
conditions of the employees, one Disciplinary Authority
issued charge sheet and another Disciplinary Authority
awarded punishment which is not in conformity with the
service conditions governing the employees, charge sheet
is not specific and no opportunity was afforded to the
Petitioner to give his reply, Respondent bank issued a
corrigendum in charge sheet during the proceedings of
the enquiry, but without giving any opportunity to the
Petitioner to reply it and there is violation of principles of
natural justice during the enquiry as documents were not
supplied to the Petitioner inspite of repeated demands,
thus, rendering the Petitioner helpless in defending his
case effectively and by allowing the Management
representative to pose leading questions to the
Management witnesses, during chief examination inspite
of protest raised for the Petitioner. Further, the charges
leveled are baseless and hypothetical since all the vouchers
and the entries in the respective ledgers were duly
authenticated/ authorized by the officers. The every action
of the clerical staff was supervised and authorized by the
concerned officers. Once clerical work is authorized by a
superior authority no lapse or fault can be attributed to
the Petitioner. Management did not produce any material
witness to prove the charges. There is no evidence to
show that Petitioner altered the cash vouchers. The
Management witnesses stated that they have seen as to
who has altered the slips. The Vigilance Department
involved in the issue and directed the respondent
Management to procure evidence against the Petitioner.
The authors of various letters produced before the enquiry
forum are not produced and thus, Petitioner is denied
opportunity to cross examine them. Thus, no evidential
value can be attached to the said letters. The specific
purpose of punishing the Petitioner, entire proceeding has
been conducted and the punishment was awarded by the
Disciplinary Authority as directed by his superiors and
without applying his mind. The Appellate Authority also
did not apply the same. Hence, the petition.
3. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their counter
with averments in brief as follows :
The appropriate government in respect of the
respondent is the Central Government. Therefore,
Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is
brought out as per the A.P. State amendment can not be
invoked in this case. Only an industrial dispute can be
raised and Labour Court got no jurisdiction to entertain
this case. The punishment awarded to the Petitioner is
compulsory retirement from service which is not covered
by Sec.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for this
reason also this petition is not maintainable. The Petitioner
who was working as Head Cashier in the Pasumarru branch
of the respondent bank was reported to have committed
certain serious acts of misconduct i.e., that, he had
indulged in a fraud and misappropriation of huge sums
prejudicial to the interest of the bank involving serious
loss in terms of money and otherwise. In view of the
gravity of the acts of misconduct reported against the
4074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Petitioner charge sheet dated 20.2.2002 was issued against
him explaining the allegations made against him in detail
incorporating all the observations made on verification of
records detailing the entries in respect of various cash
vouchers regarding which difference in the amounts
mentioned in the debit cash voucher and supplementary
book were found etc., (the details of entries of the
difference in amounts mentioned in the cash voucher and
supplementary book and the alterations made etc., are all
given in tabular forms with all details, the tabular forms are
not being reproduced in the interest of brevity and also
since the charge sheet itself is part of the record). Petitioner
was advised to submit his explanation in writing within a
period of seven days from the date of receipt of the charge
sheet. Petitioner received the same on 2.3.2002 but failed
to give any explanation. Thus, Sri R. Venkataramaiah, Sr.
Manager(P), NRO, Hyderabad was appointed as an
Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charges leveled
against the Petitioner. Schedule of the enquiry was
intimated to the Petitioner. Petitioner has participated in
the said enquiry. He has been provided ample opportunity
to put forward his pleas. He produced six documents
which are marked as Ex.D1 to D6. He actively participated
in the enquiry and his representative cross examined all
the Management witnesses. He was allowed to inspect all
the documents marked for Management. On conclusion
of the enquiry considering all the material facts placed
before him the Enquiry Officer-cum-Disciplinary Authority
gave his findings dated 5.10.2002 holding the Petitioner
as guilty of the charges and proposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement with the superannuation benefits,
for the gross misconduct. For the minor misconduct he
proposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment
without cumulative effect for six months and also censured.
Copy of said findings was served on Petitioner inviting
his explanation as to why such punishment could not be
imposed. Petitioner availed another opportunity of
personal hearing on 23.11.2002. As he did not give any
convincing and satisfactory answered proposed
punishment was confirmed. The enquiry was conducted
in accordance with law and it is valid. Respondent bank
has lost confidence in the Petitioner. Therefore, he can
not be directed to be reinstated into service. The
misconduct proved against him is prejudicial to the interest
of the bank apart from it being in reach of relevant rules
and regulations. As per service records Petitioner
graduated from Ranchi University with English as one of
the languages. The contents of the charge sheet were
clearly explained to the Petitioner before commencement
of the enquiry and having understood of the same he
pleaded not guilty. The Petitioner was given all reasonable
opportunities to defend himself in this case. Contention
of the Petitioner that it premeditated mind the enquiry was
conducted is not correct. Appointment of Enquiry Officer
and Disciplinary Authority is fully in accordance with the
Bipartite settlement and the Staff Circular No. 2309 dated
28.5.1981. The allegation that Petitioner was never notified
about the change of Disciplinary Authority is misleading
and misconceived. Disciplinary Authority himself can
conduct the enquiry as per rules. Petitioner is aware of
the same. Petitioner was given an opportunity to inspect
all the documents marked during the enquiry which is in
conformity with the provisions of Bipartite settlement.
Furnishing of documents before commencement of enquiry
is not a requirement of law. Petitioner can not absolve
himself on the ground of alleged supervisory lapses to
cover his deliberate misdeeds. The standard of proof
required in a Departmental Enquiry is one of preponderance
of probability but not proof to the hilt as in the case of a
criminal trial. The charges have been proved at the enquiry
through the evidence of responsible officers of the bank.
Besides, incontrovertible and corroboratory documentary
evidence. Considering all the evidence, the Enquiry Officer
has given cogent findings. Both the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority came to
the conclusions only basing on the evidence and
documents placed on record. In the circumstances,
respondent bank can not repose any more confidence on
the Petitioner and his reinstatement into service would
seriously affect the discipline in the bank as well as its
interests. It is not desirable that an employee like Petitioner
to come back into the services. Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4. After hearing both parties and considering the
record placed before this court, and by virtue of orders
dated 24.3.2005, this court has held the domestic enquiry
conducted in this case as valid.
5. Thereafter, by consent of either party Ex.W1 to
W27 and Ex.M1 to M48 were marked.
6. Arguments under Sec.11A of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 were heard. Written arguments are also filed for
the Petitioner and the same are received and considered.
7. The points that arise for determination are:
1.
Whether the impugned proceedings of
respondents No.1 and 2 whereunder punishment
of compulsory retirement from service has been
awarded and confirmed against the Petitioner, are
liable to be interfered with? If so, on what
grounds?
2.
To what relief Petitioner is entitled to?
8. Point No.1 :
As can be gathered from the contentions put forth
by the Petitioner his main grievances are in respect of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4075
mode and manner of conducting the Departmental Enquiry.
But, as already observed above, by virtue of the order
dated 24.3.2005 which is a well reasoned order rendered
on merits after hearing both parties, this court found that
the Departmental Enquiry conducted in this case as valid.
The said order has not been challenged in any manner by
the Petitioner which means, that he is not aggrieved of the
same. The said order became final. In the circumstances,
the court need not go into the allegations leveled against
the mode and manner of conducting Departmental Enquiry
in this case. The only question to be gone into now is,
whether there is any perversion in the findings of
Departmental Enquiry and whether the punishment
awarded is in any way disproportionate to the proven
charges.
9. As can be gathered from the material on record,
the fact, that various vouchers/bills/entries in registers
mentioned in the enquiry record have been tampered with
making the original figures inflated, is concerned, there is
no dispute. The evidence gathered on record during the
Departmental Enquiry strongly establishes this fact.
10. The next point to be considered is, who is the
person responsible for this tampering of the record and
consequential misappropriation of the funds of the bank.
11. Petitioner being the Head Cashier has been
responsible for payment of the amounts against various
vouchers etc., which are subject matter in this case.
Regarding the said aspect there is no dispute. He alone
has been maintaining the Paying Cashier Register. When
any voucher comes to the Head Cashier for payment, it is
expected of him to carefully look into it to know the actual
amount to be paid, before paying the same. If there are
any unusual writings/corrections that too, occurring again
and again, in normal course of conduct, he would be
noting the same and bringing it to the notice of his
superiors. Evidently no such event has taken place in this
case.
12. Further admittedly, Petitioner failed to note the
denomination of the cash paid by him on reverse side of
the voucher and then to take signature of the recipient,
though as per rules he is required of such lapse. He has
not given any cogent reason for the same. This irregularity
coupled with the fact that there has been meddling of the
records i.e., vouchers, cash bills, receipts etc., and
misappropriation of funds of the bank, during the period
in which Petitioner has been working as Head Cashier,
would goes to prove that Petitioner got everything to do
with the said misappropriation as detailed in the enquiry
report which has been given by discussing all relevant
evidence brought on record.
13. It is not the contention of the Petitioner that in
all the cases of alteration of the figures in the vouchers,
bills etc., excess cash has been paid to the persons who
were to be paid the cash under the same. Further, some of
the recipients of the cash under these documents have
claimed that they received the actual cash only but not
the amount of altered figures in these documents. None
of the staff members, who, according to the Petitioner,
were in the custody of the cash bills etc., has been recipient
of the cash. That means, the recipients of the cash under
the given voucher/bill/receipt in which the figures have
been altered has received the actual amount to be paid
under the said document only but not the inflated figure
resulted due to alteration of the same. Thus, such person
is not the beneficiary of the given alteration. Likewise, as
already discussed above, none of the other staff members
who would be in custody of bills etc., also did not receive
any cash. Thus, it remains for the persons who paid the
cash, alone to explain why and how the amount in excess
of the original figure has been dealt with. The Enquiry
Officer has dealt with all these questions thoroughly in
the light of evidence adduced on record and in
consideration of the documentary evidence placed before
him. There is no perversity in the findings of the enquiry
officer.
14. Misappropriation of funds of the bank which is
a public institution that too by its own staff member, is not
a pardonable act. The funds misappropriated are the funds
of public held in trust by the bank. A financial institution
like bank can not function commanding goodwill of the
public, if any of its staff member is known to be guilty of
malpractices like, forging of the documents and
misappropriating the bank funds. Thus, the respondent
bank is right in coming to the conclusion that they lost
faith in the Petitioner who is found to be guilty of grave
misconduct of forging of the documents and
misappropriation of the bank funds causing loss to the
exchequer of the bank. Further being guilty of negligence
in discharging his duties like not recording the
denominations of the cash paid by him against the
vouchers etc., in violation of the relevant rules, also he is
liable for punishment. Considering the entire circumstances
of the case, including the pleas put forth by the Petitioner,
2nd respondent passed the order imposing punishment of
compulsory retirement from service for the grave
misconduct referred to above along with other minor
punishments imposed for the minor charges.
15. In the given circumstances, neither the findings
of the domestic enquiry nor the impugned orders of the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority warrant
any interference from this forum.
This point is answered accordingly.
4076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16. Point No.2 :
In view of the finding given in Point No.1, Petitioner
is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result :
In the result, petition is dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 2nd
day of April, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1
:
Photostat copy of charge sheet dt.20.2.2002
Ex.W2
:
Photostat copy of Petitioner’s representation
dt. 8.3.2002 toRespondent
Ex.W2(A) : Extension of time by Respondent to Petitioner
for submission of reply dt.18.3.2002
Ex.W3
:
Photostat copy of memorandum of
Disciplinary Authority appointing Discipli-
nary
Authority
and
management
representative dt.18.3.2002
Ex.W4
:
Photostat copy of memorandum of
Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner dt.
26.3.2002
Ex.W5
:
Photostat copy of memorandum of
Disciplinary Authority dt. 26.3.2002 reg.
appointment of defence representative
Ex.W6
:
Office copy of Petitioner’s representation to
Disciplinary Authority dt.10.4.2002
Ex.W7
:
Photostat copy of Petitioner’s lr. to
Disciplinary Authority dt.10.4.2002
Ex.W8
:
Photostat copy of Petitioner’s lr. to
Disciplinary Authority dt.10.4.2002
Ex.W9
:
Photostat copy of lr. of APBEF addressed to
Enquiry Officer dt. 8.4.2002
Ex.W10 :
Photostat copy of corrigendum bearing
No.CO:IRD:2629 to the chargesheet dt.
24.4.2002
Ex.W11 :
Photostat copy of Defence representative’s
lr. to the GM(P)
Ex.W12 :
Photostat copy of DR’s Lr. to D.A., Central
Office, Mumbai dt.27.5.2002
Ex.W13 :
Photostat copy of Defence representative’s
lr. to the D.A. dt. 24.7.2002
Ex.W14 :
Photostat copy of Defence representative’s
lr. to the Enquiry Officer dt. 25.7.2002
Ex.W15 :
Photostat copy of Petitioner’s written brief of
defence on conclusion of enquiry dt. 13.9.2002
Ex.W16 :
Photostat copy of lr. enclosing initial findings
of the Enquiry Officer along with proposed
punishment dt. 18.11.2002
Ex.W17 :
Proceedings of personal hearing dt.
23.11.2002
Ex.W18 :
Office copy of lr. of submission by Petitioner
dt. 23.11.2002
Ex.W19 :
Photostat copy of final findings of
Disciplinary Authority dt.26.11.2002
Ex.W20 :
Proceedings of personal hearing before the
Appellate Authority dt. 25.2.2003
Ex.W21 :
Office copy of lr. of submission by Petitioner
before the Appellate Authority dt. 25.2.2003
Ex.W22 :
Order of Appellate Authority dt. 15.3.2003
Ex.W23 :
Photostat copy of suspension orders
No.RO:PER:1829/2001 dt. 26.12.2001
Ex.W24 :
Photostat copy of staff circular No.2309 reg.
appointment of Disciplinary Authority,
Appellate Authority dt. 28.5.1981
Ex.W25 :
Photostat copy of staff circular No.4846
amending the Schedule of Disciplinary
Authority and Appellate Authority for
workmen dt. 24.4.2002
Ex.W26 :
Photostat copy of proceedings of
Departmental Enquiry
Ex.W27 :
Photostat copies of exhibits of management /
defence
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1
:
Office copy of charge sheet dt. 20.2.2002
Ex.M2
:
Photostat copy of lr. to the Petitioner by the
Respondent dt.18.3.2002
Ex.M3
:
Photostat copy of corrigendum by the
Respondent dt. 24.4.2002
Ex.M4
:
Photostat copy of lr. to the Petitioner by the
Respondent dt. 18.11.2002
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4077
Ex.M5
:
Enquiry proceedings dt. 18.11.2002
Ex.M6
:
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.284642
for Rs.855 dt. 9.11.2001
Ex.M7
:
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.284643
for Rs.313 dt.9.11.2001
Ex.M8
:
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.284644
for Rs.100 dt. 9.11.2001
Ex.M9
:
Photostat copy of cash scroll book dt.
9.11.2001
Ex.M10 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher register from
6.11.01 to 10.11.01
Ex.M11 :
Photostat copy of receiving paying cashier
register dt. 9.11.2001
Ex.M12 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.817633
for Rs. 256 dt. 5.10.2001
Ex.M13 :
Photostat copy of cash receipt for Rs.256/-
dt. 29.9.2001
Ex.M14 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.817646
dt. 12.10.2001
Ex.M15 :
Photostat copy of receipt No.817654
Ex.M16 :
Photostat copy of bill for Rs.282/- & statement
dt. 10.10.2001
Ex.M17 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.817655
for Rs.70/- dt.12.10.2001
Ex.M18 :
Photostat copy of voucher for Spandana
Book Centre for Rs.70/- dt.7.10.2001
Ex.M19 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.817664
for Rs. 250/- and cash receipt dt. 15.10.2001
Ex.M20 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.817666
for Rs. 280/- and cash receipt dt. 15.10.2001
Ex.M21 :
Photostat copy of cash receipt for Rs.280/-
dt. 8.10.2001
Ex.M22 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.284608
for Rs.184/- dt. 31.10.2001
Ex.M23 :
Photostat copy of Saroja Oil Company bill for
Rs.184/- dt. 23.10.2001
Ex.M24 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.284621
for Rs.376/- dt. 5.11.2001
Ex.M25 :
Photostat copy of Srinivasa Filling Station
bill for Rs.376.56 dt. 3.11.2001
Ex.M26 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.284607
for Rs.313/- dt. 31.10.2001
Ex.M27 :
Photostat copy of Janata filling station bill
for 313-80 dt. 29.10.2001
Ex.M28 :
Photostat copy of cash voucher No.284622 -
dt. 5.11.2001
Ex.M29 :
Photostat copy of IBP Auto Services Bill for
Rs.205/- dt. 4.11.2001
Ex.M30 :
Photostat copy of Debit Cash voucher
register from 5.10.2001 to 6.11.2001
Ex.M31 :
Photostat copy of cash scroll book dt.
5.10.2001
Ex.M32 :
Photostat copy of cash scroll book dt.
31.10.2001
Ex.M33 :
Photostat copy of Paying cashier register dt.
5.10.2001
Ex.M34 :
Photostat copy of withdrawal form for
Rs.11000/- SB A/c No.7863 dt. 5.11.2001
Ex.M35 :
Photostat copy of letter of Sri P. Anjaneyulu
dt. 28.11.2001
Ex.M36 :
Photostat copy of letter of Sri M. Anil Kumar
dt. 28.12.2001
Ex.M37 :
Photostat copy of Pasumarru Branch lr.
No.BO/AK/281 dt.1.12.2001
Ex.M38 :
Photostat copy of lr. of Petitioner to the
Enquiry Officer dt. 10.4.2002
Ex.M39 :
Photostat copy of lr. of Petitioner to the
Enquiry Officer dt. 10.4.2002
Ex.M40 :
Photostat copy of lr. of Petitioner to the
Enquiry Officer dt. 10.4.2002
Ex.M41 :
Photostat copy of lr. No.GS/180/2002
addressed to the Respondent bank by the
General Secretary, AP Union Bank Emp. Union
dt. 19.4.2002
Ex.M42 :
Photostat copy of telegram book No.0076
Sl. No.115
Ex.M43 :
Lr. of Sir M. Rangaiah about the absence of
Petitioner and request for adjournment dt.
25.7.2002
Ex.M44 :
Lr. of Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer dt.
13.9.2002
Ex.M45 :
Initial findings of the Enquiry Officer against
Petitioner dt. 18.11.2002
Ex.M46 :
Proceedings of the Personal Hearing dt.
23.11.2002
Ex.M47 :
Lr. of the Petitioner addressed to the Enquiry
Officer dt.23.11.2002
Ex.M48 :
Photostat copy of final order of the
Disciplinary Authority dt.26.11.2002
4078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1539-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ekLVj efju
lfoZl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ&2 ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v-&6@2006)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&31025@1@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014
S.O. 1539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Master
Marine Services and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 09/05/2014.
[No. L-31025/1/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA L NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/6 of 2006
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF MASTER MARINE SERVICES
The Executive Director,
Master Marine Services,
No.22/D, S.A. Brelvi Road,
Fort, Mumbai-400 001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Shri Ghanshyam Tukaram Gharat & 3 Ors.
At Mulekhand,
Post Uran,
Distt. Raigad,
MS-400 702.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer
:
Mr. K.P. Anilkumar,
Advocate.
For the Workman
:
Mr. J. H. Sawant,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 20th March, 2014
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-31025 / 1 /2005-IR (B-II),
dated 05.01.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication :
“Whether the action of the management of Master
Marine Services, Mumbai in terminating the services
of Shri Ghanshyam Tukaram Gharat and three others
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
disputant concerned entitled?”
NAMES OF THE WORKMEN
1.
Ghanshyam Tukaram
2.
Vikas Naik
3.
Samir K. Gharat
4.
Vijay G. Mhatre
2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice second
party workmen filed their statement of claim at Ex-4.
According to them they are permanent employees of the
first party employed since 1996. They were in continuous
service of the first party till 01/10/1999. Management
terminated their services since 01/10/1999 under the garb
of retrenchment. The management violated the mandatory
provisions of Section 25 F and 25 G of the Industrial
Disputes Act. They have retrenched senior persons and
retained some junior employees. The termination is
unlawful. Therefore these workmen made complaint to
the union. Union raised industrial dispute before ALC (C).
There was conciliation proceeding, however union did
not inform them about the conciliation. Therefore the
workmen remained unemployed for such a long period.
Neither first party gave any response to these workmen
nor union took any interest. Therefore these workmen
have raised industrial dispute. Due to adamant attitude of
the management conciliation failed and as per the report
of ALC (C), the Ministry of Labour & Employment sent
the reference to this Tribunal. Second party workmen
pray that the management be directed to reinstate them
with full back-wages.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4079
3. The first party resisted the Statement of Claim
vide their Written Statement at Ex-7. According to them
the services of these workmen were never terminated. On
the other hand due to closure of their project they were
compelled to retrench 34 workmen. They sent the cheques
of notice pay to these workmen as required under the law.
The union has raised industrial dispute and the first party
assured that they would re-employ all the retrenched
workmen on receipt of new contract. They had retrenched
the employees as per the seniority on the principle “last
come, first go” basis. When the first party got another
project, they offered the employment to all the retrenched
workmen. Except these four employees all others were re-
employed. These four workmen had refused to join the
services. They denied all the allegations made in the
statement of claim. According to them now these workmen
are not employees of the first party. Thus they pray that
the reference be rejected.
4. The second party filed their rejoinder at Ex-8.
They denied the contents in the written statement and
reiterated the contents in the statement of claim.
5. Following are the issues for my determination. I
record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow.
Sr.
Issues
Findings
No.
1.
Does second party
establish employer-employee
relationship with first party?
Yes
2.
Does first party prove that
the termination effected on
employees involved in the
reference is just and legal ?
No
3.
Are employees entitled for
reinstatement with any other
As per
relief ?
final order.
4.
What order?
As per
final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 :
6. In this respect according to the first party, the
second party workmen were retrenched w.e.f. 01/10/1999.
Now they are no more their employees. According to the
first party there is no employer-employee relationship
between the first party and the second party workmen.
Therefore this reference is not tenable. In this respect I
would like to point out that, the fact is not disputed that
the workmen under reference were very well employees of
the first party from 1996 upto 01/10/1999. These workmen
have contended that the first party has terminated their
services illegally. Therefore they have sought for
reinstatement in the service. They are claiming the relief
in respect of their rights when they were in service.
Therefore the contention of the first party is devoid of
merit that the reference is not tenable as there exists no
employer-employee relationship between them. In the
circumstances it needs no further discussion to arrive me
at the conclusion that, so far as this reference is concerned
there exists employer-employee relationship between the
first party and the second party workmen. Accordingly I
decide this issue No.1 in the affirmative.
Issue No. 2 :
7. According to the first party they have not
terminated the services of its employees. On the other
hand according to them as their project was over, there
was no work, therefore, they had retrenched 34 workmen.
According to the first party they sent notices to these
workmen alongwith cheque of notice pay. However neither
there is any evidence to show that either these workmen
received the cheques or they have encashed the same.
There is no suggestion to any of these workmen that either
they encashed the cheque or received the notice pay or
retrenchment compensation. As per Section 25 F of the
I.D. Act, the first party management in lieu of notice was
supposed to pay notice pay equal to one month’s wages.
The first party was also supposed to pay retrenchment
compensation as prescribed under Section 25 F (b) of the
I.D. Act. In this case first party failed to prove that they
had paid notice pay and the retrenchment compensation
to these workmen. In the case at hand for want of notice
pay and retrenchment compensation, the termination or
retrenchment cannot be said lawful. Accordingly I decide
this issue No.2 in the negative.
Issue No. 3 :
8. In the issue No.2 above it is held that the
termination of services of these workmen was illegal. In
the circumstances the Ld. Adv. for the second party
submitted that the workmen are entitled to be reinstated in
the services with full back-wages. In this respect I would
like to point out that it is specifically contended on behalf
of the first party that Union has raised dispute before ALC
(C) and there was settlement with the union. According to
the first party they had agreed to re-employ those
retrenched workmen. Accordingly except these four
workmen, all others are re-employed. According to the
first party these four employees have refused to join their
duties and after period of five years they have raised the
industrial dispute. In this respect even the workmen have
not denied the pleading that except them all other workmen
were re-employed. They have also not denied the
contention of the first party that there was settlement with
the union in conciliation proceeding. In the circumstances
under Section 18 (3) of I.D. Act the settlement is binding
even on these workmen. It seems that these workmen
have neither kept any contact with the union nor have
applied to the first party for re-employment.
4080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. In the circumstances though these workmen can
be directed to be reinstated, they have no right to claim
back-wages. Furthermore these workmen have also
admitted in their cross-examination that they are doing
some casual or daily work. Some are also employed with
some company. As these workmen have not been in touch
with the union and have not availed the benefit of re-
employment offered by the first party, they are not entitled
to the back wages. At the same time I would like to point
out that they are well entitled to be reinstated with
continuity of service, seniority and all other benefit except
back-wages. In the alternative option is also given to
these workmen instead of reinstatement, each of them be
paid notice pay equal to one month’s wages and the
retrenchment compensation. Accordingly I decide this
issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
(i)
Reference is partly allowed with no order as to
cost.
(ii)
The first party is directed to reinstate these
workmen with continuity of service, seniority and
all other benefits except back-wages.
(iii)
The option is given to the workmen either to join
the duties on reinstatement or they may claim
notice pay equal to one month’s wages and
retrenchment compensation as prescribed under
Section 25 F (a) & (b) respectively of the I.D. Act.
Date: 20/03/2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1540-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flafMdsV cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ&2 ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v-&46@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@84@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014
S.O. 1540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 46/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 09/05/2014.
[No. L-12012/84/2003-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/46 of 2003
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF SYNDICATE BANK
The Dy. General Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
IR Cell, Zonal Office,
‘E’ Wing, 2nd floor, Maker Tower,
Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai-400 005.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Shri Bhimaji Joshi,
A/3, Kailas Dham,
Gopal Nagar No. 1,
Dombivli (E),
Distt.Thane.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer
:
Mr. R. N. Shah,
Advocate.
For the Workman
:
Mr. Umesh Nabar,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 14th March, 2014.
AWARD PART-II
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-12012/84/2003-IR (B-II),
dated 14.08.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Syndicate
Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai in dismissing
Shri Bhimaji Joshi from service w.e.f. 12/10/2001 is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman,
Shri Bhimaji Joshi is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice the second
party workman filed his Statement of Claim at Ex-6.
According to him while serving as a Special Assistant in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4081
the first party Bank, the first party had issued charge-
sheet dated 20/11/2000 alleging that he had issued cheque
books in fictitious names and used the said cheque books
for unauthorised withdrawal of money from the Bank and
committed misconduct. The first party management
initiated inquiry against the second party. The Inquiry
Officer recorded evidence of both the parties. He held the
second party workman guilty for the aforesaid misconduct.
On the basis of his report the competent authority
terminated the services of the second party. According to
the workman for the same misconduct offence was
registered against him and the Criminal Court has acquitted
him. According to him the inquiry was not fair and proper.
The findings of the I.O. are perverse. It is also contended
that the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly
disproportionate. Therefore the second party raised
industrial dispute before ALC (C). As conciliation failed,
on the report of ALC (C), Ministry of Labour & Employment
has sent the reference to this Tribunal. The workman
prays that the inquiry and findings of I.O. and the order of
dismissal be set aside and he be reinstated in the services
of first party.
3. The first party resisted the statement of claim
vide its written statement at Ex-12. According to them the
second party workman was involved in a serious
misconduct of issuing cheque books in fictitious name
and unauthorised withdrawal of money from the Bank.
The I.O. has conducted the inquiry fairly and properly
and as per the settled rules and held the workman guilty.
The findings of the I.O. are not perverse. The competent
authority has rightly terminated the services of the
workman. Looking into the seriousness of the misconduct,
the punishment cannot be called shockingly
disproportionate. Therefore they pray that, the reference
be dismissed.
4. In the Part-I Award the inquiry was held fair and
proper and findings of the Inquiry Officer are also declared
not perverse. Now in this Part-II Award, following are the
remaining issues for my determination. I record my
findings thereon for the reasons to follow :
Sr.
Issues
Findings
No.
3.
Whether the punishment
of dismissal from service
is shockingly disproportionate
to the proved misconduct?
No
4.
If yes, whether the workman
is entitled to be reinstated in
the service?
No
5.
What order ?
As per order below
REASONS
Issues Nos. 3 & 4 :
5. In this respect the ld. adv. for the second party
submitted that as per the Bi-partite settlement clause 19.4
when the workman was prosecuted in a Criminal Court,
the management ought to have stayed the inquiry
proceeding. The management has not stayed the inquiry
proceeding though the workman was prosecuted in a
criminal trial and he was acquitted by the said Court. In
the circumstances the Inquiry Officer ought to have taken
cognizance of the findings of the Criminal Court and the
order of acquittal passed therein. It was further submitted
that inspite of order of acquittal passed by JMFC Bhiwandi,
the Inquiry Officer did not take cognizance of the said
order and he was held guilty. In support of his argument
the ld. adv. for the workman resorted to Apex Court ruling
in G.M. Tank V/s. State of Gujarat and Others. (2006) 5 SCC
446. In this case the workman therein was honourably
acquitted in criminal case. On the same set of facts and
evidence the I.O. had held him guilty. In the circumstances
Hon’ble Court in that case observed that :
“Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and
unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings
recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.”
6. In that case the workman therein was charge-
sheeted for having illegally accumulated excess income
by way of gratification. The respondent therein failed to
prove the charges levelled against him. In short the
allegation of disproportionate asset of the accused therein
to the known source of his income was not at all proved in
the criminal case. The same allegation of disproportionate
asset cannot be said to have been proved in the
departmental inquiry as he was honourably acquitted in
the criminal case. In short, so far as allegation of
disproportionate assets is concerned, the question of
difference in standard of proof in domestic inquiry and in
criminal trial does not arise. In the circumstances the
Hon’ble Court in para 31 of the judgement further observed
that :
“The distinction which is usually proved between
the departmental and criminal proceedings on the
basis of approach and burden of proof would not be
applicable in the instant case.”
7. In short, the case referred above is of
disproportionate asset and there was no scope to go into
the question of difference in standard of proof in criminal
proceeding and departmental inquiry as assets and income
of the delinquent remains the same and it is part of
documentary evidence. Therefore the ratio laid down in
the above ruling is not applicable to the set of facts of the
present case.
8. Furthermore the point in respect of fairness and
legality of inquiry and findings therein were already dealt
with in the Part-I Award wherein Apex Court ruling was
referred in the management Western Bokaro Colliery of
M/s. Tisko Ltd. V/s. The concerned workman Ram Pravesh
Singh AIR 2008 SC 1162 wherein the Hon’ble Court on the
point observed that :
4082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“It has repeatedly been held by this court that the
acquittal in a criminal case would not operate as a
bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding against
a delinquent. It is well settled principle of law that,
yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is
different from the one in disciplinary proceedings.
While standard of proof in a criminal case is proof
beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof
in departmental proceedings is preponderance of
probabilities.”
9. In this Part-II Award the point for determination
is whether the punishment of dismissal from service is
shockingly disproportionate? Now the point of fairness
of inquiry and findings of Inquiry Officer need not be
discussed again. In this respect the ld. adv. for the first
party submitted that the second party workman was found
guilty for criminal breach of trust, cheating etc. The
allegations against him were that he had issued cheque
books of the Bank in fictitious names and had withdrawn
amount from the Bank by using some of those cheques
and caused loss to the first party Bank. According to him
being employee of the Bank, his conduct was expected of
high moral standard. In support of his argument the ld.
adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Union Bank of India
V/s. Vishwa Mohan (1998) Lab IC 2514 wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court in respect of the quality of Bank employee in
para 11 of the judgement observed that;
“It needs to be emphasised that in the Banking
business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and
honesty needs to be preserved by every bank
employee and in particular the Bank officer. If this is
not observed, the confidence of the public
depositors would be impaired. It is for this reason,
we are of the opinion that the High Court had
committed an error while setting aside the order of
dismissal of the respondent on the ground of
prejudice on account of non-furnishing of the
inquiry report/findings to him.”
10. The ld. adv. for the first party further submitted
that, expected loss by the misappropriation or cheating
amount to major misconduct. He further submitted that
though subsequently the second party workman has
deposited the amount he had illegally withdrawn, the
misconduct would not be termed as minor. In support of
his argument, ld. adv. for the first party resorted to the
Apex court ruling in State Bank of India &Ors. V/s. T.J.Paul
1999 II LLJ 514 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court observed
that :
“Likelihood of serious loss coupled with negligence
would amount to gross misconduct.”
In this case the Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that :
“Simple negligence also will come under gross
misconduct if on account of such negligence Bank
is likely to get involved in serious financial loss.”
11. The ld. adv. also cited another Apex Court ruling
to show that falsification and misappropriation of property
amount to grave misconduct and dismissal from service is
appropriate punishment in Maharashtra State Seeds
Corporation Ltd. V/s. Haridas & Anr 2006 II CLR 400 (SC).
In that case the respondent therein was held guilty for the
charges of falsification and misappropriation of property
of the employer. High Court has taken lenient view and
set aside the punishment of dismissal. The matter was
taken before Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court
held that charges of falsification and misappropriation of
property of employer were grave act of misconducts
therefore disciplinary authority was justified in passing
the order of dismissal from service. The Hon’ble Apex
Court further held that the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the quantum of punishment.
12. The ld. adv. for the first party also pointed out
that, the misconduct herein is major misconduct by an
employee of Bank who was found guilty of cheating and
criminal breach of trust. Therefore under Section 11-A of
the I.D. Act the Industrial Court cannot use its discretion
to interfere with the punishment of dismissal. In support
of his argument, the ld. adv. cited Apex Court ruling in
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board V/s. Jagdish C. Sharma
2005 I CLR 1074 wherein the Hon’ble Court on the point
observed that :
“ ……..to interfere with punishment when it is a
discharge or dismissal can be exercised by the
Labour Court only when it is satisfied that, the
discharge or dismissal is not justified.”
In the same para the Hon’ble Court further observed
that :
“The Tribunal or the Labour Court could not interfere
with the quantum of punishment based on irrational
or extraneous factors and certainly not on what it
considers a compassionate ground.”
13. It was contended on behalf of the second party
workman that he worked for 30 years without any blame
and his service record is clean. It is his first misconduct.
Therefore such a harsh punishment of dismissal is unjust.
In this respect the ld. adv. for the first party submitted that
when it is a major misconduct, punishment of dismissal
cannot be interfered on the ground that it is the first
misconduct. In support of his argument the ld. adv. for
the first party resorted to Apex Court ruling in Bharat
Heavy Electricals V/s. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors.
2005 I CLR 959. The Hon’ble Court in para 21 of the
judgement on the point observed that :
“That apart the reasons given by the Labour Court
to reduce the penalty are reasons which are not
sufficient for the purpose of reducing the sentence
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4083
by using its discretionary powers. The fact that the
misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct again
is no ground to condone the misconduct.”
14. In the case at hand the second party workman
was found guilty for major misconduct, breach of trust
and cheating. He was a Bank employee and he was
expected absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and
honesty in performing his duties as has been observed by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the ruling of Union Bank of India
V/s. Vishwa Mohan (Supra). In the light of above rulings
and the nature of misconduct discussed herein above
conclusion can be arrived at that the order of punishment
of dismissal needs no interference. Thus I decide these
issues nos. 3 & 4 in the negative and proceed to pass the
following order
ORDER
Reference stands rejected with no order as to cost.
Date: 14/03/2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1541-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ijknhi iru
U;kl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (19@2007) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&38011@3@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2014
S.O. 1541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/
2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Paradip Port Trust and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/05/2014.
[No. L-38011/3/2006-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT :
Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 19/2007
Date of Passing Award – 6th February, 2014
BETWEEN
The Chairman,
Paradip Port Trust, Dist. Jagatsinghpur,
Orissa – 754 142
. . . 1st Party-Management.
AND
The Working President,
Paradip Dock & Transport Workers’ Union,
Nisamani Bhawan, Paradip Port,
Dist. Jagatsinghpur, Orissa.
. . . 2nd Party-Union.
