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- 26]

ubZ fnYyh, twu 22] 2014—twu 28] 2014] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 1—vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

No. 26]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 22, 2014—JUNE 28, 2014, SATURDAY/ASADHA 1—ASADHA 7, 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)

2464 GI/2014

(4647)

x`g ea=kky;

ubZ fnYYkh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1773-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r] 1987) ds

fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] x`g ea=kky; ds

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa esa fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku j[kus okys

deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 80% ls vf/d gks tkus ds iQyLo:i

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%

ds-vkS-lq- cy bdkbZ vkjthVhihih [ksnM fglkj (gfj;k.kk)

ds-vkS-lq- cy bdkbZ ihVhih,l iudh dkuiqj (mÙkj izns'k)

ds-vkS-lq- cy bdkbZ ,pVhihih dkfleiqj] vyhx<+

(mÙkj izns'k)

ds-vkS-lq- cy bdkbZ ,l,lVhih,l lwjrx<+ (jktLFkku)

ds-vkS-lq- cy bdkbZ vkbZth,lVhihih >kM+yh] >Ttj (gfj;k.kk)

ds-vkS-lq- cy bdkbZ rktegy] vkxjk (mÙkj izns'k)

ds-vkS-lq- cy bdkbZ ,ltsoh,u,y >kdM+h (fgekpy izns'k)

[la- 12017@1@2012&fgUnh]

vo/s'k dqekj feJ] funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O.

1773.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union)

Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government

hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Home

Affairs, wherein the percentage of the staff having working

knowledge of Hindi have gone above 80%.

CISF Unit RGTPP Khedar, Hissar (Haryana)

CISF Unit PTPS Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)

CISF Unit HTPP Kasimpur, Aligarh (U.P.)

CISF Unit SSTPS Suratgarh (Rajasthan)

CISF Unit IGSTPP Jharli, Jhajjar (Haryana)

CISF Unit Taj Mahal, Agra (U.P.)

CISF Unit SJVNL Jhakri (H.P.)

[No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi]

AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL)

4648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

ubZ fnYYkh] 18 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1774.—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e]

1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk

5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnzh;

ljdkj] dsjy jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx (,e)] fr#ouariqje dh

lgefr ls fnukad 6 flrEcj] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk th-vks- (,e,l)

la- 223@2013@x`g vkSj blds fnukad 14 iQjojh] 2014 ds la'kks/u

th-vks- (,e,l) la- 30@2014@x`g }kjk iqfyl LVs'ku dkljxksM+

(dsjy) esa ntZ vijk/ la- 47@2012] 48@2012] 49@2012] 551@2012

rFkk 1088@2012 dk vUos"k.k djus vkSj lkFk&lkFk fdlh O;fDr ;k

O;fDr;ksa dh lafyIrrk tks mfYyf[kr vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k ds nkSjku

mtkxj gks ldrh gS] ds laca/ esa mDr vijk/ksa ds iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kksa

,oa "kM~;a=kksa ds vUos"k.k djus ds fy, ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

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

laiw.kZ dsjy jkT; ij djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@79@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2014

S.O.

1774.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department,

Thiruvanathapuram vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 223/

2013/Home dated 6th September, 2013 and its amendment

vide G.O. (Ms.) No. 30/2014/Home dated 14th February,

2014, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Kerala for investigation of Crime Nos. 47/

2012, 48/2012, 49/2012, 551/2012 and 1088/2012 registered

at Police Station Kasaragod (Kerala) as well as involvement

of any other person or persons which may come to light

during the course of investigation of the offences mentioned

in the above crimes and attempts, abetments and

conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above

mentioned offence.

[F. No. 228/79/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

'kqf¼i=k

ubZ fnYYkh] 18 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1775.—bl foHkkx dh vf/lwpuk la[;k

228@83@2013& ,ohMh-&II fnukad 12 ekpZ] 2014 dh rsjgoha iafDr

esa mfYyf[kr 'kCn "on case to case basis" dks gVk;k tkrk gSA

[iQk- la- 228@83@2013&,-oh-Mh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2014

S.O. 1775.—In the Notification No. 228/83/2013-

AVD.-II dated 12th March, 2014 of this Department, the

words "on case to case basis" appearing in thirteenth line

are deleted.

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

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ 2014

dk-vk- 1776.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks fd jí gksus

jí gksus

la[;k

dh la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

gSa] vxj gS dh la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

dh frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

vkbZ ,l 1161 % 2014&bLikr ufydk,a

15 ekpZ 2014 vkbZ ,l 1161 % 1998 bLikr ufydk,a

15 ekpZ

ljapukRed mi;ksxksa ds fy;s & fof’kf"V

ljapukRed mi;ksxksa ds fy;s&fof’kf"V

2014

¼ikapoka iqujh{k.k½

¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4649

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 1701&2 % 2004

15 ekpZ 2014 vkbZ ,l 2200 ¼Hkkx 3½% 2002@

15 ekpZ

ifjorhZ Å¡pkbZ okyh Vscy fefyax e’khuksa dh

vkbZ ,l vks 1701&3 % 2004

2014

ijh{k.k 'krsaZ ifj’kq)rk gsrq ijh{k.k Hkkx 2

ifjorhZ mapkbZ okyh Vscy fefyax

m/okZ/kj rdqZ okyh e’khusa

e’khuksa dh ijh{k.k 'krsaZ ifj’kq)rk gsrq

ijh{k.k Hkkx 3 m/okZ/kj rdqZ okyh e’khusa

vkbZ ,l 3196 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2013 vYi nkc

15 ekpZ 2014 vkbZ ,l 3196 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2013 vYi

15 ekpZ

æo.kh; xSlksa ds fy, 5 fyVj ls vf/kd

nko æo.kh; xSlksa ds fy, 5 fyVj ls

2014

ty {kerk okys csfYMr vYi dkcZu bLikr

vf/kd ty {kerk okys csfYMr vYi

ds flfyaMj Hkkx 1 æfor iSVªksfy;e xSl

dkcZu bLikr ds flfyaMj Hkkx 1 æfor

,y ih th ds fy;s flfyaMj&fof’kf"V

iSVªksfy;e xSl ,y ih th ds fy;s

¼NBk iqujh{k.k½

flfyaMj & fof’kf"V ¼i‚apo‚a iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 3406 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2014 dkmaVjfld

15 ekpZ 2014 vkbZ ,l 3406 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2014

15 ekpZ

,oa dkmaVjcksj ds vk;ke Hkkx 2 dkmaVjcksj

dkmaVjfld ,oa dkmaVjcksj ds vk;ke

2014

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

Hkkx 2 dkmaVjcksj ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 4081 % 2013

15 ekpZ 2014 vkbZ ,l 4081 % 2013

15 ekpZ

CykfLVax vkSj lacaf/kr

CykfLVax vkSj lacaf/kr fMªfyax

2014

fMªfyax dk;Z&lqj{kk lafgrk

dk;Z & lqj{kk lafgrk

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 5916 % 2013 xeZ fcVqfeul

15 ekpZ 2014 vkbZ ,l 5916 % 1970 xeZ

15 ekpZ

lkexzh dks ç;qDr dj fuekZ.k&lqj{kk

fcVqfeul lkexzh dks ç;qDr dj

2014

lafgrk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fuekZ.k djus ds fy, lqj{kk lafgrk

vkbZ ,l 6255 % 2013 csyukdkj 'kSad

15 ekpZ 2014 vkbZ ,l 6255 % 2013 csyukdkj 'kSad

15 ekpZ

;qDr MksohVsy dVlZ vkSj çrho ¼buolZ½

2014

MksohVsy dVlZ ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

MksohVsy dVl ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 14872 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2014@

15 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 14872 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2014@

15 ekpZ

vkbZ ,l vks 3408&1 % 2006 cky LØw

vkbZ ,l vks 3408&1 % 1991 cky

2014

Hkkx 1 ikfjHkkf"kd 'kCnkoyh vkSj vfHkuke

LØw Hkkx 1 ikfjHkkf"kd 'kCnkoyh vkSj

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vfHkuke

vkbZ ,l 14872 ¼Hkkx 3½ % 2013@

15 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 14872 ¼Hkkx 3½ % 2013@

15 ekpZ

vkbZ ,l vks 3408&3 % 2006 cky LØw

vkbZ ,l vks 3408&3 % 1992 cky LØw

2014

Hkkx 3 Lohdj.k fLFkfr;ka vkSj Lohdj.k

ijh{k.k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

ijh{k.k

10-

vkbZ ,l 15248 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2013 e’khu

15 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 15248 % 2002@vkbZ ,l vks

15 ekpZ

vkStkj & nks ihl ds t‚ okyh Lor

3442 % 1991 Hkkjrh; ekud e'khu VwYl

2014

dsfUær pdksa ds vk;ke rFkk T;kferh;

ds fy, nks & ihl tcM+ksa okyh Lor%

ijh{k.k Hkkx 1 thHk ,oa [k‚ap çdkj ds

dsUæ.k okyh pd ¼Vax o xzqo VkbZi½ &

tcMksa okyh gLrpkfyr pdsa Hkkx 1 thHk

vUrfZoZfue; ;ksX; eki rFkk Lohdj.k

,oa [k‚ap çdkj ds tcMksa okyh gLrpkfyr

ijh{k.k fof'kf"V;ka

pdsa

11-

vkbZ ,l 15248 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2013 e'khu

15 ekpZ 2014

15 ekpZ

vkStkj&nks ihl ds tkW okyh Lor dsfUnzr

2014

pdksa ds vk;ke rFkk T;kferh; ijh{k.k

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

4650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hkkx 2 thHk ,oa [kkWp izdkj ds tcMksa okyh

ikoj pkfyr pdsa Hkkx 2 thHk ,oa [kkWp izdkj

ds tcMksa okyh ikoj pkfyr pdsa

12-

vkbZ ,l 15248 ¼Hkkx 3 ½ % 2013 e’khu

15 ekpZ 2014

15 ekpZ

vkStkj&nks ihl ds t‚ okyh Lor dsfUær

2014

pdksa ds vk;ke rFkk T;kferh; ijh{k.k

Hkkx 3 Ødkfpr ¼lsjsVsM½ & tcMksa okyh

ikoj pkfyr pdsa

13-

vkbZ ,l 15883 ¼Hkkx 5 ½ % 2013 fuekZ.k

15 ekpZ 2014

15 ekpZ

ifj;kstuk çc/kau & fn’kk&funsZ’k Hkkx 5

2014

LokLF; o lqj{kk çc/kau

14-

vkbZ ,l 15975 % 2013 xSl flfyaMj&xSl

15 ekpZ 2014

15 ekpZ

flfyaMjksa dh HkjkbZ dh voLFkk,a

vkbZ ,l 8866 %1978 xSl flfyUMj

esa Hkjh mPp nkc mo.kh; xSlksa gsrq Hkj.k

vuqikr vkSj laxr mRiUu nkc

vkbZ ,l 8867 % 1978 xSl flfyUMj esa

Hkjh fuEu nkc mo.kh; xSlksa gsrq lar`i~r

ok"i nkc vkSj ijh{k.k nkc

vkbZ ,l 8868 %1988 ç;ksx fd, tk jgs

xSl flfyUMjksa ds vkof/kd fujh{k.k

vUrjky

15-

vkbZ ,l 16054 % 2013 vkof/kd fujh{k.k ,oa 31 ekpZ 2014

31 ekpZ

ijh{k.k & æfor iSVªksfy;e xSl ,yihth ds

2014

fy, 5&fyVj ls vf/kd ty {kerk okys

osfYMr vYi dkcZu bLikr ds flfyaMj&jhfr

lafgrk

16-

vkbZ ,l 16059 % 2013 Bksl dkckZbM lekarj 15 ekpZ 2014

15 ekpZ

'kSad ,safBr cjek t‚cj J`a[kyk & fof’kf"V

2014

17-

vkbZ ,l 16060 % 2013 Bksl dkckZbZM lekarj 15 ekpZ 2014

15 ekpZ

'kSad ,safBr cjek LVc J`a[kyk&fof’kf"V

2014

18-

vkbZ ,l 16136 % 2013 Bksl dkckZbM lrr

15 ekpZ 2014

15 ekpZ

lekukarj 'kSad okys ,.M fey&fof’kf"V

2014

19-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks@Vh ,l

15 ekpZ 2014

15 ekpZ

800004&4 % 2011 uSuksçkS|ksfxdh 'kCnkoyh

2014

Hkkx uSuksLVªDpMZ lkefxz;‚a

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh çfr;‚a Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj’kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

ubZ fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous’oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http.//www.standardsbis-

in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ % PUB/GN-1]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4651

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 15th March, 2014

S.O. 1776.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second

column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars

of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled

on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl No. No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date of

Standards Established

Establishment

to be cancelled, if any

cancellation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 1161 : 2014 Steel Tubes

15 March 2014

IS 1161 : 1998 Steel Tubes for

15 March 2014

for Structural Purposes - Specification

Structural Purposes - Specification

(Fifth Revision)

(Fourth Revision)

IS/ISO 1701-2 : 2004 Test Conditions

15 March 2014

IS 2200 (Part 3) : 2002/ISO 1701-3 :

15 March 2014

for Milling Machines with table of

1997 Test conditions for milling

variable height-Testing of Accuracy

machines with table of variable height -

Part 2 Machines with vertical spindle

Testing of accuracy Part 3 Machines

with vertical spindle

IS 3196 (Part 1) : 2013 Welded Low

15 March 2014

IS 3196 (Part 1) : 2006

15 March

Carbon Steel Cylinders Exceeding 5

Welded Low Carbon

2014

Liters Water Capacity for Low Pressure

Steel Cylinders Exceeding 5 Liters

Liquefiable Gases Part 1 Cylinders for

Water Capacity For Low Pressure

Liquefied Petroleum Gased (LPG)-

Liquefiable Gases Part 1 Cylinders

Specification (Six Revision)

For Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)-

Specification (Fifth Revision)

IS 3406 (Part 2) : 2014 Dimensions for

15 March 2014

IS 3406 (Part 2) : 1986 Dimensions for

15 March

countersinks and counterbores Part 2

2014

Counterbores (Third Revision)

Counterbores (Second Revision)

IS 4081 : 2013 Blasting and Related

15 March 2014

IS 4081 : 1986 Safety code for blasting

5 March

Drilling Operations - Code of Safety

and related drilling operations

2014

(Second Revision)

(First Revision)

IS 5916 : 2013 Constructions involving 15 March 2014

IS 5916 : 1970 Safety code for construc- 15 March

Use of Hot Bituminous Materials-

tion involving use of hot bituminous

2014

Code of Safety (First Revision)

materials

IS 6255 : 2013 Inverse dovetail cutters 15 March 2014

IS 6255 : 1995 Inverse dove-tail and

15 March

and dovetail cutters with cylindrical

dove-tail milling cutters - Specification

2014

shank (Third Revision)

(Second Revision)

IS 148 72 (Part 1) : 2014/ISO

15 March 2014

IS 14872 (Part 1) : 2000/ISO 3408-1 : 1991 15 March

3408-1 : 2006 Ball Screws-Part 1

Ball Screws - Part 1 : Vocabulary

2014

Vocabulary and designation

and designation

(Firsr Revision)

IS 14872 (Part 3) : 2013/ISO 3408-3 :

15 March 2014

IS 14872 (Part 3) : 2000/ISO 3408-3 :

15 March

2006 Ball screws-Part 3 : Acceptance

1992 Ball screws - Part 3 : Acceptance

2014

conditions and acceptance tests

(First Revision)

10.

IS 15248 (Part 1):2013/ISO 3442-1:

15 March 2014

IS 15248 :2002/ISO 3442 : 1991 Self-

15 March

2005 Machine tools – Dimensions

centring chucks for machine tools

2014

and geometric tests for self-centring

with two-piece jaws (tounge and

chucks with two-piece jaws Part 1

groove type) - Sizes for interchangea-

Manually operated chucks with

ability and acceptance test specification

Tongue and Groove type jaws

4652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

IS 15248 (Part 2):2013/ISO 3442-2:

15 March 2014

—

15 March

2005 Machine tools – Dimensions

2014

and geometric tests for self-centring

chucks with two-piece jaws Part 2

Power- operated chucks with Tongue

and Groove type jaws

12.

IS 15248 (Part 3):2014/ISO 3442-3:

15 March 2014

—

15 March

2007 Machine tools–Dimensions and

2014

geometric tests for self-centring chucks

with two-piece jaws Part 3 Power-

operated chucks with serrated jaws

13.

IS 15883 (Part 5) : 2013 Construction

15 March 2014

—

15 March

Project Management - Guidelines :

2014

Part 5 Health and Safety Management

14.

IS 15975 : 2013 Gas Cylinders-

15 March 2014

IS 8866 : 1978 Filling ratios and

15 March

Conditions for Filling Gas Cylinders

corresponding developed pressur for

2014

high pressure liquefiable gases

contained in gas cylinder IS 8867 :

1978 Saturated vapour pressure and

test pressure for low pressure

liquefiable gases contained in gas

cylinders IS 8868 : 1988 Periodical

inspection interval of gas cylinders

in use

15.

IS 16054 : 2013 Periodic Inspection

31 March 2014

—

31 March

and Testing - Welded Low Carbon

2014

Steel Cylinders Exceeding 5 - Liter

Water Capacity for Liquified

Petroleum Gas (LPG) - Code of

Practice

16.

IS 16059 : 2013 Solid carbide parallel

15 March 2014

—

15 March

shank twist drills jobber series-

2014

Specification

17.

IS 16060 : 2013 Solid carbide parallel

15 March 2014

—

15 March

shank twist drills stub series-

2014

Specification

18.

IS 16136 : 2013 Indian standard Solid

15 March 2014

—

15 March

carbide end mills with continuous

2014

parallel shank - Specification

19.

IS/ISO/TS 80004-4 : 2011

15 March 2014

—

15 March

Nanotechnologies-Vocabulary Part 4

2014

Nanostructured Materials

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Kochi.