APPEARANCES :
Shri S.N. Mishra,
…
For the 1st Party-
Traffic Officer, PPT.
Management.
Shri Sudhakar Mantry, …
For the 2nd Party-
Working President.
Union.
AWARD
In a reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 the Government of India in the Ministry
of Labour vide its letter No. L-38011/3/2006-IR(B-II) dated
06.07.2007 has referred an industrial dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal in respect of the following
matter:-
“Whether the 97 standby workers as per the list
submitted by Paradip Dock & Transport Workers
Union as enclosed at Annexure-D under the Paradip
Port Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Scheme, 1979 have acquired any right
to seek full employment on the vacancies caused in
the main list of workers of this said scheme? If so
then what would be the date and benefits after
treating them as main list workers? (2) Whether the
management of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip is bound
under the Paradip Port Cargo Handling Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979 to fill up
the vacancies caused in the main list of said scheme
due to retirement, death or any other factors out of
existing workers of the standby list?”
2. The Working President of the 2nd Party-Union
has filed the statement of claim stated that the Paradip
Port Cargo Handling Workers Scheme, 1979 was framed in
exercise of the statutory powers conferred under section
42 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The said scheme
being a legal instrument, has the force of law because of
its stability being in operation for nearly two and half
decades since 1980 creating a promissory estoppel as a
quasi contract, and generating a legitimate expectation in
favour of the listed standby workers who are continuing
as such till date.
4084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The said scheme has also received judicial
recognition, both by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well
as Hon’ble Orissa High Court in several litigations. The
Hon’ble Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 2276/1985 has
specifically recognized the preferential right of these
standby workers to get employment under the said scheme
of 1979 to the exclusion of all other outsiders, not listed
under the said Scheme. However, despite such judicial
verdict a set of 212 casual workers, termed as General
Purpose Mazdoors are illegally employed in jobs which
are assigned to and covered under the said scheme to the
detriment of these standby workers. This is an unsavoury
act and amounts to unfair labour practice falling in Item 9
of the Vth Schedule of the I.D. Act. The Apex Court in
appeal of the Paradip Port Trust Management appointed a
High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of
Sri Justice H.R. Khana (retired Judge of Supreme Court) to
finally resolve the dispute. The said Committee made in-
depth study and laid down the guideline in respect of all
categories of workers claiming regular employment under
Paradip Port. The High Power Committee in Para-13:15 has
held that “So far as the workers in the subsidiary list are
concerned, it has been stipulated that they will be employed
for cargo handling work after exhausting the workers in
the main list”.
4. The aforesaid indisputable factual position has
been admitted by the Paradip Port Trust in their reply sent
to Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) dated
16.12.2005 which reads as under:-
“However, there was a clear stipulation for
engagement of subsidiary list of workers to the fact
that only when engagement over flows the main list
of workers, the subsidiary/standby list of workers
would then be engaged”.
5. In the year 2005, all the main list workers of the
said scheme of 1979, were made regular Port employees.
Most of these workers are now deployed in different jobs
of the Port, not falling in the jobs earmarked for and
assigned to cargo handling operation. Therefore, at least
from the date when the main list workers went out of the
scheme, these standby workers should have been brought
over as main list workers of the said scheme. However the
PPT seems to have been ill-advised from discharging its
constitutional obligations by not fulfilling its holdout to
give full time employment to the existing list of standby
workers. As per the direction of the Apex Court the H.P.C.
report was to be implemented by the PPT within two
months. However despite the finding of the H.P.C, that
the General purpose Mazdoor group of 212 workers, not
being listed workers under the said scheme but casual
workers, their engagement in the assigned jobs of the
scheme was impermissible. The jobs of “collection of
sweeping from the hold of the ships or from the barges
and collection of sweeping from wharf and from the shed
are not being performed by the listed workers of 1979
Scheme”. The H.P.C. has directed PPT to get these jobs
done by the listed workers of the said scheme.
6. Viewed in the aforesaid background the right to
seek full employment has become overwhelmingly and
demonstratively more mature and legitimate to be
enforceable and implemented under the doctrine of
promissory estoppel as well as legitimate expectation. The
H.P.C. report found the contention of general purpose
mazdoor untenable and held that they are not cargo
handling workers as duties as averred to have been
performed by them are not cargo handling work. The
committee has also found that certain jobs which ought to
have been performed by the listed workers including
standby category are being performed by the G.P.M. group
of casual workers. The committee also directed the Paradip
Port Trust that it should insist on the Stevedoring gang
and shore gang to carry out their assigned duties and the
Stevedores may not be permitted to engage casual labour
for these duties. Inspite of the aforesaid direction of the
H.P.C. the Paradip Port Trust Management has not desisted
from such illegal and unauthorized acts, but continues
such contravention even though the report of the H.P.C.
has been accorded finality and is binding on the Paradip
Port Trust as per the judgement of the Apex Court as
reported in AIR 1990 SC 1125. The Hon’ble Court also
remarked:-
“It is needless to state that the benefit of
decasualization of the workers should be in
conformity with the Paradip Cargo Handling
(Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979.”
7. The Apex Court also directed for implementing
the decision of the Committee within two months from the
date of submitting the report. The committee submitted its
report in July, 1993 but till today the G.P.M. Mazdoors are
permitted to do the assigned jobs of the said scheme of
1979 even though they are not the listed workers of the
said scheme.
8. It may be clarified that when the H.P.C. fixed the
datum regarding different categories of cargo handling
workers needed for efficient functioning of the said
scheme, the traffic position on 31.3.1993 was kept in view.
The number of existing berths at that stage were only six.
Now the berths have been increased to 15 out of which
only 6 berths are semi-mechanized. The Traffic has also
gone up to the extent of 10 times or so. The main list
workers even after being made regular Port employees,
employment to the listed workers is being denied and
instead casual employees are employed at lesser wages
by adopting unfair labour practice. Since the cargo
handling operation is a perennial and main activity of every
Port and when that is progressively increasing, the need
to employ the listed workers cannot be denied but that is
resisted on the sole consideration that the Management
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4085
in such an event has to pay higher rate of wages as
determined by the wage revision committee at national
level. To overcome and avoid such liability to pay higher
wages, the direction of the Apex Court, recommendations
of H.P.C. as well as the Hon’ble High Court are being
brushed aside. The standby workers who have not given
up or relinquished their entitlement under the said scheme
have acquired an indefeasible right to full employment
either in the vacancies caused due to death, retirement or
due to subsequent deployment of Main list workers as
permanent employees of the Port. These workers should
be treated as main list workers of the said scheme, at least
in respect of assignment/jobs which is being illegally done
through casual labourer under caption G.P.M. group. They
should be treated as main list workers with effect from the
date when their Union has raised the demand in the year
2005 and should be awarded compensatory wages from
the said date for illegal denial of employment.
9. The 1st Party-Management in its written
statement has alleged that the points as alleged that the
points of dispute as referred to are misleading as they
reflect complete distortion of facts. The 97 workers are
part of the standby workers to whom Paradip Port has
enlisted, but due to non-availability of work and presence
of a large workforce in the main list these workers became
surplus to the requirement. As per Port procedure the
standby workers are to be provided employment after
exhausting main list workers. Since the availability of main
list workers was very large, the subsidiary list workers
were not able to get any employment from and through
the Port under 1979 Scheme till the scheme were abolished
in 2005. Having failed to get any employment from the
Port, this group of 97 workers have managed to get
employment from Paradip Phosphate Limited and IFFCO
berths since 1985 and 2006 respectively for various casual
workers in their captive berths. These workers are being
engaged by the PPL and IFFCO through their handling
contractors. The issue of filling up vacancies in the main
list is closed in view of Government order dated 14.12.2004
which state that such vacancies will stand abolished upon
retirement, death/superannuation of main list workers. The
Paradip Port Trust is debarred to fill up the vacancies
under the 1979 Scheme which is no more in vogue for main
list workers after their regularization under the Port. The
standby workers are rank casuals in so far as their
engagement under 1979 scheme of PPT is concerned.
There is no contract or statute between these workers and
Paradip Port Trust except the fact that these workers were
enlisted and notified as standby workers way back in 1980.
The Paradip Port has not engaged any outsiders or any
General Purpose Mazdoors. The Paradip Port continues
to engage the workers from the main list only for cargo
handling operation i.e. loading/unloading cargo from the
vessels. The General Purpose Mazdoors are engaged by
the stevedores who provide assistance to stevedores to
undertake ancillary operations. It is wrong to contend that
after regularization of the main list workers under the Port,
they will sit idle and the subsidiary list workers will replace
them and do all the loading/unloading operation. As on
date there are 1050 number of workers in the main list and
their average engagement is 5 to 6 days in a month and the
Paradip Port is shouldering a huge financial burden
towards their monthly wages and benefits. The General
Purpose Mazdoors have come into existence due to
lackluster attitude of the Main list workers who have
abdicted their responsibility to do certain ancillary works
such as cleaning, sweeping on board the vessel. The Port
Trust has tried its best to take up the work with main list
workers but the same was of no avail. As such the
stevedores continued to engage General Purpose
Mazdoors for all ancillary works. It is not disputed that
the jobs such as sweeping, cleaning, water supply, tools
and tackles supply etc. are performed by the Stevedore’s
workers who have been named as General Purpose
Mazdoors. These workers are engaged and paid by the
Stevedores and are not covered under the 1979 Scheme.
However the Port Trust in consultation with the Union
have been pursuing a pattern of engaging these workers
by rotation and the same continue to be in force till date.
The observation in respect of G.P.M. Mazdoors by the
High Power Committee is only recommendatory as there
is no direction by the High Power Committee to discontinue
engagement of G.P.M. Mazdoors. In any case, the
engagement of G.P.M. Mazdoors by the Stevedores has
become a practice since the same is continuing for a very
long period and any change in nature of engagement of
these workers will unsettle a settled position of the post
and create labour unrest. On account of large scale
mechanization in cargo handling operation, the volume of
traffic handled at Port has substantially increased while
the number of workers performing these jobs is declining
due to natural attrition such as death and retirement. The
Government of India has banned fresh recruitment and
listing of additional workers in the main list as per
recommendation of the High Power Committee. 229 workers
have been enlisted as clearing and forwarding workers
under clearing and forwarding Scheme, 1994 and the
balance number of workers did not avail the aforesaid
opportunity for engagement. In case there is requirement
of additional work force in the Clearing and Forwarding
operation, the claimant workers will be asked to submit
their claims for induction in to 1994 Clearing & Forwarding
Scheme.
10. The 2nd Party-Union in its rejoinder has
submitted, amongst other things, that since the findings
of the H.P.C. report have been reaffirmed by the Apex Court
as comprehensive, final and binding on all parties in its
judgement reported in 1998 3 SCC 113 the 1st Party-
Management cannot be permitted to undo the findings of
the H.P.C. report and cannot take advantage of their own
4086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
illegal acts. The 97 standby workers were shifted to work
in the captive berths which belong to Paradip Port Trust,
but let out on rental basis to PPL & IFFCO where they
were retained without any job security. The action of the
Management being illegal from the very inception cannot
be continued in law. Therefore there is no escape from the
conclusions that these standby workers are entitled for
regularization and equal pay for equal work.
11. On the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the 97 standby workers as per the list
submitted by Paradip Dock & Transport Workers’
Union as enclosed at Annexure-D under the
Paradip Port Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation
of Employment) Scheme, 1979 have acquired any
right to seek full employment on the vacancies
caused in the main list of workers of this said
scheme? If so, then what would be the date and
benefits after treating them as main list workers?
2.
Whether the management of Paradip Port Trust,
Paradip is bound under the Paradip Port Cargo
Handling Workers (Regulation and Employment)
Scheme, 1979 to fill up the vacancies caused in
the main list of said scheme due to retirement,
death or any other factors out of existing workers
of the standby list ?
12.An additional Issue was also framed on 22.9.2011
on the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa passed
on 16.7.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 12357/2007 to the following
effect :
3.
Whether there exists a dispute or difference
between the parties with regard to the existence
of the industrial dispute in relation to the points
of dispute referred to in the schedule of reference
made to this Tribunal?
13. The 2nd Party-Union has examined two
witnesses, namely, Shri Sarbeswar Routray as W.W.-1 and
Shri Sudhakar Mantry as W.W.-2 in support of its claim
and relied on 11 documents marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-11.
14. The 1st Party-Management, on the other hand,
examined only one witnesses namely Shri Sriman Narayan
Mishra, Traffic Officer, Paradip Port Trust as M.W.-1 and
relied on two documents marked as Ext.-A & Ext.- B.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 3
15. It was argued on behalf of the Paradip Port Trust
i.e. the 1st Party-Management before the Hon’ble High
Court of Orissa in the Writ Petition as referred to supra
that the points of dispute referred to by the appropriate
Government in the present dispute does not survive for
consideration as there is no existing industrial dispute
between the parties as the same is covered by the reported
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Paradip Port
Trust –Versus- Paradip Port Dock and Mazdoor Union
(AIR 1990 SC 1125). It was further argued that the High
Power Committee was constituted by the Apex Court in
exercise of its constitutional power to go into certain
dispute between the parties and submit a report. The
recommendation made in the report of the said committee
has already been implemented by the petitioner-employer.
Therefore the question of re-adjudicating the points of
dispute referred to by the appropriate Government in the
present dispute does not survive. It was submitted in reply
by the Union that the contention that the points of dispute
are covered by the report of the committee and the same
have been implemented is not tenable in law as the
concerned workmen were not parties to the said earlier
case referred to supra. Therefore the Hon’ble High Court
of Orissa directed this Tribunal holding the view that there
is a dispute with regard to the existence of industrial dispute
in relation to the points of dispute referred to in the
schedule in the reference made to the Tribunal for its
adjudication to expedite resolution of the dispute between
the parties by giving opportunity of hearing to them and
recording a finding on the contentious disputed fact by
framing such an additional issue in addition to the points
referred to it.
16. During course of argument, after closure of
evidence by the parties, it has been noted that parties
have not raised any argument on this issue. The burden
to prove this issue lies on the 1st Party-Management, but
the authorized representative of the 1st Party-
Management kept silence on this issue. However, on going
through the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred
to as supra makes it clear that the High Power Committee
was constituted to decide the question of listing the
unlisted workers in the light of the recommendations under
Paras 13.2 to 13.8 of the Abraham Committee Report and in
accordance with the Paradip Port Cargo Handling
(Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979. The committee
was also asked to work out a scheme to mitigate the
unemployment of surplus workers. The Hon’ble Apex
Court also directed that the Paradip Port shall implement
the decision of the committee within two months from the
date of submitting the report. The High Power Committee
submitted its report sometimes in July, 1993. Thus two
points were referred for decision of the committee. First
the listing of unlisted workers in the light of the
recommendation under Para 13.2 to 13.8 of the Abraham
Committee Report and in accordance with the Paradip Port
Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation of Employment)
Scheme, 1979 and the second working-out a scheme to
mitigate the unemployment of surplus workers. The High
Power Committee in Para 13:15 of Chapter 13 of its report
has expressed the view that so far as the workers in
subsidiary list are concerned it has been stipulated that
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4087
they will be employed for cargo handling work after
exhausting the workers in the main list. But they have not
made provision or recommendation in such an eventuality
as has been raised in the present case. The points of
dispute herein have arisen due to subsequent events and
also on non-adherence to the recommendations of the
High Power Committee. With regard to the engagement of
standby workers in place of outsiders (G.P.M) for specified
operations under Cargo Handling Scheme of 1979.
17. On behalf of the 1st Party-Management order
passed on 11.2.2011 by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in
O.J.C. No. 6412 of 1999, W.P. (C) No. 5311 of 2001 and W.P.
(C) No. 4825 of 2004 has been relied in which prayer for
regularization of service like main list workers with
consequential benefits was made by some of the
petitioners of standby list. All the writ applications were
disposed of with observation that as and when work is
available, the petitioners who are in the subsidiary list,
shall be provided with work. In these writ applications
some of the present disputants were parties. However the
order of the Hon’ble High Court does not speak of on the
point of regularization. The 2nd Party-Union on the other
hand, has relied on decision of Hon’ble Orissa High Court
given in O.J.C. No. 2276/85 on 7.5.1987 in which an order
was passed on consent directing the Opposite Party not
to enlist any other workers in the main list until the standby
list in question is exhausted. But in my view all these
decisions do not touch the points of dispute raised in the
present case.
18. Likewise the issues referred by the Government
to this Tribunal here in the present case for adjudication
do not seem to have been discussed in the High Power
Committee report. The two points referred by the Hon’ble
Apex Court for decision to the committee thus do not
cover up these issues. Therefore it cannot be said that the
points of dispute referred to by the appropriate
government in the present dispute does not survive for
consideration. It is also a point of dispute between the
parties before this Tribunal that the recommendations of
the H.P.C. have been implemented or not by the Port Trust
Management as per orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court
which requires implementation of the decision of the
committee within two months from the date of submitting
the report.
19. In view of the above discussions it is held that
there exists a dispute or difference between the parties
with regard to the existence of industrial dispute in relation
to the points of dispute referred to in the schedule of
reference made to this Tribunal and accordingly this issue
is decided in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO. 1
20. In the present reference the 97 standby workers
have claimed acquisition of right to seek full employment
on the vacancies caused in the main list of workers under
the Paradip Port Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Scheme, 1979 and if they have acquired any
such right then eligibility for benefits arising out of it being
treated as main list workers. Under Paradip Port Cargo
Handling Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme,
1979 two list of workers were prepared. The first is called
main list of workers and the second is called subsidiary or
standby list of workers which consisted of 1500 and 686
workers respectively as on 1.5.1984. It was stipulated that
firstly main list workers will be provided employment and
if any additional requirement is made employment to the
workers of the subsidiary/standby list will be provided. It
has been reported in Chapter-12 of the High Power
Committee Report that as the workers in the subsidiary
list were not having any engagement some left the Port to
seek other employment. In the same process the number
had come down to 633 and later stood at 504 in December,
1988. Now it is revealed that only 97 workers in the
subsidiary or standby list remained to be counted as some
of the workers of the subsidiary list opted employment
under C & F scheme i.e. called Clearing, Forwarding and
handling workers Scheme. Since the present 97 workers of
the standby list had not opted for Clearing Forwarding
and Handling Workers Scheme they have claimed
absorption in the vacancies caused in the main list of
workers. The point was raised by the Union concerned
before the High Power Committee, but the committee
refrained itself from passing any order to the detriment of
those already listed in these proceedings arising out of a
Writ Petition in which they were never impleaded as party
and no prayer was made against them. The committee also
abstained from giving a direction for the retrenchment or
removal or adjustment of those already in the Main List. It
was stipulated with regard to the workers in the subsidiary
list that they will be employed for cargo handling work
after exhausting the workers in the main list. But the
Committee found that “experience during all these years
has shown that the question of offering more employment
opportunity to the workers in the subsidiary list did not
arise as the workers in the main list themselves are surplus
to the requirement. In the circumstances the benefits which
workers in the subsidiary list might have visualized from
the decision of the High Court of Orissa dated 19th
December, 1986 remain more or less teasing illusion,” but
it has to be found later on that in violation of the provisions
of the Scheme, all Cargo Handling Operations on the shore
and handling of all cargoes on shore in the course of
loading or shipment are being carried out by casual
labourers called as General Purpose Mazdoors engaged
by the stevedores, while the duties of collection of
sweeping from the holds of the ships or from the barges
and collection of sweeping from the wharf and from the
shed are to be performed by the listed workers of 1979
Scheme. The committee examined the issue carefully and
found the contention of the Union to be correct and
noticed that those jobs were being performed by casual
4088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
labourers engaged by the stevedores. The Committee
thereupon observed that “it is therefore necessary that
Paradip Port Trust should insist on the Stevedoring gang
and shore gang to carry out their assigned duty and the
stevedores may not be permitted to engage casual labour
for these duties”. The contention of the 2nd Party-Union
is that despite the direction of the High Power Committee
the Paradip Port Trust Management is still continuing with
this practice. This has resulted in mitigating employment
opportunities to the standby workers.
21. It has also been alleged that in 1979 two berths
were in operation and at present fifteen berths are being
operated out of which six berths are semi mechanized. The
traffic load has gone ten times, but the number of days of
employment available to the listed workers has not shown
an increase due to the clandestine inclusion of Clearing
and Forwarding and other labourers into the port for
performing the functions under the purview of Cargo
Handling Scheme, though it is true that with the provisions
of mechanical aids and better handling techniques manual
efforts have decreased and cargo handling has become
faster, but with the discontinuation of taking the work of
collection of sweeping from the holds of ships or from the
barges and collection of sweeping from the wharf and
from the shed by engaging casual labourers by the
stevedores may increase some employment opportunity
to the listed workers.
22. On over all appreciation of all the issues
involved, the committee assessed optimum requirement
as on 31.3.1992 at 1104 of main list workers out of 1504
rendering about 400 workers as surplus and from
subsidiary list of workers at 3 out of 585 workers. The
committee, however, expressed the view that it would not
be justified in passing an order to the detriment of those
already enlisted in these proceeding arising out of a Writ
Petition in which they were never impleaded as party and
no prayer was made against them. No doubt the Union of
which they are the members were impleaded at its request
as a party to the appeal, but the Union in appeal more or
less represented the case of those in the Standby List and
other workers not already included in the Main List. The
committee therefore abstained from giving a direction for
the retrenchment or removal or adjustment of those already
in the Main List. Regarding the fate of 504 mazdoors
belonging to the standby category the committee held
that “the workers in the standby list have more weighty
claim compared to the claims of other workers” and they
were given chance to be included in the list of workers
(now) being enlisted for clearing, forwarding and handling
work and in this process these 97 standby workers kept
themselves out of the said Scheme and they are now said
to be engaged under captive berths of PPL and IFFCO on
the instructions of the Paradip Port Trust authorities since
these two companies are having no stevedoring license.
M/s. Orissa Stevedores were engaged by them to deploy
these standby workers in the two captive berths. The
Paradip Port Trust has issued I-Cards and gate passes to
these standby workers to do the work in the captive berths
as standby workers. According to W.W.-2 Shri Sudhakar
Mantry these standby workers are receiving 10% of the
wages of the main list cargo handling workers which is a
straight violation of labour law. The 1st Party-Management
also admits to have engaged all these 97 standby workers
in the two captive berths operated by M/s. PPL and M/s.
IFFCO, through M/s. Orissa Stevedores. Thus it is not
denied that these standby workers are the listed workers
under the Paradip Port Cargo Handling Workers Scheme,
1979 and because of getting no employment under the
Paradip Port Trust they are working in the captive berths
of M/s. PPL and M/s. IFFCO through M/s. Orissa
Stevedores. Therefore there has been fiduciary
relationship of master and servant between the
Management of Paradip Port Trust and these workers.
23. It has to be noted that subsequent to the filing
of High Power Committee Report and various litigations
taking place between the parties the Paradip Port Trust
Management has abolished the Cargo Handling Scheme,
1979 in 2005 vide Government of India’s order dated
14.12.2004 after creating 1235 posts for regularization/
decasualization of Cargo Handling Workers in the Paradip
Port Trust from prospective effect with these stipulations
that the posts would be abolished as and when the
incumbents vacate the posts due to retirement, etc. But
on going through the photostat copy of this letter filed as
Annexure-2 to the written argument of the 1st Party-
Management it appears that there has been no-where
mentioned in this letter that cargo handling scheme of
1979 has been abolished by the Government. No alleged
order of 2005 repealing the above scheme by the Paradip
Port Trust Management has been filed on record. Therefore
there is no proof of repeal or abolition of the Paradip Port
Trust Cargo Handling Workers Scheme, 1979. The order
dated 14.12.2004 of the Government of India, Ministry of
Shipping, Road Transport & Highway speaks of creation
of 1235 posts for regularization/decasualization of cargo
handling workers in the Paradip Port Trust. But the 1st
Party-Management has not filed any such list of workers
of cargo Handling Scheme of 1979 who were regularized/
decasualized after creation of 1235 posts of cargo handling
workers in the Paradip Port Trust. This letter also refers to
a letter of even number dated 5.7.2004 of the Government
which was superseded by this letter. This letter also
stipulates that the posts of Cargo Handling Workers
which have been created and regularized by virtue of this
letter would be abolished as and when the incumbents
vacate the posts due to retirement etc. which means that
the regularized posts shall not be filled up when these are
vacated by the incumbents due to retirement etc. By the
creation and regularization of 1235 posts of Cargo Handling
Workers it is supposed that almost all the main list workers
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4089
of Cargo Handling Scheme, 1979 have been regularized
and given the status of Paradip Port Trust employees.
With the regularization of main list workers and having
given the status of Paradip Port Trust employees, the
Paradip Port Trust Management has certainly utilized their
services any where in the Paradip Port as deemed fit.
Therefore the services of the main list workers could not
be made available for Cargo Handling Operations, if the
regularized workers were posted elsewhere. It is not known
Cargo Handling Work is being taken in the Paradip Port
Trust by how number of workers. W.W.-1 Shri Sarbeswar
Routray and W.W.-2 Shri Sudhakar Mantry have stated in
their evidence that at present about 1100 main list workers
are working under the Paradip Port Trust. But it is not
clear as to when 1235 workers were regularized/
decasualized on the created posts of Cargo Handling
Workers. Earlier to regularization/decasualization of Cargo
Handling Workers the vacancies created due to death etc.
in the main list were filled up or not, is not made clear. But
the vacancy in the main list, to my mind, was not required
to be filled up as no need for additional requirement would
have arisen and so the same would have not been meted
out from the subsidiary list of workers. But now the
situation has completely changed and the workers in the
main list have been decasualized. The vacancies left by
them had to be filled up by the workers in the subsidiary
list. It is not a matter of dispute that at least 212 outsiders,
called general purpose mazdoors, are being engaged by
the stevedores for Cargo Handling Work despite the clear-
cut direction of the High Power Committee that the Paradip
Port Trust should insist on these stevedoring gang and
shore gang to carry out their assigned duty and the
stevedores may not be permitted to engage casual labour
for these duties. The contention of the 1st Party-
Management that the disengagement of general purpose
mazdoors by stevedores and engagement of subsidiary
list workers in their place would create labour unrest and
disrupt operation is not tenable in view of the fact that the
standby workers are listed workers under the Paradip Port
Trust Cargo Handling Scheme, 1979. Therefore their right
to seek employment to the extent of availability as being
availed of by the main list workers has to be treated
preferential to other enlisted workers. Their fate which
has been hanging in the midway for the last 30 or more
years cannot be left in an indecisive way, specially when
the main list workers have been regularized and absorbed
in the services of the Paradip Port Trust and the services
of outside labourers are being taken illegally depriving
them of their right to seek full employment as/is available
to the main list workers of Paradip Port Cargo Handling
Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979.
24. Now the question arises as to what benefits and
from which dates these benefits will be admissible to these
standby workers? In this respect the 2nd Party-Union has
demanded that these benefits should be allowed to them
from the date when they raised the demand in the year
2005. This answer to this is that since the main list workers
are said to have been decasualized/regularized with effect
from 25.01.2005 as alleged by M.W.-1 Shri Sriman Narayan
Mishra in Para-4 of his written statement they shall be
treated as main list workers from that date and the benefits
which were being given to the main list workers since
before shall be given to these standby workers. This issue
is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2
25. Under this issue it is to be decided as to whether
the management of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip is bound
under the Paradip Port Cargo Handling Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979 to fill up the
vacancies caused in the main list of said scheme due to
retirement, death or any other factors out of existing workers
of the standby list.
26. It has not been disputed that 1235 posts were
created for regularization/decasualization of Cargo
Handling Workers in Paradip Port Trust by letter dated
14.12.2004 of the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping,
Road Transport & Highway and against these posts main
list workers were regularized/decasualized by the Paradip
Port Trust on 25.1.2005. In this letter dated 14.12.2004 it
has been specifically mentioned that the posts would be
abolished as and when the incumbents vacate the posts
due to retirement etc. The contention of the 1st Party-
Management is that the issue of filling up vacancies in the
main list is closed in view of the Government order dated
14.12.2004 stipulating that those posts would be abolished
on vacation of these posts by incumbents due to
retirement, death etc. The wordings of this letter do not
suggest that earlier to receipt of this letter vacancies in
the main list of cargo handling workers were not used to
be filled up on any ground. 1235 posts of cargo handling
workers were created for regularization/decasualization,
but it has not been made known by the 1st Party-
Management by filing any order of regularization/
decasualization of these workers as to how many workers
in the main list have been regularized by the Paradip Port
Trust and how many vacancies, if any, were left to be filled
up. The regularized posts are required to be abolished in
future when the incumbents would vacate the posts due
to retirement etc. The newly created posts on the date of
regularization/decasualization have to be filled up first out
of the main list workers and, if left vacant, then by
subsidiary list of workers. The picture is not clear as to
what number of main list workers were in existence on
25.1.2005. As such the 1st Party-Management has to fill-
up the vacant posts after exhausting the main list from the
standby list of workers. In this connection a reference has
to be made to Para-10 of the written statement of the 1st
Party-Management in which it has been stated that
presently there are 1050 number of workers in the main
4090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
list. The witness produced on behalf of the 2nd Party-
Union, namely W.W.-1 Shri Sarbeswar Routray and W.W.-
2 Shri Sudhakar Mantry have alleged the figure of the
main list workers as 1100. But this does not make the
picture clear about the number of workers working in the
main list on 25.1.2005. Therefore it is left on the 1st Party-
Management to regularize/decasualize the cargo handling
workers of the standby/subsidiary list, if all the 1235 posts
were not regularized/decasualized from the main list of
workers on 25.1.2005. Subsequent to that date since the
vacant posts would stand abolished with the death,
retirement etc. of the incumbents no vacancy caused in
the main list of the said scheme is required to be filled up.
27. However, it would not be out of place to reiterate
the contention of the 1st Party-Management that the
Paradip Port Trust Cargo Handling Workers (Regulation
of Employment) Scheme, 1979 was abolished in the year
2005. In view of the said allegation, though not irrevocably
admitted by the 2nd Party-Union, if the said scheme has
been abolished then the cargo handling workers of the
main list would have become regular employees of the
Paradip Port Trust without being categorized as main list
workers. Resultantly, the vacancies caused thereafter
would have to be filled up in the event of retirement, death
or any other factors out of the existing workers of the
standby list. Because of abolition of the Scheme all the
stipulations made in the said scheme and also in the
Government letter dated 14.12.2004 will not remain effective
and in that case the right of the standby workers to be
included in the main list in the event of vacancy created in
the main list due to death, retirement etc. will have to be
respected by filling up the vacancies from the workers in
the standby list. Here also the order dated 7.5.1987 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Orissa passed in O.J.C. No. 2276/85
comes to their rescue wherein the Hon’ble High Court
upon conceding the grievance of the petitioners (workers
in the stand by list) by the Opposite Party has directed
that the Opp. Party shall not enlist any other workers in
the main list until the standby list in question is
exhausted.” Therefore it is to be held that these standby
workers having been kept as listed workers under the said
scheme of 1979 since 1980 have acquired a valuable right
under the law for regular work earmarked for workers in
the main list lot of vacancies having been caused by making
the main list workers as permanent port employees and
diverting them for other port activities. This issue is
decided in the light of the observations made in the body
of discussions under this issue.
28. In view of the findings recorded above the 97
standby workers are entitled to be placed in the main list
of cargo handling workers having acquired a right to seek
employment on the vacancies caused in the main list of
workers of the Paradip Port Cargo Handling Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1979 as are given to
the main list of workers heretofore. They are also entitled
to the benefits as admissible to the main list workers from
25.1.2005. The Paradip Port Trust Management shall fill
up the vacancies caused in the main list as on 25.1.2005
due to retirement, death or any other factors out of the
existing workers of the standby list in the light of the
observations made and findings derived under Issues No.
1 & 2.
29. The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1542-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (19@1999) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@437@1989&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014
S.O. 1542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/1999)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Bank of India and
their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 16/05/2014.
[No. L-12012/437/1989-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/19/1999
Date : 17.04.2013.
Party No. 1 :
Zonal Manager,
Bank of India,
Kingsway, Nagpur
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Joint Secretary,
Bank of India Workers’ Organization,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4091
AWARD
(Dated: 17th April, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri
Bandu Laxmanrao Chikhale, to CGIT-Cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/437/
1989-D-2-A dated14 .02.1990, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India, Nagpur in not regularizing and thereafter
terminating the services of Shri Bandu Laxmanrao
Chikhale is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?”
Subsequently, the case was transferred to this
Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the Union, “Bank of
India Workers’ Organization” (“the Union” in short) filed
the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri
Bandu Laxmanrao Chikhale, (‘the workman” in short) and
the management of Bank of India (“Party No. 1” in short)
filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented by the Union
in the statement of claim is that the workman was first
engaged by the Branch Manager, Kamptee branch as a
peon on 05.04 1984 and the appointment was through the
Employment Exchange and with the consent and approval
of the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Nagpur and the
workman was required to perform the duties of a full time
peon in the permanent Cadre, although he was paid on
daily wages basis and till the date of his termination, the
workman had put in 617 days of employment and the
workman was exploited and every provision of the Bipartite
Settlements was infringed in the process and neither any
formal appointment order was issued in favour of the
workman nor his name was taken on the records of the
party No.1 and though the workman was employed as a
full time peon, he was deprived of the facilities extended
to the full time peons in the Permanent Cadre and the poor
service conditions and in particular, the practice of party
No.1 in getting the permanent and regular work done
through employees like the workman, constrained them
(union) to raise the industrial dispute regarding the non-
regularisation of the workman before the conciliation
officer on 31.10.1988 and the dispute was seized for
conciliation and the party no.1 after receiving the notice
from the conciliation authority adopted an extremely
vindictive attitude and terminated the services of the
workman with effect from November, 1988 and in such
circumstances, no settlement could be reached and as such,
a failure report was submitted to the Central Government
and the termination of the workman from services was ex-
facie unfair labour practice and the fact of putting in at
least 617 full time working days by the workman as a peon
clearly demonstrates that a permanent vacancy was in
fact in existence and alongwith the service of the workman
, services of Shri C.K. Patil and Shri Chandrashekar Rahate
had been utilized by the Kamptee branch of the Bank of
India and the services of Shri Patil and Shri Rahate were
retained by the party no.1 after termination of the services
of the workman and infact the aforesaid two employees
were regularized in the permanent sub staff cadre, even
though they were engaged much after the appointment of
the workman and both of them were juniors to the workman
and such action of the party no.1 was in breach of Section
25-G of the Act.
The further case as projected by the union is that
the party no.1 adopted a very novel system of defeating
the rights of the employees engaged on daily wages basis
and after termination of the services of the workman,
besides the two employees named above, the party No.1
continued to engage employees on daily wages and the
said employees were paid on vouchers, as a result of which,
such facts have not been reflected in the records or
accounts of party no.1 and the payment of wages to such
employees on vouchers was shown in the accounts as
debit to miscellaneous charges and cash payment
reimbursed to manager and the practice of engaging daily
wagers to get done the job of permanent sub staff was
curtailed to some extent and some of the employees were
taken on the permanent establishment due to their raising
several disputes and the workman, who had put in 617
days of employment stood in a better footing and the
refusal of the party no.1 to absorb the workman is a patent
victimization and vindictive attitude of party no.1 and the
party no.1 committed unfair labour practice by initially
engaging the workman from year to year on daily wages
basis, although work of permanent and full time cadre was
extracted and thereafter terminating his service in
colourable exercise of power and as such, the workman is
entitled to reinstatement in service in permanent full time
cadre with every consequent service benefits including
back wages and continuity in service.