Date : 15.03.2014

[Ref: PUB/GN-1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publications)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4653

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk-

1777-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks fd jí gksus

jí gksus

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

gS] vxj gS] dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E03 % 2010 %

31 ekpZ

vkbZ,l%4803%1985 Dyksjhfr—r ty ds

31 ekpZ

oL=kfn&jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx bZ03

2014

çfr oL=kfn lkexzh ds jax ds iDdsiu

2014

Dyksjhuh—r ty ds çfr jax dk iDdkiu

dks Kkr djus dh fof/k ¼rj.krky&

¼rj.k rky&ty½

ty½ ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E05 % 2010

31 ekpZ 2014

oL=kfn jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k

Hkkx bZ05 /kCcs ds çfr jax dk iDdkiu% vEy

vkbZ ,l 2239 % 2013 i’kq/ku vkgkj ?kVd

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 2239 % 1971 i’kq/ku vkgkj

31 ekpZ

ds :i esa xsgw¡ pksdj fof'k"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

?kVd ds :i esa xsgw¡ pksdj fof'k"V

2014

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 3406 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2014 dkmaVjflad

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 3406 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1986

31 ekpZ

,ao dkmaVjcksj ds vk;ke Hkkx 2 dkmaVjcksj

dkmaVjflad ,ao dkmaVjcksj ds vk;ke

2014

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

Hkkx 2 dkmaVjcksj ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 4081 % 2013 CykafLVx vkSj lacaf/kr

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 4081%1986 CykfLVax vkSj

31 ekpZ

fMªfyax dk;Z & lqj{kk lafgrk ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

lacaf/kr fMªfyax dk;Z dh lqj{kk lafgrk

2014

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 4811 % 2014 nky phuh lkcqr&

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 4811 % 1992 nky phuh

31 ekpZ

fof’kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

lkcqr & fof’kf"V iqujh{k.k

2014

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 5916 % 2013 xeZ fcVqfeul lkexzh

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ,l 5916 % 1970 xeZ fcVqfeul

31 ekpZ

dks ç;qDr dj fuekZ.k & lqj{kk lafgrk

lkexzh dks ç;qDr dj fuekZ.k dh

2014

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

lqj{kk lafgrk

vkbZ ,l 6213 ¼Hkkx 12 ½ % 2013 yqxnh ds

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 6213 ¼Hkkx 12 ½ % 1975

31 ekpZ

fy, ijh{k.k i)fr Hkkx 12 dSfY’k;e lkexzh

yqxnh ds fy, ijh{k.k i)fr Hkkx 12

2014

Kkr djuk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

dSfY’;e lkexzh Kkr djuk

vkbZ ,l 6213 ¼Hkkx 13 ½ % 2013 yqxnh ds

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 6213 ¼Hkkx 13 ½ % 1975 yqxnh 31 ekpZ

fy, ijh{k.k i)fr Hkkx 13 rkack lkexzh Kkr

ds fy, ijh{k.k i)fr Hkkx 13 rkack

2014

djuk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

lkexzh Kkr djuk

10-

vkbZ ,l 6213 ¼Hkkx 14 ½ % 2013 yqxnh ds

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 6213 ¼Hkkx 14½ % 1975 yqxnh

31 ekpZ

fy, ijh{k.k i)fr Hkkx 14 yksgk lkexzh Kkr

ds fy, ijh{k.k i)fr Hkkx 14 yksgk

2014

djuk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

lkexzh Kkr djuk

11-

vkbZ ,l 6213 ¼Hkkx 15 ½ % 2013 yqxnh ds

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 6213 ¼Hkkx 15½ % 1975 yqxnh

31 ekpZ

fy, ijh{k.k i)fr Hkkx 15 eSaxuht lkexzh

ds fy, ijh{k.k i)fr Hkkx 15 eSaxuht

2014

Kkr djuk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

lkexzh Kkr djuk

12-

vkbZ ,l 13145 % 2014 fepZ ,oa elkys&

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 13145%1993 fepZ ,oa elkys&

31 ekpZ

uewus ysus dh i)fr;‚a ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

uewus ysus dh i)fr;‚a ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

2014

4654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13-

vkbZ ,l13252 ¼Hkkx 21½ % 2013

31 ekpZ 2014

Nil

vkbZ bZ lh 60950&21 % 2002 lwpuk

çkS|ksfxdh miLdj & lqj{kk Hkkx 21 nwjLFk

ikoj çHkj.k

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 13936&1 % 2004

31 ekpZ 2014

Nil

oL=kfn & cqus gq, diM+ksa ds lhou esa yxs

/kkxs dh fLyiist çfrjksf/krk Kkr djuk

Hkkx 1 LFkkbZ lhou vksifuax fof/k

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks 13936&2 % 2004

31 ekpZ 2014

Nil

oL=kfn & cqus gq, diM+ksa ds lhou esa yxs /kkxs

dh fLyiist çfrjksf/krk Kkr djuk Hkkx 3

LFkkbZ Hkkj fof/k

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks 13936&3 % 2005

31 ekpZ 2014

Nil

oL=kfn & cqus gq, diM+ksa ds lhou esa yxs

/kkxs dh fLyiist çfrjksf/krk Kkr djuk

Hkkx 3 lqbZ DySEi fof/k

vkbZ ,l 14147 ¼Hkkx 7½ % 2013 ,l vks@

31 ekpZ 2014

Nil

vkbZ bZ lh 7811&7 % 2004 igpku dkMZ~l&

fof’kf"V fjd‚fMaZx rduhd Hkkx 7 pqacdh;

iêh&fof’kf"V mPp pØh;] mPp ?kuRk~vkbZ

vkbZ ,l 15981 % 2013 ,lhVehçkbZM]

31 ekpZ 2014

Nil

rduhdh&fof’kf"V

vkbZ ,l 15985 % 2013 VªkbZlkbZDyktksy

31 ekpZ 2014

Nil

vkædj.kh; ikmMj ¼MCY;q ih ½&fof’kf"V

vkbZ ,l 16095 % 2013 gStesV okgu&fof’kf"V 31 ekpZ 2014

Nil

vkbZ ,l 16143 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2013 gkMZ dks;yk

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 1@[kaM 2½ % 1976

31 ekpZ

,oa dksd&;kaf=d uewus ysuk vkbZ ,l vks&

,oa vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1965

2014

13909&1 % 2001 Hkkx 1 lkekU; ifjp;

vkbZ ,l 16143 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2013

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 1@[kaM 2½ % 1976

31 ekpZ

vkbZ ,l vks 13909&2 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk

,oa vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1965

2014

,oa dksd&;kaf=d uewus ysuk Hkkx 2 dks;yk&

py /kkjkvksa ls uewus ysuk

vkbZ ,l 16143 ¼Hkkx 3½ % 2013

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 1@[kaM 2½ % 1976

31 ekpZ

vkbZ ,l vks 13909&3 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk

,oa vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1965

2014

,oa dksd & ;kaf=d uewus ysuk Hkkx 3

dks;yk&LVs’kusjh y‚V ls uewus ysuk

vkbZ ,l 16143 ¼Hkkx 4½ % 2013

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 1@[kaM 2½ % 1976

31 ekpZ

vkbZ ,l vks 13909&4 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk

,oa vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1965

2014

,oa dksd&;kaf=d uewus ysuk Hkkx 4 dks;yk&

ijh{k.k uewuksa dh rS;kjh

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4655

vkbZ ,l 16143 ¼Hkkx 5½ % 2013 vkbZ,lvks&

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 1@[kaM 2½ % 1976

31 ekpZ

13909&5 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa&dksd&

,oa vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1965

2014

;kaf=d uewus ysuk Hkkx 5 dksd&py /kkjkvksa

ls uewus ysuk

vkbZ ,l 16143 ¼Hkkx 7½ % 2013 vkbZ,lvks&

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 1@[kaM 2½ % 1976

31 ekpZ

13909&7 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk ,oa dksd&

,oa vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1965

2014

;kaf=d uewus ysuk Hkkx 7 dksd —uewus ysus]

uewuksa dh rS;kjh rFkk ijh{k.k dh ifj’kq)rk

Kkr djus dh i)fr;ka

vkbZ ,l 16143 ¼Hkkx 8½ % 2013

31 ekpZ 2014

vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 1@[kaM 2½ % 1976

31 ekpZ

vkbZ ,l vks 13909&8 % 2001 gkMZ dks;yk

,oa vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1965

2014

,oa dksd & ;kaf=d uewus ysuk Hkkx 8

vfHkufr ijh{k.k dh i)fr;ka

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh çfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj’kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h;

dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous’oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks

http.//www.standardsbis-in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

fnukad 31 ekpZ] 2014

[lanHkZ % PUB/GN-1]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2014

S.O. 1777.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second

column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars

of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled

on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl No. No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date of

Standards Established

Establishment

to be cancelled, if any

cancellation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS/ISO 105-E03 : 2010-Textiles-Tests

31 March, 2014

IS 4803 : 1985 Method for determination 31 March,

for colour fastness - Part E03 : Colour

of colour fastness of textile materials

2014

Fastness to Chlorinated water

to chlorinated water (swimming bath

(Swimming-pool water)

water (First Revision)

IS/ISO 105-E05 : 2010 Textiles-Test

31 March, 2014

Nil

for colour fastness - Part E05 :

Colour fastness to spotting : acid

IS 2239 : 2013 Wheat Bran As

31 March, 2014

IS 2239 : 1971 Wheat Bran as Livestock

31 March,

Livestock Feed - Specification

Feed - Specification (First Revision)

2014

(Second Revision)

IS 3406 (Part 2) : 2014 Dimensions for 31 March, 2014

IS 3406 (Part 2) : 1986 Dimensions for

31 March,

countersinks and counterbores Part 2

2014

Counterbores (Third Revision)

Counterbores (Second Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

4656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IS 4081 : 2013 Blasting and Related

31 March, 2014

IS 4081 : 1986 Safety code for blasting

31 March,

Drilling Operations - Code of Safety

and related drilling operations

2014

(Second Revision)

(First Revision)

IS 4811: 2014 Cinnamon, Whole-

31 March, 2014

S 4811: 1992 Cinnamon, Whole-

31 March,

Specification (Second Revision)

Specification (First Revision)

2014

IS 5916 : 2013 Constructions invol-

31 March, 2014

IS 5916 : 1970 Safety code for

31 March,

ving use of Hot Bituminous Materials-

construction involving use of hot

2014

Code of Safety (First Revision)

bituminous materials

IS 6213 (Part 12) : 2013 Methods of

31 March, 2014

IS 6213 (Part 12) : 1975 Methods of

31 March,

test for pulp Part 12 Determination

test for pulp Part 12 Determination of

2014

of calcium content (First Revision)

calcium content

IS 6213 (Part 13) : 2013 Methods of

31 March, 2014

IS 6213 (Part 13) : 1975 Methods of test

31 March,

test for pulp Part 13 Determination of

for pulp Part 13 Determination of copper

2014

copper content (First Revision)

content

10.

IS 6213 (Part 14) : 2013 Methods of

31 March, 2014

IS 6213 (Part 14) : 1975 Methods of test

31 March,

test for pulp Part 14 Determination of

for pulp Part 14 Determination of Iron

2014

Iron Content (First Revision)

Content

11.

IS 6213 (Part 15) : 2013 Methods of

31 March, 2014

IS 6213 (Part 15) : 1975 Methods of test

31 March,

test for pulp Part 15 Determination of

for pulp Part 15 Determination of

2014

of Manganese Content (First Revision)

Manganese Content

12.

IS 13145 : 2014 Spices and

31 March, 2014

IS 13145 : 1993 Spices and Condiments- 31 March,

Condiments-Methods of Sampling

Methods of Sampling (First Revision)

2014

(Second Revision)

13.

IS 13252 (Part 21) : 2013 Information

31 March, 2014

Nil

Technology Equipment-Safety Part 21

Remote Power Feeding

14.

IS/ISO 13936 (Part 1) : 2004 Textiles-

31 March, 2014

Nil

Determination of the slippage

resistance of yarns at a seam in woven

fabrics Part 1 Fixed seam opening

method

15.

IS/ISO 13936 (Part 2) :2004 Textiles-

31 March, 2014

Nil

Determination of the slippage

resistance of yarns at a seam in woven

fabrics Part 2 Fixed load method

16.

IS/ISO 13936 (Part 3) : 2005 Textiles-

31 March, 2014

Nil

Determination of the slippage

resistance of yarns at a seam in woven

fabrics Part 3 Needle clamp method

17.

IS 14147 (Part 7) : 2013 Identification

31 March, 2014

Cards-Recording Technique Part 7

Magnetic Stripe - High Coercivity,

High Density

18.

15981 : 2013 Acetamiprid Technical-

31 March, 2014

Specification

19.

IS 15985 : 2013 Tricyclazole,

31 March, 2014

Wettable Provides-Specification

20.

IS 16095 :2013 Hazmat Vehicle-

31 March, 2014

Specification

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4657

21.

IS 16143 (Part 1): 2014 ‘Hard coal

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) : 1976 and IS 436

31 March,

and coke - Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

2014

Part 1 General introduction’

22.

IS 16143 (Part 2): 2014 ‘Hard coal

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) : 1976 and IS 436

31 March,

and coke - Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

2014

Part 2 Coal - Sampling from moving

streams

23.

IS 16143 (Part 3): 2013 ‘Hard coal

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) : 1976 and IS 436

31 March,

and coke - Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

2014

Part 3 Coal - Sampling from stationary

lots’

24.

IS 16143 (Part 4): 2013 ‘Hard coal

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) : 1976 and IS 436

31 March,

and coke - Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

2014

Part 4 Coal-Preparation of test samples

25.

IS 16143 (Part 5): 2013 ‘Hard coal

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) : 1976 and IS 436

31 March,

and coke - Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

2014

Part 5 - Coke - Sampling from moving

stream’

26.

IS 16143 (Part 7): 2013 ‘Hard coal

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) : 1976 and IS 436

31 March,

and coke - Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

2014

Part 7 Methods for determining the

precision of sampling, sample

preparation and testing

27.

IS 16143 (Part 8): 2013 ‘Hard coal

31 March, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) : 1976 and IS 436

31 March,

and coke-Mechanical sampling :

(Part II) : 1965

2014

Part 8 Methods of testing for bias

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Kochi.

Date : 31 March 2014

[Ref: PUB/GN-1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publications)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk-

1778-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks fd jí gksus

jí gksus

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

gS] vxj gS] dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E04 % 2008

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 971%1983 ilhus ds çfr

31 ekpZ]

oL=kfn – jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k

oL=kfn lkexzh ds jax ds iDdsiu dks

2014

Hkkx bZ04 ilhus ds çfr jax dk iDdkiu

Kkr djus dh fof/k ¼igyk iqujh{k.kk½

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E08 % 1994

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ,l 4389%1987 xeZ ty ds çfr

31 ekpZ]

oL=kfn – jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx

oL=kfn lkexzh ds jax ds iDdsiu dks

2014

bZ08 xeZ ty ds çfr jax dk iDdkiu

Kkr djus dh fof/k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

4658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E09 % 2010

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ,l%972%1988 iksfVax ds çfr oL=kfn

31 ekpZ]

oL=kfn&jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx

lkexzh ds jax ds iDdsiu dks Kkr djus

2014

bZ09 iksafVx ds çfr jax dk iDdkiu

dh fof/k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E10 % 1994

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ,l%865%1958 MsdSVkbftax ds çfr

31 ekpZ]

oL=kfn —jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx

oL=kfn lkexzh ds jax ds iDdsiu dks

2014

bZ10 fMdSVkbftax ds çfr jax dk iDdkiu

Kkr djus dh fof/k

vkbZ ,l @vkbZ ,l vks 105&E12 % 2010

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ,l % 983 % 1983 {kkjh; fefyax

31 ekpZ]

oL=kfn&jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx

ds çfr oL=kfn lkexzh ds jax ds iDdsiu

2014

bZ12 fefyax ds çfr jax dk iDdkiu %

dks Kkr djus dh fof/k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

{kkjh; feafyx

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E13 % 1994

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ,l % 3425 % 1986 vEyh; QsfYVax

31 ekpZ]

oL=kfn&jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx

ds çfr oL=kfn lkexzh ds jax ds iDdsiu

2014

bZ13 vEyh; QsfYVax ds çfr jax dk iDdkiu%

dks Kkr djus dh fof/k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

çp.M

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 105&E16 % 2006

Qjojh] 2014

Nil

oL=kfn&jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k Hkkx

bZ16 lksQlkth ds diM+ksa ij ikuh ds /kCcksa

ds çfr jax dj iDdkiu

vkbZ ,l 1651 % 2013 lhlk vEy çdkj ds

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 1651 % 1991 lhlk vEy çdkj

fLFkj lSy vkSj cSVfj;ka] ¼/kukRed ufydkdkj

ds fLFkj lSy vkSj cSVfj;ka] ¼/kukRed

IysV lfgr & fof'k"V ¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

ufydkdkj IysV lfgr & fof'k"V ¼rhljk

iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 2669 % 2013 vkbZ ,l vks 12197 %

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 2669 % 1971 oqMjQ dh LykV

31 ekpZ]

1996 oqMjQ dh lhV dVj&vk;ke ¼nwljk

fefyax dVj lekukarj 'kSad ds lkFk

2014

iqujh{k.k½

fof’kf"V¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

10-

vkbZ ,l 2911 ¼Hkkx 4½ % 2013 ikby uhao dh 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 2911 ¼Hkkx 4½ % 1985 ikby

31 ekpZ]

fMtkbu vkSj fuekZ.k jhfr lafgrk Hkkx 4 ikbyksa

uhao dh fMtkbu vkSj fuekZ.k dh jhrh

2014

dk Hkkj ijh{k.k ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

lafgrk % Hkkx 4 ikbyksa dk Hkkj ijh{k.k

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

11-

vkbZ ,l 3952 % 2013 nhokjksa vkSj foHkktuksa

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 3952 % 1988 nhokjksa vkSj

31 ekpZ]

ds fy, idh feêh dh [kks[kyh bZaV vkSj Cy‚d&

foHkktuksa ds fy, iDdh feêh dh [kks[kyh

2014

fof'k"V ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

bZaV dh fof’kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

12-

vkbZ ,l 4014 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2013 LVhy dh

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ,l 4014 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1967 LVhy dh

31 ekpZ]

uyhnkj LdSQksfYMax&jhfr lafgrk Hkkx 2

uyhnkj LdSQksfYMax dh jhfr lafgrk %

2014

LdSQksfYMax ds lqj{kk ds çko/kku

Hkkx 2 LdSQksfYMax ds lqj{kk fu;eu

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

13-

vkbZ ,l 5245 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2013 rkj jLlh

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 5245 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1971 rkj

31 ekpZ]

lIykbflax dh i)fr;ka Hkkx 2 Qs#y

jLlh lIykbflax dh i)fr;ka Hkkx 2

2014

lfgr fLyax ysx&lqjf{kr vkbZ VfeZuy

Qs#y lfgr fLyax ysx&lqjf{kr vkbZ

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

VfeZuy

vkbZ ,l 6753 % 2013 vkbZ ,l vks 12 % 1987 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 6753 % 1972 ok;q;ku&

31 ekpZ]

ok;q;ku&ikbZiykbu&vfHkfu/kkZj.k

ikbiykbu&vfHkfu/kkZj.k

2014

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4659

vkbZ ,l 7264 % 2013 vkbZ ,l vks 45 % 1990 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 7264 % 1974 ok;q;ku&

ok;q;ku & çS’kj fjQ;wfyax dusD’ku

çS’kj fjQ;qfyax dusD’ku

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 7719 % 2013 /kkfRod lfiZy dqaMfyr 31 ekpZ] 2014

Nil

xkLdsV & fof'k"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 9127 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2013 vkbZ ,l vks& 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 9127 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2002 dks;ys

31 ekpZ]

7404&2 % 2009 dks;ys ds isVªksxzkfQd fo’ys"k.k

ds isVªksxzkfQd fo’ys"k.k dh i)fr;‚a

2014

dh i)frka Hkkx 2 dks;ys ds uewus rS;kj djus

vkbZ ,l vks 7404&2 % 2009 Hkkx 2

dh i)fr;ka ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

dks;ys ds uewus rS;kj djus dh

i)fr;‚a ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 9549 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2014 vkbZ ,l vks& 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ,l 9549%1980 fLIyV fiu gksy]

31 ekpZ]

7378 % 1983 QkLVuj cksYV] LØw ,oa LVWm

ok;j gksy ,oa cksYV ds fy, gSM Ly‚V

2014

Hkkx 1 fLIyV fiu gksy ,oa ok;j gksy

ds vk;ke

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 10980 ¼Hkkx 3½ % 2014 vkbZ ,l vks& 31 ekpZ] 2014 10980 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 1984 ok;q vUrfj{k gsrq

5855&3 % 1999 ok;q;ku&,e ts pwfM+;‚a Hkkx 3

dkcys vkSj f<+cjh ,e ts pwMh- dh

QY;wM flLVeksa dh fQfVaxksa ds lhfer vk;ke

fof’kf"V csfld çksQkby dkcys vkSj

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

Hkkx 2 f<+cjh ds vk;ke

vkbZ ,l 11852 % 2013 Lopy okgu czsafdx

31 ekpZ] 2014 ¼IS 11852 : Pt 1 – Pt 9½ ¼Pt 1½ Lopy

laca/kh ,e] ,u vkSj Vh Js.kh ds okguksa dh

okgu&czsd vkSj czsfdax ra= Hkkx 1&

Lohd`fr ls laca) ,d leku izko/kku

'kCnkoyh ¼igyk iqujh{k.k ½

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

¼Pt 2½ Lopy okgu&czsd vkSj czsfdax

ç.kkyh Hkkx 2 lkekU; dk;Z vkSj fo’ks"krk,a

¼igyk iqujh{k.k ½

¼Pt 3½ Lopy okgu – czsd vkSj czsfdax

ç.kkyh Hkkx 3 & dk;Zdkfjrk vis{kk,a vkSj

ewY;kadu ¼igyk iqujh{k.k ½

¼Pt 4½ Lopy okgu&czsd vkSj czsfdax

ç.kkyh Hkkx 4&laihfMar gok vkSj gok

lgk;h czsd&fo’ks"k vis{kk,a

¼igyk iqujh{k.k ½

¼Pt 5½ Lopy okgu&czsd vkSj czsfdax ra=

Hkkx 5&laihfMar ok;q vkSj ok;q lgk;rk

czsd&nkc ijh{k.k la;kstu

¼igyk iqujh{k.k ½

¼Pt 6½ Lopy okgu&czsd vkSj czsfdax ç.kkyh

Hkkx 6&fuokZr czsfdax ra=&fo’ks"k vis{kk,a

¼igyk iqujh{k.k ½

¼Pt 7½ Lopy okgu&czsd vkSj czsfdax ç.kkyh

Hkkx 7 czsd Mk;uksehVj ij vLrj dh ijh{k.k

i)fr ¼igyk iqujh{k.k ½

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

4660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼Pt 8½ Lopy okgu&czsd vkSj czsfdax ç.kkyh

Hkkx 8&ijh{k.k dk;Zfof/k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k ½

¼Pt 9½ Lopy okgu&czsd vkSj czsfdax ra=

Hkkx 9 jks/kh&y‚d ;qfä;ksa okys okguksa ds

fy, vis{kk,a

vkbZ ,l 12508 % 2013 Lokpkfyr okguksa

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 12508 % 2005 Lokpkfyr

31 ekpZ]

ds fy, bySfDVªd VsdksehVj&fof'k"V ¼igyk

okguksa ds fy, bySfDVªd VsdksehVj

2014

iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 12673 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2013 oL=kfn

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 12673 % 1989 VsDlVkby diM+s& 31 ekpZ]

ekjfVuMsy fof/k }kjk diM+s dk vkbZ ,l

vi?k"kZ.k çfrjks/k&Kkr djus dh i)fr

2014

vks 12947&1 % 1998 vi?k"kZ.k çfrjks/k Kkr

djuk Hkkx 1 ekfjVuMsy vi?kZ"k.k ijh{k.k

midj.k ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 12673 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2013 oL=kfn

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 12673 % 1989 VsDlVkby diM+s& 31 ekpZ]

ekjfVuMsy fof/k }kjk diM+s dk vkbZ ,l

vi?k"kZ.k çfrjks/k&Kkr djus dh i)fr

2014

vks 12947&2 % 1998 vi?k"kZ.k çfrjks/k Kkr

djuk Hkkx 2 uweus dk VwVuk Kkr djuk

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 12673 ¼Hkkx 3½ % 2013 oL=kfn

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 12673 % 1989 VsDlVkby diM+s& 31 ekpZ]

ekjfVuMsy fof/k }kjk diM+s dk vkbZ ,l vks

vi?k"kZ.k çfrjks/k&Kkr djus dh i)fr

2014

12947&3 % 1998 vi?k"kZ.k çfrjks/k Kkr djuk

Hkkx 3 otu gkfu Kkr djuk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 12673 ¼Hkkx 4½ % 2013 oL=kfn

31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 12673 % 1989 VsDlVkby diMs& 31 ekpZ]

ekjfVuMsy fof/k }kjk diM+s dk vkbZ ,l vks

vi?k"kZ.k çfrjks/k&Kkr djus dh i)fr

2014

12947&4 % 1998 vi?k"kZ.k çfrjks/k Kkr djuk

Hkkx 4 vih;jsal cnyus dk vkdyu

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 13402 % 1995 'kY; ,oa 31 ekpZ] 2014

nar laca/kh nLrh midj.k&vkVksDysfoax] la{kkj.k

,oa rkih; vukoj.k dh çfrjksf/krk Kkr djuk

vkbZ ,l 13730 ¼Hkkx 4½ % 2013 fo’ks"k çdkj 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 13730 ¼Hkkx 4½ % 1993 fo’ks"k

31 ekpZ]

dh dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'k"V Hkkx 4 lksYMjscy

çdkj dh dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'k"V Hkkx 4

2014

iksyh;wjsFksu buSefyr xksykdkj r‚ck rkjs]

lksYMjscy iksyh;wjsFksu buSefyr xksykdkj

oxZ 130 ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

r‚ck rkjs] oxZ 130

vkbZ ,l 13730 ¼Hkkx 43½ % 2013 fo’ks"k çdkj 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 13730 ¼Hkkx 43 ½% 2005 fo’ks"k

31 ekpZ]

dh dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'k"V Hkkx 43 ,jksesfVd

çdkj dh dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'k"V Hkkx 43 2014

iksyh,ekbZM Vsi p<h r‚ck rkjsa] oxZ 240

,jksesfVd iksyh,ekbZM Vsi p<h r‚ck rkjsa]

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

oxZ 240

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4661

29-

vkbZ ,l 13730 ¼Hkkx 44½ % 2013 fo’ks"k çdkj 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 13730 ¼Hkkx 44½ % 2005 fo’ks"k

31 ekpZ]

dh dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'"V Hkkx 44 ,jksesfVd

çdkj dh dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'"V Hkkx 44

2014

Vsi p<+h vk;rkdkj r‚ck rkjsa] oxZ 240

,jksesfVd Vsi p<+h vk;rkdkj r‚ck rkjsa]

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

oxZ 240

30-

vkbZ ,l 13771 % 2013 vkbZ bZ 60895 % 2002 31 ekpZ] 2014

pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu ij dk;Z djuk&800Kv

vkSj 600Kv fn"V /kkjk rd dh vfHkfgr oksYVst

ij ç;qDr gksus okyh pkydh; DyksfFkax

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

31-

vkbZ ,l 13774 % 2014 vkbZ bZ lh 60903 %

31 ekpZ] 2014

2002 pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu ij dk;Z djuk&

fo|qrjks/kh lkezxh ds nLrkus ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

32-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 13935&1 % 1999

31 ekpZ] 2014

oL=kfn&diMs vkSj fufeZr & oL=ksa ds lhou

ruu xq.k/keZ Hkkx 1 iêh fof/k }kjk lhou

VwVus ds fy;s vf/kdre cy Kkr djuk

33-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 13935&2 % 1999

31 ekpZ] 2014

oL=kfn&diMs vkSj fufeZr&oL=ksa ds lhou

ruu xq.k/keZ Hkkx 2 xzSc fof/k }kjk lhou

VwVus ds fy;s vf/kdre cy Kkr djuk

34-

vkbZ ,l 14841 ¼Hkkx 4/Sec1½ % 2013 dqaMyu 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 14841 ¼Hkkx 4/Sec1½ % 2000

31 ekpZ]

rkjksa dh iSdstcanh Hkkx 4 ijh{k.k i)fr;ka

dqaMyu rkjksa dh iSdstcanh Hkkx 4

2014

vuqHkkx 1 FkeksZIykfLVd lkexzh ls fufeZr

ijh{k.k i)fr;ka vuqHkkx 1 FkeksZIykfLVd

fMyhojh Liwy ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

lkexzh ls fufeZr fMyhojh Liwy

35-

vkbZ ,l 14956 % 2014 vkbZ bZ 61472 % 2004 31 ekpZ] 2014

pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu ij dk;Z djuk 72-5Kv

ls 800Kv rd dh oksYVst jsat esa fn"V /kkjk

ç.kkyh gsrq U;wure mixeu ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

36-

vkbZ ,l 15974 % 2013 ySEiksa ds lgk;d pkyu 31 ekpZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 12449 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1988 pkyu

31 ekpZ]

midj.k ¼Xyks LVkVZj dks NksMdj½&dk;Zdkfjrk

midj.k dh fof’kf"V;‚a ¼Xyks LVkVZj dks

2014

vis{kk,a

NksM+dj½ Hkkx 2 dk;Zdkfjrk vis{kk,a

37-

vkbZ ,l 16093 % 2013 xSl vk/kkfjr

31 ekpZ] 2014

baLVsUVsfu;l o‚Vj ghVj ds laLFkkiu&

jhfr lafgrk

38-

vkbZ ,l 16111% 2013 bykfLVd iêh

31 ekpZ] 2014

39-

vkbZ ,l 16148 % 2014 /kkrq ds gsykbM ySEi& 31 ekpZ] 2014

dk;Zdkfjrk fof'k"V

40-

vkbZ ,l 16155 % 2014 bZ lh 61318 % 2007

31 ekpZ] 2014

pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu ij dk;Z djuk vkStjksa]

;qfä;ksa vkSj miLdkjksa ij vuqç;ksT;

vuqvkdyu ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

4662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

41-

vkbZ ,l 16166 % 2014 vkbZ bZ lh&62554 % 31 ekpZ] 2014

2011 QyksjhlsaV ySEiksa esa ejdjh Lrj dks

ekius ds fy, uewus dh rS;kjh

42-

vkbZ ,l 16166 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2014 vkbZ bZ lh& 31 ekpZ] 2014

60855&1 % 2009 pkyw fctyh dh ykbZu ij

dk;Z djuk&fo|qrjks/kh Qkse & Hkfjr ufy;ka

,oa NMs Hkkx 1 o`rkdkj vuqçLFk dkV okyh

ufy;ka o NMsa

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh çfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj’kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002] {ks=h;

dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous’oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http:/

/www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

fnukad 31 ekpZ] 2014

[lanHkZ % PUB/GN-1]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2014

S.O. 1778.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second

column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars

of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled

on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date of

Standards Established

Establishment

to be cancelled, if any

cancellation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS/ISO 105 E04 : 2008 Textiles-

31 March, 2014

IS 971 : 1983 Methods for determination

31 March,

Tests for colour fastness:

of colour fastness of textile materials to

2014

Part E04: Colour fastness

perspiration (First Revision)

to perspiration

IS/ISO E 08 : 1994 Textiles-Tests

31 March, 2014

IS 4389 : 1987 Methods for determination

31 March,

for colour fastness: Part E08

of colour fastness of textile materials to hot

2014

Colour fastness to hot water

water (First Revision)

IS/ISO 105 E 09 : 2010 Textiles-

31 March, 2014

IS 972 : 1988 Method for determination of

31 March,

Tests for colour fastness to

colour fastness of textile materials to potting

2014

potting

(First Revision)

IS/ISO 105 E 10 : 1994 Textiles-

31 March, 2014

IS 865 : 1958 Method for determination of

31 March,

Tests for colour fastness: Part

colour fastness of textile materials to

2014

E10 Colour fastness to decatizing

decatizing

IS/ISO 105 E 12 : 2010 Textiles-

31 March, 2014

IS 983 : 1983 Method for determination of

31 March,

Tests for colour fastness : Part

colour fastness of textile materials to alkaline

2014

E12 Colour fastness to milling:

milling (First Revision)

Alkaline milling

IS/ISO 105 E 13 : 1994 Textiles

31 March, 2014

IS 3425 : 1986 Method for determination of

31 March,

Tests for colour fastness : Part

colour fastness of textile materials to acid

2014

E13 Colour fastness to acid

felting: severe (First Revision)

felting : Severe

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4663

IS/ISO 105 E 16 : 2006 Textiles-

Feb., 2014

Nil

Tests for colour fastness:

Part E 16 Colour fastness to water

spotting on upholstery fabrics

IS 1651 : 2013 Stationary cells

31 March, 2014

IS 1651 : 1991 Stationary cells and batteries

and batteries lead acid type

lead acid type (with tubular positive plates)

with tubular positive plates)-

(Third Revision)

Specification (Fourth Revision)

IS 2669 : 2013/ISO 12197 : 1996

31 March, 2014

IS 2669 : 1971 Specification Woodruff keys

31 March,

Woodruff Keyseat cutters-

slot milling cutters with parallel shank

2014

Dimensions (Second Revision)

(First Revision)

10.

IS 2911 (Part 4) : 2013 Design

31 March, 2014

IS 2911 (Part 4) : 1985 Code of practice for

31 March,

and construction of pile

design and construction of pile foundations:

2014

foundations-code of practice:

Part 4 Load test on piles (First Revision)

Part 4 load test on piles

(Second Revision)

11.

IS 3952 : 2013 Burnt clay

31 March, 2014

IS 3952 : 1988 Specification for burnt clay

31 March,

hollow bricks and blocks for

hollow bricks for walls and partitions

2014

walls and partitions-

(Second Revision)

Specification (Third Revision)

12.

IS 4014 (Part 2) : 2013 Steel

31 March, 2014

IS 4014 (Part 2) : 1967 Code of practice for

31 March,

Tubular Scaffolding-Code of

steel tubular scaffolding: Part 2 Safety

2014

Practice: Part 2 Safety provisions

regulations for scaffolding

for scaffolding (First Revision)

13.

IS 5245 (Part 2) : 2013 Methods

31 March, 2014

IS 5245 (Part 2) : 1971 “Methods for splicing 31 March,

for splicing of wire ropes Part 2

for wire ropes Part 2 wire rope sling legs with

2014

wire rope sling legs with ferrule-

ferrule - secured eye terminal

secured eye terminal

(First Revision)

14.

IS 6753 : 2013 Aircraft-pipelines-

31 March, 2014

IS 6753 : 1972 Code for identification of

31 March,

Identification (First Revision)

Aircraft Pipelines

2014

15.

IS 7264 : 2013 Aircraft pressure

31 March, 2014

IS 7264 : 1974 Dimensions for aircraft

31 March,

refueling connections (First

pressure refuelling connection

Revision)

16.

IS 7719 : 2013 Metallic Spiral

31 March, 2014

Nil

Wound Gaskets–Specification

(First Revision)

17.

IS 9127 (Part 2) : 2013 Methods

31 March, 2014

IS 9127 (Part 2 ): 2002 Method for the

31 March,

for petrographic analysis of

petrographic analysis of Bituminous coal

2014

coals: Part 2 Methods of

and Anthracite Part 2 : Method of preparing

preparing coal samples

coal samples (First Revision)

(Second Revision)

18.

IS 9549 (Part 1):2014/ISO 7378 :

31 March, 2014

IS 9549 : 1980 Dimensions for split pin

31 March,

1983 Fasteners-Bolt, Screws and

holes, wire holes and head slots for bolts

2014

Studs Part 1 split pin holes and

wire holes (First Revision)

19.

IS 10980 (Part 3) : 2014

31 March, 2014

1. IS 10980 (Part 1) : 1984 Specification for

Aerospace - MJ Threads Part 3 :

aerospace bolts and nuts (MJ threads) :

Limit dimensions for fittings for

Part 1 Basic profile 2. IS 10980 (Part 1) : 1984

fluid system (First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

4664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Specification for aerospace bolts and nuts

(MJ threads): Part 2 Demensions for bolts

and nuts

20.

IS 11852 : 2013 (Amalgamating

31 March, 2014

IS 11852 (Part 1-Part 9) : 2001 Automotive

IS 11852 (Part 1 to 9) : 2001)

vehicles-Brakes and braking systems :

Automotive vehicles - Uniform

1.Part 1 Terminology (First Revision)

provisions concerning the

Part 2 General functions and features

approval of vehicles of categories

(First Revision) 2. Part 2General functions

M, N and T with regard to

and features (First Revision) 3. Part 3

braking (Second Revision)

Performance requirements and evaluation

(First Revision) 4. Part 4 Compressed air

and assisted brakes- special require-

ments (First Revision) 5. Part 5 Compressed

air and air assisted brakes - Pressure test

connections (First Revision) 6. Part 6

Vaccum braking systems - Special

requirements (First Revision)

7. Part 7 Inertia dynamometer test method

for brake lining (First Revision) 8. Part 8

Test procedures (First revision) 9. IS 11852

(Part 9) : 2003 Requirements for vehicles

equipped with anti-lock braking systems

21.

IS 12508 : 2013 Electric

31 March, 2014

IS 12508 : 2005 Electric tachometer system

31 March,

Tachometer for automotive

for automotive vehicles

2014

vehicles-Specification

(First Revision)

22.

IS 12673 (Part 1) : 2013 / ISO

31 March, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989 Textile fabrics - Abrasion

31 March,

12947 (Part 1) : 1998 Textiles-

resistance - Methods for determination

2014

Determination of the abrasion

resistance of fabrics by the

martindale method - Part 1 :

Martindale abrasion testing

apparatus (First Revision)

23.

IS 12673 (Part 2) : 2013 / ISO

31 March, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989 Textile fabrics-Abrasion

31 March,

12947 (Part 2) : 1998 Textiles-

resistance - Methods for determination

2014

Determination of the abrasion

resistance of fabrics by the

martindale method - Part 2 :

Determination of specimen

breakdown (First Revision)

24.

IS 12673 (Part 3) : 2014/ISO

31 March, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989 Textile fabrics-Abrasion

31 March,

12947 (Part 3) : 1998 Textiles-

resistance - Methods for determination

2014

Determination of the abrasion

resistance of fabrics by the

martindale method-Part 3 :

Determination of mass loss

(First Revision)

25.

IS 12673 (Part 4) : 2014/ISO

31 March, 2014

IS 12673 : 1989 Textile fabrics-Abrasion

31 March,

12947 (Part 4) : 1998 Textiles-

resistance - Methods for determination

2014

Determination of the abrasion

resistance of fabrics by the

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4665

martindale method-Part 4 :

Assessment of appearance

change (First Revision)

26.

IS/ISO 13402 : 1995 Surgical and

31 March, 2014

—

Dental hand instruments-

determination of resistance-

against autoclaving corrosion

and thermal exposure

27.

IS 13730 (Part 4) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 13730 (Part 4) : 1993 particular types of

31 March,

Specification for particular type

winding wires Part 4 Solderable polyure-

2014

of winding wires Part 4

thane enamelled round copper wire,

Solderable polyure-thane

class 130

enamelled round copper wire,

class 130 (First Revision)

28.

IS 13730 (Part 43) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 13730 (Part 43) : 2005 Specification for

31 March,

Specification for particular

particular types of winding wires Part 43

2014

types of winding wires Part 43

aromatic polyimide tape wrapped round

aromatic polyimide tape

copper wire, class 130

wrapped round copper wire,

class 240 (First Revision)

29.

IS 13730 (Part 44) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 13730 (Part 44) : 2005 particular types

31 March,

Specification for particular

of winding wires Part 44 Aromatic

2014

types of winding wires Part 44

polyimide tape wrapped rectangular

Aromatic polyimide tape

copper wire class 240

wrapped rectangular copper

wire class 240 (First Revision)

30.

IS 13771 : 2013 Live working-

31 March, 2014

Conductive clothing for use at

nominal voltage upto 800 kv ac

to 600 kv dc (First Revision)

31.

IS 13774 : 2014 : Live working-

31 March, 2014

gloves of insulating material

(First Revision)

32.

IS/ISO 13935 (Part 1) : 1999

31 March, 2014

Textiles-Seam tensile properties

of the fabrics and made up

textiles articles-Part 1 :

Determination of maximum force

to seam rupture using the strip

method

33.

IS/ISO 13935 (Part 2) : 1999

31 March, 2014

Textiles-Seam tensile properties

of fabrics and made up textiles

articles-Part 2 : Determination

of maximum force to seam

rupture using the grab method

34.

IS 14841 (Part 4/Sec 1) : 2013

31 March, 2014

IS 14841 (Part 4/Sec 1) : 2000 Packaging

31 March,

Packing of winding wires Part 4

of winding wire Part 4 methods of test

2014

Methods of test, sec 1 delivery

section 1 : Delivery spools made from

spools made from thermoplastic

thermoplastic materials

materials (First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

4666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

35.

IS 14956 : 2014 Live working-

31 March, 2014

Minimum approach distance

from A.C. systems in the voltage

range 72.5 kv to 800 kv A method

of calculation (First Revision)

36.

IS 15974 : 2013 Auxiliaries for

31 March, 2014

IS 12449 (Part 2) : 1988 Starting devices

31 March,

lamps starting devices other

(other than glow starters) : Part 2

2014

than glow starters performances

Performance requirements

requirements

37.

IS 16093 : 2013 Installation of

31 March, 2014

Nil

gas based instantaneous water

heater - code of practice

38.

IS 16111 : 2013 Elastic Bandage

31 March, 2014

39.

IS 16148 : 2014 Metal halide

31 March, 2014

lamps performance Specification

40.

IS 16155 : 2014 Live Working

31 March, 2014

Conformity assessment

applicable to tools devices &

equipment

41.

IS 16166 : 2014 Sample

31 March, 2014

preparation for measurement

of mercury level in fluorescent

lamps

42.

IS 16167 (Part 1) : 2014 Live

31 March, 2014

working - Insulating foam-

filled tubes and solid rods-

Part 1 tubes & rods of circular

cross-section

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi–110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Kochi.

Date : 31 March, 2014

[Ref : PUB/GN-1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publications)

ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1779-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks fd jí gksus gS]

jí gksus

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vxj gS] dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

vkbZ ,l 1783 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2014 can fljs

30 ebZ] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1783 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1998

30 ebZ]

okys cMs+ Mªe&fof’k"V Hkkx 2 xzsM ch Mªe

2015

¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4667

vkbZ ,l 7193 % 2013 dkap js’kk vk/kkfjr

30 ebZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 7193 % 1994

30 ebZ]

fcVq eSu uenk&fof’k"V¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

2015

vkbZ ,l 12817 % 2013 LVsuysl bLikr ds

30 ebZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 12817 % 1997

30 ebZ]

VDdjnkj dCts&fof’k"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

2015

vkbZ ,l 13801 % 2013 pdksjnkj lhesaV

30 ebZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 13807 % 1993

30 ebZ]

dadjhV Vkbysa&fof’k"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

2015

vkbZ ,l 13997 % 2014 Åij ls [kqys cMs

30 ebZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 13997 % 1994

30 ebZ]

Mªe&fof’k"V¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

2015

vkbZ ,l 14899 % 2013 Lopy mi;ksx ds

30 ebZ] 2014 vkbZ ,l 14899 % 2000

30 Qjojh]

fy, æfor iSVªksfy;e xSl ,y ih th ds

2015

/kkjd&fof’k"V ¼igyk&iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh çfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj’kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous’oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http.//

www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

fnukad 30 ebZ] 2014

[lanHkZ % PUB/STD/2:1]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2014

S.O. 1779.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second

column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars

of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled

on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl No. No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date of

Standards Established

Establishment

to be cancelled, if any

cancellation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 1783 (Part 2) : 2014 Drums Large,

30 May, 2014

IS 1783 (Part 2) : 1998

30 May, 2015

Fixed Ends – Specification Part 2

Grade B Drums (Fourth Revision)

IS 7193 : 2013 Glass Fibre Base

30 May, 2014

IS 7193 : 1994

30 May, 2015

Bitumen Felts – Specification

(Second Revision)

IS 12817 : 2013 Specification for

30 May, 2014

IS 12817 : 1997

30 May, 2015

stainless steel butt hinges

(Second Revision)

IS 13801 : 2013 Chequered Cement

30 May, 2014

IS 13801 : 1993

30 May, 2015

Concrete Tiles – Specification

(First Revision)

IS 13997 : 2014 Drums, Large Open

30 May, 2014

IS 13997 : 1994

30 May, 2015

Top – Specification (First Revision)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

4668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IS 14899 : 2014 “Liquefied Petroleum

30 May, 2014

IS 14899 : 2000

28 February,

Gas (LPG) Containers for Automotive

2015

Use Specification (First Revision)

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Kochi.