3. The party no.1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged for the
first time on 05.04.1984 as waterman and thereafter, on
daily wages casual basis, whenever there was vacancy
due to leave absence of regular sepoy and/or temporary
increase of work and the workman put in only 131 days of
service with them, on purely casual basis and there was
never any exploitation of the workman or infringement of
any provision of the bipartite settlements and the workman
was not employed as full time peon and it was the workman
himself, who for reasons best known to him stopped
4092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reporting for getting the job of budlee sepoy at the branch
and during the process of conciliation before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur, it was submitted
by them in writing that they would have no objection
whatsoever, if the workman would report to the branch for
budlee worker against leave vacancy of the department
sepoy etc. and as per the turn, seniority, eligibility of the
workman and as per rules, he would be considered for
absorption against permanent vacancy, as an when
vacancy would arise in future and his case cannot be
considered in isolation, overriding the candidature of other
likely situated persons, if any and after such offer, it was
for the workman to report in the branch, for getting
employment, but for reasons best known to him, he did
not report at the branch and there was no violation of the
provision of Section 25-G of the Act by them and as the
workman failed to report at the branch for getting the work,
they cannot be made responsible for the same and the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Besides placing reliance on the documentary
evidence, both the parties have led oral evidence in
support of their respective claims. Six witnesses including
the workman have been examined by the union in support
of the claim. Party no.1 has examined Mr. Rajkumar
Tulsiram Naik as a witness in support of their claim.
5. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is to
be mentioned here that this reference has been made to
adjudicate as to whether the action of the party no.1 in not
regularizing the workman, Shri Bandu Laxman Rao
Chikhale and thereafter terminating his services is justified
or not. It is well settled by the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of decisions that the
Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms of reference and
decide any other matters. Hence, the present reference is
to be adjudicated in terms of the reference.
6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative that according to the case of the
union, the workman was engaged as a peon on 05.04.1984
by the Branch Manager, Kamptee branch and between
1984 to 1988, he worked for 617 days and even though
there was a permanent vacancy, the workman was not
regularized and there was violation of the provisions of
Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, as Shri C.K. Patil and
Shri Chandrashekhar Rahate, who were juniors to the
workman were retained and regularized and such facts
have not been denied by the party no.1 and the party no.1
has taken the plea that the workman himself did not report
for work for the reasons best known to him and his services
were not terminated by them, but from the unchallenged
evidence adduced by the union and the admission of the
witness for party no.1, it is crystal clear that the services
of the workman was terminated, when the union raised the
dispute before the conciliation officer for not regularizing
the workman and the witness for the party no.1 in his
cross-examination has admitted the case of the union,
where as, the evidence of the workman and other witnesses
examined on behalf of the union has remained virtually
unchallenged and as the termination of the workman was
in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of
the Act, the same is illegal and as such the workman is
entitled for regularisation in service w.e.f. 31.10.1988. It
was further submitted that the termination of the workman
is unfair labour practice and the party no.1 inspite of
having permanent vacancies, was engaging daily wagers
to perform the work of the permanent employees for years
together and inspite of the directions of the Tribunal,
documents were not produced by the Bank, so adverse
inference is to be drawn against the party No.1.
In support of such contentions, the union
representative has relied on the decisions reported in AIR
1983 Calcutta-337 (Traders Syndicate Vs. Union of India)
and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Grindlays Bank Employees Union.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the representative
for the party no.1 that the workman was engaged on purely
casual temporary basis for the first time on 05.04.1984 as
waterman and subsequently, he was engaged on purely
temporary basis, as and when required in leave vacancy
and/or whenever there was increase of work and the
workman did not complete 240 days in the preceding 12
months of his alleged terminatoin and the workman
stopped reporting for getting the job as budlee sepoy and
it is clear from the evidence of the workman himself that he
was paid on daily wages and he had never completed 240
days of work in a year and the burden to prove 240 days of
service lies on the workman and the workman has not
produced any evidence in support of the same and the
provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H are not applicable
and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of such contentions, the management
representative has placed reliance on the decisions
reported in AIR 2004 SC-4791 (MP Electricity Board Vs.
Hariram), (2006) I SCC-106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt.
Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC-132 (Surendranagar
Distt. Panchayat Vs. Gangaben), (2006) 6 SCC-221 (Reserve
Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma) and the decision of
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in writ petition no. 1072/
2002 (Bank of India Vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT, Nagpur.
8. Having heard the representatives for the parties
and having perused the materials on record, it is found
that the workman was not appointed to any regular post
or against any permanent vacancy and his engagement
was on the basis of the need of work on daily wages basis.
The engagement of the workman was also not in
accordance with the Rules of recruitment. The facts of his
engagement on daily wages basis by the Manager of
Kamptee branch of the Bank intermittently has been
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4093
admitted by the workman in his evidence. It is also the
case of the union in the statement of claim. It is also found
from the materials on record that neither the union nor the
workman has specifically claimed or established that the
workman had worked for 240 days in the given year. The
chart of the working days furnished in the statement of
claim and the chart filed by the workman alongwith the
affidavit do not show that the workman had worked for
240 days preceding the 12 calendar months of the alleged
date of termination or in any year.
According to the union, the workman was
terminated from service after raising the dispute before
the conciliation officer on 31.10.1988. Much reliance was
also placed on the evidence of the witness examined on
behalf of the party no.1, who in his cross-examination has
stated that the workman was disengaged by the Bank,
soon after the union raised the dispute before the ALC.
However, it is found that there is no force in the said
contention raised by the union. According to the case of
the union and the workman, in between 1984 to 1988, the
workman worked for 617 days. A detailed list of the working
days with dates and month in every year has been
furnished by the workman. According to the said list, the
workman worked from 06.06.1988 to 05.07.1988 as waterman
for the last time in 1988. From the said list, it is found that
the workman did not work with party no. 1 after 05.07.1988.
The said fact indicates the probability of the claim made
by the party no.1 that the workman did not report for work
himself. It is found that the union has made untrue claim
in the statement of claim. According to the statement of
claim, the workman was engaged as a peon on 05.04.1984.
However, the workman has admitted that on 05.04.1984,
he was engaged as a waterman. Such admission of the
workman and so also the chart of working days furnished
by the workman clearly show that the claim of the union
that the workman was engaged as a peon is not true.
9. So far drawing of adverse inference for non-
production of documents is concerned, it is found that
inspite of the direction given by the Tribunal on 07.02.1996
for production of documents, the party no. 1 did not
produce the same. However, out of those documents,
some are produced by the union. Moreover, taking into
consideration the pleadings of the parties, the stand taken
by them and the evidence on record, it is found that there
is no necessity to draw adverse inference against the party
no. 1, for non-production of the documents.
10. From the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by the
management representative, specifically in the decisions
reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (Supra) and AIR 2004 SC-
4791 (Supra), in which, it has been held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court respectively that :
“Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), Ss.25-F, 11-A-
Discontinuation of service—Respondents engaged
by Electricity Board on daily wages for digging pits
for erecting electric poles—Respondents
employment terminated on completion of project and
re-employed for same work whenever required—
Petition against seeking permanent employment—
Respondents employment was not for continuous
and regular work of Board- Fact that Board failed to
produce muster rolls for year 1990 to 1992 though
called upon to produce muster rolls for years 1987-
1992—Not sufficient to draw adverse inference
against Board- Cannot be basis for finding that
respondents have worked for 240 days in a year—
More so when respondents neither specifically
claimed nor established that they had worked for
240 days in given year—Direction for their
reinstatement solely on basis of said adverse
inference liable to be set aside.”
AND
“Labour Law—Daily wager—Disengagement of—
Validity-—Workman not appointed to any regular
post but engaged on the basis of need of work on
day-to-day basis, held, had no right to the post—
Hence, his disengagement on acquiring a
qualification exceeding the maximum prescribed,
held, could not be treated as arbitrary or amounting
to wrongful dismissal within the meaning of Item 3
of Sch.II to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947— High
Court erred in holding otherwise—Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, Sch. II Item 3—Wrongful
dismissal—What is not—Post—Right to—Daily
wager, held, devoid of such a right.”, it is found that
the union has failed to show that the action of party
No.1 was illegal.
As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand
are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the
cases referred in the decisions cited by the union
representative, with respect, I am of the view that the same
have no application to the case. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of India,
Nagpur in not regularizing and there-after terminating the
services of Shri Bandu Laxmanrao Chikhale is justified.
The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1543-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
4094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 18@1999)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@881@88&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014
S.O. 1543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/1999)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Bank of India and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 16/05/2014.
[No. L-12012/881/88-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/18/1999
Date: 25.06.2013
Party No.1
:
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India, S.V. Patel Road,
P.B. No. 4, Nagpur – 440001.
Party No.2
:
The Zonal Secretary,
Bank of India Workers’ Organization,
House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 25th June, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri
Chandrasekhar Gathibande to the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, for
adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/881/88-D-2(A) dated
10.08.1989, with the following schedule :
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri
Chandrasekhar Gathibande is justified? If not, to
what relief is the workman entitled?”
Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this
Tribunal by the Central Governed for disposal according
to Law.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the union, “Bank of
India Workers’ Organization”, (“the union” in short) filed
the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri
Chandrasekhar Gathibande, (“the workman” in short), and
the management of Bank of India, (“Party No. 1” in short)
filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim by the union is that the workman was
appointed in Kalmeswar Branch of the Bank on 04.05.1983
as a Badlee Sepoy in the Sub-staff Cadre and contrary to
the provisions of the various bi-partite settlements and
awards governing the service conditions of the employees
of Party No. 1, no appointment order was issued to him
and from the date of his appointment till his
discontinuance, the workman had put in 575 days of Badlee
employment and he was in the process of putting in 240
days of employment in the preceding 12 calendar months,
amounting to one year of continuous service within the
meaning of Section 25-B of the Act and although, the
workman had completed 240 days of employment in 12
calendar months, his claim for permanent employment came
to be illegally ignored by Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 on
12.10.1985, directly appointed one Shri Shende, as a Sub-
staff at Kalmeswar Branch, who had admittedly not worked
as a Badlee Sepoy prior to his appointment and even after
the appointment of Shri Shende, Party No. 1 continued to
engage the workman as a Badlee Sepoy till 07.04.1987, on
which date, he was informed that his services have been
terminated and that he would not be continued in future
and the services of the workman were discontinued, only
to deprive permanent status to him and the consequent
service benefits and on 10.03.1987, a telegram from the
Zonal Office was received at Kalmeswar Branch, in which,
direction was given to discontinue his services with
immediate effect and the Manager, Kalmeswar Branch gave
a reply to the same on 10.03.1987 itself, which is self
speaking and a bare perusal of the said communication
would reveal that the workman was engaged to perform
duties of permanent nature and a permanent vacancy did
exist at Kalmeswar Branch and the workman could have
been absorbed in the said post and although, the Branch
Manager of Kalmeswar Branch assured the Zonal Office
to discontinue the services of the workman after 14.03.1987,
the pressure of work did not permit the Manager to do the
same and the workman continued to work in the branch till
07.04.1987 and the sequence of events narrated above
would reveal that Party No. 1 adopted unfair labour
practice. The further case as stated by the union is that
after the discontinuance of the workman on 07.04.1987,
the Party No. 1 engaged Shri Bhakte, Shri Ganarkar, Shri
Tapase and Shri Durge from time to time in his place and
as the workman had done 575 days of work, he had a prior
claim for further appointment, which was illegally ignored
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4095
and Party No. 1 violated the provision of Section 25-H of
the Act.
The union has prayed for the reinstatement of the
workman in service with continuity, full back wages and
all consequential benefits.
3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has
pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged as Badlee
Sepoy with effect from 04.05.1983 and worked as Casual
Sepoy as and when work was provided to him, against
leave vacancy of permanent Sub-staff or wherever there
was temporary increase of work and he worked for 487
days till 01.01.1987 and he did not work for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of the date of his alleged
disengagement and he worked for only 119 days and in
view of the same, the workman is not entitled to claim any
relief under any of the provisions of the Act and as the
workman was not holding of any permanent post, engaging
anybody in his place does not arise and a panel of Badlee
Sepoys was maintained at the branch and as per exigencies
of work and the position available at the relevant time,
such Badlee Sepoys were engaged and it had neither
violated any provision of the Act nor adopted any unfair
labour practice and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. In support of the claim, the workman has examined
seven witnesses including himself, besides placing reliance
on the documentary evidence. The witnesses examined
by the workman are (1). Shri Chandrasekhar Gathibande
(the workman himself), (2). Shri Vinayak Joshi, (3). Shri
Shirish A. Damle, (4). Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney, (5). Shri
Balaji H. Bokde, (6). Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar and (7). Shri
Suresh Wirukar.
One Shri Raj Kumar Tulsiram Naik has been examined
as the only witness on behalf of the Party No. 1.
5. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that
it is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the
Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is
limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication
and to matters incidental there to.
6. During the course of argument, it was submitted
by the union representative that the workman was
appointed by the Branch Manager with the consent and
approval of the Zonal Manager and he was sponsored by
the Employment Exchange and he performed the duties of
a full time peon, although he was paid on daily wage basis
and he worked continuously from 04.05.1983 to 07.04.1987
and despite the existence of a permanent vacancy, Party
No. 1 did not regularize the workman and there was
violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F,
25-G and 25-H of the Act and the Party No. 1 adopted
unfair labour practice. It was further submitted by the
union representative that Party No. 1 has virtually admitted
the allegations made in the statement of claim, in their
written statement and from the oral evidence adduced by
the workman, which has not been challenged seriously in
the cross-examination, the documentary evidence
produced by the workman and the admission of the
witnesses examined by the Party No. 1 it can be found that
the claim of the workman has been fully proved and as
such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service
with continuity, full back wages and all consequential
benefits.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that though the Tribunal passed orders directing the Party
No. 1 to produce the relevant documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against Party No. 1 and the
reference is to be answered in favour of the workman.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the representative
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged on
purely casual basis temporally on 04.05.1983 and his
engagement was as and when required basis, due to taking
of leave by the permanent Sub-staff or temporary increase
of work load in the branch and the workman did not
complete 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the alleged date of termination and the workman
has admitted such facts and the evidence on affidavits of
the witnesses examined by the union are general affidavits
and no reliance can be placed on the same, as no document
has been produced by the workman to demonstrate that
he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of
the alleged date of termination and the workman has failed
to discharge the burden of proving that in fact he had
worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the
date of termination, so the provisions of the Act are not
applicable and adverse inference is not to be drawn for
non production of the documents and Party No. 1 did not
adopt any unfair labour practice and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In support of the submissions, reliance was placed
by Party No. 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC –
4791 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Hariram), (2006) 1 SCC –
106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9
SCC – 697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Raffi), (2006) 9 SCC – 132 (Surendra Nagar District
Paanchayat Vs Gangaben), Writ Petition No. 1072/2002 of
Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, (2006) 6 SCC
– 221 (Reserve Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma) and
AIR 2006 S.C. – 839 (Regional Manager, SBI Vs. Rakesh
Kumar).
8. First of all, I will take of the submission made by
the union representative regarding drawing of adverse
inference against the party no.1 for non production of the
documents. Admittedly, order was passed by the Tribunal
on 07.02.1996, directing the party no.1 to produce
4096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
documents as demanded by the union. However, the party
no.1 failed to produce the documents. The terms of
reference in this case is regarding the legality or otherwise
of the termination of the workman. On perusal of the
materials on record including the pleadings of the parties,
it is found that the claim of the workman about his
engagement on 04.05.1983 as Badlee sepoy at Kalmeswar
branch and that he worked till 07.04.1987 has been admitted
by the party no.1 in the written statement. The workman
himself has claimed that he was in the process of putting
of 240 days of employment in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of termination. The workman has also
furnished the statement of his working days as annexure-I
with the statement of claim, which clearly indicates that
the he did not work for 240 days in the preceding 12
calendar months of the alleged date of termination. The
party no.1 has not disputed the days of work as mentioned
in annexure-I. In view of such admitted facts and the
principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
decisions reported in AIR 2004 S.C-4791 (supra) and (2006)
1 SCC-106 (supra) in regard to drawing of adverse inference
for non production of documents by a party, to the case in
hand, it is found that there is no need to draw adverse
inference against the party no.1 for the non production of
the documents.
9. As the claim of the workman is that he was
engaged on 04.05.1983 as a Badlee sepoy at Kalmeswar
branch and he worked till 07.04.1987 and he was in the
process of completing 240 days of work in the preceding
12 calendar months of the date of his termination, has
been admitted by the party no.1, I think that there is no
need to discuss the oral evidence adduced by the parties
and so also the documents produced in that respect.
10. Though the reference has been made by the
central Government for adjudication of the legality or
otherwise of the termination of the workman, the union, in
the guise of raising the dispute on behalf the workman
has tried to challenge the policy adopted by the party
no.1 of engaging persons on temporary basis, inspite of
having number of permanent vacancies in the cadre of
sub-staff at different branches of the Bank. In view of the
settled principles that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond
the terms of reference as already mentioned above and in
view of the fact that such specific terms of reference has
not been made by the Government, such claim cannot be
adjudicated.
Moreover, from the materials on record including
the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the engagement
of the workman in this case as Badlee Sepoy was not
against any permanent vacancy in the branch, but his
engagement was on temporary basis as a daily wager, as
and when required basis against leave vacancy of the
permanent sub-staff or due to temporary increase of
workload in the branch.
At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention the
principles enunciated by the Hon,ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (supra). The Hon’ble
Apex Court have held that :
“ Labour Law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-
Validity-Workman not appointed to any regular post
but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to
day basis, held had no right to post.”
11. At this juncture, I also think it necessary to
mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decision
reported in AIR 2006 SC-1806 (Secretary, State of Karnatak
Vs. Umadevi & others)(Constitutional Bench).
It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon’ble Apex Court
that :
“Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the
court/Tribunal cannot direct regularisation of
temporary appointees de hors of rules-State owned/
operated corporations-Appointment-Modes of
appointment – Held regularization cannot be a mode
of appointment- Public Sector- Appointment- Mode
of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a
mode of appointment- Labour Law- Appointment-
Mode of appointment-Held, regularization cannot
be a mode of appointment- Regularization- Held, not
a permissible mode of appointment.”
It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that :
“The term ‘temporary employee’ is a general
category which has under it several sub-categories
e.g. casual employee, daily-rated employee, ad hoc
employee, etc. A daily-rated or casual worker is only
a temporary employee, and it is well settled that a
temporary employee has no right to the post, or to
be continued in service, to get absorption, far less
of being regularized and getting regular pay. No
doubt, there can be occasions when the state or its
instrumentalities employee persons on temporary
or daily wage basis in a contingency as additional
hands without following the required procedure, but
this does not confer any right on such persons to
continue in service or get regular pay. Unless the
appointments are made by following the rules, such
appointees do not have any right to claim permanent
absorption in the establishment. The Court cannot
direct continuation in service of a non-regular
appointee. Even if an ad hoc or casual appointment
is made in some contingency the same should not
be continued for long, as was done in the present
case. A casual or temporary employment is not an
appointment to a post in the real sense of the term.
The argument that since one has been working for
some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue
him, even though he was aware of the nature of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4097
employment when he first took it up, is one that
would enable the jettisoning of the procedure
establish by law for public employment.”
It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that :
“Employment on daily wage – Confers no right of
permanent employment- Daily wager appointed on
less than minimum wages – Not forced labour –
Continued on post for long period – Daily wagers
from a class by themselves – They cannot claim
parity visa-a-vis those regularly recruited on basis
of relevant rules and cannot be made permanent in
employment.
Employees were engaged on daily wages in the
concerned department on a wage that was made
known to them. There is no case that the wage
agreed upon was not being paid. Those who were
working on daily wages formed a class by
themselves, they cannot claim that they are
discriminated as against those who have been
regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules.
No right can be founded on an employment on daily
wages to claim that such employee should be treated
on a par with a regularly recruited candidate and
made permanent in employment even assuming that
the principle could be invoked for claiming the equal
wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right
in those who have been employed in daily wages or
temporally or on contractual basis, to claim that they
have a right to be absorbed in service. They cannot
be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular
appointment to be made only by making
appointments consistent with the requirements of
articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to
be treated equal with the other employees employed
on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for
equally treatment with those who were regularly
employed. That would be treating unequals as
equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to
be absorbed in service even though they have never
been selected in terms of relevant recruitment rules.”
Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned
above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.
12.On perusal of the materials on record and taking
into consideration the submissions made during the course
of argument by both the parties, it is found that the
workman was engaged as a Badlee Sepoy on daily wages
basis at Kalmeswar Branch and he worked in the said
branch intermittently in the leave vacancy of permanent
Sub-staff or when there was temporary increase of work in
the branch. The appointment of the workman was not
against any permanent post. It is to be mentioned here
that the submission made by the union representative that
the workman was appointed by the Branch Manager with
the approval of the Zonal Manager and his name was
sponsored by the Employment Exchange cannot be
entertained, in absence of such pleading in the statement
of claim and evidence on record in that regard. It is clear
from the record that the appointment of the workman was
not in accordance of the Rules of recruitment of Party
No. 1. It is also clear from the own pleadings of the workman
that he did not work for 240 days in the preceding 12
calendar months of the alleged date of termination i.e.
07.04.1987. To avail the benefits of Section 25-F of the
Act, it is necessary to show that infact the workman had
worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the
date of termination. As admittedly, the workman did not
work for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date
of termination, there was no need for Party No. 1 to comply
with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
13. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention
about the principles envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra) and
AIR 2006 SC – 839 (Supra).
In the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra)
the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :
“Labour law – Daily wager – Disengagement of –
Validity – Workman not appointed to any regular
post but engaged on the basis of need of work on
day to day basis, held, had no right to the post –
Hence, his disengagement on acquiring a
qualification exceeding the maximum prescribed,
held, could not be treated as arbitrary or amounting
to wrongful dismissal within the meaning of item 3
of schedule II to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 –
High Court erred in holding otherwise – Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, schedule II item 3 – Wrongful
dismissal – What is not – Post – Right to – Daily
wager, held, devoid of such a right.
Labour law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Ss. 25G
and 25F- Applicability of Section 25G – Where High
Court had not found the workman to have been
retrenched within the meaning of S. 25F, held, it erred
in holding S. 25G to be applicable.
In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC – 839 (Supra)
the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:
“Retrenchment – Respondent employed as
messenger on daily wage basis by bank – No
appointment letter issued to him – Termination of
his service – Reference was not made regarding
validity of retrenchment under S. 25G – But for not
considering respondent for reemployment under S.
25H – Order of reference did not refer to S. 25G but
only to S. 25H – Thus finding by Tribunal that order
terminating services of respondent was in violation
of S. 25G – Illegal – Further respondent in his
application under S. 33-C(2) never raised plea that
4098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
his services were illegally terminated – In
circumstances High Court’s view that termination
of services of respondent was invalid under S. 25H
– Not sustainable as S. 25H proceedes on assumption
that retrenchment has been validly made.
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), schedule 3 item
1 – Shastry award, para 497 – Benefit under –
Respondent employed by bank on ad hoc basis –
no appointment order was issued – Dispensation of
his services – Not in violation of para 497.
Para 497 deals with the right of apprentices and has
no application to temporary employees like the
respondent. Assuming that there was a violation of
the Shastry award by the appellant bank in both
cases either in not issuing appointment letters or
not maintaining a seniority list, service book in
respect of temporary employees etc., this would not
mean that therefore the respondents had been
properly appointed and their services wrongly
terminated. Admittedly no procedure whether in
law or under any award or settlement was followed
either of the respondents in both appeals. No
conditions of services were agreed to and no letter
of appointment was given. The nature of the
respondents’ employment was entirely ad hoc. They
had been appointed without considering any rule.
It would be ironical if the person who have benefited
by the flouting of the rules of appointment can rely
upon those rules when their services are dispensed
with.”
Judging the case in hand with the touch stone of
the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as
mentioned above, it is found that there is no merit in the
case of the workman and he is not entitled to any relief.
Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of India in
terminating the services of Shri Chandrasekhar Gathibande
is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1544-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ Mh ch
vkbZ cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (07@2010&11) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@09@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014
S.O. 1544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2010-
11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of I.D.B.I.
Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 16/05/2014.
[No. L-12011/09/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/07/2010-11
Date: 30.04.2013
Party No. 1 :
The Dy. General Manager,
Industrial Development Bank of India
At. WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai-400005.
Versus
Party No. 2 :
The General Secretary,
The I.D.B.I. Karmachari Sangh,
143/146, Bhavani Peth,
Satara- 415002.
AWARD
(Dated: 30th April, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of IDBI Bank and their workman, Shri S.G.
Bobde, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12011/09/2009-
IR (B-II) dated 01.09.2010, with the following schedule :
“Whether the action of the management of IDBI
Bank Ltd., Mumbai in issuing office order no. 1779
dated 07.02.2008 transferring the services of Shri
S.G. Bobde, workmen from Nagpur Branch to Raipur
Branch in Chhattisgarh is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the union, The I.D.B.I.
Karmachari Sangh, (“the union” in short) filed the statement
of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri S.G.Bobde, (“the
workman” in short) and the management of I.D.B.I. Bank,
(“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4099
The case of the workman as projected by the union
in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a registered
trade union and party no.1 is a public sector bank and is
an “Industry” within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the
Act and as per notification dated 10th September, 2006 of
the Government of India, the United Western Bank Ltd,
(“the UWBL” in short) was amalgamated with the Industrial
Development Bank of India Ltd. (“the I.D.B.I.” in short)
with entire business, properties, assets and liabilities and
according to clause 8 of the above mentioned notification,
all the employees of the UWBL were deemed to have been
appointed in the transferee bank at the same remuneration
and on the same terms and conditions of service as were
applicable to such employees immediately before the close
of business on 02.09.2006. It is further pleaded by the
union that it was previously operating as a registered trade
union in the name and style of “United Western Bank
Karmachari Sangh” and was the majority union of the
employees of erstwhile UWBL and after the amalgamation,
it was necessary to change the name and as such, it got its
name changed as “IDBI Karmachari Sangh”, (“the union”
in short), with due approval of the authorities under the
Trade union Act and the Party no.1 was requested to give
it the status of recognized majority union and furnished
the list of its office bearers vide communication dated
25.11.2006 and the list of the protected workmen to be
declared as protected workmen under Rule 61 of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (“the Rules” in
short) was forwarded to the party no.1 every year and as
party no.1 did not make any correspondence with it, the
grievance was raised before the competent authority under
the Act and the said authority directed the party no.1 to
declare the protected workmen vide order dated 09.02.2010.
The further case of the union is that the genesis of
the present dispute was order no. 1779 dated 07.02.2008,
by which, the workman, who was its prime office bearer
was transferred from laxminagar branch, Nagpur to Raipur
Branch, in the state of Chhatisgarh and the workman was
working in the clerical grade in the erstwhile UWBL since
03.10.1977 and there was posts of special assistant having
special allowance in the UWBL and the modalities and
formalities for selection and filling up the posts of special
assistant were settled by way of Settlement dated
26.07.1997 between the management of the UWBL and the
then Western Bank Karmachari Sangh and in pursuance
to the said settlement, the workman was selected and
offered the post of Special Assistant and was posted to
Laxminagar, Nagpur branch and he was working at the
said branch as a Special Assistant with higher allowance
and on 07.02.2008, the day on which, the workman was
transferred by party no.1 to Raipur Branch, there was no
existing post of Special Assistant in Raipur branch and as
such, the order no. 1779 dated 07.02.2008 was arbitrary
and illegal and posts of special assistant are different posts
than a clerical post and it was well decided in the settlement
dated 26.07.1997 as to how, when and where the existing
special assistants can be transferred by the bank and
clauses 12 of the said settlement deals with the shifting of
the post of special assistant, when the same is found not
useful or becomes redundant at a particular branch to other
branch/office in the same city where the services of a
special assistant can be utilized, whereas, clause 15 deals
with administrative transfers and according to clause 15
of the said settlement, “without prejudice to the
provisions, in respect of the transfers of award staff, as
provided in Bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1966 as
amended up-to-date, a special Assistant can be transferred
within city, on administrative grounds, after a period of
three years from the date the duties of special assistant
are assigned to him and the transfer within Municipal/
Corporation/ Agglomeration area will be treated as a
transfer within city having the same CCA/HRA.” and
applying the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that party
no.1 committed breach of the settlement and willfully
violated the same, by transferring the workman out of the
state of Maharashtra i.e. Chhattisgarh State and the order
is therefore, illegal and arbitrary.
The further plea of the union is that the provisions
of Sastry award were applicable to the employees of
erstwhile UWBL, by virtue of the settlement signed by
the parties and clause 535 of Sastry Award provides the
issue of transfer of award staff employees and the approach
of the management towards transfers of office bearers of
the Trade unions and the workman was holding the post
of Deputy General Secretary of the union and he was prime
and main office bearer of the union, which fact was very
well within the knowledge of the party no.1 and the
workman was representing the union before the various
conciliation officers and was acting as defence
representative in the matter of disciplinary actions initiated
by party no.1 in respect of few employees and it is not
unlikely that it is for the said reasons only, the party no.1
decided to shift him to faraway place to curb the trade
union activities and before issuing the order impugned,
no notice was given to the workman, as required under
the provision of para 535 of Sastry award and the order
was issued with ulterior motive and in a most calculated
and disgraceful manner by party no.1 and suddenly on
04.02.2008, the workman was relieved from Laxminagar
branch for Bhandara branch and when the workman was
on leave for organization purposes, he was relieved from
Laxminagar branch on 21.02.2008, actually without serving
the order of transfer from Nagpur to Raipur on him and the
workman protested against such transfer by his
representation dated 22.02.2008 and by his notice dated
23.02.2008, but party no.1 did not cancel the transfer, so
the present industrial dispute was raised and the order of
transfer of the workman was not an administrative order
issued in public interest and there was neither a post of
special assistant nor there was any need of a special
4100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
assistant at Raipur and the transfer was not effected in
normal circumstances and the same is illegal and arbitrary
and unfair labour practice as provided in item 7 of the Vth
Schedule to the Act and the transfer of the workman was
made in colourable exercise of powers by the party no.1
and therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.
The union has prayed to declare that the party no.1
has indulged in unfair labour practices, to declare the order
of transfer of the workman dated 07.02.2008 as illegal and
unjustified and to set aside the same and to repatriate the
services of the workman to his original branch i.e.
Laxminagar branch,
3. The party no.1 in the written statement have
admitted the amalgamation of UWBL with IDBI as per
notification dated 30.09.2006 and that according to
provisions of chapter V of the Scheme of amalgamation,
“all the employees on the transferor bank shall continue
in service and be deemed to have been appointed in the
transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same
terms and conditions of service, as were applicable to such
employees immediately before the close of business on
02.09.2006.
It is further pleaded by party no.1 that after the
amalgamation, it became necessary to streamline their
business strategy and fully integrate the different segments
to active synergy and operating efficiency and for that
transfer of various employees including the workman was
done purely as an administrative decision and due to office
exigencies and the transfer of the workman was in full
conformity with the applicable settlement governing the
terms and conditions of services of the employees of
erstwhile UWBL and was not violative of any applicable
laws or the terms of settlement governing the workman
and the reference is not maintainable on the ground of
absence of cause of action. It is further pleaded by party
no.1 that in terms of clause 11 of the scheme of
amalgamation, they closed/relocated/shifted 48 branches
and five zonal offices of UWBL as well as the co-operative
office, necessitating the redeployment of the employees
to their new locations and the transfer of the workman
was done in the routine way in normal course as was done
in case of other employees and the service conditions of
the workman were governed by the settlement dated July
11, 2005 and there were express provisions for transfer of
award staff in the said settlement and the workman was
deployed from Nagpur branch to Raipur branch, which
was within the permitted distance of 300 Kms and hence,
the statement of claim needs to be rejected in limine.
The party no.1 have pleaded further that the
directions of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to declare
the office bearers of the union as protected workmen was
vide the proceedings dated 26th November, 2008, based
on initial letter dated 11th February, 2008, whereas, the
posting order of the workman was issued on 7th February,
2008, i.e. before the union had raised the demand for
according protected workmen status for its office bearers
and the workman was not a protected workman till the
proceedings were recorded by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and the settlement dated 26th November,
1997 was in force for a period of three years, from the date
of its inception and as such, the said settlement was not
applicable with regards to the posts of special assistant
due to efflux of time and at the time of transfer of the
workman, the settlement dated 11th July, 2005 was in force
and in the said settlement, there are express provisions for
transfer of award staff and the discretion lies with the
bank to identify the number of the employees to be
redeployed from each centre/branch/office to meet its
requirements and the workman was not transferred out of
Nagpur since 1985 i.e. for more than 22 years and his
transfer to Raipur branch was well within the permissible
distance from his earlier place of posting i.e. Laxminagar
Branch in Nagpur and due to non continuance of the
settlement of 1997, all the special assistants, who were
employed by UWBL lost the protections available to them
under the settlement of 1997, even though they continued
to draw the salary of special assistants and this was further
fortified from the fact that the settlement of 2005, which
was entered into by the employees of UWBL and UWBL
did not recognize the protections to any class of workers,
on the contrary, a detailed policy of deployment of staff
encompassing all was formulated and the same was
accepted by the union in toto and therefore, there is no
merit in the submission that the workman should have
been transferred to a branch at least where a post of special
assistant was in existence or the transfer should have been
made in Municipal Limit only and the transfer order in
perfectly legal and just and proper and the workman was
paid the allowance of special assistant and categorized as
special assistant, even after his transfer to Raipur and as
the workman was neither the president nor the vice
president or the secretary of the union and was the Deputy
General Secretary of the union, he was not entitled for
protection as provided in Sastry Award and the workman
is not entitled to any relief.
4. In support of their respective stands, both the
parties have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman has been examined as a witness by
the union, whereas, one Shri Harshad Anil Kelkar has been
examined as a witness by party no.1.
The workman in his examination-in-chief, which is
on affidavit has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. In his cross-examination, the workman
has admitted that there was a settlement between the union
and the management of UWBL on 11.07.2005 and as per
schedule V of the said agreement, there was understanding
for deployment of staff of the bank and as per Ext. W-III,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4101
the order of the ALC, Mumbai dated 09.02.2010, the office
bearers of the union were declared as protected workmen.
5. The evidence of the witness examined on behalf
of party no.1 is also the reiteration of the facts mentioned
in the written statement filed by party no.1. In his cross-
examination, the witness for party no.1 has admitted that
the workman was an office bearer of his union and he was
working as a special assistant in UWBL and there was no
post of special assistant at Raipur branch, but the workman
was paid allowance of special assistant, while working at
civil lines branch, Raipur.
6. Before delving into the merit of the matter, it is to
be mentioned here that there is no dispute between the
parties that as per the notification dated 30.09.2006, issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, the
UWBL was amalgamated with IDBI and all the employees
of UWBL became the employees of IDBI w.e.f. 02.09.2006
and that the workman was working as a special assistant
in UWBL, before such amalgamation and that while he
was working as such in Laxminagar Branch, he was
transferred to Raipur branch of IDBI on 07.02.2008.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the union that according to clauses
12 and 15 of the settlement dated 26.07.1997, the transfer
of a special assistant can only be made within city i.e.
within the Municipal Corporation area, on administrative
grounds, after a period of three years from the date of
assignment of the duties of special assistant to him and
the party no.1 committed breach of the provisions of the
said settlement and willfully violated the provisions by
transferring the workman out of the state of Maharashtra.
It was further argued by the learned advocate for the union
that clause 535 of Sastry award provides the procedure of
transfer of award staff employees and that of the office
bearers of Trade unions and the workman was the Deputy
General Secretary of the union and he was involved in
various Trade union activities and only to harass, victimize
and discourage the workman from Trade union activities,
he was transferred to Raipur, in violation of clause 535 of
Sastry award and even though, the workman was a
protected workman, he was transferred with ulterior motive
and even though, there was no post of special assistant
of Raiput branch, the workman was transferred to the said
branch and the action of the party no.1 is illegal and unfair
labour practice and as such, the order of transfer is liable
to be set aside and the workman is to be reposted to
Laxminagar branch.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocate for the union placed reliance on the decision
reported in 1995 I LW-678 (A.P. John Vs. Karnataka State
Transport Corporation).