Date : 30 May, 2014

[Ref: PUB/STD/2:1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publications)

ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1780-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud ¼dks½ esa la’kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj frfFk

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkbZ ,l 1391 ¼Part 1½ % 1992

la’kks/ku la[;k 5] Qjojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1391 ¼Part 2½ % 1992

la’kks/ku la[;k 5] tuojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 6595 ¼Part 1½ % 2002

la’kks/ku la[;k 5] tuojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 7285 ¼Part 1½ % 2004

la’kks/ku la[;k 2] Qjojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 11006 % 2011

la’kks/ku la[;k 5] Qjojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 13429 ¼Part 1½ % 2000

la’kks/ku la[;k 4] fnlacj 2013

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 14106 % 1996

la’kks/ku la[;k 6] fnlacj 2013

06 twu] 2015

vkbZ ,l 14561 % 2007

la’kks/ku la[;k 7] fnlacj 2013

06 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 15490 % 2004

la’kks/ku la[;k 2] Qjojh 2014

06 twu] 2014

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh çfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj’kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous’oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://

www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

fnukad 06 twu] 2014

[lanHkZ % PUB/GN/2:2]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2014

S.O. 1780.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given

in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4669

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and year of the Indian Standards

No. and year of the amendment

Date from which the

amendment shall

have effect

IS 1391 (Part 1) : 1992 Room air conditioners-

Amendment No. 5, January 2014

06 June, 2014

Specification Part 1 Unitary air conditioners

(Second Revision)

IS 1391 (Part 2) : 1992 Room air conditioners-

Amendment No. 4, December 2013

06 June, 2014

Specification Part 2 Split air conditioners

(Second Revision)

IS 6595 (Part 1) : 2002 Horizontal Centrifugal Pumps

Amendment No. 3, March 2014

06 June, 2014

for clear, cold water - Specification Part 1 Agricultural

and rural water supply purposes (Third Revision)

IS 7285 (Part 1) : 2004 Refillable seamless steel gas

Amendment No. 2, December 2013

06 June, 2014

cylinders - Specification: Part 1 Normalized steel

cylinders (Third Revision)

IS 11006 : 2011 Flash back arrestor (flame arrestor)-

Amendment No. 1, December 2014

06 June, 2014

Specification

IS 13429 (Part 1) : 2000 Solar cooker-box type-

Amendment No. 1, December 2013

06 June, 2014

Specification Part 1 Requirements (First Revision)

IS 14106 : 1996 Direct Action Handpumps-Specification

Amendment No. 5, September 2013

06 June, 2015

IS 14561 : 2007 Fire resisting (insulating) filing cabinets-

Amendment No. 1, September 2013

06 June, 2014

Specification (First Revision)

IS 15490 : 2004 Cylinders for on-board storage of

Amendment No. 4, February 2014

06 June, 2014

compressed natural gas as a fuel for automotive

vehicles-Specification

Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices:New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.

Date : 6 June, 2014

[Ref: PUB/GN/2:2]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publications)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1781-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

LFkkfir frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks fd jí gksus

jí gksus

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

gS] vxj gS] dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks@xkbMZ 74 % 2014

17 twu] 2014

xzkfQd çrhd miHkksDrkvksa ds fopkjkFkZ

rduhdh ekxZn’kZu

4670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ ,l 919 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2014 T;kferh;

17 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 919 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 1993/

17 twu] 2014

mRikn fof’kf"V th ih ,l & jSf[kd vkdkjksa

vkbZ ,l vks 286&2 % 1988

ij NwVksa ds fy, vkbZ,lvks lafgrk i)fr Hkkx

2 fNæksa rFkk 'kkQVks dh ekud NwV Jsf.k;ka

rFkk lhek fopyuksa dh lkjf.k;ka

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 1501 % 2009

17 twu] 2014

vkbZ,lvks y?kq isap dh pwfM+;ka

vkbZ ,l 2154 % 2014 i’kq vkgkj ?kVd ds

17 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 2154 % 1986

17 twu] 2014

:i esa ukfj;y dh [kyh&fof’kf"V

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 8156 % 2014 miHkksDrk lkekuksa ds

17 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 8156 % 1994

17 twu] 2014

fy, ca/kd&laf’y"V gqd vkSj Qank Vsi&

fof’kf"V ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 10096 ¼Hkkx 1@vuqHkkx 2 ½ % 2014 17 twu] 2014

f=T; xsV vkSj jTtw Mªe mPpkydksa ds

fujh{k.k] ijh{k.k vkSj j[k—j[kko dh

flQkfj’ksa Hkkx 1 fujh{k.k] ijh{k.k vkSj

fofuekZ.k ds Lrj ij vlseoyh vuqHkkx 2

jTtw Mªe mPpkydksa ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 12460&1 % 2007

17 twu] 2014

ydMh ij vk/kkfjr iSuy&QesZfYMgkbM

foekspu dk fu/kkZj.k Hkkx 1 1&D;wfcd

ehVj psEcj }kjk QesZfYMgkbM mRltZu i}fr

vkbZ ,l 13450 ¼Hkkx 1@vuqHkkx 3 ½ % 2014 17 twu] 2014

fpfdRlh; miLdj Hkkx 2 cqfu;knh lqj{kk

,oa vko’;d fu"iknu ds fy, lkekU;

vis{kk,a vuqHkkx 3 lkekarj ekud % uSnkfud{k&

fdj.k miLdj esa ukfHkdh; lqj{kk ds

fy, vis{kk,a

vkbZ ,l 14702 % 2014 i’kq vkgkj ?kVd ds

17 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 14702 % 1999

17 twu] 2014

:i esa vufMdkfVZdsfVM lwjteq[kh dh [kyh&

fof’kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

10-

vkbZ ,l 16143 ¼Hkkx 6 ½ % 2014 gkbZ dks;yk 17 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 436 ¼Part I / Sec 2½ %

,oa dksd&;kaf=d uewus ysuk Hkkx 6 dksd&

1976 and vkbZ ,l ¼Part II½ % 1965

17 twu] 2014

ijh{k.k uewuksa dh rS;kjh

11-

vkbZ ,l 16190 % 2014 —f"k oL=kfn&flapkbZa

17 twu] 2014

ds fy, mPp ?kuRo ikyhbFkbZyhu ¼,p-Mh-ih-bZ-½

ySfeusVsM cquh ys QySV Vîwc&fof’kf"V

12-

vkbZ ,l 16192 ¼Hkkx 2½% 2014 nks ,oa rhu

17 twu] 2014

ifg;s okys Lopy okguksa ds Oghy&fje Hkkx 2

'khV /kkrq Oghy fje&ijh{k.kksa ,oa vis{kkvksa

dh i)fr

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4671

13-

vkbZ ,l 16202 % 2014 —f"k oL=kfn&

17 twu] 2014

ckxokuh esa ç;ksx gsrq cus xzkmaM doj&

fof’kf"V

14-

vkbZ ,l 16218 dkaVs&fof’kf"V

17 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 992 % 1964

17 twu] 2014

15-

vkbZ ,l 16225 ¼Hkkx 1½ % 2014 T;ferh;

17 twu] 2014

mRikn fof’kf"V;ka&¼th- ih- ,l-½

flfyaMjhflVh Hkkx 1 flfyaMj vk—fr dh

'kCnkoyh ,oa ekunaM

16-

vkbZ ,l 16225 ¼Hkkx 2½ % 2014 T;ferh;

17 twu] 2014

mRikn fof’kf"V;ka&¼th-ih-,l-½ flfyaMjhflVh

Hkkx 2 fof’kf"V lapkyd

17-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ bZ lh 60479&3 % 1998 ekuo 17 twu] 2014

,oa i’kq/ku ij djsaV ds çHkko Hkkx 3 i’kq/ku

ds 'kjhj ls xqtjus okys djsaV ls çHkko

18-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 80000&11 % 2008

17 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1890 ¼Part 12½ % 1995

17 twu] 2014

ek=k ,oa bdkb;ka Hkkx 11 vfHkyk{kf.kd

la[;k,a

19-

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 80000&12 % 2009

17 twu] 2014

vkbZ ,l 1890 ¼Part 13½ % 1995

17 twu] 2014

ek=k ,oa bdkb;ka Hkkx 12 Bksl voLFkk

HkkSfrdh

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh çfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj’kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110 002 {ks=h;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous’oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http%// www-

standardsbis-in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

fnukad % 17 twu] 2014

[lanHkZ % PUB/GN-1/V-II]

dyk ,e- okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1781.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second

column of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars

of the standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled

on the date indicated against them in the fifth column.

SCHEDULE

Sl No.

No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

Standards Established

Establishment

Standards to be cancelled,

cancellation

if any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS/ISO/IEC Guide 74 : 2004 Graphical

17 June, 2014

—

17 June, 2014

Symbols – Technical Guidelines for the

consideration of consumers needs

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

4672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IS 919 (Part 2) : 2014/ISO 286-2: 2010

17 June, 2014

IS 919 (Part 2): 1993/ ISO

17 June, 2014

Geometrical product specification

286- 2 : 1988

(GPS)–ISO Code System for Tolerances

on Linear Sizes Part 2 tables of Standard

Tolerances Classes and Limit Deviations

for Holes Shafts (Second Revision)

IS/ISO 1501 : 2009 ISO Miniature Screw

17 June, 2014

—

threads

IS 2154 : Coconut oilcake as Livestock

17 June, 2014

IS 2154 : 1986

17 June, 2014

Feed-Specification ( Third Revision)

IS 8156 : 2014 Fasteners for consumer

17 June, 2014

IS 8156 : 1994

17 June, 2014

goods synthetic hook and loop tape–

specification (third revision)

IS 10096 Part 1/ Sec 2 : 2014

17 June, 2014

—

Recommendation for inspection testing

and maintenance of radial gates and

ropes drums hoists part 1 : inspection,

testing and assembly at the manufacturing

stage section 2 : rope drums hoists

IS/ISO 12460-1 : 2007 Wood based

17 June, 2014

—

panels–determination of formaldehyde

release part 1 formaldehyde emulsion by

the 1 – cubc-metre chamber method

IS 13450 Part 1/Sec 3 : 2014 IEC 60601-1-3 :

17 June, 2014

—

2008 Medical electrical Equipment Part 1

General Requirements for Basic Safety and

Essential Performance Section 3 Collateral

standards : Radiation Protection in

diagnostic X-ray equipment

IS 14702 : 2014 Undecorticated Sunflower

17 June, 2014

IS 14702 : 1999

17 June, 2014

Oilcake as Livestock Feed Ingredient–

Specification (First Revision)

10.

IS 16143 (Part 6) : 2014 ISO 13909-6 :

17 June, 2014

IS 436 (Part I/Sec 2) : 1976

17 June, 2014

2001 Hard Coal and Coke – Mechanical

and IS 436 (Part II) : 1965

sampling Part 6 Coke–Preparation of Test

Samples

11.

IS 16190 : 2014 ‘Agro textile High Density

17 June, 2014

—

polyethylene (HDPE) laminated woven lay

flat tube for irrigation purpose–

specification

12.

IS 16192 Part 2 : 2014 Automotive

17 June, 2014

—

vehicles – wheel rims for two and three

wheeled vehicles Part 2 sheet metal wheel

rims – method of tests and requirements

13.

IS 16202 : 2014 ‘Agro textile–woven

17 June, 2014

—

ground covers for horticulture

application–specification

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4673

IS 16218 : 2014 Forks : Specification

17 June, 2014

IS 992 : 1964

17 June, 2014

IS 16225-1 : 2014/ISO 12180-1 : 2011

17 June, 2014

—

(Geometrical product specification (GPS)-

cylindricity–Part 1 : 1 terms, definitions

and parameters of cylindrical form)

IS 16225-2 : 2014/ISO 12180-2 : 2011

17 June, 2014

—

(Geometrical product specification

(GPS)- cylindricity – Part 2 : Specification

operators)

IS/IEC 60479-3 : 1998 Effects of Current

17 June, 2014

—

on Human Beings and Livestock Part 3

Effects of Currents passing through the

body of Livestock

ISO 80000-11: 2008 Quantities and Units

17 June, 2014

IS 1890 (Part 12): 1995

17 June, 2014

PART 11 Characteristic Numbers

(Superseding IS 1890(Part 9) : 1995)

IS/ISO 80000 – 12 : 2009 Quantities and

17 June, 2014

IS 1890 (Part 13) : 1997

17 June, 2014

Units Part 12 Solid State physics

(Superseding IS 1890 (Part 13 ) : 1997 )

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Kochi.

Date : 17 June, 2014

[Ref: PUB/GN-1/V-II]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director(Foreign Languages & Publications)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1782-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj]

bafnjk xka/h jk"Vªh; ekuo laxzgky;] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R/181/98) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@18@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2014

S.O.

1782.—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/181/98) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya

Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 28/04/2014.

[No. L-42012/18/98-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/181/98

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Sena,

S/o Narsingh Beel, Suraj Nagar,

Bhadbhada,

Bhopal

...Workman

Versus

The Director,

Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav

Sangrahalaya, Shamla Hills,

Bhopal

...Management

4674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 7^th day of April, 2014

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-42012/18/98-IR(DU) dated 22-7-98

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal:-

“ Whether the action of the management of Director,

Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya,

Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Sena, S/o

Narsingh Beel is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

Case of workman is that he was appointed as chowkidar

in clear vacancy on 16-4-90. The service record was

excellent. He was member of Rashtriya Manav

Sangrahalaya Karmchari Sangh. His services were

terminated w.e.f. 8-8-95. That he had continuously worked

for more than 240 days in calendar year. He was not served

notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid to him.

The services were terminated in violation of Section 25-H

of I.D.Act. on such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. Management filed Written Statement. IInd party

submitted that it is not covered as industry under Section

2(j) of I.D.Act. That appropriate Government for IInd party

is State Govt., Central Govt. has no authority to make

reference. Workman was engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 8-

8-95. Workman remained absent from work. There are no

ground to make out dispute between parties. IInd party

denied that workman was appointed against clear vacant

post of chowkidar. That there is no registered Union. The

violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D. Act is denied by IInd

party.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether Indira Gandhi

Not proved

Rashtriya Manav

Sangrahalaya is an Industry?

(ii) Whether the management

In Affirmative

illegally terminated the services

of the workman?

(iii) Whether their workmen is entitled In Affirmative

to reinstatement with full back

wages?

(iv) Whether the reference is

Reference is

maintainable?

tenable

(v) Relief and costs?

As per final

order

REASONS

5. Workman is challenging termination of his service

for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. workman filed

affidavit of his evidence. He has stated that he was

appointed on post of chowkidar against clear vacancy on

16-4-90. He was continuously working till 18-8-95. His

services were terminated. That he had worked more than

240 days prior to termination of his service. He was not

paid retrenchment compensation. Prior permission of

Competent Authority for termination was not taken. In his

cross-examination workman says he rendered services at

Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. He had not produced

appointment order. He was not working on daily wages.

He was paid monthly wages. He worked from 1990 to 1995

but he has no document.

6. Management failed to adduce evidence. Evidence

of management is closed on 7-4-2011. Thus the

management has failed to substantiate his contentions,

no evidence is adduced about what are the activities carried

out by the IInd party. Workman has produced office order

dated 31-12-2010, temporary status given to the employees

of IInd party. The evidence of workman that he was

continuously working for more than 240 days prior to

termination of his service is not shattered. As per terms of

reference, the date of termination of workman is not

mentioned. However in his statement workman has claimed

that his services were terminated from 8-8-95. In his

evidence, workman says he worked from 1990 to 1993. It

cannot be hurdle in granting relief to the workman. The

evidence of workman that he was not paid retrenchment

compensation , the approval of Govt. was not obtained

remained unchallenged. The evidence clearly shows that

services of workman are terminated in violation of Section

25-F, G, H of I.D. Act.

7. Learned counsel for IInd party in support of its

argument that burden lies on workman to prove that he

was continuously working for 240 days , reliance is placed

in ratio held in

“MP Electricity Board through its Superintending

Engineer and Manoj Kumar and others reported in

2006 (109) FLR 1035. Ratio held in the case is order

casting burden of proof on shoulder of employer by

Industrial Court. That the employee has not

continuously worked for 240 days, the order is not

valid and quashed.”

In present case, evidence of workman about his

continuously working for more than 240 days is not

shattered. No issue has been framed casting burden on

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4675

management therefore ratio cannot be applied to case at

hand.

8. The evidence clearly shows that service of

workman are illegally terminated in violation of Section

25-F. Management has not substantiated by evidence that

it is not covered as industry therefore the reference is

tenable. The contentions of management that State Govt.

is appropriate Govt., Central Govt. has no power to make

reference. The order of reference is not challenged by

IInd party and therefore this Tribunal is bound to decide

the reference. I make it clear that reference is tenable.

9. The workman is claiming for reinstatement with

back wages. Workman was working for short period. There

is no evidence that any king of recruitment process was

followed therefore reinstatement of workman cannot be

granted. In my considered view, considering length of

service, compensation Rs. 75,000/- will meet the ends of

justice. for above reasons, I record my finding on Point

No.1 as not proved, 2 in Affirmative, 3 that workman is

entitled to compensation Rs. 75,000/- and 4 as reference is

tenable.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Director, Indira

Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Sena, S/o Narsingh

Beel is not legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs. 75,000/- to the workman within

30 days from date of publication of award.

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.

11. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1783-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31/

2012 & 2/13) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

17@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@150@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/

2012 & 2/13) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the management of M/s.

BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 17/06/2014

[No. L-20012/150/2011-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10 (1)(D) (2A)

OF I.D. ACT 1947

Reference : No. 31 of 2012

Parties :—Employers in relation to the management of

B.T.A, M/s. BCCL

And

Their workman (Didar Singh)

I.D. case No. 2/2013

IN THE MATTER OF I.D U/S (2A)(i) (2) OF I.D.

AMENDMENT ACT 2010

DIDAR SINGH

S/o Sri Indar Singh

P. O. Jagjivan Nagar

Dist –Dhanbad

...Applicant

Versus

C.M.D

Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar

M/s. BCCL

P.O-BCCL Township

Dist-Dhanbad

Area Manager /Dy General Manager

B.T.A. Bhuli, P.O. - Bhuli Nagar,

Dist- Dhanbad

...Opp. Party

Present:-

SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Sri Pintu Mondal, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

4676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated : 27 May, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/150/2011-IR (CM-I), dated.12/

03/2012, 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 Bhuli

Town Administration of M/S BCCL in dismissing Sri

Didar Singh Ex- Accounts Assistant from the service

of the company vide order dated 07.06.2011 is fair

and justified? To what relief the concerned workman

is entitled?”

2. This Reference Case is received from the Ministry

of Labour & Employment on 09.04.2012. After receipt of

reference , both parties are noticed. During the pendency

of this case, one I.D case received from CGIT No. -2 of

same person vs same organization is registered as 2/13.

After receipt of the I.D case, workman Prays that the

reference case should proceed in which stage the I.D

case is received in this Tribunal. Thereafter both case are

heard analogously. One witness from each is examined

and document marked as M-1 to M-9 on behalf of the

management, and W-1 to W-20 marked from the side of

workman.

3. Short point that involved in this case, whether

the workman has been convicted in a case continue in job

under the management or not.

4. Admittedly the workman has been convicted by

the criminal court U/S 419 I.P.C and a revision petition for

setting a-side. Conviction is pending in the High Court.

5. The enquiry held fair and proper . The workman

who is an accountant in Central hospital has not been

convicted for defalcation, falsification of record or showing

indecent behaviour to the women staff in the organization

of management.

6. The workman admittedly dismissed about 4 & ½

years after his conviction in Court, on the ground of

conviction on moral turpitude. It is noted that moral

turpitude has not been defined in any statute or in any

ruling so far the knowledge of this Tribunal runs. He has

filed revision, and challenged his conviction.

7. If he gets clean acquittal about 10 years after, in

the High Court, can the management give him his full back

wages. In the opinion of the Tribunal, when a conviction

is challenged , the finality of conviction weakened.

Therefore the workman be taken into job, so long his

criminal revision either in High Court or any higher court

is pending. There after also he be continued unless he is

otherwise incompetent or caused any harm.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case , I hold that the workman be reinstated in his job but

no back wages be given to him. He be taken into job within

one month from the date of publication of the Award.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1784-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2 of 1993) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@283@1991&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/1993)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/283/1991-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1),

DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D)

(2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 2 of 1993

Employers in relation to the management of Rajrappa Coal

Washery of M/S C.C.L.