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no.1 that the transfer of the workman
was in full conformity with the applicable settlement
governing the terms and conditions of services of the
workman and there was no necessity of serving of any
notice to the workman as per clause 535 of Sastry Award
before his transfer and the UWBL entered into an
agreement with their employees’ union on 11.07.2005 and
the same was applicable to the workman at the time of his
transfer and in the said settlement, there were express
provisions for transfer of award staff and the discretion of
transfer lies with party no.1 to meet its requirements and
in accordance with schedule V of the said settlement, the
workman was transferred to Raipur branch on 07.02.2008
from Laxminagar branch, which is situated within the
permitted distance of 300 kilometers, on account of
exigencies of business of party no.1 and there was no
violation of any provision and since, the subject matter
was/is subjudiced, and there was no specific request from
the workman, he was not redeployed, after lapse of one
year, as during the pendency of the dispute, the service
condition is required to be unchanged and the conditions
given in the amalgamation notification ended on 02.10.2009
and the terms and conditions of service prevailing in the
party no.1 have become applicable to the employees of
UWBL including the workman, as per the internal circular
dated 01.10.2009. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was
transferred on 07.02.2008 and the union vide its letter dated
11.02.2008 furnished the list of the office bearers
demanding to declare them as protected workman under
the provision of the Act and the workman was not the
President, Vice President or Secretary of the union at the
time of his transfer, so he cannot be said to be a protected
workman and the protection given in Sastry Award for
transfer of office bearers is not applicable to him and the
settlement dated 26.07.1997 expired after the expiry of three
years, as per clause 19 of the said settlement and as such,
the said settlement is not applicable to the workman due
to efflux of time and the transfer of the workman is just and
proper and in accordance with the provisions of the
settlement applicable to the parties and it was never mala
fide or ill intent and there was no unfair labour practice or
victimization and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
It was also submitted by the learned advocate for
the party no.1 that transfer of an employee is not only an
incident inherent in the terms of employment but also
implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence
of any specific indication to the contra, in the law
governing or conditions of service and a challenge to an
order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should
not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though
they are appellate authorities over such orders, which could
assess the niceties of the administrative needs and
requirement of the situation concerned. In support of
such contentions, the learned advocate for the party no.1
4102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2004 III CLR-
78 (State of UP Vs. Goverdhan Lal) and 2008 III CLR-136
(Airport Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey).
Now, keeping in view the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Courts in the decisions cited by the
learned advocates for the parties, the case in hand is to be
considered.
9. The first contention raised by the learned
advocate for the union is that there was violation of clause
15 of the settlement dated 26.07.1997 (Exbit-W IV) as the
transfer of the workman was not made with the city as
provided in the said clause. There is no doubt clause 15
of the aforesaid settlement provided that, “without
prejudice to the provisions, in respect of the transfers of
award staff, as provided in bipartite settlement dated 19th
October, 1966 as amended up-to-date, a special assistant
can be transferred within city, on administrative grounds,
after a period of three years from the date the duties of the
special assistant are assigned to him.
The transfer within Municipal/Corporation/
agglomeration area shall be treated as transfer within city
having the same CCA/HRA.”
However, clause 19 of the settlement dated
26.07.1997 clearly provides that the said settlement was in
force for a period of three years from the date of this
settlement so the aforesaid settlement automatically
became in- operative, due to efflux of three years time from
the date of signing of the settlement. Admittedly, the
transfer of the workman was made on 07.02.2008. So the
conditions of transfer as mentioned in the settlement dated
26.07.1997 were not applicable to the workman. The
workman is not entitled to claim privilege from the said
settlement.
10. The next contention raised by the learned
advocate for the union is that the workman was a protected
workman and as such, he should not have been transferred
to Raipur and on that ground also, the transfer of the
workman is illegal. However, from the own document filed
by the union, Ext W-III, it is found that the union made an
application dated 07.07.2009 under sub-Rule 4 of Rule 61
of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (“the
Rules” in short) to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner,
Bombay-III for a direction to the party no.1 to declare the
members of the union as protected workmen and the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-III, Mumbai on
9.02.2010 passed orders directing party no.1 to declare the
16 office bearers of the union including the workman as
protected workman. Admittedly, the workman had not been
declared as a protected workman on the date of his transfer
and there was no violation of any provision by the party
no.1 by transferring the workman to Raipur branch.
11. The third contention raised by the learned
advocate for the union is that there was violation of the
provision of 535 of the Sastry Award by party no.1. Clause
535 of Sastry Award provides that,
1.
“Every registered bank employees’ union, from
time-to-time, shall furnish the bank with the names
of the President, Vice-President and the
Secretaries of the union.
2.
Except in very special cases, whenever the
transfer of any of the above mentioned officers
is contemplated, at least five clear working days
notice should be put up on the notice boards of
the bank of such contemplated action.
3.
Any representations, written or oral, made by
the union shall be considered by the bank.
4.
If any order of transfer is ultimately made, a record
shall be made by the bank of such representations
and the banks reasons for regarding them as
inadequate and
5.
The decision shall be communicated to the union
as well as to the employee concern.”
It is clear from the above provisions that the
directions given in clause 535 are in regard to the transfer
of the President, Vice-President and the Secretaries of the
union. Admittedly, the workman was not the President,
Vice-President or the Secretary of the union on the date of
his transfer. He was the Dy. General Secretary. So the
workman is not entitled to get the benefits of clause 535 of
Sastry Award.
12. Schedule “V” of the memorandum of settlement
dated 11th July, 2005, Exhibit-M-II, which was in operation
on the date of transfer of the workman provides the
deployment of staff of party no.1. Clause-II of the said
schedule provides that in cases necessitating deployment
outside the district, the workman concerned may be
deployed to any branch/office of the Bank situated outside
the district up to a distance not exceeding 300 kilometers
from his present place of posting and the tenure of such
transfer should be three years, two years and one year, in
case of transfer up to a distance of 100 Kms, 200 Kms and
300 Kms respectively. According to the party no.1, the
distance between Laxminagar Branch and Raipur Branch
is 280 Kms and the transfer of the workman was well within
the distance of 300 Kms. Though the workman has claimed
that the distance between Laxminagar Branch and Raipur
Branch is more than 300 Kms, there is no legal evidence
on record in support of such claim. Hence, it cannot be
said that the transfer of the workman was made beyond
300 kms and therefore is illegal.
13. Though the workman has claimed that his
transfer was made to victimize him and to discourage him
to take part in union activities and unfair labour practice
was adopted by party no.1, there is no legal evidence on
record in support of such claims. From the materials on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4103
record, it cannot be held that there was any victimization
or adoption of unfair labour practice by party no.1. Hence,
the transfer of the workman cannot be declared as illegal.
14. Admittedly, the workman has already worked for
more than five years at Raipur Branch and that his transfer
had been made to a place more than 200 Kms away, but
less than 300 Kms. So the workman is entitled to be brought
back to his previous place of posting or if the same is not
possible due to administrative ground, then to any of the
three centers of the choice of the workman. According to
the party no.1, as the dispute raised by the union was
subjudiced and there was no request by the workman, the
workman could not be brought back to the original centre.
Hence, it is necessary for the party no.1 to bring back the
workman to the original centre, from where he was
transferred or if the same is not possible due to
administrative ground, then to any one of the three centers
opted by the workman. The workman is also entitled to
get compensation of Rs. 1000 per month as per the
provision of clause IX of schedule “V” of Ext-M-II. Hence,
it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of IDBI Bank Ltd.,
Mumbai in issuing office order no. 1779 dated 07.02.2008
transferring the services of Shri S.G. Bobde, workmen from
Nagpur Branch to Raipur Branch in Chattisgarh is legal
and justified. However, the party No.1 is directed to bring
back the workman to the original centre from where he
was transferred or if the same is not possible due to
administrative ground, then to any one of the three centers
opted by the workman. The workman is also entitled to
get compensation of Rs. 1000 per month as per the
provision of clause IX of schedule “V” of Ext-M-II, from
the date of his joining at Raipur Branch till the date of his
transfer from the said branch.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1545-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 04@2004)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@170@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014
S.O. 1545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2004)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Bank of India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/05/2014.
[No. L-12012/170//2003-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/04/2004
Date: 12.04.2013
Party No.1
:
The Asstt. General Manager,
Bank of India, Nagpur Zone,
Zonal Office, S.V. Patel Marg,
Post Box no.4, Nagpur- 440001.
Versus
Party No.2
:
Shri Ravi S/o. Mulchand Rajsevati,
R/o. Fagoji Patil Layout, Plot No. 35,
Godhani Railway, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 12th April, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of and their workman, Shri, for adjudication,
as per letter No.L-12012/170/2003-IR (B-II) dated
12.12.2003, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India, Nagpur Zone, Nagpur (MS) in awarding the
punishment of dismissal w.e.f. 31.03.2001 to Shri Ravi
S/o. Sh. Mulchand Rajsevati, Staff Sweeper/Sub
Staff, Reshimbagh Branch of the Bank is justified?
If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled
to?”
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 Ravi
Rajsevati, (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of
claim and the management of Bank of India, (“party no.1”
in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was appointed as a staff
sweeper by party no.1 on 27.08.1989 and posted at Civil
Branch, Nagpur and in the year 1995, he was transferred
to Rashimbagh Branch and after his joining at Rashimbagh
4104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Branch, relation between him and the Branch Manager of
the said branch deteriorated, as he did not agree to perform
domestic work, as asked by the said branch Manager and
for such refusal, the party no.1 started to prepare false
records behind his back, to show that he was not
discharging his duties properly and on 07.07.2000, party
no.1 passed an illegal order of withholding of his two
increments for one year, without conducting any enquiry,
only basing on the recommendation of the Manager of
Reshimbagh branch and the fabricated documents created
against him and the branch manager of Rashimbagh branch
was in search of opportunity to take action against him
and on 20.12.2000, a charge sheet containing four charges
was submitted against him and the charges levelled against
him were minor in nature and did not involve falsification
of the record or embezzlement or misappropriation of the
funds and he was also put under suspension, vide order
dated 20.11.2000 (wrongly mentioned as 20.11.2002 in the
statement of claim) and party no.1 appointed shri M.B.
Rangari, the staff officer, Regional Office, Nagpur as the
enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against him and he
filed his reply to the charge sheet, denying the allegations
and the departmental enquiry was proceeded against him,
but the same was conducted in violation of the principles
of natural justice and without giving any chance to him to
rebut the charges or to cross-examine the witnesses.
The further case of the workman is that he was
allowed to engage his defence representative, shri N.M.
Dongre and during the course of enquiry, there was an
oral proposal from the side of party no.1 that in the event
of his accepting the charges, there would be infliction of
minor punishment against him and in view of the same, on
20.02.2001, he gave his consent to the Dy. Chief Regional
Manager, Nagpur and accordingly, during the proceeding
dated 22.02.2001, he intimated the enquiry officer about
the submission of his apology letter to the management
and to stop the departmental proceeding against him till
taking of decision by the management on the same, but
the enquiry officer without waiting for the decision of the
management on his apology, proceeded with the enquiry
and concluded the same in a haste, only to oblige the
management and allegedly submitted his report, without
disclosing the date of submission of such report to him.
It is also the case of the workman that the enquiry
officer was against him from the very beginning, for the
reasons best known to him and he tendered his apology
on 20.02.2001, on receipt of oral proposal from the
management and left the enquiry with the hope that the
matter would be considered by the management, but the
enquiry officer on 22.02.2001 did not stop the enquiry, due
to the objection raised by the presenting officer and
continued the enquiry on 26.02.2001, 27.02.2001 and
28.01.2001, without giving him any intimation and the
enquiry was conducted in utter disregard to the principles
of natural justice and documents were admitted into
evidence and marked as exhibits, without examination of
the witnesses, basing only on the submission of the
presenting officer on 20.12.2001 and such action, clearly
shows that the management was prejudiced and biased
against him and was predetermined to dismiss him from
services and the letter of admission of guilt was tendered
by him under the threat given by the enquiry officer and
the copy of the report of the enquiry officer was not given
to him and no second show-cause notice was issued and
by his letters dated 06.08.2001, 10.09.2001, 07.03.2002 and
19.03.2002, he had asked the party no.1 about the result of
the enquiry and party no.1 by their memorandum dated
02.04.2002, communicated the copy of the dismissal order
purported to have been issued on 30.03.2001 and in that
letter, party no.1 had referred about issuance of alleged
show cause notice, but without mentioning therein whether
the copy of the enquiry report was enclosed to the said
alleged show-cause notice dated 22.03.2001 and the copy
of the enquiry report was supplied to him for the first time
on 08.03.2002 and he filed an appeal against the order of
punishment on 24.04.2002, but the appeal was rejected on
the ground of filing of the same beyond 45 days and such
fact was communicated to him on 04.05.2002 and as the
order dated 30.03.2001 and 04.05.2002 are illegal, the same
are liable to be quashed and set aside and the punishment
is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the
charges.
The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the
order of punishment dated 31.03.2001 and to reinstate him
in service with continuity, full back wages and other
consequential benefits.
3. The party no.1 in their written statement, after
denying all the allegations made in the statement of claim
have pleaded inter-alia that the workman was never
engaged by them for their domestic work and at no point
of time, any record contrary to the work done and service
rendered by the workman was prepared behind his back
and the order passed on 07.07.2000 is not illegal and the
said order was not passed basing on any fabricated
incidents, much less on the recommendation of the Branch
Manager of Rashimbagh Branch and there was no question
of the Branch Manager, Reshimbagh Branch, of seeking
chance to book the workman and the workman committed
misconducts and considering the gravity of the
misconducts committed by the workman, they had left
with no option, but to suspend him pending departmental
enquiry and a charge sheet was issued to the workman,
stating therein the details of the misconduct committed
by him and the charges mentioned in the charge sheet
were not minor in nature and the workman submitted his
reply to the charge sheet and the workman in his reply did
not deny the charges and Shri M.B. Rangari was appointed
as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4105
against the workman and considering the principles of
natural justice and with a view to have a fair and proper
enquiry and to afford every opportunity to the workman
to defend himself effectively, permission was given to him
to engage the defence representative of his choice and
the workman appointed Shri N.M. Dongre as his defence
representative and during the enquiry, neither any oral or
written proposal was given by them to the workman that
incase of acceptance of the chargesby him, minor penalties
would be inflicted, but on the contrary, it was the workman,
who during the course of the enquiry, on 20.02.2001
alongwith his representative handed over an application
duly signed by him and his representative accepting the
charges mentioned in the charge sheet and there is no
provision of law that if the delinquent or charge sheeted
employee tenders the admission of guilt on the condition
that his case would be considered sympathycally, the
enquiry officer is duty bound to stop the proceedings and
the enquiry was not completed by the enquiry officer in a
haste in order to oblige the management for any reason
and the enquiry report was not submitted by the enquiry
officer without disclosing the date of submission of the
same and even for the sake of argument, it is admitted that
such date was not disclosed, still then, no prejudice was
caused to the workman and the enquiry officer was never
against the workman and the management was neither
prejudiced nor predetermined or biased against the
workman, to dismiss him from services and the enquiry
was conducted fairly and according to the principles of
natural justice and at no point of time, any threat was
given by the enquiry officer to the workman to tender the
letter of admission of guilt and each and every possible
attempt, which an ordinary prudent enquiry officer would
take, was taken by the enquiry officer to ensure the supply
of documents and it was the workman, who refused to
receive the registered parcels containing the documents
and thus, it is ridiculous to say on the part of the workman
that the documents were not supplied to him and in answer
to the letter of the workman dated 07.03.2002, he was
intimated by letter dated 08.03.2002 to collect the order of
dismissal dated 31.03.2001 from the office of the Branch
Manager, Rashimbagh branch and show cause notice dated
22.03.2001 alongwith the copy of the findings of the
enquiry officer was sent to the workman not only by
registered post with acknowledgement due, but also, by
hand delivery, but the workman refused to receive the
same and the reasons mentioned by the workman for not
attending the enquiry are false and the punishment
imposed against the workman is not shockingly
disproportionate and the documents filed on 10.02.2001
before the enquiry officer were supplied to the
representative of the workman alongwith the list in
presence of the workman and the representative of the
workman also acknowledged the receipt of the same and
verified from the original documents and the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
4. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention
that as this is a case of dismissal of the workman, after
holding of a departmental enquiry, the validity or otherwise
of the departmental enquiry was considered as a
preliminary issue by this Tribunal and by order dated
06.03.2007, the enquiry was held to be proper, legal and
justified. It is also necessary to mention that being
aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2007, the workman
approached the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in writ petition no. 1749/
2007 for redress and by order dated 10.02.2012, the Hon’ble
High Court was pleased to pass the following orders :
“4. Upon perusal of the evidence placed on record,
it seems that the enquiry officer has put certain
questions to the witnesses. Whether they are
extracting clarification from the witnesses or in the
nature of cross-examination of the witnesses for the
management, is required to be gone into. Since the
aspect pertains to the fairness of the enquiry, the
learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
raise this question.
5. Since the aforesaid question was not raised
before the CGIT, there is no finding of the Tribunal
on that aspect of the matter, However, since now the
petitioner is permitted to raise this issue, the CGIT
will have to record its finding on it. Hence, the matter
will have to be sent back to the CGIT to decide the
said issue afresh after permitting the parties to amend
their pleadings appropriately.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 06.03.2007 passed by the CGIT, Nagpur,
in case No. CGIT/NGP/04/2004 is hereby quashed
and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
Tribunal to decide the question of fairness of the
enquiry afresh, keeping in view the observations
made by this court.
Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as
to costs.
5. The party no.1 challenged the judgment and order
dated 10th February, 2012 in writ petition no. 1749/2007 by
filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 215/2012 before the
Hon’ble High Court. The said L.P.A. was disposed of by
the Hon’ble High Court by order dated 26.07.2012. The
order passed by the Hon’ble High Court dated 26.07.2012
is as follows:-
“We have heard the learned counsel of the rival
parties. We have perused the proceedings of the
examination of the witnesses before the enquiry
officer. We have perused the questions which were
asked by the enquiry officer to the witnesses. In
our opinion, the nature of the questions put to the
4106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
witnesses clearly shows that those questions were
put by the enquiry officer for keeping the record
straight in the relation to the details about the subject
matter and the witnesses. Not a single question put
by the enquiry officer indicates that the same is in
the nature of the cross-examination or in any way
predatory to the interest of the respondent no.1
employee. That apart, the said issue was never raised
by the respondent no.1 before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court
and therefore it was not permissible for the
respondent no.1 to raise the said issue for the first
time in the writ petition before the Learned Single
Judge. That being so, the said point could not have
been dealt with for the first time in the writ petition.
The second aspect regarding the observation
made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
Cum-Labour Court and therefore it was not
permissible for the respondent no.1 to raise the said
issue for the first time in the writ petition before the
Learned Single Judge. That being so, the said point
could not have been dealt with for the first time in
the writ petition.
The second aspect regarding the observation
made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
Cum-Labour Court that the respondent no.1 was
allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined
by the bank is also not correct, since we have seen
the proceedings of the enquiry officer and we find
that the said observation made by the Learned Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court
is contrary to the record. Therefore, the said
observation recorded by the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court needs
reconsideration after hearing both the parties. In
this view of the matter, we pass the following order.
ORDER
Letters Patent Appeal No. 21/2012 is allowed
The impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2012
in writ petition no. 1749 of 2007 passed by the Learned
Single Judge, so also the order dated 06.03.2007 in Case
no. CGIT/NGP/04/2004 passed by the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, are set aside.
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, shall now examine the issue afresh on all
points regarding fairness of enquiry after providing
opportunity of hearing to both sides and made a fresh
order, within three months from today.
6. The workman filed Civil Application NO. 457/
2012 in LPA no. 215/2012 for clarification/ modification of
the order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Court
and the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the said Civil
Application on 22.08.2012 with the following orders:-
“Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The prayer made in the application cannot be granted
and this court cannot modify the order and allow
the respondent no.1 to amend the statement of claim.
However, the trial court is free to consider the
application for amendment to the statement of claim
on merits.
The civil application is disposed of.”
7. It will not be out of place to mention here that,
the workman filed an application for amendment of the
statement of claim, but the same was rejected by order
dated 04.09.2012.
8. In view of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court,
the fairness of the enquiry was taken up for consideration
after providing opportunity of hearing to both sides and
by order dated 19.10.2012, the departmental enquiry
conducted against the workman was held to be legal,
proper and in accordance with the principles of natural
justice.
9. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
Learned Advocate for the workman that out of the three
charges levelled against the workman, charge no.3, is
vague, as no specific date and time of the commission of
alleged misconduct by the workman has been mentioned
and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse as
there is no evidence on record of the enquiry to support
such findings and the evidence of the witnesses examined
by the party No.1 in the enquiry proceedings does not
prove the charges and no evidence was produced to prove
the charge no.2. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the workman that the alleged misconduct are
covered under “Minor Misconduct” and the punishment
is against the Bipartite Settlement and the same is
shockingly disproportionate and at the time of awarding
the punishment, party no.1 did not take into account the
gravity of the misconduct and so also the previous
unblemished service record of 11 years of the workman
and therefore, the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with full
back wages and continuity in service and for minor
misconduct, minor punishment be imposed on the
workman, in the interest of justice.
In support of such contention, the Learned Advocate
for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported
in 1988 I-LLJ-256 (Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India and
others), 1988 I CLR-638 (Colour chem. Ltd. Vs. A.L.
Alaspurkar), 1997 III LLJ-645 (Kuldip Singh Vs. Pepsu Road
Transport Corporation), 1984 I LLJ-546 [Ved Prakash Gupta
Vs. Messers Dalten Cable India (P) Ltd.], 1990 I LLJ-298
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4107
(The Management of Madras Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Presiding
Officer) and 2013-I-LLJ-153 (Mad) (K.Kaliranjan Vs.
Presiding Officer).
10. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no.1 that the workman had admitted
the charges by submitting the letter of admission dated
20.02.2001 and such admission is binding on him proprio
vigore and he is not permitted to resile there from or explain
away the same and to claim that the findings of the enquiry
officer are perverse. In support of such contention,
reliance was place by the learned advocate for the party
no.1 on the decision reported in 2002 (93) FLR-245 (H.K.
Reddy Vs. Central Bank of India, Hyderabad).
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the party no.1 that by order dated 19.10.2012 it has already
been held by the Tribunal that the departmental enquiry
conducted against the workman is legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and
charges of grave misconduct have been proved against
the workman in a properly conducted departmental
enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer are based
on the evidence on record of the enquiry and the enquiry
officer has arrived at the findings after analyzing the
evidence in a rational manner and as such, the findings of
the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse and the
misconducts committed by the workman are not minor
misconducts as claimed and as the punishment imposed
against the workman is not shockingly disproportionate,
there is no scope for the Tribunal to interfere with
punishment.
In support of such contention, the learned advocate
for the party no.1 placed reliance on the decision reported
in AIR 2002 SC 2012 (Union of India Vs. Narain Singh).
11. In view of the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the parties, I think it proper to mention the
principles as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a chain
of decisions including the decisions cited by the learned
advocates for the parties in regard to the nature and scope
of the Tribunal’s power to interfere with the findings and
punishment awarded by competent authority in
departmental proceedings. It is well settled by the Hon’ble
Apex Court that;-
“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with
the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be
equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal
cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry
officer or competent authority where they are not
arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose
penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the
competent authority either by an Act of legislature
or rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the
Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent
with the rules and in accordance with principles of
natural justice what punishment would meet the ends
of justice is a matter exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty
can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the
proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to
substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.
The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is
certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern
itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with
the penalty if the conclusion of the enquiry officer
or the competent authority is based on evidence
even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or
extraneous to the matter.”
It is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that :
“A review of the above legal position would
establish that the disciplinary authority and on
appeal, the appellate authority, being fact finding
authorities have exclusive power to consider the
evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They
are invested with the discretion to impose
appropriate punishment keeping in view the
magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High
Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial
review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other
penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,
it would appropriately mould the relief, either
directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to
reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,
impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons
in support thereof.
The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts
and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate
authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and
jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its
own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact-finding
authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation
of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction
may not normally interfere with those factual findings
unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either
on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse
and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of
the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the
High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an
appellate authority over the factual findings recorded
during departmental proceedings, while exercising the
power of judicial review, the High Court cannot, normally
speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to
the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental
authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or
punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty
4108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate
authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the
conscience of the High Court, it should not normally
substitute its own opinion and impose some other
punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears,
ignored the well-settled principle that even though judicial
review of administrative action must remain flexible and
its dimension not closed, yet the Court, in exercise of the
power of judicial review, is not concerned with the
correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which
the orders are made so long as those findings are
reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived
at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for
procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the
process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial
review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the
decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-
making process.”
So, keeping in view the principles as mentioned
above and the principles enunciated in the decisions cited
by the learned advocates for the parties, now, present
case in hand is to be considered.
12. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the workman that the misconducts
alleged to be committed by the workman are minor
misconducts as per Bipartite Settlement and as such, the
punishment is shockingly disproportionate. However, I
find no force in the said contention, as because as per the
expression of gross-misconduct given in the Bipartite
Settlement applicable to the parties, the acts and omissions
on the part of an employee,” to cause or try to damage the
property of the Bank or any of its customer [19.5 (d)],
violating or not following the proper and mandatory orders
of the superiors [19.5 (e)] and drunkenness or riotous or
disorderly or indecent behavior on the premises of the
Bank (19.5 (c) are gross misconducts. As from the record,
it is found that charges under clauses 19.5(d), 19.5(e) and
19.5(c) were levelled against the workman, it cannot be
said that the misconducts were minor in nature.
13. On perusal of the materials on record including
the documents of the departmental enquiry, it is found
that during the course of the departmental enquiry, the
workman submitted a letter on 20.02.2001 admitting the
charges levelled against him. However, the enquiry officer
proceeded with the enquiry holding the admission made
by the workman to be a conditional one. The workman
and his coworker intentionally did not take part in the
enquiry.When the enquiry officer refused to return the
letter of admission of the workman or to exclude the same,
on the ground of the said document to have already been
made a part of the record of the enquiry. 15 documents
were produced and six witnesses were examined by the
party no.1 to prove the charges against the workman.
Copies of the documents were supplied to the workman
on the date of production of the same and the defence
representative of the workman compared the copies of the
documents so supplied with the originals and accepted
the same and on the admission of the defence
representative, the documents were admitted in to
evidence. On perusal of the documents of the departmental
enquiry, it is found that the enquiry officer has dealt with
the charges one after the other chronologically and has
assigned reasons in support of his findings. The enquiry
officer has assessed the evidence adduced in the enquiry
proceedings in a rational manner. The findings of the
enquiry officer are based on the materials of the
departmental enquiry and not on any extraneous materials.
This is not a case of no evidence. The findings of the
enquiry officer are also not as such, which could not have
been reached by a prudent man on the materials on the
record of the departmental enquiry. Hence, the findings
of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.
13. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, commission of grave misconduct has been
proved against the workman in a properly conducted
departmental enquiry. Hence, the punishment of dismissal
imposed against the workman cannot be said to be
shockingly disproportionate. So, there is no scope to
interfere with the punishment. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of India,
Nagpur Zone, Nagpur (MS) in awarding the punishment
of dismissal w.e.f. 31.03.2001 to Shri Ravi S/o. Sh. Mulchand
Rajsevati, Staff Sweeper/Sub Staff, Reshimbagh Branch
of the Bank is justified. The workman is not entitled to
any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1546-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj HkkVh;k f'kfiax
izkbosV fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v-
2@113@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
16@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&31011@10@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014
S.O. 1546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4109
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bhatia
Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 16/05/2014.
[No. L-31011/10/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/113 of 2005
Employers in relation to the Management of Bhatia
Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
The Managing Director,
Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd.,
Shipping House,
Kumtha Street, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 038.
AND
Their Workmen
The Secretary,
Transport & Dock Workers Union,
P. D’mello Bhavan,
P. D’mello Road, Carnac Bunder,
Mumbai-400 038.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. M. B. Anchan & Mr. T.
Vijaykumar, Advocates.
FOR THE UNION
:
Mr. A. M. Koyande,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 31st January, 2014.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-31011/10/2005-IR (B-II),
dated 11.11.2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai in dismissing the
services of Shri Lalu S. Mulay, Dock Clerk is
justified? If not, what relief, Shri Lalu S. Mulay is
entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties
were served with notice of the reference. The second
party union appeared through its legal representative and
filed Statement of Claim at Ex-7. First party resisted the
statement of claim of second party by filing their written
statement at Ex-8. Issues were framed by my Ld.
Predecessors at Ex-11. Part-I Award was passed on 24/09/
2012 on preliminary issues holding inquiry fair and proper
and the matter was fixed for leading evidence on the point
of punishment.
3. Meanwhile on the request of the both parties,
matter was kept in the lokadalat. Both the parties filed
joint purshis at Ex-64 stating that they have arrived at
amicable settlement and to dispose of the reference in
view of terms of settlement. Accordingly, vide Ex-65,
matter was placed before this Tribunal for orders. Hence
the order:
ORDER
Vide Ex-64 & 65, the dispute is settled in Lokadalat
dated 31/01/2014. Hence reference stands disposed of.
Date: 31.01.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
Ex-64
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 , MUMBAI
Ref. No. CGIT-2/113 OF 2005
M/s. Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR
The parties to the above dispute respectfully submit
that the parties have arrived at the following amicable
terms to settle the entire dispute involved in the present
Reference. The parties therefore respectfully pray that
the above Reference may kindly be disposed of in view of
the following terms of settlement.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
1. The first party company i.e. the management of
M/s Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. agrees to pay and the
second party concerned workman i.e. Mr. Lalu S. Mulay
4110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
agrees to receive an amount of Rs. 3,50,000 (Rupees Three
Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) in full and final settlement of
all his legal dues all the disputes raised in the above
reference and all his claims including his claim for
reinstatement with continuity of services, full back wages
etc.
2. The Second party confirms that he has already
attained the age of retirement and does not wish to pursue
the above dispute challenging employers action of his
dismissal from the services of the First party company by
order dated 13/5/2005 and his claims for reinstatement back
wages etc. The second party further declare that the above
mentioned amount of Rs. 35,000 is also in full and final
settlement of all his legal dues such as earned wages,
leave wages, bonus gratuity leave travel allowance etc.
and also all the claims against the first party company
including his claims raised in the above reference.
3. The second party confirms that he has received
a cheque of Rs.3,50,000 being settlement amount as
mentioned in clause 1 above from the First party company
M/s. Bhatia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. bearing cheque no. 26503
dated 2/1/2014 drawn on HDFC Bank Fort Branch, Mumbai.
4. The second party further declared that he has no
claim of whatsoever nature now pending against the first
party company.
Mumbai
Date: 31.01.2014
For first party company
Sd/-
(Sailesh Bhatia)
Managing Director
Identified by me
Sd/-
(T. Vijaykumar)
Advocate
Sd/-
(Lalu S. Mulay)
Second party
Explained and Identified by me
Sd/-
(A.M. Koyande)
Advocate
Seen
Sd/-
(K.B.Katake)
PO,CGIT-2, Mumbai.
Ex-65
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOK ADAL AT
HELD ON 31st JANUARY, 2014
Panel Members :
1.
Mr. S.Z. Choudhary, Adv.
2.
Mr. S.V. Alva, Adv.
3.
Mr. J. H. Sawant, Adv.
Reference No.CGIT-2/113 of 2005
Employers in relation to the Management of Bhatia
Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT :
For the Management
:
Adv. M.B. Anchan
For the Workman
: Mr. L.S. Mulay, 2nd party in
person.
Both the parties submitted a joint purshis mentioning
the terms of settlement. The second party has identified
his signature and confirms having received Rs.3,50,000.
The consent terms is taken on record and the
Hon’ble Tribunal would be passing appropriate orders.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Jaiprakash Sawant)
(M.B.Anchan)
Panel Member
Adv. for first party
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Adv. S.V. Alva)
(Adv. S.Z. Choudhary)
Panel Member
Panel Member
Seen
Sd/-
Sd/-
(K.B. Katake)
(L.S. Mulay)
PO, CGIT-2, Mumbai
Workman
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1547-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqacbZ iksVZ VªLV
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eaqcbZ ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v- 2@55@2013)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4111
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&31011@06@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014
S.O. 1547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/55/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 16/05/2014.
[No. L-31011/06/2013-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-2/17 of 2012
Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai
Port Trust
The Chairman,
Mumbai Port Trust,
Port House, S.V. Marg,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai-400 038
AND
Their Workmen
The General Secretary,
MPT Mazdoor Sangh,
Parvati Building,
7, Pitha Street,
Off Sir P.M. Road,
Mumbai-400 001
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer
:
Mr. Umesh Nabar,
Advocate
For the Union
:
Mr. P. G. Uparkar,
Representative
Mumbai, dated the 31st January, 2014
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-31011/15/2011-IR (B-II),
dated 02.04.2012 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of management of Mumbai Port
Trust, Mumbai in not giving the seniority to Shri
M.L. Bhelekar, Mazdoor with effect from his date of
joining the service in the inter se seniority is legal
and justified? What relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were
served with notice. The reference was fixed for filing of
statement of claim by the Union.
3. Meanwhile on the request of the both parties,
matter was kept in the lokadalat. Representative of the
second party union by his purshis Ex-7 prayed to dispose
of this reference as the workman is not interested in
pursuing the reference further. Accordingly, vide Ex-8,
matter was placed before this Tribunal for orders. Hence
the order:
ORDER
Vide Ex-7 & 8, the dispute is settled in Lokadalat
dated 31/01/2014. Hence reference stands disposed of.
Date: 31.01.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
Ex-7
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT HELD AT CGIT-2,
MUMBAI ON 31.01.2014
Ref. No. CGIT-2/17 OF 2012
Employers in relation to the Management of
Mumbai Port Trust
:
First Party
V/s.
Their workmen represented
:
Second Party
by BPT Mazdoor Sangh
MAY IT PLEASE THIS LOK ADALAT HELD AT
CGIT-2, MUMBAI
The Second Party (BPT Mazdoor Sangh) wishes to
state that the aggrieved workman has decided not to pursue
4112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the listed matter on the ground of having retired from
Employment of the First Party on 31/01/2014, the copy of
his not pursuing the case is enclosed for reference of the
Hon’ble Lok Adalat.
Mumbai
Date: 31.01.2014
Sd/-
(P. G. Uparkar)
General Secretary
BPT Mazdoor Sangh
Filed before Lok Adalat on 31/01/2014
Received copy
Sd/-
(Jaya Dhiwani)
AOCDPR
Seen
Sd/-
(K.B.Katake)
PO,CGIT-2, Mumbai
Ex-8
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT
HELD ON 31st JANUARY, 2014
Panel Members :
1
Mr. S.Z. Choudhary, Adv.
2.
Mr. M.B. Anchan, Adv.
3.
Mr. S.V. Alva, Adv.
Reference No.CGIT-2/17 of 2012
Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai
Port Trust
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT :
For the Management
:
Ms. Jaya Dhirwani, Rep.
Present
For the Workman
:
Mr. P. Uparkar,
Representative
Shri Uparkar, General Secretary BPT Mazdoor Sangh
has tendered letter dt. 7/10/13 by concerned workman Shri
Mohan Bhelekar. As Shri Mohan B. has retired w.ef.
31/1/13, he is not interested to pursue the Reference.
The Application (Ex-7) of Mr. Uparkar and
application dt.7.10.2013 is taken on record.
The Hon’ble Tribunal would be passing appropriate
orders.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(P. G. Uparkar)
(M.B.Anchan)
Representative of Second party
Panel Member
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Adv. S.V. Alva)
(Adv. S.Z. Choudhary)
Panel Member
Panel Member
Seen
Sd/-
Sd/-
(K.B.Katake)
(Jaya Dhiwani)
PO,CGIT-2, Mumbai.
AOCDPR
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1548-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eaqcbZ iksVZ VªLV
ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (ds-l-vkS-v-&2@55@2013)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&31011@06@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2014
S.O. 1548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/55/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 16/05/2014.
[No. L-31011/06/2013-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4113
Reference No. CGIT-2/55 of 2013
Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai
Port Trust
The Chairman,
Mumbai Port Trust,
Port House, S. V. Marg,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai-400 038
AND
Their Workmen
The Secretary,
Mumbai Port Trust General Workers Union,
Kavarana Building, 1st floor
26/4, P.D’mello Road,
Wadibunder,
Mumbai-400 009
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer
:
Mr. Umesh Nabar,
Advocate.
For the Union
:
Mr. V. Narayanan,
Representative.