AND.

Their workmen.

Present:

SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4677

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State :- Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated. 19/5/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/283/1991-IR (CM-I), dated

17/12/1992, 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 Rajrappa

Coal Washery of M/s. CCL in not regularizing S/

Shri Kartik Mahato and 160 others workers is legal

and justified? If not what relief they are entitled to?”

2. This case is receipt on remand from Hon’ble High

Court, Ranchi. After receipt of the case, both parties are

noticed, the workman chose to adduce one witness

whereas the management did not choose to adduce any

evidence, though sufficient chances were given. The

matter was heard at length.

3. The Hon’ble Court orders to decide the case as

per the norms of sail case, feeling that the present case is

coming under contract labour abolition and Regularisation

Act case.

4. Moreover from the pleadings i.e. para 9 of the

written statement it appears that slurry were generated in

coal washery of management regularly and it was removed

manually and subsequently certain machinery were used.

5. At paragraph 11 of the written statement it has

been mentioned that, slurry lifting work was a prohibited

category work which was notified by the Central

Government illegally has been admitted by the management

at para 11 of the written statement. But curiously the

management could not take any steps to struck down those

notification either in Govt. level or in Court .

6. It has been admitted that those work was given

to various contractors. The real problem arose when the

contract labour demand for regularization and equal pay

protection as that of ordinary workman, they were removed

from the job for which the present dispute.

7. The same thing happened in SAIL case where in

state Government declared some category of work

prohibited category where the contract labourers were

engaged.

8. Unfortunately the MW-1 Sr. Executive Engineer

in his evidence has deposed contrary to the written

statement filed by the management, and tried to conceal

truth before this Tribunal. Even he has no idea, who were

working , how they were engaged and what is the real

picture inside and out side the washery and what is the

nature of work, his evidence is of no help to the

management as it is contrary to pleading.

9. It is absolutely correct that the workmen were

engaged by the contractors and they have been

disengaged since more than 25 years.

10. Even both sides are requested by the court to

submit, how many workman have died in the meantime

and how many already been retired and their identity, it

was not cooperated .

11. However some workmen file their photos etc.

after the closer of the case. Previously attendance register

etc. are marked applying the ratio decided of SAIL case,

and the factual and legal aspects of this case. It is observed

that the workmen are to be regularized under the

management . But it is seen that the workmen have run

from pillar to post but have not achieved anything till

today.

12. Therefore this Tribunal considering all aspects

of the case ordered in following manner.:-

(i)

The workmen who have rendered service and it

appears that their P.F. has been deducted, their P.F.

contribution and their accumulation be given to

them or to their legal representative/Heirs if any.

(ii)

The service benefits only i.e money value of

gratuity etc. as per their proportionate period of

job be given to them, If permissible.

(iii)

Each workmen be given Rs. 75,000 in lieu of their

regularization. If the workmen already died or

Superannuated either to their LR or to the retired

workman, be given.

(iv)

The workmen who are less than 50 years, they be

regularized, phase wise according to the seniority

of age and the process of regularization is to be

completed within 3 years, subject to verification of

their identity, age proof etc. The workmen in lieu of

regularization can exercise monetary compensation

if he so likes.

The payment must be made within two month from

the date of notification of the award in the gazette. Any

dispute regarding identity of any workmen and payment

will be made under the direct supervision of this Tribunal.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

4678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE to the Ministry’s order No. L-20012/283/91 IR (C-I) dated 17/12/92

ASANGATHIT SHRAMIK SAHYOG SAMITI LTD.

RAJRAPPA WASHERY

Name

Post

Father’s

Village

P.S.

Thana

District

No.

name

Kartik Mahato

Mazdoor

Samlal Mahato

Borobing

Barkipona

Ramgarh

Hazaribagh

Pana Devi

-do-

Gurudayal Bedia

-do-

Bilaso Devi

-do-

Gansu Bedia

-do-

Sukhlal Mahato

-do-

Lubar Mahato

Ukrid

Soso

-do-

Laltu Mahato

-do-

Jhumlal Mahto

Sikni

-do

-do-

Hiralal Mahto

-do-

Rupoa Mahto

Borobing

Barkipona

-do-

Tikendar Mahto

-do-

Deoki Mahto

Sikni

-do-

Sukhdeo Mahto

-do-

Late Zadunath

Marangmarcha

Chitarpur

-do-

Mahto

Khurshid Ansari

-do-

Haroon Rashid

Borobing

Barkipona

-do-

10. Karim Mahto

-do-

Sohan Mahto

Sikni

-do-

11. Brijlal Mahto

-do-

Mali Mahto

Barki Dundi

Karma

Mandu

-do-

12. Himsagar Ram

-do-

Dalchand Mahto

Barki pona

Ramgarh

-do-

13. Ramkisto Singh

-do-

Late Digambar

-do-

Singh

14. Barju Mahto

-do-

Bhola Mahto

Sikni

-do-

- do-

15. Krishna Kr.

-do-

Tibhu Karmali

Hathgadha

Banda

Gola

-do-

Vishwakarma

16. Bharath Ram

-do-

Lalkishan Ram

Sikni

Ramgarh

-do-

17. Lakhan Ram Bedia

-do-

Charku Bedia

Hurpa

Murpa

Gola

-do-

18. Ramji Bedia

-do-

Kuleshwar Bedia Jobhia

Benda

–do-

-do-

19. Panchit Mahato I

-do-

Mana Mahto

Urkid

Soso

–do-

-do-

20. Naresh Maho I

-do-

Puran Mahto

Jobhia

Benda

Gola

–do-

21. Basudeo Mahto

-do-

Khakhul Mahto

Marangmarch

Chitarpur

Ramgarh

-do-

22. Jura Uraon

-do-

Late Kangru

Kurgi

Shivnathpur Sisai

Ranchi

Oraon

23. Ramdhan Mahto

-do-

Balu Mahto

Sikni

Ramgarh

H. bagh

24. Tuphan Paswan

-do-

Mahabir Paswan

Chhattar

-do-

25. Somar Mahto

-do-

Kitak Mahto

Barki Dundi

Karma

Mandu

-do-

26. Dukhni Devi

-do-

W/o Jangla Bedia Hakedag

Hakedag

Sili

Ranchi

27. Ram Lagan Bedia

-do-

Illegible /-

Illegible/-

Murpa

Gola

Ramgarh

28. Mantarima Devi

-do-

W/o Barsa Bedia

Barobing

Barkipona

Ramgarh

-do-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4679

29. Subaso Devi

-do-

W/o Mangra

Barobing

Barkipona

Ramgarh

H. Bagh

Bedia

30. Sukhdeo Manjhi

-do-

Ramji Manjhi

Bhuchungdih

R.P.

-do-

31. Mumtaz Ansari

-do-

Md Bashir

Barkipona

Barki Pona

-do-

32. Lakhan Manjhi

-do-

Shyamlal Mahto

Bhuchundih

R. Project

-do-

33. Mahendra Paswan

-do-

Ramchandra

Bhaghar

Imamganj

Gaya

Paswan

34. Murli Mahto

-do-

Mahesh Mahto

Jobhia

Banda

Gola

H.bagh

35. Khileswar Kewat

-do-

Somra Kewat

Bhuchungdih

R. Project

Ramgarh

-do-

36. Misrilal Mahto

-do-

Harkhu Mahto

Sikni

-do-

37. Chetlal Berdi

-do-

Janki Bedia

Bhubhui

Murpa

Gola

-do-

38. Lalita Devi

-do-

W/o Jano Bedia

-do-

39. Akli Devi

-do-

W/o Suresh Bedia -do-

-do-

40. Binat Kumari

-do-

Lalsoy Bedia

-do-

41. Kaumil Devi

-do-

W/o Shiblal Bedia -do-

-do-

42. Matukram Bedia

-do-

Chamu Bedia

Ichatu

Ramgarh

-do-

Dumardiha

43. Kuleshwar K Dangi

-do-

Pairu Mahto

Badam

Barkagaon

-do-

44. Ludheswar Mahto

-do-

Sukar Mahto

Urkid

Soso

Ramgarh

-do-

45. Satyadeo Singh

‘-do-

Mohar Singh

-do-

46. Rama Rabidas

-do-

Bihari Rabidas

-do-

47. Prakash Singh

-do-

Chakaldhar Singh -do-

-do-

48. Narain Mahto

-do-

Jaldhar Mahto

Sikni

-do-

49. Rajesh K.Perjapati

-do-

Radha Krishna

Chhattar

Chattar

-do-

Prajapati

50. Sitaram Prajapati

-do-

Mahabir Prajapati -do-

-do-

51. Raju Kewat

-do-

Sohan Kewat

Bhuchundih

R. Project

-do-

52. Raju Mahto

-do-

Sonaram Mahto

Sikni

-do-

53. Jaibir Sinh

-do-

Urgelal Sinh

Urkid

Soso

-do-

54. Jageshwar Mahto

-do-

Rasu Mahto

Marangmerch

Chitarpur

-do-

55. Babulal Mistri

-do-

Futun Mistri

Pochara

Barkabana

Patratu

-do-

56. Chinilal Mistri

-do-

Prasadi Mistri

Dulmi

Ramgarh

-do-

57. Bushni Kumari

-do-

Maghu Bedia

Borobing

Barkipona

-do-

58. Dinesh Paswan

-do-

Ishri Paswan

Chatapur

Dumriya

Gaya

59. Fulo Kumari

-do-

Baji Bedia

Borobing

Barkipona

Ramgarh

H.bagh

60. Ramjatan Mahto

-do-

Lt. Banwari Mahto Barkipona

-do-

61. Om Prakash Karmali

-do-

Guni Karmali

Sarangatu

Saram

Gola

-do-

62. Madhu Mahto

-do-

Sawan Manto

Soso Khurd

Soso Kalan -do-

-do-

4680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

63. Rajesh K Chauhan

-do-

Ramjanam Sinh

Pariyara

Tildag

Garhwa

Palmu

64. Samlal Mahto

-do-

Sukhan Mahto

Chotkilari

Barkilari

Ramgarh

H. Bagh

65. Nirmal Mahto

-do-

Balram Mahto

Marangmercha

Chitarpur

-do-

66. Chaitu Mahto

-do-

Lt. Kashi

-do-

Choudhari

67. Naresh Mahto

-do-

Turu Mahto

-do-

68. Rajkishore Munda

-do-

Ramlal Munda

Ramgarh

-do-

69. Kesho Yadav

-do-

Chakkal Yadav

-do-

70. Basanti Devi

-do-

Ramdayal Bedia

Borobing

Barkipona

-do-

71. Budhni Devi

-do-

W/o Kripal Sinh

Bhuchundih

R. project

-do-

Dugul colony

72. Lila Devi

-do-

Maniram Bedia

Barlenga

Berlenge

Gola

-do-

73. Suresh Mahto II

-do-

Ruru Mahto

Marangmercha

Chitarpur

R.Garh

-do-

74. Pachu Bedia

-do-

Uklu Bedia

Hekedag

Sili

Ranchi

75. Ramphal Mahto

-do-

Dalu Mahto

Marangmarcha

Chitarpur

R.Garh

H.Bagh

76. Kailash Manjhi

-do-

Mithu Manjhi

Bhurkatanr

Hasatu

Jhalada

Purulia

77. Malo Devi

-do-

W/o Daho Manjhi Bhubhundih

R.Project

R.Garh

H.Bagh

78. Karmi Devi

-do-

W/.o Pathon

Borobing

Barkipona

-do-

79. Rambali Karmali

-do-

Tibhu Karmali

Hathgarh

Banda

Gola

-do-

80. Barhan Karmali

-do-

Prasad Karmali

Urkid

Soso

R.Garh

-do-

81. Mansu Mahto

-do-

Kansi Mahto

Marangmercha

Chitarpur

-do-

82. Gokhim Mahto

-do-

Sahabram Mahto

Sikni

-do-

83. Ghakhul Munda

-do-

Jugnu Munda

Bhanpur

Ichatu

-do-

84. Ghanesh Kewat

-do-

Late Indua Kewat Bhuchundih

R.Project

-do-

85. Srikant Mahto

-do-

Ramu Mahto

Bamang

Toyar

Gola

-do-

86. Bhagirath Mahto

-do-

Bandhu Mahto

Bayang

- -do-

-do-

H.Bagh

87. Matuklal Mahto

-do-

Araglal Mahto

Khokha

Toyar

Gola

H.Bagh

88. Robin Mahto

-do-

Ganesh Mahto

-do-

89. Manrakhan Mahto

-do-

Makund Mahto

Gagari

Dahu

Sili

Ranchi

90. Baleshwar Mahto

-do-

Ravi Mahto

-do-

91. Dhneshwar Mahto

-do-

Babulal Mahto

Bayang

Toyar

Gola

H.Bagh

92. Rameshwar Mahto

-do-

Chamu Mahto

-do-

93. Sunder Mahto

-do-

Damru Mahto

Gola

94. Vinod Vishav Karma

-do-

Tibhu Karmali

Hathgarh

Banda

-do-

95. Habib Ansari

-do-

Gulam Rasul

Barwadih

Barka

Mandu

-do-

Chotka

Chumba

96. Mukesh Kunsaw

-do-

Reva Saw

Chhattar

R.garh

-do-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4681

97. Yasin Ansari

-do-

Luddhi Ansari

Barwadih

Barka

Mandu

-do-

Chotka

Chumba

98. Bhagirath Mahto I

-do-

Chandicharan

Urkid

Soso

R.Garh

-do-

Mahto

99. Nasrul Ansari

-do-

Luddhi Ansari

Barwadih

Barka

Mandu

-do-

Chotka

Chumba

100. Seoki Mahto

-do-

Dharmnath

Bghenpur

Tohatu

R.garh

-do-

Mahto

101. Mustakim Ansari

-do-

Rojid Ansari

Chaingadda

Patratu

-do-

102. Suresh Mahto III

-do-

Ghana Mahto

Urkid

Soso

R.Garh

-do-

103. Topan Mahto

-do-

Ganesh Mahto

Byang

Toyar

Gola

-do-

104. Lakhan Mahto

-do-

Newilal Mahto

-do-

105. Islam Ansari

-do-

Rojan Ali

Chari

-do-

106. Dhneshwar Mahto

Sahju Mahto

Bhenpur

Soso

R.Garh

-do-

107. Salim Ansari

-do-

Halim Ansari

Byang

Toyar

Gola

-do-

108. Prem Nath Choudhari -do-

Ramsundar Mahto Urkid

Sosso

R.Garh

-do-

109. Bisheswar Bedia

-do-

Ramphal Bedia

Borobing

Barkipona

-do-

110. Mohilal Manjhi

-do-

Ramphal Manjhi

Jobhiax

Benda

Gola

-do-

111. Mustakim Ansari

-do-

Rojid Ansari

Hehal

Chaingaddn Patratu

-do-

112. Ramjatan Bedia

-do-

Mangra Bedia

Borobing

Barkipona

-do-

113. Zahir Ahmad

-do-

Abdul Quadir

Chari

Gola

-do-

114. Sukhlal Mahto

-do-

Sadhu Mahto

Urkid

Sosso

R.Garh

-do-

115. Tulsi Bedia

-do-

Roso Bedia

Hakedag

Sili

Ranchi

116. Dhaniram Mahto

-do-

Madan Mahto

Sikani

R.Garh

H.Bagh

117. Dinesh Mahto

-do-

Savalal Mahto

-do-

118. Lal Mohan Bedia

-do-

Manki Bedia

Bedkipana

Borobing

-do-

119. Anil Mahto

-do-

Chunu Mahto

Sikani

-do-

120. Khedan Mahto

-do-

Rusu Mahto

Marangmarch

Chitarpur

-do-

121. Magha Mahto

-do-

Sitaram Mahto

-do-

122. Ashok Mahto

-do-

Shivnath Mahto

Urkid

Soso

-do-

123. Dasa Mahto

-do-

Jagadih Mahto

Sikani

-do-

124. Chando Devi

-do-

H/Sabjiwan

Borobing

Bedakipona -do-

-do-

Bedia

125. Mahazu Mahto

-do-

Sitaram Mahto

Marangmarch

Chitarpur

-do-

126. Jyotilal Mahto

-do-

Dinu Mahto

Urkid

Soso

-do-

127. Udaya Prasad

-do-

Mahendra Pd.

Bhagahar

Emamganj

Gaya

128. Chhatru Mahto

-do-

Banodhi Mahto

Marangmarch

Chitarpur

R.Garh

H.Bagh

129. Bilas Paswan

-do-

Dharmadev

Ganjana

Raniganj

Emamganj

Gaya

Paswan

4682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

130 Jaldhar Mahto

-do-

Bhugalu Mahto

Bhanpur

Fehatu

R.Garh.

H.Bagh

131 Jugal Mahto

-do-

Jagir Mahto

Harwahdih

Soso

-do-

Sikandar

132 Ratani Devi

-do-

Chandan Bedia

Borobing

Bedakipona -do-

-do-

133 Rudani Devi

-do-

H/Kanahaya

Rampur

Sili

Ranchi

Bedia

134 Dip Narayan Sinha

-do-

D/Mohar Sinha

Urkid

Soso

R.Garh

H.Bagh

135 Jangla Bedia

-do-

Bhurgu Bedia

Hekedag

Sili

Ranchi

136 Mahesh Kewat

-do-

Sohan Kewat

Bhudhundih

R.Project

R.Garh

H.Bagh

137 Tulsi Kewat

-do-

Lt.Bhikhu Kewat

-do-

138 Bigal Kewat

-do-

Budhu Kewat

-do-

139 Lagani Devi

-do-

Mangar Mahto

-do-

140 Anwar Ansari

-do-

Ludhi Miya

Barwabdihc

Barka ChumaGiddi A

-do-

huma

141 Charku Munda

-do-

Bansi Munda

Ramgarh

R.GArh

H.Bagh

142 Sunil Kewat

-do-

Madhelu Mewat

Bhudhundih

R.Project

R.Garh

H.Bagh

143 Sikari Kewat

-do-

Charku Kewat

-do-

144 Chaman Kewat

-do-

Rehin Kewat

-do-

145 Ashok Kr. Gupta

-do-

Durga Pd.Gupta

Tisari

Giridih

146 Sohan Bedia

-do-

Abhiram Bedia

Jobhiya

Benda

Gola

H.Bagh

147 Jatru Mahto

-do-

Bhikhamung

Badakidundi

Karma

Mendu

-do-

Mahto

148 Ratnu Urawa

-do-

Biru Urawa

Baharakhut

Kuju

Ormanjhi

Ranchi

149 Phuklchand Mahto

-do-

Rameshwar

Badakidundi

Karma

Mandu

H.Bagh

Mahto

150 Ashok Ram

-do-

Mathhur Ram

Padma

Barhi

-do-

151 Dhiraj Lal Mahto

-do-

Mali Mahto

Badakidundi

Karma

Mandu

-do-

152 Rakesh Kr. Singh

-do-

Ramlakhan Singh

Padma

Barhi

-do-

153 Jayadhan Mahto

-do-

‘Puran Mahto

Baliya

Karma

Mandu

-do-

154 Dhanjoya K.Singh

-do-

Ram Manorath

Padma

Barhi

-do-

Singh

155 Basant Mahto

-do-

Lt. Narayan MahtoGidhi

Gidhi

-do-

156 Ajit Kumar

-do-

Ram Manorath

-do-

Singh

157 Nageshwar Hazam

-do-

Bigu Thakur

Urkid

Soso

R.Garh

-do-

158 Kishori Kushwaha

-do-

Lt. Jalashwar

Barkipona

-do-

Kushwaha

159 Bhola Mahto

-do-

Illegible

Barkikundru

Barkikundru -do-

-do-

160 Dhubraj Mahto

-do-

Fulaki Devi

Bhanpur

Echatu

-do-

161 Kitama Mahto

-do-

Jhumlal Mahto

Sikani

-do-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4683

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1785-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@

2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@6@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@45@2009&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/

2009) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 17/6/2014.

[No. L-20012/45/2009-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 44 of 2009

Employer in relation to the management of Sendra

Bansjora Colliery, M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present:

Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

Sri K.N.Singh, Rep

State :- Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal

Dated 6/5/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 / 45 / 2009/IR (C-I) dated

09/07/2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Sendra

Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing

dependent employment to Shri Mahesh Bhuia S/o

Late Amrit Bhuia S.F. Helper under the provision of

NCWA is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the

son of Late Amrit Bhuia entitled?”

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on

06.05.2009. During the pendency of the case ld. counsel

of the workman praying to pass no Dispute award to this

reference. It is felt that the dispute between parties is

resolved. Hence “No dispute” award is passed.

communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1786-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

323@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@6@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@507@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 323/

1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-II, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/507/1994-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD

Present :

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 323 OF 1999

4684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Parties:

President

National Coal Workers Congress,

Khas Kusunda

Branch, Kusunda,

Dhanbad

Versus

The General Manager,

Kusunda Area No.VI of

M/s BCCL, Kusunda,

Dhanbad

Order No.L-20012/507/94-IR(C-I) dt.03.11.99.