Mumbai, dated the 31st January, 2014
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-31011/06/2013-IR (B-II),
dated 03.10.2013 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of management of Mumbai Port
Trust, in not granting the reimbursement claim of
the medical expenses in respect of Shri Shetty
Narayan Deju, Cook on emergency basis which was
incurred for treatment of PID L-4, L-5 in the private
hospital instead of treatment in the Post Trust
Hospital is legal and justified?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were
served with notice. The reference was fixed for filing of
statement of claim by the Union.
3. Meanwhile on the request of the both parties,
matter was kept in the lokadalat. Representative of the
second party union prayed to dispose of this reference as
the workman is not interested in pursuing the reference
further. Accordingly, vide Ex-6, matter was placed before
this Tribunal for orders. Hence the order:
ORDER
Vide Ex-6 the dispute is settled in Lokadalat dated
31/01/2014. Hence reference stands disposed of.
Date: 31.01.2014
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
Ex-6
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT
HELD ON 31st JANUARY, 2014
Panel Members :
1
Mr. M. B. Anchan, Adv.
2.
Mr. S.V. Alva, Adv.
3.
Mr. J. H. Sawant, Adv.
Reference No.CGIT-2/55 of 2013
Employers in relation to the Management of
Mumbai Port Trust
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT :
For the Management
: Mr. Umesh Nabar, Adv.
For the Workman
: Ms. Anisha Narayanan,
Representative.
Shri V. Narayanan, Secretary, Mumbai Port Trust
General Workers Union has tendered letter of concerned
workman Shri Shetty Narayan Deju that the concerned
workman is not interested to pursue the Reference.
The Application is taken on record.
The Hon’ble Tribunal would be passing appropriate
orders.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(A. Narayanan)
(M.B.Anchan)
Representative of Second party
Panel Member
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Adv. S.V. Alva)
(Adv. J. H. Sawant)
Panel Member
Panel Member
Seen
No Objection
Sd/-
Sd/-
(K.B. Katake)
(U. Nabar)
PO, CGIT-2, Mumbai.
Adv. for first party
4114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYYkh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1549-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, LVhy vFkkWfjVh
vkWiQ bafM;k dk feJ /krq bLikr la;a=k] nqxZkiqj ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa
ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku
djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl vf/lwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d
o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, jgsxh A
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—
(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj
j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke
fn[kk;s tk;saxs_
(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds
v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds
fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus
dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds
vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_
(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh
fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_
(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr
ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e
(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS)
izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh
fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk] tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lkèkkj.k)
fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh
visf{kr gksrh Fkha_
(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k
dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr
izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_
(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr
vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa
dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok
(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh
jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk
;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/
ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k
(iii)
;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]
fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds
iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk
jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj
cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k
(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml
vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa
vf/fu;e ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa
dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr
dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&
(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk
fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr
vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl vfèkfu;e
ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds
vfèkHkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;Zky; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh
mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds
izHkkjh ls vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa
ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèkr
,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls
fujhf{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr
djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh
tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_
;k
(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds
vfHkdrZk ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh
O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]
;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS
fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;
ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]
cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj
djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_
(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA
(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí
gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr
ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA
[la- ,l&38014@16@2013&,l,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O. 1549.—In exercise of the power conferred by
Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/
establishments of Alloy Steel Plant of SAIL, Durgapur
from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4115
effective from the date of issue of notification for a period
of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely :—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees’;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become entitled
to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to
the date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees’ State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :-
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the
Employees’ State Insurance (General)
Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees
continue to be entitled to benefits provided
by the employer in cash and kind being
benefits in consideration of which exemption
is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions
of the Act had been complied with during
the period when such provisions were in
force in relation to the said factory to be
empowered to :
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as he
may consider necessary for the purpose
of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate
employer at any reasonable time and
require any person found in charge
thereof to produce to such inspector or
other official and allow him to examine
accounts, books and other documents
relating to the employment of personal
and payment of wages or to furnish to
him such information as he may consider
necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause
to believe to have been an employee ;
or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any
register, account book or other
document maintained in such
factory, establishment, office or other
premises,
(e) exercise such other powers as may be
prescribed.
(6)
In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the
exemption granted shall become automatically
cancelled and then the new entity will have to
approach the appropriate Government for
exemption,
[No. S-38014/16/2013-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1550-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk eSllZ
fgUnqLrku bUlsdVhlkbM~l fyfeVsM (lHkh izfr"Bkuksa@bdkbZ;ksa) ds
dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds
izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] 30 ebZ] 2014 ls ,d o"kZ
dh vof/ ds fy, ykxw jgsxh A
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—
(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj
j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke
fn[kk;s tk;saxs_
(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds
v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds
4116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus
dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds
vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_
(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh
fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_
(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr
ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e
(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS)
izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh
fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk] tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/
kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh
ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha_
(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k
dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr
izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_
(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr
vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa
dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok
(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh
jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk
;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/
ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k
(iii)
;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]
fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds
iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk
jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj
cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k
(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml
vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa
vf/fu;e ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa
dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr
dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&
(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk
fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr
vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl vf/fu;e
ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds
vfèkHkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;Zky; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh
mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds
izHkkjh ls vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa
ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèkr
,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls
fujhf{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr
djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh
tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_
;k
(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds
vfHkdrZk ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh
O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]
;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS
fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;
ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]
cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj
djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_
(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA
(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí
gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr
ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA
[la- ,l&38014@12@2013&,l,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O. 1550.—In exercise of the power conferred by
Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/
establishments of M/s Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (all
units) from the operation of the said Act. The exemption
shall be effective w.e.f. 30.05.2014 for a period of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions, namely :—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees’;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become entitled
to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to
the date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4117
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees’ State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :-
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the
Employees’ State Insurance (General)
Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees
continue to be entitled to benefits provided
by the employer in cash and kind being
benefits in consideration of which exemption
is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions
of the Act had been complied with during
the period when such provisions were in
force in relation to the said factory to be
empowered to:
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as he
may consider necessary for the purpose
of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate
employer at any reasonable time and
require any person found in charge
thereof to produce to such inspector or
other official and allow him to examine
accounts, books and other documents
relating to the employment of personal
and payment of wages or to furnish to
him such information as he may consider
necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause
to believe to have been an employee ;
or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any
register, account book or other
document maintained in such
factory, establishment, office or other
premises;
(e) exercise such other powers as may be
prescribed.
(6)
In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the
exemption granted shall become automatically
cancelled and then the new entity will have to
approach the appropriate Government for
exemption.
[No. S-38014/12/2013-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk 1551-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, bUlVªwesaVs'ku
fyfeVsM] dksVk ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks
bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl
vf/lwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy,
jgsxh A
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—
(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj
j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke
fn[kk;s tk;saxs_
(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds
v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds
fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus
dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds
vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_
(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh
fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_
(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr
ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e
(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS)
izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh
fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk] tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/
kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh
ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha_
(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k
dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr
izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_
4118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr
vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa
dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok
(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh
jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk
;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/
ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k
(iii)
;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]
fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds
iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk
jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk
gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k
(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml
vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa
vf/fu;e ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa
dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr
dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&
(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk
fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr
vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl vfèkfu;e
ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds
vfèkHkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;Zky; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh
mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds
izHkkjh ls vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa
ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèkr
,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls
fujhf{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr
djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh
tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_
;k
(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds
vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh
O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkusa] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]
;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS
fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;
ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]
cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj
djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_
(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA
(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí
gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr
ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA
[la- ,l&38014@04@2014&,l,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O. 1551.—In exercise of the power conferred by
Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/
establishments of Instrumentation Limited, Kota from the
operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective
from the date of issue of notification for a period of one
year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions, namely :—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees’;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become entitled
to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to
the date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees’ State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :-
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
section 44 for the said period; or
(ii)
Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the
Employees’ State Insurance (General)
Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4119
(iii)
Ascertaining whether the employees
continue to be entitled to benefits provided
by the employer in cash and kind being
benefits in consideration of which exemption
is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions
of the Act had been complied with during
the period when such provisions were in
force in relation to the said factory to be
empowered to:
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as he
may consider necessary for the purpose
of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate
employer at any reasonable time and
require any person found in charge
thereof to produce to such inspector or
other official and allow him to examine
accounts, books and other documents
relating to the employment of personal
and payment of wages or to furnish to
him such information as he may consider
necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause
to believe to have been an employee ;
or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any
register, account book or other
document maintained in such
factory, establishment, office or other
premises;
(e) exercise such other powers as may be
prescribed.
(6)
In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the
exemption granted shall become automatically
cancelled and then the new entity will have to
approach the appropriate Government for
exemption.
[No. S-38014/04/2014-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYYkh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1552-—dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
èkkjk 88 n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Ñ"kd Hkkjrh
dksvkWijsfVo fyfeVsM (ÑHkdks) ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer
deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g
NwV] bl vf/lwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/
ds fy, jgsxh A
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %—
(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj
j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke
fn[kk;s tk;saxs_
(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds
v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds
fy, os bl vf/lwpuk n~okjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Rr gksus
dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanRr va'knkuksa ds
vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_
(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh
fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_
(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr
ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e
(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/ dgk x;k
gS)izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh
fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k)
fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh
visf{kr gksrh Fkha_
(5) fuxe n~okjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k
dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/dkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeRr
izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_
(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr
vof/ dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa
dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok
(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh
jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 n~okjk
;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/
ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k
(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]
fu;kstd n~okjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds
iQyLo:i bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk
jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj
cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k
4120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml
vof/ ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa
vf/fu;e ds mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa
dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr
dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&
(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk
fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr
vf/dkjh ;k vU; in/kjh bl vfèkfu;e
ds iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds
vfèkHkksxk/hu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk]
dk;Zky; ;k vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh
mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds
izHkkjh ls vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa
ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacafèkr
,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls
fujhf{kd ;k vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr
djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh
tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_
;k
(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds
vfHkdrkZ ;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh
O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkusa] LFkkiuk]
dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,]
;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS
fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;Zky; ;k vU;
ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk]
cgh ;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj
djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_
(M-) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA
(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí
gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr
ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA
[la- ,l&38014@3@2014&,l,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O.
1552.—In exercise of the power conferred by
Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/
establishments of Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd.
(KRIBHCO) from the operation of the said Act. The
exemption shall be effective from the date of issue of
notification for a period of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions, namely :—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees’;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become entitled
to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to
the date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees’ State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1) of
section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the
Employees’ State Insurance (General)
Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees
continue to be entitled to benefits provided
by the employer in cash and kind being
benefits in consideration of which exemption
is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions
of the Act had been complied with during
the period when such provisions were in
force in relation to the said factory to be
empowered to:
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as he
may consider necessary for the purpose
of this Act; or
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4121
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate
employer at any reasonable time and
require any person found in charge
thereof to produce to such inspector or
other official and allow him to examine
accounts, books and other documents
relating to the employment of personal
and payment of wages or to furnish to
him such information as he may consider
necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause
to believe to have been an employee ;
or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any
register, account book or other
document maintained in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other powers as may be
prescribed.
(6)
In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the
exemption granted shall become automatically
cancelled and then the new entity will have to
approach the appropriate Government for
exemption.
[No. S-38014/3/2014-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1553-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-,e-Mh-]
ch,l,u,y ,.M vnlZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@5@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@43@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O.
1553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 71/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of the C.M.D., BSNL and Others and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19/05/2014.
[No. L-40012/43/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 71 of 2006, Reference No. L-40012/43/
2006-IR(DU) dated 08.11.2006.
Sh. Satish Kumar, S/o Sh. Satya Pal, R/o Village
Lotton, P.O. Naraingarh, Ambala (Haryana).
...Workman
Versus
1.
C.M.D. BSNL, Statesman House, 9th floor, New
Delhi-110001.
2.
The Divisional Engineer (Rural), BSNL,
Naraingarh, District Ambala.
3.
The S.D.E. (Group) Phones, BSNL, Naraingarh,
District Ambala.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
:
Sh. J.S. Bedi, Advocate.
For the Management
:
Sh. G. C. Babbar, Advocate.
Award Passed On:-8-5-2014
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide
notification No. L-40012/43/2006-IR(DU) dated 08.11.2006
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication :
Term of Reference :
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL,
Naraingarh in terminating the service of their
workman Sh. Satish Kumar, Ex-driver, w.e.f.
24.10.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2. The case of the workman in claim statement is
that he was appointed as lorry driver by SDE (Group)
Phones, BSNL, Naraingarh on 09.11.1999 to drive the Jeep
HR04-5998 on daily wages but he was paid monthly wages
@ Rs. 2400 per month at the time of appointment and was
getting Rs. 3000 per month at the time of termination. Later
on, he was allowed to sign the log book of the above
mentioned vehicle w.e.f. 01.04.2000 under his signature
upto 25.04.2000 and thereafter 26.04.2000 to 30.04.2000,
4122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the permanent lorry driver Sh. Satpal was allowed to sign
the log book. After that, from 01.05.2000 to 18.02.2001 the
workman was allowed to fill and sign the log book, from
19.02.2001 to 24.02.2001 though the log book was filled by
the workman but he was made to sign in the name of one
Sukhbir. Similarly on 25.02.2001 the log book was filled by
the workman but he was made to sign in the name of one
Rakesh Kumar, from 26.02.2001 to 14.03.2001 workman filled
the log book but he was not allowed to sign from
15.03.2001 to 05.07.2001 the workman filled the log book
and sign also, from 06.07.2001 to 08.07.2001 the log book
was filled and signed by one Ashok Kumar who was
phone mechanic of the department, from 09.07.2001 to
28.08.2001 the workman filled and signed the log book,
from 29.08.2001 to 04.09.2001 the log book was got signed
from Satpal permanent driver of the department, from
05.09.2001 to 31.03.2003 the workman was allowed to fill as
well as sign the log book. It is further pleaded by the
workman that from 01.04.2003 to 28.01.2004 workman filled
the log book in his own handwriting but under the order
of then SDE Sh. Balbir Singh he was told not to sign under
the column of driver, from 29.01.2004 to 30.04.2004 the
then SDO Sh. Balbir Singh himself filled the log book and
workman was not allowed to do so. Similarly from
01.05.2004 to 30.06.2004 the workman filled the log book in
his own handwriting but was not allowed to sign under
the column of driver. It is also pleaded by the workman
that from 01.07.2004 to 31.08.2004 the log book was filled
as well as signed by the workman. Thereafter Sh. Raghubir
Singh directed the workman not to sign the log book under
the column of driver. The workman filled the log book for
the period 01.09.2004 to 30.09.2005 but not allowed to sign
as driver. It is further pleaded by the workman that from
01.10.2005 the new log book was introduced but not allowed
to be filled as well as signed the log book as driver by
S.D.E. (Group) Phones, BSNL, Naraingarh, upto the period
22.10.2005. As 23.10.2005 was a holiday. The workman went
on 24.10.2005 to join duty but SDE (Group) Phones, BSNL,
Naraingarh, as per verbal order of respondent No.2
terminated his services. It is pleaded by the workman that
no prior notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation
has been paid to the workman before terminating his
services. Respondent No.3 i.e. SDE (Group) Phones, BSNL,
Naraingarh, appointed one Suresh Kumar S/o Lal Singh
has appointed on daily wages in place of workman w.e.f.
25.11.2005 and workman was not offered any employment
which is violation of Section 25H of the ID Act 1947 as the
management has not followed the principal of “first come
last go”, as junior to the workman was retained in service.
It is also pleaded by the workman that he was paid on
ACG-17 Form from 09.01.1999 to 30.09.2005. Sometimes he
was allowed to sign in his own signature and other time he
was made to sign under fictitious name and signature as
in the month of January, February, June and July 2005, the
workman was made to sign under the fictitious name of
one Shiv Kumar whereas receipts for the month of March
to May have been signed by the claimant in his own name
which amounts to unfair labour practice adopted by the
management. As per the workman he has completed more
than 240 days in each year of service, therefore, his
termination may be declared as illegal and he may be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The management filed reply in which preliminary
objection has been taken that as the workman was not
appointed as per the recruitment rules in the department.
Therefore, the provisions of ID Act 1947 are not attracted
in the case of the workman and he has no right to get
regularization. It is further submitted that workman was
engaged as part time lorry driver on daily wages. It is
further pleaded that no appointment order has been issued
by the department and he was not paid Rs. 2400 or
Rs. 3000 and SDE (Group) Phones, BSNL, Naraingarh, was
not competent to appoint any driver. It is further pleaded
by the management that father of the workman was a regular
driver in the department and workman used to visit the
office to meet his father. Since the father of the workman
being local and permanent employee, he was asked
sometime to make arrangement for part time lorry driver
for short duration or against a person who used to be on
leave. The father of the workman used to bring different
persons at different occasions sometimes his son also,
who was paid on ACG-17 Form. The workman may have
written the log book of his father. It is further pleaded by
the management that as previous log book was mis-placed,
new log book was introduced but after few days the same
was traced out. The jeep also was declared not to be road
worthy and there was no further need of any person to
engage as lorry driver. The workman was paid for
departmental work through ACG-17 Form and may have
been paid accordingly as labour. The workman has not
completed more that 240 days of continuity service,
therefore the question of his termination does not arise as
he was never engaged as a casual labour and management
prayed for the rejection of the reference.
4. In evidence the workman filed his affidavit along
with the documents ACG-17 Form. The workman also
produced handwriting expert to examine the documents
regarding signature on the ACG-17 Form which claimed
by the workman that he was made to sign on ACG-17 Form
in the name of other person to avoid the application of
provisions of ID Act, 1947. The workman produced WW1
Dr.Jassy Anand handwriting expert who in Examination-
in-Chief stated that on the direction of this tribunal she
has taken the photographs and specimen signature of the
concerned and after analyzing and synthening she gave
the report as per norms of the forensic science which is
marked as W/1/A containing 14 pages and its employees
which are 7 photo charts. WW1 Dr.Jassi Anand was cross-
examined by the counsel of the management also. In cross-
examination she stated that she has not taken any initials
of Satish Kumar she denied the suggestion that initials
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4123
cannot be compared with any writing and it is not
necessary that initial can only be compared with initial
and this can be compared with other writing.
5. The workman also filed his affidavit in evidence.
In cross-examination workman admitted that his father was
working in the same department as lorry driver and workman
was engaged through his father by SDO Sh. S.D. Sharma.
The workman stated that he does not know that receiving
payment under signatures of other persons is wrongful
act. The workman stated that he cannot provide any
document that he was paid consolidated amount or
Rs.2400 or Rs.3000 in a month. He also admitted that he
was summoned by the department for test in driving for
regular recruitment and he was not selected in that
examination. He also admitted that he was given
opportunity in the process of regular appointment and he
could not qualify the test. Regarding the experience
certificate Ex.W7, it is admitted by the workman that the
same was issued by Sh. Chanchal Singh who was posted
at Barara. It is also admitted by the workman that he never
complaint against any officer of the department regarding
filling and signing of the log book. The workman also
admitted in the cross-examination that no appointment
letter as lorry driver was given to him. Workman also
admitted that he raised an industrial dispute for the same
cause of action in the office of ALC©, Chandigarh ,
Answering another question workman stated that he does
not know whether said claim has been dismissed.
Workman stated that the payment was made good on ACG-
17 form and he was sometime paid under his signature and
sometime paid in the name of other person under the
fictitious signature of persons of department. It is admitted
by the workman that he has not lodged any complaint to
any higher authority for payment of wages under fictitious
signatures. Few ACG-17 have been signed in the name of
other person to get the payment. Workman also admitted
that he has made the signatures in the name of other
persons and on the documents dated 15.1.2000, 9.3.2000,
15.3.2000, 19.3.2001, 20.3.2001, 11.10.2002, 12.10.2002,
16.10.2002, 17.1.2002, 18.10.2002, 14.2.2003, 15.2.2003,
17.2.2003, 18.2.2003 the workman made the signatures in
the name of other persons.
6. The management in evidence produced MW1
Sh. Udham Singh SDO (Phones) Ambala who filed his
affidavit Ex.M1 and MW2 Chanchal Singh S/o Nanak
Singh who stated that he has signed the certificate marked
W7 to W10. In cross-examination he has stated that he
joined Naraingarh on 21.06.2000, he also admitted that he
was not aware whether he was authorized and permitted
to sign and issue the experience certificate. It is also
admitted by Chanchal Singh MW2 that the clerk concerned
has manipulated the certificate and it may be happened
along with other documents and during the period in
question the workman never worked under him. The
workman worked under him w.e.f. 21.06.2000 to 18.07.2000.
7. I have heard the parties and have gone through
the record produced by the workman as well as
management and also gone through the evidence produced
by the workman and the management. The learned counsel
for the workman during arguments submitted that the
workman has completed more than 240 days of service in
each and every year from 1999 to 24.05.2005 and he was
not allowed to work on 24.05.2005 and his services were
terminated, no retrenchment compensation was paid, no
notice of one month was given and he was also not given
pay in lieu of one month notice. It is further submitted
during arguments that he was made to sign in the name of
fictitious persons for some occasions the workman filled
the log book, sometime he was given the payment in the
name of fictitious persons and not in his own name. It is
also submitted during arguments that in the preceding
year to the date of termination i.e. 24.10.2005. The workman
completed more than 240 days in a calendar year but no
retrenchment compensation, notice pay in lieu of notice
was given. It is further submitted during arguments that
the management after his termination appointed one
Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Singh on daily wages w.e.f.
25.10.2005 and he was not offered employment which is
also in violation of Section 25H of the I.D. Act and the
management has also not followed the principle of first
come last go and junior to the workman was retained in
service. It is further submitted during arguments by the
learned counsel for the workman that termination of the
workman is illegal and workman may be reinstated in service
with full back wages. It is also submitted during arguments
that by getting the ACG-17 Form signed in the name of
someone else and not in the name of the workman it
amounts to unfair labour practice also. It is also submitted
by the learned counsel for the workman during arguments
that the management deliberately did not produce the
record as demanded by the workman which was relevant
to prove the case of the workman and a party in possession
of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in
controversy should produce the record failing which strong
adverse inference should be drawn by the court. The
workman placed on reliance on the following case
laws :—
AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1413 Gopal Krishanji Ketkar
Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and others, 2013 LLR 211
State Bank of India and others Vs. Narendra Kumar
Pandey, 2013 LAB I.C. 4249, Deepali Gundu Surwase
Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya.
SLP (Civil) No.14572/2012 decided on 11.12.2013
BSNL Vs. Bhurumal, decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
LLR 2013 1161, State of Uttaranchal and Another
Vs. Shiv Ram, 2011 LLR 785, Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2010(1) SCT 675 Ramesh
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2011(1) SCT 465
4124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M., Instrument Design
Development, 2001 Supreme Court 672 Vikram Vs.
Industrial Tribunal, 2007(2) S.C.T. 112, Senior
Medical Officer, Incharge, Primary Health Centre,
Dudhan Sadhan, Patiala Vs. Sukhwinder Singh and
another.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the
management submitted during arguments that the workman
may have written the log book for his father as his father
was the lorry driver in the department and the workman
may have engaged for labour work for which he was paid
as per rules. As admitted by the workman that he was
engaged through his father, the workman and other
persons were engaged part time lorry driver for short
duration, the jeep No.HR04-5998 which was declared as
scrapped. Therefore, no one was required and there was
no post of lorry driver with the department. The SDO
respondent No.3 was also not competent to appoint
anyone. The workman was never issued appointment and
termination letter. He was never engaged as per the rules
of the department in anyway the provisions of the ID Act
are not attracted in the case of the workman. It is further
submitted during argument that as father of the workman
was a local person, therefore sometime he was asked to
bring the persons to work as labour and the workman may
have one of them. The learned counsel for the management
vehemently argue that the workman has not worked as
lorry driver as claimed by him he may have filled the log
book but he has actually not worked as lorry driver for the
period of his claim. The management never indulges in
any such practice which amounts to unfair labour practice.
The workman failed to prove that he worked for 240 days
in one calendar year prior to the date of his termination
therefore the workman has not entitled to any relief and
the reference may be answered against the workman. As
regard non production of the record of the management is
concerned, the learned counsel for the management
submitted that the record was not relevant and was not
available with the management and it is for the workman
to prove his own case.
9. So far as the issue of experience certificates are
concerned, workman stated that the same were issued by
Shri Chanchal Singh. During the period in question.
Shri Chanchal Singh was posted at Barara as he was also
having the charge of office in question. Contrary to the
statement of the workman, Shri Chanchal Singh in evidence
stated that he was posted in Barara during the period in
question. He joined Naraingarh on 21.6.2000. He was not
having the additional charge of Naraingarh during the
period for which the above certificate was issued. It is
also stated in evidence by Shri Chanchal Singh that the
experience certificate may have got signed from him by
the concerned clerk alongwith the other papers.
10. I have gone through the case laws mentioned
above relied upon by the workman. The facts and
circumstances of the case laws cited are quite different
from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand,
therefore having no application in the present case.
11. In so far as the allegation of the workman that
some of the ACG-17 forms were signed in the fictitious
name whereas the workman performed the duty for that
period and the payment was made to the workman and
bogus entries were made and sometimes he made
signatures in the name of fictitious names in the log book
as well as on payment vouchers. It is admitted by the
workman during cross-examination that for this alleged
malpractice he never made any complaint to the higher
authority and now he cannot question that he performed
the duty for this period where he made signatures of other
persons to receive the payment. It was for the workman to
point out then and there about this practice. Therefore,
the workman can not be allowed to raise this issue that he
was the person who was performing the duty but he was
also signing the documents in the name of some fictitious
persons.
12. As regard the claim of the workman that juniors
to him were retained on duty by the management, it is the
case of the management that the Geep HR04-5998 was
condemned and there was no post to which the workman
can be accommodated at the relevant time. It is also the
case of the workman that when there exist the post, the
workman along with other were put to test and the
workman failed in that test and therefore, he was not
appointed as lorry driver on regular basis. In views of the
position that the geep on which the workman was working
as driver on casual basis was condemned and later on he
was given the chance to appear in the test but the workman
failed to qualify the test, the workman can not claim that
any junior to him was retained in service.
13. But in so far as the claim of the workman is
concerned that he continued working with the management
till 24.10.2005 is concerned, the workman demanded the
record from the management to be placed in the court.
Though the management produced some of the record
but failed to produce the record about the working of the
workman preceding 12 months from the alleged date of
termination i.e. 24.10.2005 which was in the possession of
the management. It is the case of the workman that he
continued working with the management and completed
more than 240 days in each calendar year from 1999 to
2005. When a party in possession of best evidence which
is relevant to decide the issue in controversy with hold
the same, the court ought to draw an adverse inference
against that party and onus of proof lies with the party
which with hold the record to prove the case otherwise.
14. In the case in hand it is the case of the workman
that he worked with the department upto 22.10.2005 and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4125
23.10.2005 being Sunday, when he reported for duty on
25.10.2005 he was not given work and his services were
terminated though he worked with the department from
1999 to 2005 and completed more than 240 days in each
calendar year. At the time of termination he was not given
any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month of
pay in lieu of notice.
15. As the management failed to produced the
relevant record and it can safely be presumed that the
workman completed more than 240 days in one calendar
year preceding to the date of termination i.e. 25-10-2005
and from the above discussion it is proved that workman
worked on daily wages for the period in question and
management has not complied with the mandatory
provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947, therefore, the
termination of the workman on 25-10-2005 is declared as
illegal. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman
was given the opportunity to appear in the test for the
post of lorry driver but workman failed to qualify the same
much prior to his termination and also the jeep which the
workman used to drive was condemned, therefore the
workman can not be reinstated. In the facts and
circumstances of the case one time compensation
amounting to Rs. 50000/-(fifty thousands only) would meet
the end of justice in lieu of reinstatement.
16. In view of the above the reference is answered
accordingly. The management is directed to pay the above
amount to the workman within one month from the
publication of the award. Central Govt. be informed. Soft
as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for
publication.
Chandigarh.
8-5-2014
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1554-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
tujy eSustj] VsfydkWe] cfBaMk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] p.Mhx<+
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 655@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@191@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O. 1554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 655/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of General Manager, Telecom, Bathinda
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19/05/2014.
[No. L-40012/191/2001-IR(DU)
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
PRESENT :
Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No.655/2005
Registered on 24.8.2005
Smt. Rani Kaur, C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, 27349, Lal Singh
Basti Road, Bathinda.
. . . Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager, Telecom, E-10 B Building,
Bathinda.
. . . Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. Charanjeet Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Anish Babbar Adv
AWARD
Passed on- 4.4.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/
191/2001 IR(DU)) Dated 5.9.2001, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-
section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
“Whether the action of the management of General
Manager Telecom, Bathinda in terminating the
services of Smt. Rani Kaur D/o Sh. Baur Singh, is
just and legal? If not to what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date?”
In response to the notice the workman submitted
statement of claim pleading that she was working as Clerk
at Telephone Exchange, Sardoolgarh on a permanent job
from 28.5.1998 to 1.3.1999 and was getting Rs.2168/- as
monthly wages. That her services were terminated in
contravention of the provisions of the Act and the persons
junior to her were retained in service without calling her.
Respondent management filed written reply
controverting the averments and pleaded that workman
was never engaged or recruited by the respondent
management who entered into a contract with contractor
4126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for supply of labour to do emergency work and the
workman may have worked under the contractor. She was
never paid any wages by the department. Thus the
relationship of employer and employee has been denied
by the respondent management.
In support of her case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed her affidavit reiterating the case as
set out in the claim petition.
Workman also examined two witnesses namely Sh.
Sukhdev Singh, Retired TTA and another Ashok Kumar
who was working as Divisional Engineer, Legal Telecom
Bathinda.
Sukhdev Singh is a retired TTA and stated that he
was posted at Sardoolgarh from 1998 to 2010. That the
workman worked from 1998 to 1999 and was employed by
SDM who used to pay her wages. That her attendance
was marked in the register maintained by JTO who also
used to assign her the work.
Ashok Kumar was summoned to produce the record.
On the other hand the management has examined
Baldev Krishan who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand
taken by the management in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. Charanjeet, Counsel for the
workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the
management.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
workman that the workman was employed as Clerk on a
permanent job by the management and she worked at
Sardoolgarh from 28.5.1998 to 1.3.1999 when her services
were terminated in contravention of the provisions of the
Act. He has further submitted that the workman was
employed by the respondent management which get
corroboration from the statement of Sukhdev Singh who
also remained posted in the said office and has deposed
that the workman was employed there by the then SDO
and further submitted that the management did not
produce the record despite issuance of notice to it and it
also did not examine the contractor under whom the
workman allegedly worked; and these facts taken together
prove that the workman was actually an employee of the
respondent management which further get corroboration
from the statement of the workman herself.
I have considered the contention of the learned
counsel.
The definite case of the workman is that she worked
as a Clerk on a permanent job from 28.5.1998 to 1.3.1999.
Respondent management is a statutory body having its
rules and regulations and follow certain procedure for
filling the post in the office. There is nothing on the file
that any procedure was followed for employing the
workman as Clerk in the office. It is pleaded by the
workman in the statement of claim that she was drawing a
salary of Rs. 2168 per month. But in her affidavit she has
stated that she was paid only Rs.1200 per month which
goes a long way to demolish her case that she worked as
a Clerk and that too under the respondent management.
Again no record has been summoned and proved on the
file that the respondent management ever paid her any
wages at any time.
The statement of Sukhdev Singh is also of no help
to the workman as he is not the person who appointed the
workman and he did not tell the names of the persons,
who according to him, appointed the workman. Again
there is nothing on the file that the SDM Telecom was
competent to appoint the workman as Clerk in the office.
Thus his statement do not establish that workman was
employed by the respondent management.
The workman summoned certain record from the
respondent management and Ashok Kumar examined by
the workman from the office of the respondent
management did not produce the same. If certain record
has not been produced, the same do not ipso facto prove
that the workman was ever employed by the respondent
management whose definite case is that it used to get
emergency work done through the contractor. Since it is
not proved on the file that workman was ever employed
by the respondent management, it was not required to
examine the contractor.
In result, it is held that the workman has failed to
prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence that
she was employed by the respondent management and
her services were terminated. Accordingly the reference
is answered against the workman holding that she is not
entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award
be sent to the Central Government for further necessary
action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1555-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk
uoksn; fo|ky;] g”kkjhckx ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@90@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4127
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O. 1555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 49/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Navodaya Vidyalaya, Hazaribagh
and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 19/05/2014.
[No. L-42012/90/2010-IR(DU)
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
Reference: No. 49/2010
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.
1947.
Employer in relation to the management of Navodya
Vidyalaya Samirree, Hazaribagh
AND
Their workmen
PRESENT :
Sri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
:
Sri U.N.Lall , Advocate
For the workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Education
Dated : 22/4/2014
AWARD
By order No. L-42012/90/ 2010 /IR (DU) dated
27/10/2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
(1)
Whether the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar, daily
rated workman, working in the Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Bonga, Hazaribagh be regularized in
the School Services? If so, from which date ?
(2)
Whether the workman is entitled for back wages?
If so, from which date?
(3)
Whether the date of induction in the school
servicing i.e. April 2000 or from the date of earlier
settlement dated 15/01/2009 should be taken as
recknowing date for back wages?
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
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1556-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Hkkjr
lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] jryke ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@68@2004) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@242@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2014
S.O. 1556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/68/2004) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of BSNL, Ratlam and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 20/05/2014.
[No. L-40012/242/2003-IR(DU)
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/68/2004
SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer
The Divisional Secretary,
National Union of Telecom Employees Line Staff
& Group D Mundla Nayata (Palda),
Indore.
. . . Workman
Versus
4128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Telecom District Manager,
BSNL, O/o TDM,
Ratlam
. . . Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of November, 2013
1. As per letter dated 9-6-2004 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
40012/242/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of TDM,
Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Sitaram
S/o Shri Mangilal Bhati w.e.f. 31-12-89 is justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at
Page 7/1 to 7/3. The case of Ist party workman is that he
was working from 1984 till January 1990 with IInd party.
His services were terminated from 31-12-89. He was not
served with notice, he was not paid retrenchment
compensation, termination of his services is in violation
of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Principles of last come first go
was not followed. Termination of his services is in violation
of Section 25-G of I.D.Act. He has filed Petition No. 499/
95 before CAT, Jabalpur. His petition was rejected for lack
of jurisdiction. He was given liberty to approach
appropriate forum. After following conciliation
proceedings, the dispute is referred. On such contentions,
he prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/3. Preliminary objection is raised that the dispute is
referred after 10 years. Ist party workman was initially
appointed in separate establishment under the Sub
Divisional Officer, Phones Ratlam as well as SDOT
Mandsor. Thereafter the workman voluntarily left the work.
Other contentions of workman are denied. It is denied that
the workman was terminated in violation of Section 25-F,
G of I.D.Act, completion of 240 days is denied. According
to IInd party, it was work of deptt. after completion of
work, work was transferred to other place. The dispute is
not tenable. IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3
reiterating his contentions in Statement of Claim. That he
had completed more than 240 days continuous service
preceding his termination. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. He was not served with notice of
termination.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
management of TDM, Ratlam
in terminating the services of
Shri Sitaram S/o Shri Mangilal
Bhati w.e.f. 31-12-89 is justified?
In Negative
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?”
order.
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination for violation
of Section 25-F, G of I.D.Act. That he was working in IInd
party from 1985 to December 1989. He had completed 240
days continuous service during each year. IInd party
denied those contentions of the workman. Workman filed
affidavit of his evidence stating that he had completed
240 days continuous service preceding termination of his
services. In his cross-examination, workman says that he
was not given appointment letter. He had not obtained
registration of Employment Exchange. The document in
that regard is not produced. He denies that after completion
of project, his services used to come to an end. He denied
that he had left the work of project. It is denied that after
completion of project work, he was directed to work in
other division. He denied that he had not completed 240
days continuous service preceding his termination.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri P.K. Jain witness of management has stated that
workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman was engaged as casual labour in 1987 as per
need. In his cross-examination, workman says that he is
working at Ratlam from 1-1-87. Workman did not work under
him. He has not produced documents related to the dispute.
He denies that workman was appointed as regular
employee. The witness of the management says that
payment of retrenchment compensation was not
considered necessary. He has denied that workman has
completed 240 days service.
8. The documents produced by workman are
admitted by IInd party. In Exhibit W-1, 30 working days
are shown in 1987. In W-2 working days during January to
August 89 are shown 181 days. In W-3 working days from
Sept to October 89 are 51 days, in Exhibit W-4, working
days in December 89 are shown 31 days. The total of
working days comes to more than 240 days preceding
termination of services of workman. Workman is covered
under Section 25-B of I.D.Act. Workman was not served
with notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation.
Termination of services of workman is in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No.1 in Negative.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4129
9. Point No. 2
In view of my finding in Point No.1 that the
termination of workman is illegal and in violation of Section
25-F of I.D.Act, question arises whether the workman is
entitled for reinstatement with back wages. As per
evidence, workman was working from 1985 to December
1989 for about 4 years. His services are terminated in
violation of Section 25-F. Workman was not appointed
following selection process. His name was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. Relief of reinstatement
with back wages cannot be allowed. In my considered
view, payment of reasonable compensation would be
appropriate to meet the ends of justice. Compensation
Rs.50,000 would be proper and reasonable. Accordingly I
record my finding on Point No.2.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
Action of the management of TDM, Ratlam in
terminating the services of Shri Sitaram S/o Shri
Mangilal Bhati w.e.f. 31-12-89 is not legal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs.50,000 to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9 %
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1557-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2010) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@24@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014
S.O.
1557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 22/05/2014.
[No. L-12012/24/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRlBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.
PRESENT :
Sri L.C.Dey, M.A.,LL.B., Presiding Officer, CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Guwahati
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :
The Management of UCO Bank, Regional Office,
Guwahati
Versus
Their Workman Md. Matiur Rahman
Ref. Case No. 03 of 2010
APPEARANCES :
For the Management :
Mr. R.C.Kalita, Senior Manager,
UCO Bank
For the Workman
:
Mr. M.Roy, Learned Counsel for
the workman
Date of Award : 28.03.2014
AWARD
1. In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of
Sub-section (1) & (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 the Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Government of India, had referred this Industrial Dispute
raised by the workman Matiur Rahman against the
Management of UCO Bank, vide Order No. L-12012/24/
2010-IR(B-II); Dated: 16/04/2010 for adjudication. The
Schedule of the Reference is as follows :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of UCO
Bank in dismissing Md. Motiur Rahman, Ex-Clerk-
cum-Asstt. Cashier w.e.f. 24.3.2003 is legal and
justified? What relief the concerned workman is
entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the order of Reference this Reference
Case has been registered and notices were served upon
both the parties who appeared and contested the
proceeding by filing their claim statement/written
statement, adducing evidence along with documents.
3. The case of the workman Motiur Rahman is that
he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier,UCO Bank, Dobok
Branch and he was working in the said Branch upto 24.3.03.
He was charge sheeted by the Management on the
allegation of defalcation of fund on 29.09.2000 and an ex-
parte enquiry was held against him and at that time some
incidents of grave irregularities were there in the Dobok
Branch of the Bank and the workman was wrongly
implicated for those irregularities making him a target by
4130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Field Level Management and placed him under
suspension on 6.9.2000. The workman after verification of
the documents requested the Disciplinary Authority for
allowing him 30 days time to submit his reply to the charge
sheet but the Disciplinary Authority allowed him only 10
days time from the date of issuing the letter and not from
the date of receipt of the letter which was received by the
workman on 30.11.2000. Thereafter the workman submitted
his reply on the next date i.e. on 1.12.2000 for which the
workman was deprived of getting reasonable opportunity
to meet the charges levelled against him. The Management
held enquiry by appointing a tainted officer, who himself
was punished by the Management for misusing fund and
misconduct and moreover, the said Enquiry Officer was a
psychiatric patient at the time of holding the enquiry. The
workman objected to the appointment of such tainted
officer as Enquiry Officer but the Management directed
the workman not to speak against the Enquiry Officer and
the authority also did not record his objection. The
workman further mentioned that the enquiry was held on
22.12.2000; 2.1.01; 11.1.2001 and 29.1.2001 and the
workman was present before the Enquiry Officer on all
those days but the Enquiry Officer did not record the
hearing of the enquiry on two occasions without any
reasons, and on other two occasions, the proceeding was
adjourned without any hearing. Thereafter the hearing of
the enquiry was fixed on 20.3.01 and on that day the
workman felt ill and sent his brother with a petition
supported by a Medical Certificate requesting the Enquiry
Officer to adjourn the hearing on that day but the Enquiry
Officer refused to accept the application and hold the
enquiry ex-parte against the workman and submitted a
report holding the workman guilty without recording any
evidence and without proving any document by any
witness. The workman alleged that after his attendance
on 29.1.2001 he received the letter dated 26.2.2001 from
the Enquiry Officer on 16.3.2001, and from the contents of
the letter dated 26.2.2001, he could come to know that the
next date for the proceeding was fixed on 20.3.2001; and in
the said letter the Enquiry Officer claimed that vide his
letter dated 3.2.2001 he had informed the workman that if
the workman would fail to appear in the enquiry proceeding
then the proceeding would be held ex-parte; and vide is
letter dated 10.2.2001 the Enquiry Officer informed the
workman that the next date of the enquiry proceeding
would be held on 26.3.2001, but did never receive any
letter of such dated 3.2.2001 from the Enquiry Officer. The
workman mentioned that he was present in all the enquiry
proceeding held against him and the so called letter dated
3.2.2001 purported to have been issued to strengthening
the enquiry proceeding, which is glaring example of denial
of opportunity to the workman of being heard. It is also
pointed out by the workman that before the enquiry held
on 1l.l.01 he requested the Enquiry Officer for a long time
to defend him by a lawyer as provided in Clause-12 (a) (iii)
of Chapter- XIX of the Bipartite Settlement. Then he sought
for permission of the Bank but the workman was not allowed
to engage lawyer. The workman added that the
Management has initiated a Criminal Proceeding against
him by filing an FIR before the Rangiya Police Station on
16.l.2001, but the workman was honorably acquitted from
the charges submitted by the Police. Thereafter the
Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the report and
findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued a notice on 12.4.2001
to the workman proposing extreme punishment of dismissal
which is against the principle of natural justice and the
rights granted in the Constitution of India. Then he filed a
Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court
challenging the veracity of the disciplinary proceeding
and the notice dated 12.4.2001 proposing the punishment
of dismissal from the service of the Bank. Hon’ble High
Court by an interim order dated 23.4.2001 stayed the
operation of the notice dated 12.4.2001 and directed the
Bank not to proceed further with the departmental
proceeding against the workman. Finally, The Hon’ble
Gauhati Court in its judgment dated 18.11.2002 quashed
the said notice dated 12.4.2001 with direction for
continuation of the departmental proceeding against the
workman from the stage of furnishing the report of enquiry
in which the workman could not avail the opportunity to
persuade the authority not to accept and act on the basis
of the report of the enquiry including the fact that the
enquiry was held ex-parte.
Disciplinary Authority although, in keeping with the
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court sent the enquiry report
to the workman under cover of their letter dated 20.12.2002
asked the workman to submit any comment on the said
report but all were for the sake of formality only. However
the workman submitted his comment on the enquiry report
vide his letter dated 3.l.2003 but the Disciplinary Authority
did not consider his reply dated l.12.2000 against the
charge sheet which was not taken into consideration by
the Enquiry Officer. It is also contended by the workman
that after receiving the final order dated 24.3.2003 from the
Disciplinary Authority he preferred an appeal on 7.5.2003
before the within 45 days on receipt of the final order of
punishment. But the Appellate Authority allowed a
personal hearing on 3.7.2003 i.e. not within a period of 30
days of receipt of the appeal which is clear violation of the
Bipartite Settlement. Then the Appellate Authority on the
very next day i.e. on 4.7.2003 of holding the personal
hearing on 3.7.2003 disposed of the appeal agreeing to the
order of the Disciplinary Authority. Thus the gross failure
of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority by affording adequate hearing to the workman,
free and unbiased trial which is not possible by an Officer
having unsound mind and being a tainted one, and
completed ex-parte hearing without admission and
evaluation of any evidence. It is averred by the workman
that the Management of Dobok Branch was functioning
against the Rule of Bank by committing irregularities in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4131
depositing the money which caused suffering to the
customers and in order to cover up their lapse the Field
Level Management including the Manager of the Bank
conspired to cover up the alleged irregularities by scarifing
the innocent workman. It is further mentioned that the
aggrieved customers lodged complaint before the Reserve
Bank of India and the Banking Ombudsman of the Reserve
Bank of India after enquiry directed the bank to pay all the
affected customers of their dues with warning to the
concerned Bank not to flout the guidelines of the Reserve
Bank in their day to day business. The Bank Authority
made an enquiry into the irregularities of the said Branch
and the Enquiry Authority gave its findings accusing some
of the field level management, various investigation reports
available with the bank on Dobok Branch would prove the
fact, but the workman was given a clean chit. Therefore
the workman is not at all guilty of the charges framed
against him & hence the order of dismissal of the workman
is illegal & is liable to be dismissed.
4. The Management, on the other hand, contested
the proceeding by filing written statement wherein it is
mentioned that the present reference is not maintainable
in law as well as facts, due to non-joinder of necessary
party; and as the Hon’ble High Court has legalized the
enquiry by its judgment dated 18.11.02 in W.P(C) No.2980/
2001, as such, the workman debarred to challenge the
enquiry before this Tribunal. It is also contended that the
matter is barred by law of limitation and the appellate
authority has dismissed the appeal on 4.7.2003 and the
workman has not challenged the same by filing the review
petition before the authority. The Management has
implemented the order of the Hon’ble High Court giving
an opportunity of personal hearing after closing of the
enquiry and the workman has admitted the allegation made
in the charge sheet as such, the workman is not entitled to
any relief. It is also mentioned that the new allegation
brought by the workman which were not pleaded/stated
earlier before the Hon’ble High Court, can not be accepted
and it is liable to be rejected. The Management mentioned
that the workman was issued a charge sheet dated
29.9.2000 stating that the workman while posted as Clerk-
cum-Assistant Cashier of Dobok Branch he had received
cash from customers for credit of their respective accounts
issuing acknowledgement to them by signing the counter
foils of the pay-in-slip but the amount was not entered
into the ledger folios, the names of the customer along
with their account numbers, dates of payment and amount
deposited were stated in the charge sheet. In the charge
sheet it was also mentioned that the entries were made by
the workman in the pass books of Savings Bank Account
on 24 occasions without making corresponding matching
entries in the respective ledger folios for which the balance
of the S.B.Ledger folios differ with that of the pass book
entries. The workman was informed vide letter dated
2.8.2000 to have received cash from nine account holders
for credit in their respective account but the same were
not deposited on respective date of receipt. As a result,
the workman has put the bank to financial loss and caused
damage to the image and reputation of the Bank which is a
gross misconduct as per Clause-19.5 (d) of the Bipartite
Settlement dated 9.10.1966. Further plea of the
Management is that the workman was asked to submit
explanation on the said charges and the enquiry has been
duly completed but the workman remained absent after
participating on first two dates.
The Management stated that the workman vide his
letter dated 2.8.2000 has admitted in clear and categorical
terms of charges levelled against him and has also made a
declaration that the irregularities were committed by him
only in the SB Accounts and not in any other account and
it was undertaken that all the said accounts would be
regularized as promised earlier before 8.8.2000. After
issuing the charge sheet dated 29.9.2000 the workman was
directed to submit written statement within 10 days from
the date of receipt of the charge sheet and subsequently
on application of workman the date was extended upto
30.1l.2000 but the workman failed to submit even on
5.12.2000 and hence, the Management constituted an
enquiry against the workman appointing Mr. J.N.Sharma,
A.C.O, Regional Office, Gauhati as Enquiry Officer. The
workman was present before the Enquiry Officer on 2.l.01
and 1l.l.01 and on 2.l.01 he was allowed to arrange a defence
representative supplying copies of the proceeding on
5.l.0l. Thereafter the workman filed an application to engage
lawyer to defend his case which was rejected by the
Management. The workman did not attend the enquiry on
26.2.01 inspite of notice issued to him by Registered Post
and certificate of posting besides personally service
through the Bank. The Registered letter was returned
unserved on the ground that the addressee was out of
station and the notice sent through personal service was
also not accepted by the wife and father of the workman,
and hence the proceeding was held ex-parte on 26.2.01
The Enquiry Officer also gave the workman a last and final
chance to defend his case and fixed 20.3.2001 for next
hearing with intimation by letter dated 5.3.2001 to the
workman by Registered Post which was received by the
workman on 16.3.01 but the said workman did not attend
before the enquiry officer on 20.3.01 and hence, the
proceeding was held exparte.
Further case of the Management is that the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition No.W.P.(C) No. 2980/
01 filed by the workman quashing the notice dated
12.4.2001 issued by the Management, with direction for
continuation of the departmental proceeding against the
workman from the stage of furnishing of report of the
enquiry; while the Management in pursuance of the order
of the Hon’ble High Court has given a personal hearing
with the workman on 24.l.2003, wherein the workman
admitted the charges levelled against him in presence of
4132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri Golap Kalita, C.O. and Smt. Leena Das, DCO and put
his signature on the statements made in the said personal
hearing.
Thus the workman has intentionally remained absent
in the departmental proceeding in spite of receipt of the
notice and the Enquiry Officer has given sufficient time
for appointing of defence representative as well as for his
appearance and hence, there is no violation of any
provision of law; and the Disciplinary Authority after
perusing the record as well as the statement of the workman
made during his personal hearing admitting the allegations
against him and as such, the Disciplinary Authority has
not violated the Bipartite Settlement and hence, there is
nothing to interfere by this Tribunal. It is further stated by
the Management that the Appellate Authority has also
given an opportunity of personal hearing to the workman
wherein he has admitted irregularities and also execution
of letter dated 8.8.2000 and deposit of about 4.6 lakhs: and
after perusal of the materials in connection with the
disciplinary proceeding the Appellate Authority has
dismissed the appeal preferred by the workman. The
Management added that they have not committed any
irregularity, illegality in initiation of the enquiry as well as
in dismissing the workman from his service on the ground
of misappropriation of public money, as such, the workman
is not entitled to any relief.
5. In order to establish his case, the workman
examined himself alone. The Management also examined
one witness namely Mr. Rajen Chandra Kalita, Sr. Manager,
UCO Bank, Tihu Branch, Tihu, Nalbari. Let me discuss the
evidence of both the sides along with the documents relied
upon by them.
According to the workman witness no.1, Shri Motiur
Rahman, he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier and
posted at Dobok Branch of the Bank and he was working
in the said Branch upto 24.3.2003. The workman was charge
sheeted by the Management on the allegation of
defalcation of fund on 29.9.2000 and an ex-parte enquiry
was held against him but the enquiry was held by tainted
Officer who himself was punished by the Management for
misuse of fund and misconduct and moreover the said
Enquiry Officer was a psychiatric patient at the relevant
time. While the workman objected to the appointment to
such tainted Officer but the Management directed the
workman not to speak against the Enquiry Officer and his
objection was not recorded. The workman mentioned that
the enquiry was vitiated due to appointment of a tainted
and a man of unsound mind as Enquiry Officer which is
evident from the fact that the enquiry was held on
22.12.2000; 2.l.2001; 1l.l.2001 and 29.l.2001 and the workman
was present all those days but the Enquiry Officer did not
record the hearing of the enquiry on 2 occasions without
any reasons and on another two dates the proceeding
was adjourned without any hearing. The workman also
stated that he could not attend the hearing of the enquiry
on 20.3.2001 but the workman due to his illness could not
appear and sent his brother with a petition supported by
Medical Certificate to the Enquiry Officer requesting him
to adjourn the hearing for the day which was turned down
by the Enquiry Officer. He also said that he had applied
before the Enquiry Officer to allow him to engage a lawyer
to defend his case as per provisions of Bipartite Settlement
but he was not allowed to do so. He also mentioned that
his request for adjournment on medical ground was not
accepted with objective to dispose of the case ex-parte
without any hearing. The W.W.1 stated that the Enquiry
Officer after completing ex-parte enquiry submitted his
report to the Disciplinary Authority recommending to take
action against the workman without serving any copy of
the said report to him. W.W.1 also stated that the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court vide its order passed in W.P(C)
No.2980/01 filed by the workman, quashed the order of the
Disciplinary Authority with direction to supply copy of
the enquiry report and to provide hearing to the workman,
and on receipt of the copy of the enquiry report the
workman submitted his statement before the Disciplinary
Authority but the Disciplinary Authority did not consider
the same. It is further stated that the Management stated
before the Hon’ble High Court that the workman had
replied to the charges but in dismissal order it was
mentioned that the workman did not reply to the charges;
and that the workman preferred the appeal before the
Appellate Authority pointing out the defects in holding
the ex-parte enquiry but the Appellate Authority did not
consider his grievance. The workman denied all the
allegations/statements made by the Management in their
Written Statement, which have been reproduced only to
cover up their lapses. The further contention of the
workman is that although the authority have made a charge
of defalcation of fund against the workman but they have
failed to show any order that the workman was ever
entrusted to handle the cash of the bank; and that the fact
remained that the set of people entrusted to the task of
receiving cash and supervising the receipt and payment
of cash are completely different and he was not entrusted
to receive the cash. He mentioned that everything began
with the Manager of Dobok Branch regarding withdrawal
Rs.70,000 from account No.1820/12 belonging to the son
of the workman without the knowledge of the workman or
son of the which he vehemently objected to. He also added
that some persons got some confession letters signed by
him under threat with dire consequences of his life and the
life of his son which however he withdrew vide his letter
written to the Manager on 20.11.2000. Some of the
customers of the Bank complaint before the Bank
Ombudsman of the Reserve Bank of India, Guwahati for
anomalies in their account at UCO Bank at Dobok Branch
and an enquiry was held and penalty was imposed on the
Bank but no where the Ombudsman made any reference to
the workman as he was not at all connected in the matter.
The W.W.1 also stated that the management was
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4133
determined to punish him and for doing so they brought
these false allegations and punished him without giving a
chance which amounts to violation of principle of natural
justice in the enquiry proceeding against the Workman;
and he was punished by dint of fake and defective enquiry.
Hence prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal of
the workman.
The workman mentioned that the management filed
a Criminal case being G.R.Case No.32/2001 u/s 409,467 IPC
before the SDJM, Rangiya and the said case has been
disposed of acquitting him from the charges. In support
of his statement the W.W.1 has proved the certified copy
of judgment and order dated 21.5.2012 passed by the
learned SDJM, Rangiya in G.R.Case No.32/2001 u/s 409,467
IPC vide Exhibit-1; the charge sheet framed by the
management against the workman vide Exhibit-1(A); the
letter issued by the workman to the management with
prayer for allowing time for verification of the documents
vide Exhibit-2; the letter issued by the management allowing
the workman 10 days time for submission of statement in
defence vide Exhibit-3; the letters regarding institution of
departmental enquiry marked as Exhibit-4 and the Exhibit-
4(l) is the Notification regarding appointment of Enquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer; and the Exhibit-5 which is
the order of the Disciplinary Authority; the copy of the
extract from the Register in respect of the treatment of
J.N.Sarma, by Dr. S.K.Chakrabarty, GMCH, vide Exhibit-6;
the notices issued by the Enquiry Officer to the workman
vide Exhibits-7, 8, & 9; the applications dated 19.3.2001
written by the workman to the Enquiry Officer along with
medical certificate vide Exhibit-10, the sick certificate in
respect of the workman vide Exhibit-10(1); the letter issued
by the Enquiry Officer upon the workman asking him for
sending his statement vide Exhibit-l1; the letters issued
by the Disciplinary Authority proposing punishment and
asking the workman for personal appearance vide Exhibit-
12 and the copy of the judgment and order passed by the
Hori’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) 2980/01
vide Exhibit-13; the copy of the disciplinary proceeding
vide Exhibit-14; the letter written by the workman to the
Disciplinary Authority requesting to exonerate from the
charges vide Exhibit-15; the forwarding letters issued by
the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Dobok Branch in respect
of the order of Disciplinary Authority and the order of the
Disciplinary Authority vide Exhibit-16 and 16(1)
respectively; the copy of the appeal preferred by the
workman against the order of the Disciplinary authority
for making fresh enquiry vide Exhibit-17; the forwarding
letter issued by the AGM containing order of appeal vide
Exhibit-18 and the order of the Appellate Authority vide
Exhibit-18(1); the copy of the disciplinary proceeding
including enquiry report/findings vide Exhibit-19; the
notice issued by the Enquiry Officer vide Exhibit-20; the
letter dated 27.1.01 issued by the workman to the Enquiry
Officer with request to stop the departmental proceeding
till the decision of the criminal court vide Exhibit-21; reply
of the workman to the charge sheet framed by the
Disciplinary Authority vide Exhibit-22.
During his cross-examination the workman stated
that he wrote a letter on 2.8.2000 admitting some
misappropriation/irregularities of the Bank money under
pressure and threat of the then Branch Manager Mr.
S.K.Balasubramanium and 6/7 numbers of customers
present at the Bank at that time, and the said letter was
initially provided by them and he wrote the same making
like a copy. He categorically denied the suggestion that
he had admitted his guilt and accordingly he repaid an
amount of Rs. 4.60 Lakhs to the customers. He had also
proved the final order of the Appellate Authority passed
by the Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank vide Exhibit-
A, and copy of which was received by him on 5.9.2003
putting his signature marked as Exhibit-A( l ). The workman
has also proved the minutes of appeal hearing (personal
hearing) of the workman on 3.7.2003 vide Exhibit-A(2)
which was received by him acknowledging receipt thereof
by the workman vide Exhibits-A(3), A(4) and A(5); but he
did not admit the contents of these documents. He also
added that prior to holding of the hearing by the Appellate
Authority vide Exhibit-A & Exhibit-A(2), the Disciplinary
Authority held another personal hearing on 24.1.2003 vide
Exhibit-B. The workman again stated that he was not
supplied with the copy of document marked as Exhibit-B.
and that the Disciplinary Authority did not record the
proceedings in respect of his reply what he told exactly.
But he did not raise any protest at the time of
acknowledgement of Exhibit- B.
6. The Management witness No.1, Mr. Rajen Chandra
Kalita, Sr. Manager of UCO Bank, Tihu Branch, District-
Nalbari, Assam, in his evidence, mentioned that the
Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has already legalized the
enquiry vide its Judgment dated 18.11.2002 in W.P. (C)
No. 2980/2001 and as such, the workman is debarred to
challenge before this Tribunal; and that the matter is barred
by law of limitation as the Appellate Authority has
dismissed the Appeal on 4.7.2003 and the workman has
not challenged the same by filing Review petition before
the Authority. He also stated that in pursuance of the
order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court the Management
has given an opportunity of personal hearing to the
workman after closing of the enquiry and in the said
personal hearing the workman has admitted the allegation
made in the Charge Sheet; and as the workman has brought
new allegation which would not pleaded earlier before the
Appropriate Authority and hence, the workman is not
entitled to any relief. He also said that in the charge sheet
dated 29.9.2000 issued against the workman it was
mentioned that while the workman was posted as clerk-
cum-Assistant Cashier of Dobok Branch, he had received
cash from the Bank’s customers for credit in their respective
4134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
account by issuing acknowledgement to them by signing
the counter foils of the pay-in-slip and the amount
deposited was not entered into the ledger folios; and that
on 24 occasions the workman made entries in the Pass
Book of Savings Book Accounts without making
corresponding matching entries in the respective ledger
folios for which the balance of the Savings Bank ledger
folios differ with that of the pass book entries. The
workman vide his letter dated 2.8.2000 informed the Bank
to have received cash from 9 account holders for credit in
their respective accounts but the same was not deposited
on the respective date of receipt. As such, the said act of
the workman put the Bank to financial loss and also
damaged image and reputation of the Bank and such act
of the workman is a gross-misconduct as per clause 19.5(d)
of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 and by doing
acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross
negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in loss
is a gross-misconduct as per clause 19.5(d) of the Bipartite
Settlement. The Management witness further stated that
the workman voluntarily remained absent after
participating on the first two dates and there after the
enquiry has been duly completed. He mentioned that the
workman vide his letter dated 2.8.2000 clearly and
categorically admitted the charges framed against him and
he has also made a declaration that the irregularities were
committed by him only in the savings Bank Account and
not in any other account and it was undertaken that all the
said account would be regularized earlier before 8.8.2000;
and that no other staff was involved in any of the above
irregularities. The Charge Sheet was issued by the
Management against the workman on 29.9.2000 with
direction to submit written statement within 10 days of
receipt of the charge sheet; and after extension of the date
of submission of charge sheet up to 30.11.2000 at the
instance the workman he failed to submit his written
statement even on 5.12.2000. Mr. Kalita (MW. 1) added
that the workman appeared before the Enquiry Officer on
2.1.2001 and on 11.1.2001 and participated in the enquiry;
and on 2.1.2001 he was allowed to arrange his defence
representative fixing next date on 11.1.2001. On 11.1.2001
the workman has filed an application to engage a lawyer
to defend his case which was rejected by the Management
and subsequently on 26.2.2001 the workman did not
attend the enquiry proceeding in spite of issuance of notice
to him by registered post as well as personal service by
the Bank. But the said registered letter was returned un-
served on the ground that the addressee was out of the
station and the notice sent through the personal service
was also not accepted by the wife and father of the
workman and as such, the proceeding dated 26.2.2011 was
held ex-parte. But the workman was allowed a last and
final chance to defend his case for the interest of natural
justice fixing 28.3.2001 in the next hearing and the workman
was informed by issuing notice by Registered Post dated
5.3.2001 and the same was received by the workman on
16.3.2001. While the workman did not appear before the
Enquiry Officer on the date fixed 20.3.2001 and having no
other alternative the proceeding was held ex-parte. In the
meantime the workman preferred a Writ Petition before the
Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, which was registered as
W.P. (C) No.2980/20001 and after hearing the parties the
Hori’ble High Court was pleased to quash the notice dated
12.4.2001 and ordered of Departmental Proceeding against
the workman from the stage of furnishing to the report of
enquiry vide order dated 18.11.2002. Accordingly the
workman was given personal hearing on 24.1.2003 and in
course of the said personal hearing the workman has
admitted the charges levelled against him in presence of
Sri Golap Kalita and Smti Leena Das . The workman also
put his signature on the statement made in the said personal
hearing. The witness concerned has also mentioned that
the Enquiry Officer has been able to prove all the
allegations as per charge sheet and the Disciplinary
Authority, after going through all the records as well as
the statements made by the workman during his personal
hearing, wherein he admitted all the allegations levelled
against him. As such, the Disciplinary Authority has not
violated the Bipartite Settlement in awarding punishment
to the workman, and hence, there is nothing to interfere
by this Tribunal. Further, the MW.1 added that the
Appellate Authority under the management has already
given an opportunity of personal hearing of the workman
wherein the workman admitted irregularities and also the
execution of the letter dated 8.8.2000 and deposit of Rs.4.6
lakhs, and after going through the materials on record the
Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the
workman on 4.7.2003. Thus the Management has not
committed any irregularity, illegality in the appointment of
Enquiry Officer as well as in dismissing the workman on
the ground of misappropriation of public money; and as
the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has observed that the
charges is indeed serious and has the effect of telling
upon the reputation of the Bank, public interest would,
therefore, demand that the exact role and responsibility of
the workman in such act is determined at the earliest.
The management witness has proved the charge
sheet issued against the workman vide Exhibit-C, the letter
dated 2.8.2000 written by the workman admitting his guilt
vide Exhibit-D ( duly certified by the authorized Officer of
Bank, & the same was proved under objection); the
Notification/intimation dated 5.12.2000 issued by the
management regarding appointment of Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer & intimation as to the departmental
enquiry vide Exhibits-E & F respectively; the letter dated
7.11.2000 issued by the workman for extension of time for
filing his reply to charge sheet and the letter dated
20.11.2000 issued by the Management allowing 10 days
time to the Management vide Exhibit-G & H respectively;
the enquiry report against the workman submitted by Mr.
J.N. Sarma, Enquiry Officer, vide Exhibit- 1; the judgment
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4135
of the Honble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No.2980/
2001 vide Exhibit- J; the proceeding of enquiry (personal
hearing) of the workman in view of the order of the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court vide Exhibit-K: the order of the
Disciplinary Authority dated 24.3.03 regarding findings of
the Enquiry Officer and the punishment awarded against
the workman by the Disciplinary Authority vide Exhibit-
L; the order rejecting the proceeding of the enquiry against
the workman vide Exhibit-M; and the final order rejecting
the appeal preferred by the workman vide Exhibit-N.
During his cross-examination the Management
witness No.1 admitted that Mr. J.N. Sarma, the Enquiry
Officer, appointed to enquire into the case of workman
was an officer of the Management Bank who was punished
after holding departmental proceeding against him, and
said Mr. J.N. Sarma obtained medical bill for his psychiatric
treatment from the Bank and Mr. Sarma was placed on
VRS in the year 2001; and that the letter regarding allowing
time to the workman marked as Exhibit-H was received by
the workman on 30.11.2000 asking the workman to furnish
his reply latest by 30.11.2000 which is against the principle
of natural justice. He also admitted that the alleged
confessional letter marked as Exhibit-D was taken into
consideration in deciding the charges of enquiry
proceeding but it was not proved by any of the management
witness before the Enquiry Officer; and that they have
not communicated the workman the proposed punishment
to be imposed upon him on the basis of the enquiry
proceeding. The Management witness No.1 stated that
the vital ingredients of the charge sheet (Exhibit-C) is the
allegation of collection of cash from the customers by the
workman but he did not deposit the same to the Bank but
the total amount of money collected by the workman was
not given in the charge sheet while details of the list is in
the charge sheet. He also mentioned that no management
witness was examined by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry
proceeding against the workman, and the ledger folios
and pass books in respect of the Account No.4128/25 of
Sri A.Sarma were not produced before the Enquiry Officer
in connection with the proving of charge No.2. He said
that in the enquiry report marked as Exhibit- I (at page-2)
the Enquiry Officer has mentioned that the reply to the
charge sheet was not submitted by the workman before
the Disciplinary Authority while in the order of appeal
dated 4.7.2003 passed by the Assistant General Manager,
UCO Bank it has been mentioned that the reply of the
workman dated 0l.12.2000 to the charge sheet issued by
the Disciplinary Authority was considered by the
Disciplinary Authority and the same was found
unsatisfactory while the departmental proceeding was
ordered. He again mentioned that in the W.P.(C) No.2980/
01 preferred by the workman before the Hon’ble Gauhati
High Court, it was mentioned in the judgment of the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court, marked as Exhibit- l ( at page-7)
wherein it is seen that Mr. P.C. Deka, learned Advocate
submitted that the reply to the charge sheet was already
submitted by the workman before the Disciplinary
Authority, but in Exhibit- L i.e. the final order of the
Disciplinary Authority wherein there is no mention
regarding receipt of the reply to the charge sheet by the
Management from the workman. It is further stated by the
management witness No.1 that the workman remained
absent in the enquiry only on one occasion i.e. on 20.3.2001
after receiving notice from the Disciplinary Authority and
the enquiry was held on 4 days i.e. on 2.l.2001, 11.1.2001,
26.2.2001 and 20.3.2001; and the presentation of the enquiry
was started on 20.3.2001; and that the notices marked as
Exhibit 7 & 8 were issued fixing the date of enquiry on
22.12.2000 and 29.l.2001 respectively but there is no mention
in the enquiry proceeding as to the step taken by the
Enquiry Officer on those two dates. He categorically denied
the suggestion that with an intent to victimize the workman,
taking advantage of the absence of the workman due to
illness on one date i.e. on 20.3.2001 the Enquiry Officer
started the enquiry and also concluded the enquiry on the
same date. It is also stated by the MW.1 that there is no
mention in the enquiry proceeding whether the workman
was asked if he was ready to confess his guilt, however,
denied the suggestion put forward by the workman that
the workman was not asked whether he was prepared to
admit his guilt nor the workman was given any opportunity
to be heard.
7. I have gone through the entire case record and
the evidence adduced by both the sides as discussed
above. I have also perused the written argument submitted
by both the parties and also heard oral arguments placed
by them.
From the evidence on record it appears that the
workman Motiur Rahman was working as Clerk-cum-
Cashier, UCO Bank, Dobok Branch and he was charge
sheeted by the management on the allegation of defalcation
of fund and accordingly an enquiry was held ex-parte
against the workman. On completion of enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report along with the findings
on the charges framed against the workman, before the
Disciplinary Authority which accepting the report and
findings of the Enquiry Officer imposed penalty of
dismissal from service. The charge sheet has been proved
as Exhibit-1(A) wherein 4 numbers of charges have been
framed against the workman on the allegation of
misappropriation of bank deposits collected by him from
the account holders at different times which caused
damage to the reputation and image of the bank amounting
to gross-misconduct. On receipt of the notice along with
the charge sheet by the workman he made verification of
the documents of the bank with the leave of the Bank and
prayed for time for filing reply to the charge sheet vide
Exhibit-2. Accordingly, the time was allowed by the
Disciplinary Authority for submission of his statement in
defence latest by 30.1l.2000 vide Exhibit-3. On scrutiny of
4136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the document marked as Exhibit-3 it appears that the letter
dated 20.1l.2000 stipulating last date of submission of the
defence of the workman on 30.1l.2000, which was received
by the workman on 30.1l.2000. The Disciplinary Authority
appointed Mr. J.N.Sarma, ACO, Regional Office, Guwahati
as Enquiry Officer and Mr. K.K.Das, ACO Office, Regional
Office, Guwahati Office as Presenting Officer to present
the case on behalf of the Management of the Bank vide
Exhibit-4(l). The workman was also notified accordingly
while the workman raised objection to the appointment of
Enquiry Officer namely Mr. J.N. Sharma, ACO, Regional
Office on the ground that the said officer was a tainted
and Mr. Sarma was also suffering from psychiatric disorder
and hence, the workman prayed before the Disciplinary
Authority for not entrusting Mr. J.N. Sharma with the work
of Enquiry Officer. But the prayer of the workman was not
considered by the Disciplinary Authority. In support of
his contention that the Enquiry Officer Mr. J.N. Sharma,
ACO was a tainted who was having psychiatric disorder,
the workman has proved the order of Disciplinary
Authority in the matter of departmental enquiry with
regard to the charges framed against Mr. J.N. Sarma, ACO
vide Ref. No.NEZ/IVD/JDV-43/316/9798 dated 30.9.97
marked as Exhibit-5 and an extract from the register in
respect of the treatment of Mr. J. N. Sharma as a patient of
psychiatric disorder has been proved vide Exhibit-6. From
the Exhibit-5 i.e. the order of the Disciplinary Authority in
respect of Sri J. N. Sharma it appears that the charges
framed against Sri J.N.Sharma have been proved and some
punishment for misconduct was imposed against him. It is
also found on record that the workman objected to the
appointment of Mr. J.N.Sharma apprehending miscarriage
of justice. The evidence also shows that the workman was
refused by the Disciplinary Authority to engage lawyer to
defend his case. The Management inspite of having scope,
to appoint another Officer to enquire into the charges
framed against the workman, failed to do so and also did
not allow the workman to engage his lawyer and hence
the contention of the workman that there was lack of good
faith in instituting the enquiry against him, cannot be
ruled out.
The workman categorically stated that he sincerely
cooperated with the enquiry proceeding and he attended
the enquiry fixed on 22.12.2001, 2.l.2001, 11.1.2001 and
29.1.2001 but the Enquiry Officer has adjourned the
enquiry on two occasions without any hearing and also
without recording the hearing of enquiry on two dates.
Subsequently on 20.3.2001 the workman could not appear
due to his illness and he sent his prayer before the Enquiry
Officer together with application along with medical
certificate for adjournment but it was refused by the
Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer completed the
enquiry on 20.3.2001 ex-parte. The workman has proved
his application dated 19.3.2001 and the supporting
documents namely the medical certificate vide Exhibit-10
and Exhibit-10(l ). The enquiry report forwarded to the
workman by the Disciplinary Authority vide Exhibit-19
shows that the minutes of the proceeding on
2.l.2001,1l.l.2001, 26.2.2001 and 20.3.2001 have been
recorded along with the observation and the findings of
the Enquiry Officer. The workman has been able to
establish that his prayer for adjournment was received by
the Enquiry Officer on 26.3.2001 vide Exhibit-l0 as there is
no rebuttal evidence against the statement of the workman.