Appearances :

On behalf of the workman/ :

Mr. R. K. Mukherjee,

Union

Union Representative

On behalf of the

Mr. S. N. Ghosh, Ld.

Management

Advocate

State

JHARKHAND

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15^th April, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No.L-20012/507/94-IR(C-I) dt.03.11.99.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union for regularization

of the services of Shri Bindeshwari Manjhi and 85

others (as per list enclosed) by the Management of

Khas Kusunda Colliery of M/s BCCL is justified? If

so, to what reliefs are the concerned workmen

entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No .L-20012/507/94-IR(C-I)

dt.03.11.99 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 323 of 1999 was registered on 8^th December, 1999

and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to

issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties

concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed

their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

workman and the O.P./Management through their Lawyers

appeared in, and contested the case.

The case of the workmen Bindeshwari Manjhi and

85 others (as per the List) as sponsored by the national

Coal Workers Congress, Kusunda, is that they mostly

villagers, Adibasi and Harijan, have been continuously

performing the job of coal loading at Khas Kusunda Colliery

Depot of M/s BCCL since earlier than 1988, by putting

their attendances marked by the employee of the Company

as maintained by the Company itself. The services of the

workmen were taken by the Management, as the Colliery

Depot has no mechanized system of loading. The job of

coal loading in the Colliery is perennial but prohibited

nature of the job through any intermediaries. They have

been engaged in the job of coal loading, the productive

work always available in the Colliery. The Management is

required to keep permanent/regular coal loaders, but it

does not have such adequate number of permanent coal

Loaders on their roll to load the coal in the Transport/

Trucks of Coal purchasers for which the Management has

the bounded responsibility. The said work is regularly

being taken by the Management, but without making them

permanent coal loaders. The entire work and payment are

under the direct control and supervision of the

Management concerned. The workmen are persons

employed in the Mine as defined under Sec.2 (h) of the

Mines Act, 1952. There is a common interest between the

workmen and other enrolled workmen for the Colliery. The

employer-employee relationship exists between the

Management and the workmen. The workmen are paid

improper wages after unauthorisedly deducting from their

wages by certain intermediaries. Though such illegal

practice was brought to the notice of the District

Authorities, the Management was non-cooperative in it

just as insensitive to the demand notice of the workmen

for regularization etc. All the Registers of attendance etc

maintained under the Mines rules are in the custody of

the Management, so production thereof is essential for

proper adjudication. At last, the industrial dispute raised

by the workmen’s union, a registered Trade Union, ended

in non-conciliation, resulting in the reference for

adjudication. The action of the employer is violative of

Articles 14, 16, 21 and 41 of the Constitution of India. So

the workmen are entitled to their regularization and

payment of proper wages.

3. In the reply of the workmen, categorically denying

all the allegations of the O.P./Management, it has been

stated that the names of the workmen were maintained in

the Form ‘B’ Register and other record of the Company,

and several workmen except the present ones were

favourly regularized by the Management.

4. Whereas in a challenge to the legally maintainability

of the reference, the contra case of the O.P./Management

with specific denials is that the instant dispute is not only

vague but also no industrial dispute; the workmen are not

the employees of the Company, as they were not employed

by the Company. There is no employer-employee

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4685

relationship between the Management and the persons

concerned. Their names do not appear in the statutory

Form ‘B’ Register or in any other registers/records of the

Company. The demand of the Union as in the terms of

reference is nothing but an attempt to induct some

outsiders into the employment of the BCCL through

backdoor on plea of regularization.

The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has

categorically denied all the allegations of the workmen as

baseless, stating that the persons concerned have never

worked in the company before 1988.The colliery has

permanent wagon loaders in adequate number to cater the

needs of coal dispatch through the colliery siding, so there

was no requirement of additional workforce. The loadings

of coal into the trucks are owned by the outside private

parties who purchase coal from the Company sometimes.

The private outsider purchasers have the resoponsibility,

so they bring the trucks along with their loaders, who load

their trucks, and they go away with their loaders. The

BCCL has no concern with them. Since the names of the

persons concerned do not appear in any of the records of

the Company, production of documents as alleged by them

is vague and irrelevant. Thus, they are not entitled to

regularization.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In the instant case,WW1 Bishwanath Lal, WW2

Randhir Pandey both workmen under Sl.Nos.15 & 70

respectively, and WW3 Krishnadev Pd.Yadav, the

President of the Union on their behalf, and MW1 Ghan

Shyam Pd. Sinha,the Welfare Inspector, for the O.P./

Management have been produced and examined

respectively.

Mr. R.K.Mukherjee, Learned Advocate for the

Union/workmen as per the written argument has to submit

that the workmen have been uninterruptedly performing

the work of coal loading in permanent and perennial nature

but the work through intermediaries prohibited, marking

attendances sufficient in number at Khas Kusunda Colliery

Depot of the M/s BCCL; the entire work and payment of

wages were directly under the control of the Management,

so the employer-employee relationship exists between both

the parties. Further it has been vociferously argued that

the photocopies of the Form-“B” Register opened in 1977-

78 related to the workmen under Sl .Nos. 443 to 529 (Ext.W.1-

with objection) indicate their existence as the workmen of

the Company as defined under Sec. 2(h) of the Mines Act,

1952, so in view of the evidences on behalf of the workmen,

they are entitled to regularization with full back wages and

other benefits retrospectively.

Whereas assailing the entire case of the workmen,

Mr.S.N.Ghosh for the O.P./Management has contended

that the witnesses of the union have orally alleged to have

worked between 1986 to 1993 at variance with their vaguely

pleaded facts of their working since before 1988. It vitally

contradicts to the statement of WW1 Krishnadev

Pd.Yadav, the Union Representative, about their alleged

working as Wagon Loader from 1978 to 1990; so far as

their alleged engagement by the “Barababu” of the

Company is concerned, it is absolutely false, as the BCCL

is the Government Company of which any authority has

no power to engage any person contrary to the established

procedure of recruitment;besides,the Xerox copy of the

alleged concerned being devoid of signature of the

Authorities of the Company appears to be palpably

suspicious document, as it mentions not any status of

them, and no such Form-B is available with the OP./

Management as established by the Management

witness;thus,the demand of the Union for regularization

of 86 workmen in the BCCL is entirely baseless, illegal and

the alleged workmen are not entitled to any relief.

On perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case, I find that the entire case of the

alleged workmen is based on the photocopies of the Form

B register under Sl.Nos. 443 to 529(in 16 Sheets— Ext.W.1

with objection) but it bears no “Form B Register” except

the date of commencement of their employment, which

appears to be quite unpleaded fact of their engagement

since earlier than 1988.None of the pages of the

photocopies of the said Register obviously seems

authenticated by any Authority concerned. The Xerox

copies of the Register being of impeachable nature are

inadmissible. None of the workmen has admittedly any

proof of their alleged continuous services for 240 days as

defined under section 25 B of the Industrial disputes Act

1947 as required during 12 calendar months in a year

preceding the year of the instant reference, nor any proof

of their alleged engagement nor of payment of their wages

as coal loaders in the Colliery. It clearly disproves any

alleged employer-employees relationship between both

the parties in this case.

In these circumstances, it is, in the terms of the

reference responded, and accordingly, awarded that the

demand of the Union concerned for regularization of

S/Shri Bindeshwari Manjhi and 85 others (as per the list

enclosed) by the Management of Khas Kusunda Colliery

of M/s BCCL is not at all justified, rather it is illegal. Hence,

the alleged workmen are not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

List of the workmen L-20012/507/94-IR(C-I)

Bibndeshwar Manjhi

Garbhu Bhuia

Sarju Bhuia

Chandrika Prasad

4686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mahabir Bhuiya

Bedeshi Bhuiya

Ghanshyam Bhuiya

Moti Bhuiya

Kameshwar Pd.

10.

Nandkishor Bhuiya

11.

Kaleshwar Bhuiya

12.

Kartik Karmakar

13.

Hansuwa Karmakar

14.

Somra Manjhi

15.

Bishwanath Lal

16.

Ram Awatar

17.

Jago Bhiiya

18.

Babulal Karmakar

19.

Hopna Manjhi

20.

Gobvind Manjhi

21.

Jago Manjhi

22.

Ganesh Prasad

23.

Basudeo Prasad

24.

Maharaj Turi

25.

Utana Bhuiya

26 .

Bamiya Munda

27.

Brahamadeo Munda

28.

Gama Munda

29.

Manoj Kumar Sharma

30.

Chandra Shekhar Sharma

31.

Ram Babu Sharma

32.

Shyam Sunder Verma

33.

Raj Kumar Yadav

34.

Binod Kumar Mahato

35.

Santoo Mahato

36.

BrjendraYadav

37.

Arvind Singh

38.

Satyendra Kr.Singh

39.

Gorakh Nath Singh

40.

Ramesh Ram

41.

Raj Kishor Prasad

42.

Dinanath Ram

43.

Dilip Kumar

44.

Rishi Shankar

45.

Om Praksh Rai

46.

Dharmbir Singh

47.

Bharat Maharaj

48.

Jai Prakash Maharaj

49.

Jitendra Maharaj

50.

Rupkant Maharaj

51.

Jitndra Kr. Ray

52.

Sunder Lal Kashyap

53.

Ayodhra Pd.Kurmi

54.

Ram Sewak yadav

55.

Akchay Kr.Yadav

56.

Dipak Kumar

57.

Ramanuj Prasad

58.

Vijay Pd. Singh

59.

Abhay Kr.Singh

60.

Nirbhay Kr.Singh

61.

Malay Dutta

62..

Mahaendra Yadav

63.

Om Prakash Narayan Singh

64.

Nepal Chandra Das

65.

Brajesh Kumar Mantri

66.

Bhawani Shankar Mitra

67.

Subir Kumar Mitra

68.

Bipin Bihari Biswas

69.

B.N. Singh

70.

Randhir Pandey

71.

Jay Prakash Narayan Singh

72.

Ram Kishun Sao

73.

Binod Napit

74.

Rajendra Ram

75.

Nathuni Paswan

76.

Jamun Sharma

77.

Bhuneshwar Pandey

78.

Ram Babu Pandey

79.

Surendra Mahato

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4687

80.

Rajendra Mahato

81.

Randhir Kumar

82.

Sital Ram

83.

Sachin Tiwary

84.

Bijay Kumar

85.

Baldeo Mahato

86.

Bhuneshwar Tangi

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1787-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23 of 2004) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@210@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014

[No. L-20012/210/2003-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 23 OF 2004

PARTIES :

The Regional Secretary,

R.C.M.C., B/25,

PO: Swang,

Distt: Bokaro

Versus

Project Officer

Swang Colliery of M/s CCL,

PO: Swang,.

Distt; Bokaro.

Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/210/2003.I.R.(C-I)

dt. 24.12.2003.

Appearances :

On behalf of the workman/ :

Mr. S. C. Gaur,

Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

Mr. D. K.Verma,

Management

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd April, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-20012/

210/2003.I.R.(CM-I) dt.24.12.2003.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Sawang

Colliery of M/s CCL in not accepting the date of

birth as 20.6.49 in respect of Sri Rajendar Prasad

Singh on the basis of matriculation certificate is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

2. None appeared for the Union/Petitioner Rajendar

Pd. Singh. Mr.D.K.Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P./

Management is present. The case has been pending for

filing a substitution petition along with the death certificate

of deceased workman Rajendar Pd. Singh, as he is alleged

to have died four or five months back as reported by

Mr. S.C. Gaur, the Learned Advocate for the workman on

20^th November, 2013; since then neither any substitution

petition nor any Death Certificate filed on behalf of the

workman. Now the Reference relating to an issue about

the acceptance of the workman’s date of birth (DOB) as

26.6.1949 based on his Matriculation Certificate has

abated.

Under these circumstances, the case is closed as no

Industrial Dispute existent, so accordingly, an Order of

No Dispute Award is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1788-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 30@

4688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@36@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 30/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014

[No. L-20012/36/2013-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1),

DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D)

(2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 30 of 2013

Employers in relation to the management of P. B. Area,

M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present :

Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the workman

Sri Sunil Kr. Sinha, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated. 14/2/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/36/2013-IR (CM-I), dated

14/08/2013, 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

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Gopalichuk Colliery of M/S BCCL in dismissing Sri

Rajesh Hari , Ex- M/Loader from the service of the

company vide order dated 09.08.2004 is legal and

justified? To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 03.09.2013. After receipt of reference , both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

11.09.2013. The point involved in the reference is that the

workman has been dismissed from his services on the

ground of absent.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the

case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty.

He has already out of service for 10 years. It is felt to give

another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1789-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 117@2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@119@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 117/2003)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/119/2003-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1),

DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D)

(2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 117 of 2003

Employers in relation to the management of Kargali Colliery,

of M/s. CCL.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4689

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 9/5/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/119/2003-IR (C-I), dated.10/

11/2003, 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 Kargali

Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd. In not accepting the date

of Birth of Smt Upasi Kamin , PRW as 9.11.1953 is

justified ? If not to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 24.11.2003/01.12.2003. After receipt of reference , both

parties are noticed, the Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 04.01.2005. And the management files their

written statement -cum-rejoinder on 14.02.2005.

3. This is a case of dispute regarding the date of

birth . The workman submitted that her date of birth was

09.11.1953 as per school certificate and horoscope.

4. But the management submitted that document

given to the workman showing her age as 09.11.1946 in

the year 1987. That was accepted by the workman and she

did not raise any objection then and there. After long lapse

of years she is claiming her date of birth as 09.11. 1953.

5. Usually after thought claim of date of birth that

her date of Birth much less than that was there in the

service records are not accepted. Horoscope and school

certificate of class 2^nd and date of Birth certificate, though

produced by the workman latter is not acceptable.

Therefore earlier noting Date of Birth as 09.11.1946 is

accepted.

6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the

case, I hold that the action of the management of Kargali

Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd. In not accepting the date of

Birth of Smt Upasi Kamin , PRW as 9.11.1953 is justified ,

and the claim of the workman is unjustified, Hence she is

not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1790-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@

2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@203@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2005)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/203/2004-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1),

DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10 (1) (D)

(2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 32 of 2005

Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area

M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present :

Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri D.N.Banerjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

4690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated 5/5/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/203/2004 -IR -(C-I), dated 31/

03/2005, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

“ Whether the action of the management of Kustore

Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Kajal Kumar

Singha, Typist/Clerk from the service of company

w.e.f. 09.04.2004 is just , fair & legal ? if not , to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled ?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 25.04.2005. The Sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 10.12.2009. Thereafter the management files

their written statement-cum- rejoinder on 13.05.2010

3. Short point to be decided In the case is that the

workman who was a typist,dismissed from service in the

year 2004 due to long absence. The departmental enquiry

has already been ordered to be fair and proper.

4. The workman submitted that he could not attend

the office due to his sickness, which was not beyond his

control . The management counsel submitted that

absenteeism is a regular feature in coal industry.

5. However considering the case of both sides

hearing the argument, it is felt that the dismissal is not

proper . It is set-a-side. Hence the workman be reinstated

immediately with continuity of service in the said post

where he was continuing but without back wages.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1791-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@

2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@103@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1791.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2007)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/103/2006-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D.Act.1947

Ref. No. 17 of 2007

Employer in relation to the management of Katras Area,

M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present :

Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 8/5 /2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/103/2006/IR (C-I) dated

28.02.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of East Katras Colliery of

M/s. BCCLin not providing employment to Shri

Kishore Kumar alias Shri Ram Kishore Paswan

dependant son of Shri Mahabir Dushad as per the

Provision of NCWA is legal & justified ? If not , to

what relief is the dependent son entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending . It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence pass a No disputed Award is passed.

Communicate to the Ministry.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4691

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1792-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@

2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@145@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/

2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/145/2004-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I. D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 15 of 2005

Employer in relation to the management of West

Mudidih Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present:

Sri R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 7/5/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 / 145 / 2004/IR (C-I) dated

17.12.2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of West

Mudidih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing

Sri Kalish Nath Bhuia from the service of the

company w.e.f. 22.07.2002 is fair and justified? If not,

to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, pass a No disputed Award is passed.

Communicate to the Ministry.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1793-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@

1992) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@227@1991&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/

1992) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/227/1991-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 52 /1992

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Employer in relation to the management of

Putki Balihari Colliery, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

4692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present:

Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri U. N. Lall , Advocate

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 23/4/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/227/ 1991 /IR (C-I) dated

22/07/1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Pootkee

Colliery in not giving employment to Smt. Tejia Devi,

Daughter of Late Balkisun Pasi is justified ? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence, No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1794-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@

2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@73@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O.

1794.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/

2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/73/2007-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE

U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 53 of 2007

Employers in relation to the management of

E. J. Area, M/s. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present:

Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri U.N.Lall, Advocate

For the workman

Sri P. C. Bhattacharjee,

Concerned workman

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 28/3/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/73/2007 -IR -(CM-I), dated

02/11/2007, 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 Bhowra

(N) U.G. Mines of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri

Pranab Chandra Bhattacharjee, Miner/Loader from

the services of the company w.e.f. 19.4.2007 is legal

and justified? If not to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed, they submitted their claim statement, rejoinder

and document , but in the meantime, Concerned workman

appears and files withdrawal petition of this reference.

Ld. Counsel of the management has no objection. Hence,

“No Dispute” award is passed, communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1795-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 tqykbZ, 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr

vfèkfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4693

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa

izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe

jktLo xk¡o dk uke

Rkglhy

ftys

la-

dk uke

[kkSjk chly

vkesj

Tk;iqj

fd’kuiqjk

vkesj

Tk;iqj

Ukkaxy lhjl

vkesj

Tk;iqj

cSukM e; nkSyriqjk

vkesj

Tk;iqj

'kksHkkiqjk

vkesj

Tk;iqj

gjnRriqjk

vkesj

Tk;iqj

fuok:

Tk;iqj

Ckk;rkokyk

Tk;iqj

eU’kkjkeiqjk

Tk;iqj

10-

gjukFkiqjk

Tk;iqj

11-

Xkt/kjiqjk

Tk;iqj

12-

Pkd ckM

Tk;iqj

13-

PkEikiqjk

Tk;iqj

14-

Hkw/kjiqjk

Tk;iqj

15-

ljukpkSM

Tk;iqj

16-

lkWpksrh

Tk;iqj

17-

Pkd cks;rkokyk

Tk;iqj

18-

Pkd ckoMh

Tk;iqj

19-

Pkd ljuk Mwaxj

Tk;iqj

20-

ckoMh

Tk;iqj

21-

cklMh

Tk;iqj

22-

ykypUniqjk

Tk;iqj

23-

ljukMwaxj

Tk;iqj

[la- ,l&38013@22@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2014

S.O. 1795.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st July, 2014 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Rajasthan namely:-

Name of Revenue Village

Name of

No.

Tehsil

District

KHORA BEESAL

AMER

JAIPUR

KISHANPURA

AMER

JAIPUR

NAGAL SIRAS

AMER

JAIPUR

BENAD WITH DAULATPURA AMER

JAIPUR

SHAUBHAPURA

AMER

JAIPUR

HARDATTPURA

AMER

JAIPUR

NIWARU

JAIPUR

BOYTAWALA

JAIPUR

MANSHA RAMPURA

JAIPUR

10. HARNATHPURA

JAIPUR

11. GAJADHARPURA

JAIPUR

12. CHAK BAD

JAIPUR

13. CHAMPAPURA

JAIPUR

14. BHUDHARPURA

JAIPUR

15. SARNA CHAUD

JAIPUR

16. SANCHOTI

JAIPUR

17. CHAK BOYTAWALA

JAIPUR

18. CHAK BAORI

JAIPUR

19. CHAK SARNA DOONGAR

JAIPUR

20. BAORI

JAIPUR

21. BASADI

JAIPUR

22. LAL CHANDPURA

JAIPUR

23. SARNA DOONGAR

JAIPUR

[No. S-38013/ 22 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1796-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj okVj ,.M

ikoj dalyVsalh l£olst (bafM;k) fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh

4694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@193@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1796.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/

2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Water & Power

Consultancy Services (India) Ltd., and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-42012/193/2005-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110 032

Present:

Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

I.D. No. 50/06

Sh. Aakash Kashyap

Versus

WAPCOS

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-42012/193/2005- IR(CM-II)dated

21.6.2006 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of

WAPCOS, New Delhi in terminating the services of

Sh. Aakash Kashyap S/o Sh. Gyan Parkash w.e.f.

09.07.2004 and the practice of insisting the workman

to sign fresh “Contract of Service” after every three

months is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

On 24.07.2006 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 50/06 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim

statement. Wherein he stated as follows:-

1.That the appropriate Government in the Ministry

of Labour New Delhi, has referred the disputes vide their

order No. L-42012/193/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 21.06.2006

between the above parties for industrial adjudication and

the terms of reference is reproduced as under:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

WAPCOS, New Delhi in terminating the services of

Sh. Aakash Kashyap S/o Sh. Gyan Parkash w.e.f.

09.07.2004 and the practice of insisting the workman

to sign fresh “Contract of Service”.

2. That the practice adopted by the management to

sign fresh “Contract of Service” after every three months

with a view to deny the permanent status and pay scale

attached to the post which is an unfair labour practice as

per item 10 listed in the Fifth Schedule as per Section 2(ra)

of Industrial dispute Act, 1947.

3. That the workman joined in the office of the said

Management is functioning under the control of Ministry

of Water Resources, Government of India on 11.07.2001

as a Draftman at a consolidated monthly salary of

Rs. 3,180 only.

4. That the workman had been continuously working

with Management since 11.07.2001 till his illegal and

unjustified removal/termination from services vide

impugned order No. 5/28/2004 dated 09.07.2004, a true copy

of which is enclosed as Annexure A-1.

5. That the workman had been working since

11.07.2001 till 09.07.2004 without any break in service even

for a single day though he was made to sign fresh.

‘Contract of Service’ on Stamp Paper from time to time. A

photocopy of last ‘Contract of Service’ got signed by the

workman is enclosed as Annexure A-2.

6. That the workman who is a Diploma holder in

draftsmanship was being paid a salary of Rs. 3300 per

month only at the time of his termination whereas his

colleagues having same qualifications who joined

subsequently are being paid a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000

to 7,500.

7. That the workman , after renewal of his ‘Contract

of Service’ in June, 2004 made a representation to the

Management(s) requesting to increase his salary at least

at par with his juniors who joined subsequent to the

appointment of the workman. A true copy of the

representation dated 7^th June, 2004 is enclosed as Annexure

A-3.

8. That the workman was assured that his case for

increase of his salary would be considered in near future.

9. That the workman unfortunately fell sick and in

the month of June 2004 on proper investigation it was

found that he was suffering from typhoid fever.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4695

10. That on doctor’s advice the workman was on

complete rest w.e.f. 24.6.2004. to 11.07.2004. Copy of

medical certificate and fitness are annexed collectively as

annexure A-4.

11. That the workman, while he was on medical rest

as per advice of the doctor, was served with the impugned

order terminating his services with immediate effect by

invoking clause 8 of the ‘Contract of Service’.

12. That it is an indisputable Fact on record of the

Management that the workman during the past three years

of his service with the management was never ever served

any show cause about any misconduct and/or

unsatisfactory performance and rather his work was

appreciated by his superiors.

13. That in the past on 07.05.2003 the management

also issued a certificate to the workman that he had been

working with them since 19.11.2001. Copy of the working

certificate issued by the Management is annexed as

Annexure A- 5.

14. That it is respectfully submitted that the workman

is a member of Provident Fund Scheme since his joining

the organization of Management No. 2 and a true copy of

his P.F. Contribution slip for the year 2001-02 is enclosed

as Annexure A6.

15. That as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of

Draftsman Gr.-II, the Petitioner deserves to be paid the

Pay as per the Pay Scale of Rs. 330-10-380-ED-12-500-ED-

15-560 (per-revised) equivalent to the Pay Scale of

Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

16. That after his sudden removal from service

through the impugned order dated 09.07.2004, the workman

on 10.07.2004 made a representation to the Management,

and the management neither disposed of the

representation of the workman nor has withdrawn the

termination order. Copy of the said representation is

annexed as Annex A-7

17. That the impugned order has been passed by

the Management as a punishment inflicted on the workman

for demanding salary equivalent to the pay of his juniors

who were recruited later but are being paid higher salary.

18. That it is a matter of indisputable fact that the

employees juniors to the workman are still working with

the Management. The details of such draftsmen who are

junior to the workman in respect of the date of their

appointment is given in Annexure A-8.

19. That during the medical rest, the workman was

having on the advice of the doctor, he sent the leave

application and the medical certificates to the Management

and despite knowing the fact that the workman was

suffering from Typhoid the management arbitrarily

terminated the services of the workman without assigning

any reason or holding the proper enquiry. It is also

submitted that the management did not serve one month

notice or one month pay lieu of notice and compensation

as require under the proviso of (a) and (b) of 25 F of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also the junior persons

to the workman were retained in service so the management

also violated the provisions of Section 25 G and 25 H of

the said Act thereby the termination of the workman is

illegal as well as unjustified.

20. That in June 2003 the management decided to

make a panel of all the employees working on contract

basis of absorbing them into the regular pay scale against

the permanent vacancies of draftsmen.

21. That since the workman’s services have been

dispensed with, his juniors shall be enlisted in the panel

for absorption on permanent basis in the regular pay scales

causing a great prejudice to the workman.

22. That the action of the management and insertion

of Clause 7 in ‘Contract of Service’ which is substituted

by a fresh contract after every three months clearly prove

malafide and victimization of the workman and such terms

are against the settled laws in labour jurisprudence.

23. That it is a matter of fact on record that the

workman has a clean and unblemished past track record

of service and his work has always been found satisfactory.

24. That the action of the management by issuing

the impugned order dispensing with the services of the

workman without assigning any reason and without

issuing any show cause to the workman or without giving

him any opportunity of being heard is prima facie in utter

violation of the principle of natural justice.

25. That the termination of the services of the

workman in the aforesaid manner is in violation of is

fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

26. That the termination of the workman from services

without assigning any reason is not only in violation of

the contractual terms but also in violation of the conditions

precedent to retrenchment provided in the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 because the workman had been

continuously working with the management since

11.07.2001 till his illegal termination vide impugned order

dated 09.07.2004 without any break though he was made

to sign and execute a fresh contract of service after every

three months on the stamp paper.

27. That the practice of getting fresh contract of

service signed by the workman after every three months

and that too on stamp paper despite the fact that vacancy

against which the workman was engaged is of permanent

nature of job clearly established malafide on the and

victimization of the workman.

28. That the person namely Mr. Neeraj Kumar,

Mr. Mithlesh Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Sharma and

4696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mr. Kuldeep Raj who are juniors to the workman and still

working with the management , so the management also

violated the provision of Section 25 G of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

29. That management’s act of terminating the

services of the workman in nothing but a punishment

inflicted on him for making representation dated 07.06.2004

demanding higher salary at par with his juniors.

30. That the activities of the management are of,

work relating to the construction, developments of

maintenance of buildings, roads bridge etc. are covered

under the Section (2) (g) of The Payment of Wages Act,

1936 thereby the said establishment are also covered under

the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)

Act, 1946 and according to the model standing orders, the

workman is after completion of three months (90 days)

acquire the status of a permanent workman.

31. That the workman treated as working on

officiating /acting capacity on the said post and acquire

the permanent status of after completion of 90 days he

has to be declared as permanent employee of the

management as per the Model Standing Orders under

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 as the

activities of the management is covered under the payment

of wages Act, thereby the employment is covered under

the said act.

32. That the workman is duly appointed for the work

of Draftsman and perform on the said capacity for the

period as referred herein above so he is treated to be a

permanent employees after completion of 90 days of

service.

33. That the management is an Industrial governed

by the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act,1947 as well

as the provisions of the Industrial Employment standing

Orders Act, 1946 and as per the schedule 1 the

classification under the MODEL STANDING ORDERS IN

RESPECT OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT NOT

BEING INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN CAOL-

MINES ARE AS UNDER :

“2 Classification of workman:- (a) workman shall be

classified as under:-

(1) Permanent

(2) Probationers

(3) Badlis

(3-A) Fixed term employment [Inserted by GSR 936

(E) , dated of December, 2003 (w.e.f. 10^th December, 2003)].

(4) Temporary

(5) Casual

(6) Apprentices.

(b) A “permanent workman” is a workman who has

been engaged on a permanent basis and includes any

person who has satisfactory completed a probationary

period of three months in the same or another occupation

in the industrial establishment, including breaks due to

sickness, accident, leave, lockout strike (not being an

illegal strike) or involuntary closure of the establishment.

provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy in a

post and has not completed three months service therein

if a permanent employee is employed as a probationer in a

new post he may, at any time during the probationary

period of three months, be reverted to his previous

permanent post.

(d) A “badly” is a workman who is appointed in the

post of a permanent workman or probationer who is

temporarily absent.

(e)A “temporary workman” is a workman who has

been engaged for work which is of a essentially temporary

nature likely to be finished within a limited period.

(F)A “Casual workman” is a workman whose

employment is of a casual nature.

(g) An “apprentice” is a learner who is paid an

allowance during the period of his training.

(h) A “fixed term employment workman” is a workman

who has been engaged on the basis of contract of

employment for a fixed period. However , his working hours,

wages, allowances and other benefits available to a

permanent workman proportionately according to the

period of service rendered by him even though his period

of employment does not extent to the qualifying period of

employment required in the statute.

34. That in similar situated case the Hon’ble Madhya

Pradesh High Court in the matter of Nazrul Hassan

Siddiqui, Petitioner Vs. Presiding Officer, Central

Government Industrial –cum-Labour Court No.2, Bombay

and others, Respondents (1997 Lab I.C. 1807 ) has held

that the employees working in higher post is entitled to be

regularized on a post as entitled to payment of higher

salary for work discharged on that post. Operative portion

of said judgment is reproduce:

“16. Coming now to the merits of the case, the

tribunal has come to the conclusion that the

petitioner was entitled to the relief of being treated

as Traffic in-charge between the period from 01.01.81

to 25.02.83 and consequent payment of different of

salary for that period. Reliance is placed on behalf

of the workmen, employed by Hindustan, Lever Ltd.

Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited, (1984) 4 SC 392: (1984

Lab I.C. 1573) which support the view taken by the

Tribunal that work discharged on a promotion post

even in officiating capacity by a workman, entitles

him to raise a dispute which concerns his conditions

of service and claim for classification or promotion

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4697

to that post and for payment of salary of that post

can be raised in an industrial dispute. In the instant

case the finding of the Tribunal is in favour of the

workman. In the period between 1.01.81 to 25.02.83

he worked on the higher post of Traffic in-charge.

He was, therefore, entitled to grant of relief. The

employer has to consider him for classification or

promotion to the post of Traffic in-charge, and pay

him the different of salary for the work performed by

him for the aforesaid period in question on the higher

post.”

35. That the full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the matter between the workman employed by Hindustan

Lever Ltd. Appellant Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited,

Respondent (1984 LAB I.C. 15730 have held that the

employer will have to classify the workmen and failure to

classify would be violative of the Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act. The Hon’bel Supreme Court also

held that in respect of classification, a dispute can

conceivably arise between the employer and the workman

because failure of the employer to carry out the statutory/

obligation would enable the workman to question his

action which will bring into existence a dispute where the

demand of the workmen was to conformed employees

employed in an acting capacity in the higher grade, it would

an questionably be an industrial dispute. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court also held that when the Industrial Tribunal

misinterpreted such a demand and reached a conclusion

that it was on promotion, which appeared to the Tribunal

to be a managerial function and beyond the reach of

adjudication, such a concussion was wholly untenable.

The operative Para of the judgment are reproducing as

under:

“7. Since the introduction of the Industrial

employment (Standing Orders) Act for short), it has been

made obligatory for the employer in an draft of Standing

Order and get them certified under the Act, Section 4 of

the 1946 Act required the employer to make matter set out

in the standing orders for every applicable to the industrial

establishment. The schedule provides amongst others for

making provision in the standing Orders for classification

of workman for example, whether permanent, temporary,

apprentices, probationers or badlis. This classification of

workman by the employer is thus made obligatory and

has to be provided for in the Standing Orders. It is also

well settled that certified Standing Orders which have

statutory favour prescribe the conditions of service and

they shall be deemed to be incorporated in the contract of

employment of each workman with his employer Sudhir

Chandra Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (1984) 3 SCC 369:

(AIR 1984 SC 1064). It would therefore follow as corollary

that the employer will have to classification would be

violative of the 1946 Act. Now if there is a statutory

obligation to classify workmen under the 1946 Act. The

classification would be permanent temporary, apprentices,

probationers and all other known categories such as acting

under the 1946 Act. The classification would be permanent

temporary, apprentices, probationer and all other known

categories such as acting , officiating etc. In respect of the

classification, a dispute can conceivably arise between

the employer and the workman because failure of the

employer to carry out the statutory obligation would enable

the workman to question his action, which will bring into

existence a dispute. It would become an industrial disputes

because it would be connected with the conditions of

employment. It becomes a conditions of service have to

be statutorily prescribed, one such being classification of

workmen. Therefore without anything more where the

demand of the workmen was to confirm employees

employed in an acting capacity in a grade, it would an

questionably be an industrial dispute. This conclusion

gets reinforced by a slightly different approach.

8. Section 7-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

provides that the appropriate Government may be

notification in the official Gazette constitute one or more

industrial disputes relating to any matter whether specified

in the second Schedule or the Third. Schedule reads

classification by Grades. If there is any dispute in respect

of classification by grades, it will necessarily by and

Industrial dispute. This was not only not questioned hut

would fowl indisputably from the language of Sec. 7-A

which provides for setting up of Industrial Tribunal for

adjudication of Industrial disputes relating to any matter

specified amongst others, in the Third Schedule. Therefore,

even if one does not reach the conclusion that the dispute

raised in question would be an Industrial dispute by

reference to the Standing Orders certified under the 1946

Act, a mere reference to Entry 7 of the Third schedule read

with Section 7-A would clinch the issue. Let it be recalled

that the demand of the workman was for confirmation of

employees promoted to the higher grade and acting in the

higher grade for more than 3 months. In other words, the

demand was for classification of the workman officiating

in the higher grades either as permanent or temporary and

they should not be continued indefinitely as temporary

by making them permanent on rendering of continuous

service in the higher grade for a period of three months.

The demand involves both the classification of employees

and classification by grade. Unfortunately, the Industrial

Tribunal overlooked this obvious fact situation by

misinterpreting the demand and reached a wholly untenable

conclusion that the demand was for promotion which

appeared to the Tribunal to be a managerial function and

beyond the reach of adjudication.

12. Even on the footing of the law, as it stands at

present in this country, that promotion is a management

function, the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal

was not tone for claim promotion. The tribunal committed

a grave error in so misinterpreting the dispute referred to

it. The tribunal overlooked the workmen already promoted

4698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

i.e. in respect of who managerial function of selecting

personnel for promotion had been already performed. The

demand was in repect of already promoted workmen, may

be in an officiating capacity, for their classification from

acting or temporary to confirm that is permanent in the

higher grade to which they were promoted, after a

reasonable period of service, which according to the Union

must be three months of service. By no cannon of

construction, this demand could be said to be one for

promotion. Therefore, the decision in case of this very

employer had not application to the facts of this case and

the Tribunal misdirected itself in rejecting the reference

on this narrow ground.”

36. That apart from the violation of provision of

model standing orders made under Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 the management also indulged

in an unfair labour practice while continuing him on higher

duty and responsibility without paying the proper pay

scale attached with the work is a clear cut violation of

Labour laws.

37. That the Item 10 of 5 the Schedule under Section

2 (ra) of 1947 even disapprove the employment as Badlis,

casuals or temporaries, for years with the object of

depriving them of the status and privilege of a permanent

workman. The said Item is reproduced as under:-

“To employ workman as ‘Badlis’ casuals or

temporaries and to continue them as such for years

with the object of depriving them of the status and

privilege of a permanent workman.”

38. That the action of the management for not paying

equal pay and not treating the workman with other regular

Draftsman performing the same and similar duty in the

proper scale is illegal and unjustified.

39. That the action of the management of WAPCOS,

New Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Aakash

Kashyap S/o of Sh. Gyan Prakash w.e.f. 09.07.2004 and the

practice of insisting the workman to sign fresh “Contract

of Service” after every three months is illegal and

unjustified.

40. That after the termination of service the workman

had filed the Writ Petition No. WP © No. 15516/2004 before

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing refusing

the Writ –petition on 24^th September, 2004, the liberty was

granted to the to raise Industrial Dispute against his

termination. Copy of the said Order of the Hon’ble High

Court is also annexed as Annexure A-9.

41. That after the dismissal of the Writ- Petition the

workman had raised the Industrial Dispute against their

illegal termination on 5.11.2004 so there is no delay for

raising the Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C) , New Delhi and after failure of the said

conciliation proceeding the failure conciliation report has

been submitted to the Secretary, Government of India,

ministry of Labour , New Delhi by the said officer Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central). Copy of the said report is

annexed as Annexure A-10.

42. That the workman is unemployed since the date

of his termination despite of best efforts to get an alternate

employment, so the workman is entitled to be reinstated

with full back wages as equal to his counterpart in the

regular in the regular pay scale of Draftsman.

PRAYER :

In view of the above this Hon’ble Tribunal may

kindly:

(a) Award reinstatement of Sri. Aakash Kashyap

S/o Sh. Gyan Prakash w.e.f. 09.07.2004 in the pay scale of

Rs. 4000-6000 and status of Draughtsman with full back

wages along with all consequential benefits.

(b) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal thinks

proper for the shake of justice and fair play.

Against claim statement management filed following

written statement:-

At the very outset, it is submitted that the statement

of claim, as filed, is prima facie misconceived, fabricated,

devoid of any justification and jurisdiction. Hence, the

same is liable to be dismissed summarily on the following

amongst other

GROUNDS

1. That the reference for adjudication as made by

the Appropriate Government in the Ministry of Labour

(Central Government ), New Delhi, is prima facie

misconceived since for the Water and Power Consultancy

Service (India) Ltd. (WAPCO), the appropriate government

is not the Central Government but the State Government

hence the dispute, as raised, is liable to be dismissed

summarily for want of jurisdiction. Reference is made to

the definition of appropriate government under clause (a)

of Section (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act containing a

long list of industries having Central Government as the

appropriate government (the name of the Management

does not appear). To the best to knowledge and information

of the Management , there has been no notification under

section 2(a) (i) defining Central government for certain

industries and as such reliance is made on government for

certain industries and as such reliance is made on the

judgment of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union

of India, 106 (2004) page 269 wherein it has been held that

when the reference of a dispute for adjudication having

not been made by the competent authority , it was not

valid in law and the Industrial Tribunal could not enter

into reference, hence the entire proceedings was liable to

be quashed.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4699

2. That knowing fully well that the workman had no

cause, whatsoever, in a prima facie case supporting his

averments/allegations in raising the industrial dispute

against the Management , he has tried to make hill out of

a mole by repeating allegations in successive paragraphs

by causing confusion and negating from sum and

substance that being engaged specifically as project

employee for a period which was extended from time to

time with due communication to him which he has been

accepting without any protest or reservation and now he

has come with different pleas like ‘equal work, equal

wages’ regularization and even asking for reinstatement

whereas he has no right, whatsoever and the appropriate

government did not go into details whereas the dispute

was not at all to be referred for adjudication even if it was

assumed that the central government was appropriate

government notwithstanding that the appropriate

government had been state government and in earlier

reference like Mrs. Lallitha Pillai the state government has

been making reference for adjudication which was

adjudicated by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and

even in the dates, it is the state government which has

been making reference for adjudication. This submission

is being made without prejudice to the contention of the

Management that the dispute, as raised and referred for

adjudication, is prima facie untenable and would have been

rejected summarily instead of encouraging the workman

to drag a public sector undertaking in the avoidable

litigation.

3. That the statement of claim is not maintainable

due to mis-joinder and non-joinder and non-joinder of

necessary parties. The workman has impleaded the Chief

Engineer (CD-II) and CMD in their personal capacity

without impleading the necessary party - Water and Power

Consultancy Service (India) Ltd. (WAPCO). Hence, the

claim of the workman is liable to be rejected on this ground

also.

4. That the workman had contractual appointment

excluded by the definition of clause (bb) of sub-section

9(oo) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act and not

entitled to raise any claim except on the basis of terms and

conditions of the contract agreement. Hence, the reference

for adjudication as made by the appropriate government

in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi is mechanical in nature

and liable to be returned to the government.

5. That the workman is guilty of suppression of

material facts and has not come to this Hon’ble court with

clean hands. In fact, the employment of the workman with

the management is contractual for fixed term in nature but

the workman has intentionally neither brought these facts

in the knowledge of the appropriate government nor the

appropriate government has applied its mind to this effect

and reference to be adjudicated has been made

mechanically without considering the relevant facts. The

fact of the matter is that the workman was engaged on

contract basis for a fixed period in order to cater to specific

project requirements. A formal procedure for selection is

not followed in respect of such employees as they are

engaged on urgent need basis temporarily.

6. That the workman did not complete the service of

240 days during the preceding 12 months, hence not

entitled to get benefits available under section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

7. That the statement of claim is neither signed nor

verified as per law. As such, the same is liable to be rejected

on this ground alone.

Without prejudice to the above, the management

submits the reply on merits as under.

Parawise reply :

Save and except hereinafter expressly and specifically

admitted/acknowledge, each and every allegations/

averments manifested in the statement of claim under reply

are deemed to have been denied, traversed and

controverted by the management.