Further the M.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that
the workman was absent in the enquiry proceeding only
on 20.3.2001 while the enquiry report shows that the
workman was absent on several dates. The said prayer of
the workman for adjournment of enquiry might be
considered by the Enquiry Officer in order to afford an
opportunity to the workman to be heard, and refusal of the
Enquiry Officer amounts to violation of natural Justice.
In Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and Anr.
Reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484 it was held :
The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one.
Although the provisions Evidence Act are not
applicable in the said proceeding, principles of
natural justice are required to be complied with.
The Court exercising power of judicial review are
entitled to consider as to whether while inferring
commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent
officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken
into consideration and irrelevant facts have been
excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be
based on evidence which meet the requirements of
legal principles. The Tribunal was thus, entitled to
arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the
evidence adduced by the department, event if it is
taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety,
meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely-
preponderance of probability. If on such evidences,
the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not
been satisfied. The Tribunal was within its domain
to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine
of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine
of proportionality.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmala- J. Jhala vs.
State of Gujrat published in AIR 2013 SC 1513 (A)
held that;
The disciplinary proceeding are not a criminal trial
and inspite of the fact that some are quasi judicial
and quasi criminal, doctrine of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not apply in such case but
the preponderance possibility would apply; the
Court has to see whether there is evidence on record
to reach the conclusion that the delinquent had
committed a misconduct; and this conclusion
should be reached on the basis of test what a prudent
person would have done.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4137
8. In view of the ratio of the above cases and having
regard to my findings as above. it can safely be held that
the departmental enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer
without following the requirements of legal proof and there
is violation of principle of natural justice as the Enquiry
Officer arrived at his findings without proving the charges
framed against the workman by examining the departmental
witnesses as such, the inference drawn by the Enquiry
Officer as well as the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority on the basis of said enquiry apparently were
not supported by any evidence and the documents relied
upon by the Enquiry Officer without any legal proof.
however he might be, can under no circumstances be held
to be a substitute for legal proof.
The minutes of the proceeding dated 20.3.2001
shows that the Enquiry Officer decided to proceed with
the enquiry proceeding and to record argument/
submission of the Presenting Officer ex-parte. Accordingly
the enquiry was concluded on the same day i.e. on
20.3.2001 ex-parte relying upon the submission and
argument of the Presenting Officer in respect of the charges
framed against the workman. There is no iota of evidence
to show on record as well as the enquiry report dated
20.3.2001 that in order to prove the charges against the
workman, the Enquiry Officer had examined the
Management witness to prove this case of the
Management and the documents relied upon by the
Enquiry Officer. It is also found that the vital allegations
against the workman is defalcation of money of the bank
collected by the workman from the account holders and
did not deposit the same to the bank maintaining the cash
and scroll Register etc. But neither the account holder nor
the record of the bank was proved in the enquiry
proceeding. The Enquiry Officer also gave much stress
on the purported confessional statement made in his letter
dated 2.8.2000 by the workman addressed to the Branch
Manager of Dobok Branch confessing that he had
committed irregularities in 71 S.B. Accounts and loan
Accounts but in course of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
has not examined any of the witnesses nor even he asked
the workman at any point of time, that whether the workman
was ready to confess his guilt. Even in course of the
proceeding before this Tribunal the workman alleged that
he did not make any confession voluntarily and some
other bank officials wrote this alleged letter of confession
and he was compelled to put his signature thereon under
life threat.
9. The management in order to establish their plea
as regards confessional statement produced the copy of
the purported confessional statement but they did not
adduce any evidence in order to prove the alleged
confession made by the workman. It is the established
principle of law that the Enquiry Officers discharging the
function of quasi judicial proceeding is to make proper
scrutiny and to take all care and cautions taking into
consideration the supporting legal evidence in order to
test whether confession is free, voluntary, uninfluenced
and spontaneous; and to rely upon the confessional
statement to arrive at a just and reasonable decision of a
case. But the Enquiry Officer acted upon the purported
confessional statement on being presented by the
Presenting Officer. In his report in the concluding paragraph
the Enquiry Officer mentioned that the enquiry proceeding
was concluded on 20.3.2001 ex-parte due to the reason as
explained herein and due to the non receipt of any written
brief/statement from the C.S.E, he hereby submit his report/
findings of the enquiry. On scrutiny of the order of the
Disciplinary Authority marked as Exhibit-L it is mentioned
at para-4 at page 3 that the workman has not submitted
any reply to the charge sheet framed against him while the
order dated 4.7.2003 in the matter of appeal preferred by
the workman against the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority on 24.3.2003 marked as Exhibit-N, it appears
that the Appellate Authority has considered the reply of
the workman to the charge sheet was considered by the
Disciplinary Authority and the same was found
unsatisfactory and hence, the departmental enquiry was
ordered. Thus it appears that there is contradictory
statement as regards statement of the reply to the charge
sheet dated l.12.2000 filed by the workman which vitiate
the authenticity and credibility of the statement of the
Appellate Authority and the Disciplinary Authority as well
as the Enquiry Officer resulting in growth of sufficient
scope of doubt as to the enquiry proceeding and its
findings against the workman. But the Disciplinary
Authority passed his order dated 24.3.2003 accepting the
report of the Enquiry Officer proposed punishment against
the workman holding the charge Nos.1,2,3 and 4 framed
against the workman vide Exhibit-16(1). The enquiry report
also shows that the copies of the proceeding dated
20.3.2001 was sent to the workman at his recorded
residential address by registered post with A/D and another
through Under Certificate of Posting and by ordinary post
but the workman clearly mentioned that he has not received
any copy of the report and findings of the enquiry
proceeding and the Management also has not been able
to prove that the enquiry report along with its findings
was actually received by the workman. The workman
preferred a Writ Petition being No. W.P.(C) 2980 of 2001
before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court challenging the
validity and legality of the departmental enquiry conducted
by the Enquiry Officer Mr. J.N.Sharma on the charges
framed against the workman wherein the punishment was
proposed against the workman without supplying the
copies of report and the findings of the enquiry proceeding
to the workman and it was established in the Hon’ble High
Court that the copy of enquiry proceeding along with
findings was not furnished to the workman before
proposing the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority
and accordingly the notice dated 12.4.2001 vide Exhibit-12
issued by the Disciplinary Authority proposing the
4138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
punishment was quashed with direction to continue the
departmental proceeding against the Writ petitioner from
the stage of furnishing the report of enquiry vide Exhibit-
13. The Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in their judgment
and order dated 18.1l.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No.2980 of
2001 besides quashing the notice dated 12.4.2001 issued
by the Management to the workman declaring the same as
void and illegal ordered for continuation of the
departmental proceeding against the workman from the
stage of quashing the report of enquiry entrusted the
Disciplinary Authority the responsibility to consider the
question of validity of the enquiry on the ground that it
was held ex-parte. The workman also vide his letter dated
3.l.03 vide Exhibit-15 submitted before the Disciplinary
Authority about his objection against the validity of the
entire enquiry proceeding being held ex-parte. However,
the Disciplinary Authority ignored the objection raised
by the workman & the Appellate Authority also failed to
consider this aspect of enquiry proceeding; and thereby
the Management of the Bank has not complied with the
judgment and order of the Hon’ble High Court violating
the principle of natural justice.
10. In pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court’s order
dated 18.11.2002 as aforesaid the Management furnishing
the copy of the enquiry report along with its findings asked
the workman for submitting his comment vide Exhibit-l4,
while the workman vide his letter mentioned that he had
already explained in his letter dated 0l.12.2000 in reply to
the charge and he denied the charge levelled against him
alleging that the enquiry was held in his absence and the
findings arrived at in the said enquiry is biased one vide
Exhibit-15. In this connection personal hearing was taken
by the Disciplinary Authority which was proved by the
management witness No.1 vide Exhibit-K. On scrutiny of
the Exhibit-K i.e. personal hearing of the workman recorded
in writing held on 24.l.2003. It is found that the hearing
was taken in presence of Golap Kalita, Chief Officer,
Regional Office, Guwahati, Smti Leena Das, D.C.O, Regional
Office Guwahati and Sri Matiur Rahman (the workman),
wherein the signature of Sri Golap Kalita, Smti Leena Das
and Sri Matiur Rahman appear to have been made on the
personal hearing but there is no signature of the
Disciplinary Authority as to the recording of personal
hearing of the workman.
The workman after receiving the final order dated
24.3.03 from the Disciplinary Authority preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Authority on 7.5.2003 but the Appellate
Authority disposed of the appeal agreeing to the order of
the Disciplinary Authority on 4.7.03 after taking hearing
on 3.7.03 i.e. after lapse of about 2 months which should
have been disposed of within 30 days as per the
requirement of Standing Order of the Bank i.e. Bipartite
Settlement. On perusal of the order of appeal dated 4.7.03
passed by the Appellate Authority it is revealed that the
Appellate Authority has mentioned that the reply of the
workman dated 1.12.2000 to the charge sheet was
considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the same
was found unsatisfactory while both the Enquiry Officer
and the Disciplinary Authority in their reports have
mentioned that the workman did not submit any reply to
the charge sheet. He also mentioned that reasonable and
ample opportunity was given to the workman to enable
him to attend the enquiry, and the record does not reveal
any serious illness of the workman that could compel not
to attend the enquiry, rather the action of the workman
indicated that he avoided to present on the enquiry on
one pretext or another and therefore the enquiry was held
ex-parte but the prayer for adjournment of enquiry
submitted by the workman as mentioned above has not
been taken into consideration. Although in the said order
the Appellate Authority has mentioned that the
Disciplinary Authority adequately discussed the question
of validity in the ex-parte enquiry proceeding as per the
order of the Hon’ble High Court but there is nothing on
record to show that the prayer of the workman on
adjournment on medical ground was considered by the
Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority in the light of the
judgment and order of the Hori’ble High Court. The
personal hearing of the workman before the Appellate
Authority in presence of Mrs. Leena Das, Dy. Chief Officer
recorded in writing vide Exhibit-M is found to be not
signed/authenticated by the Appellate Authority. Further
the findings of the Appellate Authority is found to be not
supported by reason and hence, the action of upholding
the order of the Disciplinary Authority by the Appellate
Authority by passing such a cryptic order which involves
the career of an employee is a glaring example of violation
of natural justice. In this connection I am to rely upon the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi -
vrs-Punjab National Bank & Ors reported in (2009) 2 SCC
570 wherein it was observed :
“Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi
judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a
quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against
the delinquent officer must be found to have been
proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a
finding upon taking into consideration the materials
brought on record by the parties. The purported
evidence collected during investigation by the
Investigation Officer against all the accused by itself
could not be treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined
to prove the said documents. The management
witnesses merely tendered the documents and did
not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, interalia,
was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which
could not have been treated as evidence. We have
noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence
whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry
Officer was the purported confession made by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4139
appellant before the police. According to the
appellant, he was forced to sign on the said
confession, as he was tortured in the police station.
Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said
confession should have been proved. Some evidence
should have been brought on record to show that
he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book.
Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there
was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report
demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer had made up
his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would
not have proceeded on the basis that the offence
was committed in such a manner that no evidence
was left”.
11. In view of my above discussion and findings
arrived at and having regard to the ratio of the judgment
and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
discussed above, it can safely be opined that the enquiry
held against the present workman is full of defects and
irregularities and there is clear violation of natural justice.
As a result, it is held that the findings of the enquiry against
the workman and the order of the Disciplinary Authority
as well as the Appellate Authority are improper, illegal and
is liable to be set aside. Accordingly this reference is
answered in negative i.e. the action of the Management of
the UCO Bank in dismissing Md. Matiur Rahman (the
workman) Ex-Clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier with effect from
24.3.2003 is illegal and not justified and the workman is
entitled to be reinstated. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and taking into account the
absence of the workman from his duty, I find it wise to
hold that the workman is entitled to 50% of the monthly
gross salary which he could draw if he would be in service.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
28th day of March, 2014.
Send the Award to Government immediately as per
procedure.
L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1558-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ijknhi iÙku
U;kl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@2007)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&38011@2@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014
S.O.
1558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2007)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Paradip
Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 22/05/2014.
[No. L-38011/2/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT :
Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 46/2007
Date of Passing Award - 31st December, 2013
BETWEEN :
The Secretary, Paradip Port Trust,
At./Po. Paradip, Dist. Jagatsinghpur
...1st Party-Management
AND
The General Secretary, Paradip Port
Workers Union, Badapadia, Paradip Port,
Dist. Jagatsinghpur
...2nd Party-Union
APPEARANCES :
Shri S.N. Mishra,
: For the 1st Party-
Traffic Officer
Management
Shri Ananta Kr. Das
: For the 2nd Party-
General Secretary
Union
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour
has referred an industrial dispute existing between the
management of Paradip Port Trust and their workmen in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (l) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act vide letter No. L-38011/2/2007-
IR(B-II), dated 29.11.2007 in respect of the following
matter :—
“Whether the action of the management of Paradip
Port Trust, Paradip providing job of Signalmen on
rotation basis to 74 workmen only out of 368
empanelled Signalmen (list enclosed) is legal/or
4140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
2. The General Secretary of the 2nd Party-Union
espousing the cause of the workmen has filed the statement
of claim. The allegations, put in short, are that the disputant
workmen are in mazdoor category whose pay scales or
wages are identical to the wages of signalmen. They are
listed workers under a scheme known as Paradip Port Cargo
Handling workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme,
1979 along with other categories of cargo handling workers
and were placed in the main list. 96 posts of signalmen
including five for SC & ST were earmarked in the H.P.C.
Report according to requirement of the Port at that time.
Out of those 96 signalmen posts, 29 posts had fallen vacant
due to promotion, retirement or death. Instead of filling
those vacant posts on permanent basis and increasing
the same to meet the additional requirement, a new dubious
method was devised to create a panel of qualified mazdoors
for booking as signalmen. A trade test was conducted
between 15.3.2004 to 13.5.2004 in which 368 mazdoors had
cleared the trade test for empanelment as signalmen and
their names were published on 7.7.2004. The Traffic
Department of the Port prepared a list of only 74 mazdoors
out of the aforesaid 368 qualified mazdoors for booking as
signalmen as and when required. This list was published
on 6.1.2005 ignoring the seniority of the main list of 1979
Scheme as well as the serial number/seniority of those
who cleared the trade test as per list published on 7.7.2004.
The said list of 74 mazdoors was not prepared in order of
merit, but on the basis of favourtism and partiality which
was detrimental to the interest of senior mazdoors who
had also qualified the trade test. The affected and left out
215 mazdoors out of 368 qualified mazdoors, who were
seniors, collectively protested by a joint representation
made to the Traffic Manager against the illegal and unfair
act of the Management. They demanded booking of all
the 368 mazdoors who had cleared the trade test on rotation
basis without any discrimination. Pursuant to the aforesaid
protest discussion was held on 4.10.2005 between the
Traffic Manager and the representative of the Union. After
further discussion on 4.11.2005 it was agreed that the Port
will work out a modality by which all trade test qualified
mazdoors can be offered booking as signalmen on rotation
in three groups. The Traffic Manager without suggesting
any modality simply prepared an agenda wherein he got
his unilateral selection of the impugned list of 74 mazdoors
approved by the Board. The said Board also acted
mechanically without applying their mind on the fraudulent
concealment of vital aspect of the dispute by the Traffic
Manager. It has not been clarified as to how and who
determined the merit of the 74 mazdoors of the impugned
list. Besides, in the matter of selection or promotion of
Class-IV employees, in which the disputant workmen have
been placed, the criteria is seniority-cum-merit and
therefore the Management is not entitled to introduce merit
as the sole basis of selection. The Board of Trustees were
mislead and given to approve the agenda mechanically
which the Traffic Manager prepared without any
discussion or deliberation by concealing the subsequent
negotiations and agreements made in the months of
October and November, 2005. The disputant workmen
being permanent employees of Paradip Port Trust
belonging to Class-IV category are governed by the
Paradip Port (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion)
Regulation of 1967 in which the criteria for promotion and
selection has been prescribed as senior-cum-merit. The
seniority factor has been totally ignored in making the
impugned selection of 74 workmen. The letter dated
12.12.1996 of the Traffic Manager reiterates that “the
seniority list of cargo handling employees published in
the main list according to which booking was offered at
the call stand, shall be deemed to be the seniority list for
all purposes”. In case of promotion/selection to other
category, promotee shall be placed below the existing
category depending upon the category to which they have
promoted/selected. The 2nd Party-Union has demanded
creation of additional posts of signalmen and filling up of
the vacant posts, adjudication of all matters incidental to
the present dispute restraining the Management from
adopting unfair labour practice and empanelling the
mazdoor for booking as signalmen declaring the impugned
selection list of 74 mazdoors as illegal ap:d inoperative
and affording equal opportunity to all the 368 empanelled
mazdoors to work as signalman on rotation basis.
3. The 1st Party-Management in its written
statement has stated that the cargo handling workers are
governed under a scheme called Paradip Port Cargo
handling Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme,
1979. There is no elaborate provision under the scheme of
1979 to follow recruitment rules for filling up the vacancies
and promotion to the cargo handling workers. The Port
Trust, as a matter of practice, had empanelled signalmen
from amongst the mazdoors in the past. Since Cargo
Handing Scheme has provided such empanelment after
trade test and as per practice in vogue, the Port Trust has
decided to conduct trade test for empanelment of
signalmen. The necessity of such empanelment arose due
to increased demand of Signalmen to meet the requirement
of large number of vessels arriving at the port with cranes
which require engagement of signalmen. Therefore the
port invited applications from amongst the interested
Signalmen and Mazdoors, who enjoyed the same pay
scale, to appear in the trade test for empanelment as
Signalmen. The strength of the Mazdoors under the cargo
handling Scheme was 793 out of which 400 mazdoors filed
applications to appear in the trade test for Signalmen. From
amongst the 400 applications 368 mazdoors were found to
have cleared trade test as per the report of the Trade Test
Committee. Trade Test result was published on 7.7.2004.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4141
The list of successful mazdoors who cleared the test was
prepared on merit i.e. as per marks secured in the Trade
Test. As such the allegation of the Union that the list of
368 mazdoors was published adopting dubious method is
not based on facts and hence denied. The strength of
signalmen at that time was reduced to 62 as against the
requirement of 136 Signalmen. Accordingly 74 mazdoors
were selected from the merit list. First 61 mazdoors were
empanelled from the General Category and first ten
mazdoors were taken from the S.C. category and first three
mazdoors were taken from the S.T. category for
empanelment of 74 mazdoor Signalmen. The list of
empanelled mazdoors was published on 6.1.2005. The
seniority of the mazdoors was decided to be the seniority
according to which booking is offered to them. Thus no
clandestine method was adopted by the Port in preparation
of the list of 74 mazdoors. The workers whose names were
found in the trade test list from Serial 1 to 66 were taken
from the general category with exception that the workers,
who are re-deployed in other department of the Port under
the re-deployment scheme are not considered for
empanelment as they were expected to be absorbed in the
department of their deployment. However, the matter was
discussed with the Union and accordingly five mazdoors
were empanelled as Signalmen as per settlement increasing
the strength to 79. The names of 74 workers in the select
list have been arranged as per their seniority in their
respective group. In order to maintain an industrial
harmony the issue was discussed with the Union,
controlling the workers, on 4.11.2005 and it was agreed
that since there is additional requirement of Signalmen
beyond the 74 empanelled list a modality will be worked
out to see that the workers who cleared the trade test can
be offered booking as Signalmen. Accordingly a modality
was worked out and placed before the Union on 25.11.2004
but the Union raised industrial dispute before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and after
prolonged discussion a settlement was signed on 5.1.2006,
wherein it was decided that the Port would seek the
approval of the Trust Board for 74 trade test passed
mazdoors empanelled as Signalmen, the Port would keep
in abeyance booking/engagement of these 74 mazdoors
till approval of the Board and minutes drawn by the Port
on 4.11.2005 and the modalities worked out and discussed
with the Union was acceptable to both the parties. Later
the empanelment of 74 plus 5 mazdoors as the mazdoor
Signalmen was ratified and approved by the Board and
the booking of 74 mazdoor Signalmen, which was stopped
on 6.1.2006 was restored and as per modality worked out
on 25.11.2005 the left out 186 workers were offered booking
of mazdoor-Signalmen in rotation whenever there is any
additional requirement of Signalmen beyond 74 empanelled
mazdoors Signalmen. Since the category of these
Signalmen is technical and carries higher responsibility,
promotion cannot be accorded on the same principle as
applicable to the regular employees and also because all
mazdoors are not interested for empanelment in the
category of Signalmen. As no vacancy existed on the date
of filling up of the posts of Signalmen, apprehension of
the workmen regarding unfair labour practice is imaginary.
The empanelled workers will be considered for
regularization in due course after observing necessary
formalities as required under the Port trust Rules. Unlike
regular employees promotion of mazdoors to the category
of Signalmen cannot be taken into consideration as per
serial according to which booking is offered to them. The
claim of the workmen to use the list of 368 mazdoor for
empanelment of Signalmen is also not clear. The list of 74
workers was prepared from the list of 368 workers, who
cleared the trade test as per the merit list submitted by the
trade test committee.
4. The 2nd Party-Union in its rejoinder has submitted
that the basic norm of seniority has been totally ignored
in empanelling 74 mazdoors out of 368 selected mazdoor-
Signalmen by-passing the provisions of Paradip Port
Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and promotion)
Regulations, 1967 and Clause-12 of the 1979 Scheme. The
list of 74 empanelled mazdoors does not indicate the
signature of the trade test committee nor shows any marks
secured by the mazdoors in the said trade test. Clause-12
of the Cargo Handling Scheme, 1979 gives primacy to the
seniority when all other criteria are fulfilled. The new
method dubiously and arbitrarily adopted by the Traffic
Manager has deprived the workmen from getting equal
treatment ignoring their inter-se seniority as mazdoors. It
has been falsely alleged that the statutory regulations as
applicable to regular employees of the Port were not
applicable to the cargo handling workers till 25.1.2005 as
the empanelment was carried out before 25.1.2005. As the
list prepared by the Traffic Manager was placed for
approval before the Board on 27.1.2006 these mazdoors
were the regular mazdoors of Paradip Port. As such the
provisions of Paradip Port Employees (Recruitment,
Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1967 was applicable
to them. Rule 16 of the Regulations shows that “the names
of employees shall be arranged according to the order of
merit adjudged by the department promotion committee
and selection list so prepared shall be utilized for filling in
vacancies likely to be arisen during the course of the year,
and while adjudging the merit of an employee due regard
shall be given to his seniority also”. That being the
position there was no scope for the Traffic Manager or
the Board of Trustees to ignore the inter-se seniority of
the 368 mazdoors, who had qualified the trade test. Instead
of preparing modalities as per settlement, the Traffic
Manager in a clandestine manner issued the list of 74
mazdoors and submitted the same to the Board of Trustee
suppressing the legal provisions. The required select list
of 74 mazdoors was to be prepared on the basis of their
inter-se-seniority only or all should have given booking
as Signalman on rotation basis in order of their seniority.
4142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. On the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the reference is maintainable?
2.
Whether the management is justified in providing
job on rotation basis limiting it to 74 workers
instead the total empanelled workers numbering
368 ?
3.
If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?
6. The 2nd Party-Union has examined Shri Lingaraj
Parida as W.W.-1 and Shri Ananta Kumar Das as W.W.-2
and relied on eight documents marked as Ext.-l to 8,
whereas the 1st Party-Management has examined
Shri K.K. Sahu, Deputy Traffic Manager Paradip Port Trust
as M.W.-l and relied on four documents as stated in his
sworn affidavit.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. l
7. This issue has superfluously been framed as
no pleading in this regard has been raised by the lst Party-
Management in its written statement. Even on going
through the pleadings no case of maintainability of the
reference is made out. Hence this issue is struck off.
ISSUE NO. 2
8. Apparently there is no dispute between the
parties with regard to the fact that only 74 mazdoors were
empanelled for booking as Signalmen out of the 368 trade
test passed mazdoors. But the bone of contention is that
the list of 74 empanelled mazdoors has been prepared
arbitrarily in an unfair manner without following the norms
of seniority-cum-merit. The 1st Party-Management has
alleged that the list of 74 empanelled mazdoors has been
prepared according to merit in the trade test. But the
contention of the Ist Party-Management stands shattered
at the moment when it states that first 61 mazdoors were
empanelled from the general category, first ten mazdoors
were taken from the se category and first three mazdoors
were taken from the ST category for empanelment of 74
mazdoor-Signalmen. There is no proof on record that the
select list of 368 trade test mazdoors has been prepared in
order of merit i.e. on the basis of the marks secured in the
trade test. Simply by saying that the select list of 368
mazdoors was prepared on merit it cannot be accepted
unless it is shown by some positive and unflinching
evidence that the said list was prepared in order of merit.
Therefore the said select list casts doubt as to the
arrangement of names of the mazdoors in order of merit.
The rule of transparency requires that the marks obtained
by the selected mazdoors should have been made known
to all concerned so that there may not arise any occasion
of discontentment amongst the affected mazdoors. The
office order dated 7.7.2004 marked as Ext.-1 reads out that
the names of successful workers have been arranged in
order of merit for empanelment as Signalmen, but non-
disclosure of marks obtained by each worker raises doubt
as to its authenticity and truthfulness.
9. The other point of discontentment among the
mazdoors of the 2nd Party-Union is that why only 74
workers have been empanelled as Signalmen out of 368
selected mazdoors whereas all should have been given
booking as Signalmen on rotation basis in order of
seniority. Their grievance is that their inter-se seniority
has not been taken into account while preparing the list of
78 mazdoors empanelled for booking as Signalmen. From
the very outset the lst Party-Management has been
consistently saying that the posts of mazdoor and
Signalmen carry equal wages or scale of pay and
empanelment of mazdoors for booking as Signalmen is
not promotion to higher post. From the side of the 2nd
Party-Union Clause-12 of the Cargo Handling Workers
Scheme of 1979 has been relied upon wherein it has been
stated that the vacancy other than a casual vacancy in
any class of workers in the pool shall ordinarily be filled
by promotion of workers from the next lower class. The
criteria for promotion shall ordinarily be (a) seniority (b)
merit and fitness for the work in the class to which
promotion is to be made (c) record of past service (d)
suitability for work in the class to which he is to be
considered for promotion. The suitability shall be
determined by trade test as may be notified by the
administration.
10. The contents of clause-12 thus show that it
applies only in case of promotion. The empanelment of
mazdoor as Signalmen is not a promotion. Hence the
provision of this clause cannot be applied to the present
dispute.
11. Barring apart the seniority the 2nd Party-Union
has pleaded that all 368 selected mazdoors should be given
booking as signalman on rotation basis in order of merit in
the trade test. As has been found earlier the list of 368
trade test passed mazdoors has not been prepared in
accordance with merit i.e. on the basis of marks obtained
in the trade test because list of successful cargo handling
workers, who passed the trade test for booking as
signalman does not bear the marks obtained by each of
them and no reasons have been assigned as to why only
74 empanelled mazdoors were provided booking as
signalman while all of them have successfully passed the
trade test.
12. The lst Party-Management has submitted that
the rotation of work between 74 mazdoors is a management
decision and the Management has exercised this
prerogative on the basis of demand and shortfall of work
at the port which is again related to vessel calling/
nominations at the port. It has further mentioned that the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4143
2nd Party-Union has signed a tripartite settlement dated
5.1.2006 with the port in which it has agreed that as and
when the work demand exceeds 74, additional mazdoors
will also be taken on rotation basis. The port trust has
implemented the decision as and when there is excess
demand. But this argument does not seem to be rational
as only 74 empanelled mazdoors will every time get benefit
if the requirement does not exceed and rest of the selected
mazdoors will get booking as signalman only when there
is excess demand. Therefore, in my view, the Management
is not justified in providing job on rotation basis to only
74 empanelled workers instead of the total 368 empanelled
workers. In tripartite settlement dated 5.1.2006 it was agreed
that the modalities worked out and discussed with the
Union will be implemented. But they do not give equal
opportunity to all the 368 selected workers for booking as
signalman turn by turn on rotational basis according to
the requirement of signalman. Because of that the principle
of equal opportunity and equal treatment as well as
adherence to the legal procedure could not be followed.
In the aforesaid premises it cannot be held that the
Management is justified in providing job on rotation basis
limiting it to 74 workers instead of total 368 empanelled
workers. This issue is decided in the negative and against
the 1st Party-Management.
ISSUE NO. 3
13. The 2nd Party-Union has claimed several reliefs
in its statement of claim, but limiting it to the schedule and
scope of the reference the 2nd Party-Union is only entitled
to the relief of declaration of impugned selection list of 74
workers as invalid and in-operative and it is so declared,
and also for getting booking as signalman of all the 368
selected workers according to merit i.e. on the basis of
marks obtained in the trade test on rotation basis. The 1st
Party-Management shall provide booking in the above
limes to all the 368 selected workers as signalman as per
requirement.
14. The reference is answered accordingly.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1559-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; thou
chek fuxe ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2001)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&17012@156@90&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014
S.O.
1559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 03/2001)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Life
Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 22/05/2014.
[No. L-17012/156/90-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBVNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT :
Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 3/2001
Date of Passing Order - 27th December, 2013
(Lok Adalat)
BETWEEN
The Branch Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India, Uditnagar Branch Office,
Rourkela - 12, Sundargarh.
...1st Party-Management.
AND
Their workman Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra,
Ex-Substaff, C/o Shri U.N. Mishra,
Qr. No. C/197, Sector-18, Rourkela- 03,
Sundargarh.
...2nd Party-Workman.
APPEARANCES :
None
: For the 1st Party-
Management.
Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, : F or Himself.
2nd Party-Workman.
2nd Party Workman.
ORDER
Case taken up today before Lok Adalat. None has
turned up for the 1st Party-Management. The 2nd Party-
workman is present in person. He states that he had earlier
filed a memo on 18.4.2012 stating that he does not want to
proceed with the case, as he had been given appointment
to the post of Peon by the 1st Party-Management. The
case was then fixed for further orders.
2. Today the 2nd Party-workman reiterates his stand
and has drawn my attention towards his petition dated
4144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.12.2013 in which he wanted to close his case as he did
not want to proceed further. Accordingly the case is
deemed to have been closed as per his memo dated
18.4.2012 and petition dated 9.12.2013 and he is permitted
to withdraw it.
3. The reference is decided as withdrawn.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1560-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaèk esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 102@2005)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@05@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014
S.O.
1560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 102/
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 22/05/2014.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 5th day of March, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 102/2005
BETWEEN
Smt. Vankara Lalitha Kumari,
W/o Vankara Ramarao,
C/o M/s. K. Balakrishna, Advocates,
Seven Hills, 45.50.20, Abidnagar,
Akkayyapalem,
Visakhapatnam.
. . . Petitioner
AND
1.
The Zonal Manager,
Appellate Authority,
M/s. Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam.
2.
The Chief Manager & Disciplinary Authority,
Visakhapatnam Zone, Bank of India,
Visakhapatnam Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam.
. . .Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
:
Sri K. Balakrishna,
Advocate
For the Respondents :
M/s. S. Surya Prakasa
Rao & S. Pavan Nandan,
Advocates
AWARD
Smt. Vankara Lalitha Kumari, the workman has filed
this petition invoking Sec.2A(2) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 seeking for setting aside the order of the 2nd
Respondent dated 30.12.2004 which was merged with the
orders of 1st Respondent dated 12.5.2005 declaring the
action taken is contrary to fair play, arbitrary, unlawful,
illegal, capricious, victimization, an unfair labour practice
and also unreasonable and unjustified and thus,
unsustainable and further to pass consequential orders
directing the Respondents/Management to reinstate the
workman into service with all attendant benefits including
the back wages in full and also continuity of service from
the day on which she was terminated from services till she
is reinstated and also cost of Rs.l 000/-.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as
follows :
Petitioner hails from a reserved community. She was
appointed as clerk cum typist of the Respondent bank
with effect from 26.9.l974 and she worked with the said
bank for 16 years in the said capacity maintaining absolute
devotion to duty and integrity. During 2004 private parties
got some litigation against her speculatively to have
wrongful gain fraudulently under Negotiable Instruments
Act and the said petitions were dismissed. But she was
victimized reducing her rank as clerk. As though she
fabricated some documents relating to her pay particulars
to avail finance from M/s. Sundaram Home Finance Limited,
Visakhapatnam. Another chargesheet was issued by the
2nd Respondent in the year 2004 followed by a hush-
hush enquiry in derogation of the principles of natural
justice and reasonable opportunity. There was no fault
which can be found or attributed to her. It was all the
mischief played by the third party without the knowledge
of the workman. Inspite of the facts borne on record
Disciplinary Authority arbitrarily passed an order dated
13.12.2004 which was communicated to the Petitioner on
6.1.2005. Aggrieved by it Petitioner carried an appeal to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4145
the 1st Respondent. 1st Respondent held personal hearing
on 26.2.2005 and later passed order dated 12.5.2005
rejecting her appeal without giving due weight to her
submissions and thereby confirming the order of the 2nd
Respondent. Thus, the petition.
3. Respondents/Management filed their counter
with the averments in brief as follows :
The workman has filed writ petition No.11778 of 2005
before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and the same is
pending. Respondent bank received a letter from Assistant
Manager, Operations of M/s. Sundaram Home Finance
Limited, requesting the Respondent bank authorities to
verify the documents submitted to them by the workman
in connection with her application for sanction of house
loan of Rs.3,62,698. During the course of verification it
came to the notice of the bank that Petitioner has submitted
fake/forged salary slip and statement of account. While
her actual salary for the month of November, 2003 was
11,381.76 ps. (gross) and 4,974.65 ps. ( take home salary),
she fabricated the salary slip showing Rs.15,274.18 ps.
and Rs.12,374.34 ps. as her gross and net salaries
respectively. She also fabricated the statement of account
submitted to the above said company showing the inflated
credit of Rs.12,374.34 ps. towards the salary of each month
from January, 2003 to November, 2003. This statement was
prepared with altogether wrong figures in different format
and account number was also suppressed. She resorted
to the said acts of manipulation and tampering of the bank
documents with ulterior motive to obtain loan by foul
means from M/s. Sundaram Home Finance Limited,
Visakhapatnam. Management issued a memo to the
workman seeking her explanation. She submitted her reply
on 26.3.2004. As the explanation was not found
satisfactory and charge memo was issued to her. An
Enquiry Officer was appointed on 9.6.2004 to enquire into
the allegations made in the charge memo. Simultaneously
a charge memo was issued to another staff member namely
Sri G. Suresh Babu, who has signed the fabricated salary
slip containing inflated figures in respect of gross and net
salary of the workman. The Enquiry Officer held a common
enquiry against the present workman and Sri G. Suresh
Babu. The workman participated in the enquiry and a
defence representative represented her in the proceedings
of the enquiry. Presenting Officer and the Defence
Representative submitted their respective written briefs
to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his
report to the Disciplinary Authority finding the charges
against the workman were proved. Copy of the said fmdings
of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the workman on
29.l.2004. A show cause notice proposing punishment of
compulsory retirement from service was also issued to her
on 23.ll.2004. An opportunity of personal hearing was
given to her and to her defence representative by the
Disciplinary Authority and they availed the same. After
examining the evidence on record, the enquiry report and
submissions of the workman the Disciplinary Authority
imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on
30.l2.2004. The workman preferred an appeal on l3.2.2005
against the said order. The Appellate Authority also gave
opportunity of personal hearing to the workman and her
defence representative. After considering the entire
evidence on record and the grounds raised by the workman
the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of punishment
by his order dated 12.5.2005. Sri G. Suresh Babu against
whom common departmental enquiry was held along with
the Petitioner was also imposed punishment of
compulsory retirement. He filed WP No.907 of 2005. The
Hon’ble High Court of A.P. dismissed the said writ petition
on 5.2.2005 observing that a proper opportunity was given
to him. He as well as the workman herein both were given
proper opportunity to defend their cases before the
Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate
Authority. They all applied their minds while taking the
decisions. There was no irregularity in the proceedings.
There is no valid ground or grievance to file this case. The
punishment imposed was commensurate with the gravity
of charge. Absolute integrity is required to be observed to
the employees of bank in discharge of their duties. The
workman was guilty of misconduct. There are no grounds
to interfere with the matter of punishment imposed against
her. The workman is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed
for. This petition is liable to be dismissed without costs.
4. To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner/
workman she examined herself as WWI and got marked
Ex.W1 to W3. Ex.W1 is the copy of appeal dated 13.2.2005.
Ex.W2 is the minutes of personal hearing of the lst
Respondent and Ex.W3 is the appellate order dated
12.5.2005. Workman also got examined WW2 an ex.
Employee of the Respondent bank. On behalf of the
Respondents/Management MW1 was examined and
Ex.M1 to M19 were marked.
5. Heard the arguments of either party. Written
arguments are also filed for either party and the same are
considered.
6. The points arise for determination are :
I.
Whether the impugned orders dated 30.12.2004,
12.5.2005 are liable to be set aside? If so, on what
grounds ?
II.
To what reliefs Petitioner is entitled to?
7. Point No. I :
As can be gathered from the pleading of the
Petitioner/workman, she got no dispute or grievance
against the manner of issuing of chargesheet. But, she
got . grievance against the enquiry conducted against
her. The grievance expressed by her with this regard is
4146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that, “a hush hush enquiry in derogation of the principles
of natural justice and reasonable opportunity”. Thus, it is
the claim of the Petitioner that there was no reasonable
opportunity granted to her during the departmental enquiry.
Whereas it is the contention of the Management that a
due opportunity was granted to the Petitioner during the
departmental enquiry proceedings and that she and her
defence representative duly participated in the
departmental enquiry and her defence representative has
submitted a written brief also to the Enquiry Officer which
were all considered by the Enquiry Officer while giving
his findings.
8. Now, it is to be verified from the record, whether
due opportunity has been given to the Petitioner during
the departmental enquiry proceedings. In this context the
evidence of Petitioner as WWl and also the evidence of
MW1 are to be considered apart from the documentary
evidence adduced on record. As to the evidence of WW2
is concerned, evidently he being an Ex.employee of the
bank a person who got no personal knowledge of the
departmental enquiry proceedings, his evidence is
immaterial to the dispute on hand. Further, he claimed that
he was at Chennai at the time of departmental enquiry and
he stated that he got no personal knowledge of the various
material aspects of the case like, previous punishments
the Petitioner has suffered etc.
9. As to the evidence of the Petitioner as WWl is
concerned, a reading of her chief examination affidavit
shows that according to her the violation of principles of
natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity to
her mean non-conduction of preliminary enquiry by the
Enquiry Officer, failure on the part of the Enquiry Officer
to explain to the Petitioner the opportunity that she can
avail. She further claimed that without the assistance of
defence representative the Enquiry Officer examined the
witnesses and no opportunity was extended to cross
examine the witnesses.
10.Whereas, a perusal of the enquiry proceedings
filed before this court, which are marked as Ex.M7 to M10
clearly show that charges were properly explained to the
workman by the Enquiry Officer and further her right to
have a defence representative also has been enlightened
to her. She sought for 15 days time to secure the defence
representative and some time was also granted to her. But,
as she failed to secure the presence of the defence
representative within the time granted to her, the Enquiry
Officer proceeded with examining the witnesses produced
for the Management but later when the workman has
secured the presence of the defence representative and
when the said defence representative requested for an
opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined for
Management, the Enquiry Officer has afforded the same.
This material on record, further discloses that all the
Management witnesses were examined in the presence of
the workman only. After conclusion of the adducing of
evidence by both the parties during the departmental
enquiry both the Presenting officer as well as the Defence
Representative have submitted their respective written
briefs before the Enquiry Officer. Ex.M12 discloses the
same. The various contentions raised for the defence in
the written brief submitted by the defence representative
have been discussed by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry
report and he has given a well reasoned award.
11. As can be seen from these documents it can not
be said that opportunity was not given to the Petitioner/
workman during the departmental enquiry. She was
informed that she can engage a defence representative
she sought for time to engage him. She was granted time
but she was informed by the Enquiry Officer that by the
dates specified by him she shall secure her defence
representative. Evidently she failed to secure that person
by that date. Thus, it can not be said that opportunity to
secure defence representative was denied to her. It is the
failure on her part to secure the defence representative by
the appointed date. The record discloses that she
defended herself during the absence of defence
representative. When she could secure the defence
representative and disclose the said fact to the Enquiry
Officer he permitted her to take the services of the said
defence representative. There after, the defence
representative duly assisted the Petitioner during the entire
enquiry proceedings. He was allowed to cross examine
the witnesses of the Management who were already
examined when he made a request for giving such
opportunity. In the above discussed circumstances, the
contention of the Petitioner that there is violation of
principles of natural justice and that she was not afforded
due opportunity to have defence representative are all to
be held as far from truth.
12. One another important aspect to be noted in
this case is that the other chargesheeted employee by
name Sri G. Suresh Babu, against whom and the Petitioner
herein, a common departmental enquiry was conducted,
has approached the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. by way of
filing a writ petition and the said writ petition has been
dismissed holding that the departmental enquiry
conducted has been valid. Petitioner who also filed a writ
petition questioning the validity of domestic enquiry has
chosen to withdraw the same. The record is borne of all
these facts.
13.The facts of the case are that Respondent bank
has received a letter from M/s. Sundaram Home finance
Ltd., Visakhapatnam requesting the Respondent bank
officials to verify the documents which were submitted by
the workman to them in connection with her application
for sanction of housing loan of Rs.3,62,698. While making
such verification, the Respondent bank officials found
that the salary slip and the statement of account submitted
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4147
by the Petitioner to the said M/s Sundaram Home Finance
Limited, were not genuine and that they were fabricated
documents containing inflated figures of gross and net
salaries but not reflecting the correct figures of the salary
being drawn by the Petitioner/workman. As to these
aspects are concerned, evidently Petitioner got nothing
to say except making a bare denial. How such documents
containing inflated figures could have been annexed to
her loan application submitted to M/s. Sundaram Home
Finance Limited, is a question which is not being answered
by the Petitioner. She gave a vague explanation that due
to the mischief of third party she was victimised. Who
was the said third party and what was the gain to the said
third party by creating such documents that too for
securing a house loan for the Petitioner are the questions
which remained unanswered by the Petitioner. She will be
the beneficiary of the house loan but not any third parties
as she alone has applied for the house loan and it would
be granted to her but not to any third parties. If she got
nothing to do with submission of the said documents to
the home finance company she would have stated so at
the first instance itself and would have denied her applying
for any house loan. But it was not so. Evidently she herself
has applied for the house loan and submitted the given
documents. These facts alone were found during the
departmental enquiry and it is very much evident that the
documents submitted along with the house loan
application were containing fake and inflated figures in
respect of the salary of the Petitioner/workman.
14.In view of the discussion of the facts of the case
regarding the domestic enquiry conducted in this case
held above it can not be said that there is no violation of
principles of natural justice during the departmental
enquiry. Further, the material on record is clearly disclosing
that due opportunity was given to the Petitioner by the
Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment.
The Appellate Authority also has given due opportunity
to her and thereafter, by assigning reasons for his findings
given his order.
15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is contending
that since the Enquiry Officer was appointed even before
the Petitioner has given her reply to the allegations levelled
against her, it amounts to bias and that such proceedings
get vitiated. He is relying upon by the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also Hon’ble High
Court of A.P. in various legal pronouncements with this
regard. But the fact remains that Petitioner has not chosen
to say any where i.e., either in her petition or in her
deposition as WWl that she was not given any opportunity
to give her explanation to the allegations levelled against
her. On the other hand, Ex.M4 shows that an opportunity
has been granted to the Petitioner to give her explanation.
16. Further in Ex.M5 an opportunity has been given
to give her explanation in writing, in reply to the charges
framed against her at the time of the enquiry. This is being
find fault with. But it is the rule as well as practice that
while supplying chargesheet to the charge sheeted
employee he will be advised to file his written statement
before the Enquiry Officer. He files the written statement if
he chooses to do so. Further, the Enquiry Officer will be
personally enquiring with the charge sheeted employee
to know whether he admits the charge or” otherwise and
records his answer. This is the procedure to be followed
and it has been followed in this case. Thus, the contentions
put forth for the Petitioner with this regard are not
acceptable.
17. Further, Petitioner is questioning the correctness
of the punishment imposed against her by the Disciplinary
Authority which was confirmed by the Appellate
Authority. It is her contention that no financial loss was
caused to the Respondent bank due to her mis-proved
misconduct and therefore, the punishment of compulsory
retirement imposed against her is disproportionate. This
contention can not be accepted for the reason that, the
proved misconduct of the Petitioner is her fabricating the
salary slip and statement of account showing inflated
figures as her salary and submitting such documents to
another financial institution seeking for grant of loan to
her basing on such documents. This is an action involving
moral turpitude. A person who resoted to such action
involving moral turpitude can not be asked to be continued
in the service of the Respondent bank-which is a financial
institution dealing with public monies. Respondent bank
which so deals with public moneys and whose business
is basing on the faith of the public in their organization,
has correctly taken decision to ask the Petitioner to
compulsory retire from their service in the interest of public.
No doubt, compulsory retirement is not pure punitive
action. It will be an action taken in the interest of general
public. In this case, considering the proved misconduct
of the Petitioner which involved moral turpitude i.e.,
tampering of the documents, that too, showing as if the
same were issued by the Respondent bank reflecting
financial transactions between the Respondent bank and
the Petitioner, it can not be said that the punishment
imposed against the Petitioner is disproportionate in any
manner. It is adequate and proportionate punishment. Thus
it does not warrant any interference.
18.In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely
be held that the impugned orders dated 30.12.2004 and
12.5.2005 passed by the Respondent No.2 and 1
respectively are not liable to be interfered with in any
manner.
This point is answered accordingly.
19. Point No. II :
In view of the finding given in Point No.I it is to be
held that Petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs
sought for.
4148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
This point is answered accordingly.
Result :
In the result petition is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant corrected by me on this the 5th day of
March, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
the Respondent
WW
: Smt. V. Lalitha
MWl : Sri J. Siva Kumar
Kumari
WW 2 : Sri Varabhatla
Venkateswarlu
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1
:
Photostat copy of appeal dated 13.2.2005 (5
sheets)
Ex.W2
:
Photostat copy of Minutes of personal hearing
of Respondent No.l containing two sheets dt.
26.2.2005
Ex. W3
:
Photostat copy of Appellate Order dated
12.5.2005
Documents marked for the Respondents
Ex. Ml
:
Photostat copy of affidavit filed in WP No.
11778 of 2005 by workman before Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh
Ex. M2
:
Photostat copy of petition in WP No.11778 of
2005 filed by workman before Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh
Ex. M3
:
Photostat copy of notice from Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No.11778/
2005
Ex. M4
:
Photostat copy of Memo dated 15.3.2004
calling for explanation from workman
Ex. M5
:
Photostat copy of Memo enclosing
chargesheet dt. 9.6.2004
Ex. M6
:
Photostat copy of chargesheet dt. 9.6.2004
Ex. M7
:
Photostat copy of proceedings of the Enquiry
Officer dt. 12.7.2004
Ex. M8
:
Photostat copy of proceedings of the Enquiry
Officer dt. 13.7.2004
Ex. M9
:
Photostat copy of proceedings of the Enquiry
Officer dt. 14.7.2004
Ex. M10 :
Photostat copy of proceedings of the Enquiry
Officer dt. 23.7.2004
Ex. M11 :
Photostat copy of lr. of Disciplinary Authority
enclosing report of Enquiry Officer dt.
15.9.2004.
Ex. MI2 :
Photostat copy of report of Enquiry Officer
dt. 4.9.2004
Ex. M13 :
Photostat copy of show cause notice dt.
23.11.2004
Ex. MI4 :
Photostat copy of corrigendum to show cause
notice dt. 29.11.2004
Ex. MI5 :
Photostat copy of Minutes of personal hearing
dt. 21.12.2004
Ex. MI6 :
Photostat copy of punishment order dt.
30.12.2004
Ex. MI7 :
Photostat copy of Minutes of personal hearing
by Appellate Authority dt. 26.2.2005
Ex. M18 :
Photostat copy of Appellate Authority dt.
12.5.2005
Ex. MI9 :
Photostat copy of order in WP No.907/2005
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1561-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/zk cSad ds
izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@2011) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@05@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèkdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2014
S.O.
1561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra
Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 22/05/2014.
[No. L-39025/1/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4149
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present :
Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of September, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 17/2011
BETWEEN
Sri U. Ramulu,
S/o U. Rajaiah,
R/o H. No. 2-2-1167/11/A/5,
Tilaknagar, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad - 44
...Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chairman & Managing Director,
Andhra Bank, Head Office,
Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Saifabad, D.No. 5-9-11,
Secretariat Road, Saifabad,
Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.
2.
The Executive Director,
Andhra Bank, Head Office,
Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Saifabad,
D.No. 5-9-11, Secretariat Road, Saifabad,
Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.
3.
The Managing Director,
Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd.,
Regd. & Admn. Office at 4-5-1 to 23,
Andhra Bank Buildings, Sultan Bazar,
Koti, Hyderabad.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K.
Udaya Sri, P. Sudheer
Rao & D. Sunil Kumar,
Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Smt. V. Dymani,
Advocate
AWARD
Sri U. Ramulu, the Petitioner who worked as sub-
staff in the Respondent bank has filed this petition under
Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the
Respondents Andhra Bank seeking for declaring the action
on part of the Respondents in not treating the Petitioner as
workman and also to declare the action of the Respondents
in terminating the service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 30.4.2010
including the rejection order dated 2l.l0.2010 as illegal,
arbitrary and consequently directing the Respondents to
reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of
service, with full back wages and all other attendant
benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems
fit.
2. The Respondent No.1 filed counter stating that
Petitioner’s contentions that he was appointed as sub-
staff, made representations for regularization of his
services, his juniors were regularized etc., all are false and
untenable. The Andhra bank Financial Services Ltd., is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Andhra Bank. Andhra Bank
and Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd., are two separate
legal entities. Andhra Bank was not aware as to the
engagement of the Petitioner by Andhra Bank Financial
Services Ltd., either as a casual labourer or as a temporary
sub-staff. All the operating staff of Andhra Bank Financial
Services Ltd., were on deputation from Andhra Bank. As
such, Andhra Bank is not a necessary party to the dispute.
The services of the Petitioner were never utilized nor
terminated by Andhra Bank. The petition may be rejected.
3. Third Respondent has filed with similar averments
made by Respondent No.1. It is stated that the operative
staff of 3rd Respondent were all on deputation from Andhra
Bank and they were not vested with any power to make
any
appointment
including
casual/temporary
appointments. The company is virtually in the process of
winding up. There is no work of any nature which is required
to be attended by an attendant. The Petitioner stopped
attending to the company on his own volition. There was
no termination of his service by the company as alleged by
the Petitioner. His engagement was purely on casual basis
without having any regard to the rules, he is not entitled
for absorption. The petition be rejected.
3. Case stands posted for counter of 2nd
Respondent.
4. At this stage, Petitioner filed a memo stating that
same subject matter has been referred by the Government
of India to this Tribunal which was numbered as I D No.14/
2012, as such, he intend to withdraw this LC No. 17/2011
with a liberty to prosecute the ID No. 14/2012 and sought
for permission to withdraw this petition.
5. In the circumstances, recording the said memo
and taking Petitioner’s request into consideration,
permission is granted to him to withdraw the present LC
No.17/2011 with liberty to prosecute ID No.14/2012. Hence,
petition is dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant,
corrected by me on this the 30th day of September, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
4150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1562-—tcfd eSllZ ,y ,.M Vh iQkbusal fy-
(Fkk.ks {ks=k ds dksM la[;k ,e,p@43774 ds varxZr) (blds
i'pkr~ mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) blds
i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knkuksa dh njksa
ds laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk
mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa
deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i eas
mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de
vuqdwy ugha gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi /kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 22-11-1994 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ks ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@28@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7 ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4151
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/ n~okjk
;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftjds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'k;ksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
4152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr uk fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;knh ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fu/h VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij Hkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1562.—Whereas M/s. L&T Finance Ltd.
[under Code No. MH/43774 in Thane Region] (hereinafter
referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 22-11-1994 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/28/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE ROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4153
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
4154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly’ and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4155
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1563-—tcfd eSllZ xqMfjd xzqi fy- (ikdZLVªhV
{ks=k ds dksM la[;k MCY;wch@16448 ds varxZr) (blds i'pkr~
mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj
izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) blds i'pkr~
mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17 dh mi&/kjk
(1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de vuqdwy
ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk mBk jgs gSa]
dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/
Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i eas mfYyf[kr)
ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de vuqdwy ugha
gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 1&1&1978 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@30@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgsa gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7Fk ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk
nk;h gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
4156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/
n~okjk ;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr fd iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4157
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr uk fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo#i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;knh ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fu/h VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1563.—Whereas M/s. Goodricke Group
Limited [under Code No. WB/16448 in Park Street region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section
17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 1-1-1978 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/30/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
4158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4159
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
4160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1564-—tcfd eSllZ ;w-ih- LVhyl (esjB {ks=k ds
dksM la[;k ;wih@3652 ds varxZr) (blds i'pkr mDr izfr"Bku
ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/
vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) blds i'pkr mDr vf/fu;e
ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M
(d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk
mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa
deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr mDr Ldhe ds :i eas
mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de
vuqdwy ugha gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi /kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 1&9&1995 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ks ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@79@2009&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgsa gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7Fk ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk
nk;h gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4161
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/ n~okjk
;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) #i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, c, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr fd iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
4162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDr n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;knh ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fu/h VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i
ls ,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke
Hkfo"; fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh
dkjZokbZ djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1564.—Whereas M/s. U.P. Steels [under Code
No. UP/3652 in Meerut Region] (hereinafter referred to as
the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 1-9-1995 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/79/2009-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF E MPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4163
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or passbooks to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the moneys
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
4164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report along with the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show-cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly’ and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the Common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4165
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1565-—tcfd eSllZ lsaVj iQksj MsoyiesaV vkWiQ
VsyhesfVDl (fnYYkh {ks=k ds dksM la[;k Mh,y@7706 ds varxZr)
(blds i'pkr~ mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)
blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17
dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu
fd;k gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knkuksa dh njksa
ds laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk
mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa
deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i eas
mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de
vuqdwy ugha gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 1&1&1993 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la[;k ,l&35015@83@2009&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk&ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
ds iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7Fk ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk
nk;h gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk&vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
4166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/ n~okjk
;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) #i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4167
ryu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;kfn ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/ VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1565.—Whereas M/s. Centre for Development
of Telematics [under Code No. DL/7706 in Delhi region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 1-1-1993 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/83/2009-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in Section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
4168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4169
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly’ and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
4170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk-
1566-—tcfd eSllZ iqat yyks;M fy- fnYYkh
(nf{k.k) {ks=k ds dksM la[;k Mh,y@10589 ds varxZr) (blds
i'pkr~ mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) blds
i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de vuqdwy
ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk mBk jgs gSa
dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/
Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i eas mfYyf[kr) ds
varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de vuqdwy ugha
gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi /kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 1&7&2000 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la[;k ,l&35015@3@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgsa gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks
NwV iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7 ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4171
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/ n~okjk
;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) #i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwrksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
4172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDr n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo#i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;knh ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fu/h VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr #i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O.
1566.—Whereas M/s. Punj Lloyd Limited
[under Code No. DL/10589 in Regional Ofiice, Delhi (South)]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 1-7-2000 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/3/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE ROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :—
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in Section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4173
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
4174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4175
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1567-—tcfd eSllZ eSddhUls ukWyst lsaVj bafM;k
izk- fy- xqMxkao {ks=k ds dksM la[;k ,pvkj@26929 ds varxZr)
(blds i'pkr~ mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)
blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17
dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu
fd;k gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knkuksa dh njksa
ds laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk
mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa
deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i eas
mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de
vuqdwy ugha gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 26&9&2007 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@4@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
ds iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7 ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
4176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/
n~okjk ;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) #i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos'k
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj
izfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd
gksaxs A LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/]
1952 ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius
tek esa iM+s fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl
vk'k; ds vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lhèks
varfjr djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4177
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDr n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;kfn ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/ VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij Hkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1567.—Whereas M/s. Mckinsey Knowledge
Centre India Pvt. Ltd. [under Code No. HR/26929 in
Gurgaon region] (hereinafter referred to as the
establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a)
of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 26-9-2007 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/4/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
4178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4179
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of money as may
be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as
settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
4180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1568-—tcfd eSllZ ,e,lMh iQkekZlwfVdYl izk-
fy- (xqMxkao {ks=k ds varxZr dksM la[;k ,pvkj@29573 ds varxZr)
(blds i'pkr mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)
blds i'pkr mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17
dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu
fd;k gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knkuksa dh njksa
ds laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk
mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa
deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr mDr Ldhe ds :i eas
mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de
vuqdwy ugha gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh lwpuk rd 20-11-2008 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèkksa
ds izHkko vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus rd NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@40@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgsa gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
ds iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7Fk ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk
nk;h gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4181
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/ n~okjk
;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) #i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
4182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDr n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo#i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;knh ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fu/h VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxk
A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1568 .—Whereas M/s. MSD Pharmaceuticals
Pvt. Ltd. [under Code No. HR/29573 in Gurgaon region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section
17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 20-11-2008 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/40/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4183
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and
transfers should be settled expeditiously, within the
maximum time frame prescribed by the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
4184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly’ and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4185
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1569-—tcfd eSllZ jkaph baVjizkbtst ,.M
izksiVhZt fy- (dksydkrk {ks=k ds dksM la[;k MCY;wch@48334 ds
varxZr) (blds i'pkr mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952
dk 19) blds i'pkr mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh
/kjk 17 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy,
vkosnu fd;k gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds
laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de vuqdwy
ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk mBk jgs gSa
dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds
laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/
Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr mDr Ldhe ds :i eas mfYyf[kr) ds
varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de vuqdwy ugha
gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi /kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 1&12&2007 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ks ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@26@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgsa gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
ds iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7 ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
4186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/ n~okjk
;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) #i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr fd iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4187
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDr n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo#i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;knh ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fu/h VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr #i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1569.—Whereas M/s. Ranchi Enterprises and
Properties Ltd. [under Code No. WB/48334 in Kolkata
region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has
applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 1-12-2007 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/26/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
4188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4189
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
4190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1570-—tcfd eSllZ lw;kZ okf.kT; ,.M baosLVesaV
fy- (dksydkrk {ks=k ds dksM la[;k MCY;woh@48346 ds varxZr)
(blds i'pkr~ mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)
blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17
dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu
fd;k gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knkuksa dh njksa
ds laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk
mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa
deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i eas
mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de
vuqdwy ugha gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 1&12&2007 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@27@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgsa gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7Fk ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk
nk;h gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4191
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok ikl cqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA ikl cqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/
n~okjk ;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwrksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'k;ksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
4192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;knh ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS] rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar
ubZ NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fu/h VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1570.—Whereas M/s. Soorya Vanijya and
Investment Ltd. [under Code WB/48346 in Kolkata region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 1-12-2007 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/27/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4193
Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner
(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in Section 2(f) of the
Act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
4194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be
treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also
all types of cost of investments like brokerage for purchase
of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of
investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of securities
and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F.
Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of money as may
be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as
settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other pecuniary
rewards given by any financial or other institutions for
the investments made by the Trust should be credited to
its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also
give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within
the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the
event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by
the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the audited
balance sheet should be submitted to this office by the
Auditors directly within six months after the closing of
the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format
of the balance sheet and the information to be furnished
in the report shall be prescribed by the Employees’
Provident fund Organisation and made available with the
RPFC office in electronic format as well as a signed hard
copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two
consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or
erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities for
inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central
Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)
of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days
from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions for
grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any
fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the
employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/establishment
participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the
trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible
for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer
of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take
suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common
Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4195
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1571-—tcfd eSllZ fgUnqLrku ftad fy- (mn;iqj
{ks=k ds dksM la[;k vkjts@1272 ds varxZr) (blds i'pkr~ mDr
izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj
izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) blds i'pkr~
mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knkuksa dh njksa
ds laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk
mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa
deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i eas
mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de
vuqdwy ugha gS A
3- vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17
dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr
izfr"Bku dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 31&7&1969 ls mDr ;kstuk
ds lHkh mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@38@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgsa gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7 ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h
gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
4196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/ n~okjk
;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr dh iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4197
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDr n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;kfn ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/ VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr #i ls
vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";
fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ
djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1571.—Whereas M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
[under Code No. RJ/1272 in Udaipur region] (hereinafter
referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 31-7-1969 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/38/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
4198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4199
and Central Government in accordance with the
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly’ and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
4200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYYkh] 23 EkbZ] 2014
dk-vk- 1572-—tcfd eSllZ jktLFkku baMLVªht fy-
(dksydkrk {ks=k ds dksM la[;k MCY;wch@48344 ds varxZr) (blds
i'pkr mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo";
fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) blds
i'pkr mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) dh /kjk 17 dh
mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k
gS A
2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knkuksa dh njksa
ds laca/ esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;e mDr vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 6 eas mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de
vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk
mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa
deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr mDr Ldhe ds :i eas
mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de
vuqdwy ugha gS A
3- vr% vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh
mi /kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] bl vf/lwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;k/hu mDr izfr"Bku
dks vxyh vf/lwpuk rd 1&12&2007 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh
mica/ks ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A
[la- ,l&35015@24@2014&,l,l&II]
lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo
vuqca/
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/ksa ls NwV
iznku djus laca/h 'krs±
1- fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh;
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls
funs'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fuf/ ds izca/u gsrq viuh vè;{krk esa
,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fuf/ U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr
gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu ds
izfr Hkfo"; fuf/ esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa
vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl
iz;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—
(i) fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/ esa]
dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj
(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds laca/ esa] og O;fDr] vFkok
izkf/dkjh vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt
ij vafre fu;a=k.k gksA
2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd
djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkf/Ñr fdlh vf/dkjh n~okjk
le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z
djsxk A
3- vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]
tks HkfOk"; fuf/ ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgsa gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV
ds iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k
tk,xk A
4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr
izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vFkok Hkfo"; fuf/ dk
lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks
fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fuf/ ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA
fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk
ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A
5- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds
n~okjk le;≤ ij vf/fu;e ds varxZr fu/kZfjr nj ls ns;
va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg
dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh
cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vf/fu;e
dh /kjk 7Fk ds mica/ksa ds vuqlkj lk/kj.k C;kt vnk djus dk
nk;h gksxk A
6- fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu
djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k
ls Hkfo"; fuf/ dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A
7- U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh
fu;ksDrk n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfof/d lhek rd
ykuk gksxk A
8- fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/r fd, tk,a] leqfpr
izkf/dkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fuf/ ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr
vf/la[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku
ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A
9- izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kZfjr ns;
va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj
lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk
?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vf/fu;e
vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fu/kZfjr fofHkUu mica/ksa ds
varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A
10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kks/u] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku
fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/d ykHknk;d gks] mls
U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kks/u ds yafcr jgrs mu ij
Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xk A
11- fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kks/u {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4201
Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks
viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A
12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh
Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fu/kZfjr vf/dre le; lhek ds Hkhrj]
'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axs A
13- U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/ esa tek fd, x,
va'knku] fudklh vkSj C;kt n'kkZus ds fy, foLrfjr ys[kksa dk
j[k&j[kko djsxkA ,sls vfHkys[kksa dk j[k&j[kko vf/ekur%
bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkof/d :i ls tc
dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr
n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls
lEizsf"kr djsaxs A
14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr
gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk
ok£"kd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa]
vfrfjDr fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyC/ djk, tk
ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls
izLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkof/d :i ls vn~;ru fd;k
tk,xk A
15- fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj
V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus
ds fy, vko';d izko/ku djsaxs A
16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu
n~okjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds
Hkhrj ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd
ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj
vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh
mi;qDr nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A
17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj
Hkfo"; fuf/ ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj
fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj
la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfuf/ n~okjk
;Fkk vf/jksfir vf/'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A
18- (d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl
izdkj izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) #i eas gksuh
pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa visf{kr
lqfo/k ds miyC/ u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/r {ks=kh;
HkfOk"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk nsaxs A
([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh
le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A
(x) MhesV [kkrk bl laca/ esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh
vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk
vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e ls [kksyk tk, A
(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k
dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh
nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh U;kl n~okjk fd,
tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xk A
19- izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa
dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A
LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/] 1952 ls
NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s
fuos'k dks lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds
vuqjks/ ij lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks lh/s varfjr
djsxk A
20- LFkkiuk lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr dks mu
fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj
n~okjk vuqeksfnr) ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk
ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa U;kl ds uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~
izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A
rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /ujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa
ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok
NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fuf/ lap;u ds varj.k vkSj
izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo";
fuf/ vk;qDr fd iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/hu fuf/ ds uke esa iM+s
vU; fuos'kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr
gksa A
21- U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k
vU; laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu]
cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A
22- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus
dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/d :i ls
fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkf/dkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'k;ksa ij
muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A
23- fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa
lacaf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds
Hkhrj rRdky fuf/;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu
ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fuf/;ksa ds varj.k esa
dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh cuk,xk A
24- (d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fuf/ [kkrk
fdlh ;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk
djus ds 'krkZ/hu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d le>k tk,] ogka
deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu dks vf/dkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU;
;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl
izdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A
4202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls
31ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr
rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh izfr lh/s bl dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr
dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr
dh tk,xh RkFkk lacf/r {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fuf/ vk;qDr ds dk;kZy; esa
bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi esa miyC/ djkbZ
tk,xh A
(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk
vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vf/d ds fy,
fu;qDr uk fd;k tk, A
25- yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vk/kj
esa dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr
gksxh A
26- fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj
fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfo/kvksa dk izko/ku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k
izHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vf/fu;e dh
/kjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤
ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A
27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds
fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacf/r O;fDr dks bl
laca/ esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh
tk,xh A
28- fdlh Hkh /ks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds
iQyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk
uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A
29- fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k]
lgk;d daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha
bR;knh ds iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh
cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ
NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A
30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fuf/ VªLV esa ,d ls vf/d bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa
ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh
VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i
ls ,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke
Hkfo"; fuf/ VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh
dkjZokbZ djsxk A
31- dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,
'krks± dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s
izfr"Bku bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;
gksaxs A
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2014
S.O. 1572.—Whereas M/s. Rajasthan Industries
Ltd. [under Code No. WB/48344 in Kolkata region]
(hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied
for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section
17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central
Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said
establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are
not less favourable to employees therein than those
specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees
are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits
provided under the said Act or under the Employees’
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other
establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said
Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this
notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the
said establishment from the operation of all the provisions
of the said Scheme with effect from 1-12-2007 until further
notification.
[No. S-35015/24/2014-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND SCHEME, 1952
1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees
under his Chairmanship for the management of the
Provident Fund according to such directions as may be
given by the Central Government or the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time.
The provident fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees
who will be responsible for and accountable to the
Employees’ Provident Funds Organisation, inter alia, for
proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the
Provident Fund and the balance in their custody. For this
purpose, the “employer” shall mean :
(i)
In relation to an establishment, which is a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory: and
.
(ii)
In relation to any other establishment, the person
who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control
over the affairs of the establishment.
2. The Board of Trustees shall meet at least once in
every three months and shall function in accordance with
the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 24] 2014@T;s"B 3] 1936
4203
Central
Government/Central
Provident
Fund
Commissioner(CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.
3. All employees’ as defined in section 2(f) of the
act, who have been eligible to become members of the
Provident Fund’ had the establishment not been granted
exemption, shall be enrolled as members.
4. Where an employee who is already a member of
Employees’ Provident fund or a Provident Fund of any
other exempted establishment is employed in his
establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him
as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange
to have the accumulations in the Provident Fund account
of such employee with his previous employer transferred
and credited into his account.
5. The employer shall transfer to the Board of
Trustees the contributions payable to the Provident Fund
by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the
act from time to time by the 15th of each month following
the month for which the contributions are payable. The
employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of
the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in
payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.
6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the
administration of Provident Fund and also make good any
other loss that may be caused to the Provident Fund due
to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any
other reason.
7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the
Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to
bring it up to the statutory limit.
8. The employer shall display on the notice board of
the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as
approved by the appropriate authority and as and when
amended thereto along with a translation in the language
of the majority of the employees.
9. The rate of contributions payable, the conditions
and quantum of advances and other matters laid down
under the provident fund rules of the establishment and
the interest credited to the account of each member,
calculated on the monthly running balance of the member
and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower
than those declared by the Central Government under the
various provisions prescribed in the Act and Scheme
framed thereunder.
10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more
beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the
establishment, shall be made applicable to them
automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of
the Trust.
11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the
employer without the prior approval of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner shall before giving his approval give
a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their
point of view.
12. All claims for withdrawals, advances and transfers
should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time
frame prescribed by the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation.
13. The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed
accounts to show the contributions credited withdrawal
and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance
of such records should preferably be done electronically.
The establishments should periodically transmit the details
of members’ accounts electronically as and when directed
by the Central Provident Commissioner/Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner.
14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual
statement of accounts or pass books to every employee
within six months of the close of financial/accounting year
free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be
made available as and when the members want, subject to
nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain
in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the
Trustees when presented to them.
15. The employer shall make necessary provisions
to enable all the members to be able to see their account
balance from the computer terminals as and when required
by them.
16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall
file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed
by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within
the specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a
default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly
and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
17. The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies
of the provident fund as per the directions of the
Government from time to time. Failure to make investments
as per directions of the Government shall make the Board
of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as
may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner or his representative.
18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name
of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in
dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required
facility is not available in the areas where the trust operates
the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner concerned about the same.
(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script
wise register and ensure timely realization of interest.
(c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through
depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India
and Central Government in accordance with the
4204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2014/JYAISTHA 3, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
instructions issued by the Central Government in this
regard.
(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should
be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.
Also all types of cost of investments like brokerage for
purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental
cost of investment by the Trust.
19. All such investments made like purchase of
securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody
of depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of
India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian
of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or
cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such
custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the
name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional
PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request
from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that
effect.
20. The establishment shall intimate to the Regional
P.F. Commissioner concerned the details of depository
participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),
with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments
made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in
securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the
Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money
as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such
as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and
transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/
her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts
by sale of the securities or other investments standing in
the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the
Regional PF Commissioner.
21. Any commission, incentive, bonus or other
pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other
institutions for the investments made by the Trust should
be credited to its account.
22. The employer and the members of the Board of
Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to
abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding
on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their
successors and assignees.
23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall
also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly
within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in
the event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally
binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution
in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.
24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained
by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a
qualified independent chartered accountant annually.
Where considered necessary the EPFO shall have the right
to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified
auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by
the employer.
(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the
audited balance sheet should be submitted to this office
by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing
of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The
format of the balance sheet and the information to be
furnished in the report shall be prescribed by the
Employees’ Provident fund Organisation and made
available with the RPFC office in electronic format as well
as a signed hard copy.
(c) The same auditors should not be appointed for
two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
25. Any loss for the three consecutive financial
years or erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation
withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding
financial year.
26. The employer shall provide for such facilities
for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the
Central Government may from time to time direct under
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within
15 days from the close of every month.
27. In the event of any violation of the conditions
for grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of
Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after
issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned
persons.
28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of
any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc.
the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.
29. In case of any change of legal status of the
establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,
sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether
wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand
revoked and the establishment should promptly report
the matter for grant of fresh relaxation.
30. In case there are more than one unit/
establishment participating in the common Provident Fund
Trust, all the trustees shall be jointly’ and separately liable/
responsible for any default committed by any of the
trustees/employer of any of the participating units and
the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the
trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.
31. The Central Government may lay down further
conditions for continuation of exemption of the
establishment and the establishment shall be bound to
comply with these additional conditions as and when the
same are communicated.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.