1. That in reply to the contents of para No.1 of the

statement of claim, as already submitted in preliminary

objection no.1 above, the reference for adjudication as

made by the Appropriate government in the Ministry of

Labour (Central Government), New Delhi, is prima facie

misconceived since for the Water and Power Consultancy

Service (India) Ltd. (WAPCO), the appropriate government

is not the Central Government but the State government

even if it is assumed that there is any justification in his

statement of claim, hence the dispute, as raised, is liable to

be dismissed summarily for want of jurisdiction. Reference

is made to the definition of appropriate government under

clause (a) of section (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act

containing a long list of industries having Central

government as the appropriate government (the name of

the management does not appear in that list). To the best

of knowledge and information of the management, there

has been no notification under section 2(a) (i) defining

Central Government for certain industries and as such

reliance is made on the judgement of Hindustan Paper

Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 106 (2004) page 269

wherein it has been held that when the reference of a

dispute for adjudication having not been made by the

competent authority, it was not valid in law and the

Industrial Tribunal could not enter into reference, hence

the entire proceeding was liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the statement of claim is not maintainable in

its present form.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the statement

of claim , as stated, are wrong being misconceived and

vague. It is wrong that fresh Contract of Service was got

signed from the workman to avoid giving of permanent

statue to him. The allegations are not only frivolous but

after thought also. The workman has singed the contract

4700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with eyes wide open and cannot wriggle out the same.

Such appointments are made so as per project requirements

arose from time to time. The fact of the matter is that the

workman was engaged on contract basis for a fixed period

in order to cater to specific project requirements. A formal

procedure for selection is not followed in respect of such

employees as they are engaged on urgent need basis

temporarily. The service of the workman was never of

regular nature with the management. If services of such

employees are regularized, it will create a back door entry

in the government service without following the proper

procedure of recruitment, training, selection as being

adopted in case of regular employees of the government.

3. That in reply to the contents of para No. 3, it is

submitted that the alleged date of appointment,

designation and monthly wages are matter of record.

However, the workman be put to strict proof for the same.

4. That the contents f para No. 4 of the statement of

claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied. The service of the workman with the management

was never continuous. As per records of the management,

he did not remain with the management in any manner,

from 11.10.2001 to 8.11.2001 (38 days,) from 01.09.2003 to

30.9.2003 (30 days), 13.02.2004 to 23.02.2004 (11 Days) ,

10.03.2004 to 13.03.2004 (4 days ), 22.3.04 to 30.03.04 (8

days) and 24.06.2004 to 11.07.2004 (18 days). Accordingly,

the workman did not complete 240 working days during

the preceding 12 months and not entitled to get the

protection of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Without prejudice to the contention of the management

that the appointment of the workman was contractual and

excluded by clause (bb) (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, even if it is assumed that the workman has

worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months. The

workman, in fact did not make compliance of the terms of

the contract by remaining unauthorizedly abour without

any intimation to his superiors and others concerned and

accordingly his service was terminated.

5. That the contents of para No. 5 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are wrong being misconceived and

vague. Hence, denied in toto. The true facts have already

been narrated in above paragraphs.

6. That in reply to the contents of para No.6 of the

statement of claim, as stated, it is submitted that the

workman was not a regular employee, he was a fixed term

employee. Even the selection of the workman was not

made by following the due procedure of recruitment.

Hence, the workman is not entitled to get wages equal to

the wages of the regular employees.

7. That in reply to the contents of para No. 7 of the

statement of claim, as stated, it is submitted that the

workman was not a regular employee, he was a fixed term

employee with the management. Even the selection of the

workman was not made by following the due procedure of

recruitment. Hence, the workman is not entitled to get

wages equal to the wages of the regular employees. The

workman is under some misconception or so. His demand

of wages equal to the regular employees is not justified at

all. The other Draftsman getting more wages are regular

employees, having higher qualifications or working on

different projects. The principle of equal work, equal wages

is not at all applicable.

8. That para No. 8 is wrong and denied. Neither any

assurance was given nor it could be given by any official

of the management to the workman to increase his salary,

, as alleged by him.

9-12. That para No. 9 to 12 of the statement of claim,

as stated, are wrong and denied. In fact, the workman

remained absent unauthorisedly without any intimation

or submitting any leave application. He was verbally

advised by his superiors many times not to avail leave

unauthorisedly without any leave application or intimation

but of no use. The services of the workman were terminated

as per contract.

13-14 That para Nos. 13 and 14 of the statement of

claim, as stated, regarding issue of a certificate and

membership of Provident Funds Scheme, are a matter of

record. However, the workman be put to strict proof of it.

15. That the contents of para No. 15 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are completely wrong and vehemently

denied. The workman was never regular employee of the

answering management . Even he did not fulfill the required

qualifications for regular appointment with the

management . Hence, he is not entitled to be paid wages

as per alleged scale. His recruitment and selection was

not made by following the due procedures in this respect.

The workman cannot be permitted to take back door entry

in the government service.

16. That in reply to the contents of para No. 16, it is

submitted that the representation of the workman being

without any force can not be entertained in any manner as

he was never regular employee of the management.

17. That the contents of Para No. 17 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied. The service of the workman has been terminated

as per terms and conditions of the contract in between the

workman and the management and it is wrong and that the

workman has been imposed any punishment. The

termination of service of the workman is simplicitor in

nature.

18. That the contents of para No. 18 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied. The termination of service of the workman is

simplicitor in nature. The regular employees never proceed

on unauthorized leave and their performance are always

recommended by their superiors to be satisfactory whereas

the workman lacks such quality and his performance is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4701

always rated not satisfactory and his service was being

utilized to meet the emergent requirements.

19. That the contents of para No. 19 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied. The termination of service of the workman has

been effected as per terms and conditions of the contract

of service. Section 25-F, 25 G and 25 –H of the Industrial

Dispute Act are not applicable in the case of this workman

as the workman was never a regular employee of the

answering management.

20-22. That the contents of paras No. 20 to 22 of the

statement of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and

vehemently denied being misconceived and without any

force.

23. That the contents of paras No. 23 of the statement

of claim , as stated , are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force.

24-25. That the contents of paras No. 24 and 25 of

the statement of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong

and vehemently denied being misconceived and without

any force.

26. That the contents of paras No. 26 of the statement

of claim , as stated , are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force.

Detailed reply has already been given in above paras.

27. That the contents of paras No. 27 of the statement

of claim , as stated , are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force.

Detailed reply has already been given in above paras.

28. That the contents of paras No. 28 of the statement

of claim , as stated , are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force.

Detailed reply has already been given in above paras.

The workman is not entitled to claim benefits of regular

employees the take benefit of the provision of the Section

25 G of the I.D . Act.

29. That the contents of paras No. 29 of the statement

of claim , as stated , are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force.

Detailed reply has already been given in above paras. It is

wrong that the termination is a punishment to the

workman. The termination is as per terms and conditions

of the contract in between the workman and the

management.

30-31. That the contents of paras No. 20 to 22 of the

statement of claim , as stated , are absolutely wrong and

vehemently denied being misconceived and without any

force. Detailed reply has already been given in above

paras. The service of the workman was as per terms and

conditions of the contract and not a as per provisions of

any other law. Hence, the workman is not entitled to raise

any claim under any other law or Model Standing Orders,

if any.

32. That the contents of paras No. 32 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force. Detailed

reply has already been given in above paras. The workman

is not entitled to take back door entry into service.

33- 35. That the contents of paras No. 33 to 35 of the

statement of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and

vehemently denied being misconceived and without any

force. Detailed reply has already been given in above paras.

The workman is not entitled to take back door entry into

service. The judgments quoted by the workman, in these

paras, have been misunderstood by the workman as the

same do not support the version of the workman, at all.

The law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India that an employee is not entitled to take back door

entry into India service where the procedures for

recruitment and selection are to be followed. Even

otherwise, the quoting of judgements in the pleadings like

statement of claim is not permissible under the procedural

like statement of claim is not permissible under procedural

law since each case is to be decided on its peculiar facts.

Hence these rulings do not apply universally. The workman

has referred to the ratios of judgement by picking and

choosing as if they are relevant to the averments/

allegations made in the Statement of Claim which is

contrary to the well settled law. The principle of

convenience, as sought to be invoked by the workman

that too in the pleadings i.e. statement of claim, cannot be

stretched by the workman more so when the Civil Procedure

Code laying the general principles of pleadings provides

that no judgement can be referred in the pleadings. The

law is well settled by the Hon’bel supreme Court of India

that an employee is not entitled to take back door entry

into service where the procedure for recruitment and

selection are to be followed.

36. That the contents of paras No. 36 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force. Detailed

reply has already been given in above paras. The workman

is not entitled to take back door entry into service. The

termination is simplicitor and not in violation of either Model

Standing Orders (not applicable to the management) as

alleged due to the fact that the establishment of the

management is not an industrial establishment to attract

the applicability of Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act providing for Model Standing Orders.

37. That the contents of paras No. 37 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force. Detailed

reply has already been given in above paras. The workman

had entered into contract for fixed term employment with

the management with his healthy mind and eyes open and

4702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

he cannot jump the terms and conditions of the contract in

force.

38. That the contents of paras No. 38 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force. Detailed

reply has already been given in above paras. The workman

is not entitled to get pay equal to the regular employees of

the management due to the facts interalia that he was not

recruited and selected by following due procedures laid

down in this respect.

39. That the contents of paras No. 39 of the statement

of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and vehemently

denied being misconceived and without any force. Detailed

reply has already been given in above paras.

40. That para No. 40 is regarding dismissal of Writ

Petition of the workman by the High Court, hence need no

reply being matter of record.

41. That in reply to this para of the statement of

claim, it is submitted that the reference made by the

Government is not maintainable as already narrated in

preliminary objections taken above as this Hon’ble Tribunal

lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicated the dispute

in question as the appropriate government is the State

government and not the Central Government.

42. That the contents of paras No. 42 of the

statement of claim, as stated, are absolutely wrong and

vehemently denied being misconceived , devoid of any

justification and without any force of law. Detailed reply

has already been given in above paras. The termination of

the workman is simplicitor. There is no violation of any

provisions of any relevant laws. Hence, the workman is

not entitled to get any relief from the management including

back wages.

Reply to prayer :

In view of the above narrated true facts, the workman

is not entitled to get any relief from the management and

the contents of his prayer clause(s), as stated, are liable to

be dismissed with costs.

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that

(1) Since the aforesaid preliminary objections

interalia pertain to jurisdictional and writ point, it should

be decided instantly and the Statement of Claim, as filed,

be rejected summarily; and as such there is no need go

into the merits of the case, except if the Hon’ble Tribunal

so directs.

(2) The statement of claim of the workman , in view

of the true facts narrated above, may kindly be dismissed

with costs.

(3) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal

deem fit in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be

granted in favour of the management and against the

workman. It is prayed accordingly.

Workman filed rejoinder on 3.10.2007. Wherein

he stated as follows:-

1. That the preliminary objection of the Management

that the reference made by the Central government in the

Ministry of Labour , New Delhi is prima facie misconceived

and the water and power consultancy service (India ) Ltd.

(WAPCO) is a State Government is wrong, hence denied.

It is submitted that under clause (a) of section (2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act it is clearly mention in a(i) that in

any Industrial Dispute concerning any industry carried

on by or under the authority of the Central Govt. the

appropriate govt. is the Central Govt. It is also submitted

that Delhi being a Union Territory is also the instrumentality

of the Central Govt. as per Rule 2(f) . It is provided that in

relation to industrial dispute in a Union territory for which

the appropriate Govt. is the Central Govt. The operative

portion of the rule 2 (f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central)

Rules 1957 is reproduced as under:

2(f) in relation to an industrial dispute in a Union

territory, for which the appropriate Government is the

Central Government, reference to the Central Government

or the Government of India shall be construed as a reference

to the Administrator of the territory, and reference to the

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ), Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) and the [Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central )] shall be construed as reference

to the appropriate authority, appointed in that behalf by

the Administrator of the territory;

“9. Lastly, it was contended that Sports Authority

of India is a body under the control of Central Government

and as such Govt. of Delhi had no jurisdiction to make a

reference. The appropriate government which could

exercise the jurisdiction under section 19(1) ( C ) of the

Act, was the Central Government. It has already been

discussed that the petitioner authority is an industry and

is under the control of the Union. Full Bench of this Court

in the case of Indian Tourism Development Corporation,

New Delhi Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. 1982 (61) FJR

139 clearly enunciated the principle that Lt. Governor or

Administration of Union Territory of Delhi would discharge

functions and powers of the State Government under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and powers of the kind to

make reference stood delegated to the State Government

under Section 39 of the Notification. Even earlier to this,

this view was followed by a Division Bench of this Court

in the case of M/s Lila Separator Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The

Secretary (Labour ), Delhi Administration & Ors. 1981 (43)

FLR 170. Reference can also be made to the judgment of

this court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council

Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and Ors

2002(3) LLJ 511.

10. In view of the above considered view of this

court and the larger Bench which is binding upon me, I

have no hesitation in rejecting the contention raised on

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4703

behalf of the petitioner in regard to the invalidly of the

reference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of Delhi

Administration to make such a reference.

2. That the preliminary objection of the management

that the dispute in prima facie case supporting his

averments/allegations in raising the industrial dispute

against the management is wrong, hence denied. It is

submitted that the dispute of the workman is against the

termination of his services, which is covered, u/s 2A so

the dispute of dismissal etc. is of an individual workman is

deemed to be an Industrial Dispute. The provisions of

Section 2A is reproduced as under:

“2 A. Dismissal, etc, of an individual workman to be

deemed to be an industrial dispute- Where any employer

discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates

the services of an individual workman, any dispute or

difference between that workman and his employer

connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an

industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman

nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

3. That the preliminary objection of the management

that the claim is not maintainable due to misjoinder and

non-joinder of necessary parties is also wrong, hence

denied. It is submitted that as per section 2(g) the employer

means the head of the department and accordingly the

employer has been made the necessary party in the

dispute.

4. That the preliminary objection of the Management

that the workman had contractual appointment excluded

by the definition of clause (bb) of Sub-section (oo) of

Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act is wrong hence

denied. It is submitted that the workman was not appointed

on fixed period. It is submitted that the management did

not stipulated the period in the appointment letter so the

termination is illegal and unjustified without following the

provisions of Section 25 F and 25 G of the Industrial

Disputes Act.

5. That the preliminary objection of the Management

that the workman is guilty of suppression of material facts

and has not come to this Hon’ble Court with clean hands

and retrenchment of workman on the basis of fixed period

etc. is wrong and denied. It is submitted that no material

has been suppressed from this Hon’ble Court, the

employment of the workman was not for fixed period and

the management duly follows the selection procedure for

the appointment of the workman. It is further submitted

that the management cannot retrench the workman without

following the procedure as prescribed u/s 25 F, 25G and

25H of I.D. Act, 1947.

6. That the preliminary objection of the management

that the workman did not complete the service of 240 days

during the preceding 12 months etc. is wrong, hence

denied. It is submitted that the workman has completed

240 days of his service in each of the calendar year and

non-compliance of Section 25 F, 25G, and 25 H of ID. Act,

the termination is illegal as well as non est.

7. That the preliminary objection of the management

that the statement of claim is neither signed nor verified as

per law is wrong, hence denied. It is submitted that the

statement of claim is duly signed and verified by the

workman himself.

REJOINDER ON MERITS:-

1-42 That the written statement of the Management

in these paras are wrong, hence denied. The respective

para of statement of claim is restated and reaffirmed.

In view of the above, the written statement of the

Management may kindly be dismissed in favour of the

workman.

My Ld predecessors has not framed any issue but

proceed to adjudicate the present reference on the basis

of schedule wherein questions of determination were as

follows:-

Whether the action of the management of WAPCOS,

New Delhi in terminating the services of Sh. Aakash

Kashyap S/o Sh. Gyan Parkash w.e.f. 09.07.2004 and the

practice of insisting the workman to sign fresh “Contract

of Service” after every three months is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

Workman in support of his case filed affidavit on

29/10/2007. Wherein he stated as follows:-

1. That I was initially appointed as ‘Draftsman’ w.e.f.

11.07.2001 and worked till 09.07.2004 without any break on

a consolidated salary of Rs. 3180 and subsequently

increased Rs. 3300 per month.

2. That the management unlawfully forced me to

enter into an agreement titled ‘Contract of Service’ and

after completion of every 3/6 months the same is renewed.

I being unemployed and facing hunger signed the said

unlawful agreement with the Management. The objective

of the management was just to deny the permanent status

to me. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure A-2 with

the statement of claim and the same is exhibit WW1/1.

3. 3. That in the ‘Contract of Service’ the

Management inserted clause 6 and 8 that the services of

the workman can be terminated by either party by giving

one month notice or salary in view of notice and the Clause

8 provides that in case of unsatisfactory performance/

complaints, services will be terminated forthwith assigning

any reason. The said conditions are mentioned in ‘Contract

of Service’ as per annexure- A2 and the same is exhibit

WW1/1.

4. That the management terminated my services vide

office order dated 09.07.2004 with reference to the Clause

4704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. 8 of the ‘ Service of Contract’ without assigning any

reason, one month notice or salary in lieu of notice and

also did not offer or paid the compensation of 15 days

after completion of 240 days in every calendar year.

5. That I worked continuously w.e.f 11.07.2001 upto

09.07.2004 and completed 9 years of service. That even

the contract was also sham and caumafledge and also was

an unfair labour practice adopted by the management.

6. That I am diploma holder in ‘ Draftsman(Civil )’

but the management was paying me only Rs. 3300 per

month at the time of my termination. My juniors were

getting between Rs. 5000 to 7500 per month. The

qualification, nature of duty, duty hours and responsibility

were the same between my juniors and me. Details of my

juniors like date of joining, salary drawn are mentioned in

my application dated 07.06.2004 and copy of the same is

annexed as Annexure A-3 and the same is exhibit WW1/2.

Accordingly , the details of my juniors are given as under:-

S.No. Name of the person

Date of Joining Salary Drawn

Mr. Neeraj Kumar

01.09.2001

Rs. 5,000/- P.M.

Ms. Mithlesh Sharma 18.02.2002

Rs. 5,000/- P.M.

Mr. Sandeep Sharma

01.01.2004

Rs. 7,500/- P.M.

Mr. Kuldeep Raj

01.01.2004

Rs. 7,500/- P.M.

7. That the management assured me that my case

for increase of salary would be considered in near future

but practically the Management was annoyed from me

after receiving my representation dated 07.05.2004 which

is exhibit Ww1/3.

8. That I Fell ill in the month of June 2004 as I was

suffering from typhoid fever and due to that I could not

attend my duty and the message about my illness was

conveyed through telephonically. Copy of the said medical

and fitness certificate I annexed as Annexure A/4 with the

statement of Claim and the same is exhibit WW1/4

collectively.

9. That the Management even did not waited to

recover me from illness and before joining my duty they

terminated my services w.e.f. 9.7.2004 and even no ‘ Show

Cause Notice’ was served or holds any enquiry before

terminating my services , which is against the natural

justice.

10. That during my employment with the

management for three years of my career , no warning ,

notice or show cause was issued about my misconduct ,

unsatisfactory performance.

11. That the Management increased my salary from

Rs. 3180 to Rs 3300 vide their letter dated 7^th May, 2003 but

my juniors who were similar situated were paid between

Rs. 5000 to Rs. 7500 per month even they were /are juniors

to me. Copy of the said certificate is annexed as Annexure

A-5 with the statement of claim and the same is Exhibit

WW1/5.

12. That the statement of provident fund is annexed

as A-6 with the statement of claim which proves that I

have been performing my duty continuously with the

management and the same is exhibit WW1/6.

13. That the similar situated workmen in the post of

‘Draftsman’ Grade-II are/were getting their wages in the

pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f 01.01.1996 and total

amount in the said pay scale comes to approx. Rs. 10,000

but I was denied the wages equivalent to my juniors

colleagues in the same category.

14. That after sudden removal from the service I

requested the Management on 10.07.2004 for withdrawal

of the termination order. Copy of the said representation

is annexed as Annexure-A7-with the statement of claim

and the same is Exhibit WW1/7.

15. That the details of juniors indicating their wages

are mentioned as Annexure A-8 with the statement of claim

and the same is exhibit WW1/8.

16. That the workman also filed Writ Petition © No.

15516/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while

dismissing the said Writ Petition the liberty was granted

to raise the Industrial dispute. Copy of the said order of

the Hon’ble High Court is annexed as Annexure- A-9 with

the statement of claim and the same is exhibit WW1/9.

17. That the failure of Conciliation report submitted

by Sh. L.K. Sharma, Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central)

Delhi -1 to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi proves that the termination is based on alleged

misconduct to remain unauthorized absence but the

management did not hold any enquiry to go to the depth

whether I was really suffering from typhoid or not. The

Management arbitrarily terminated my services without

holding any enquiry.

18. That practice of insisting to sign fresh contract

after 3/6 months by the management is illegal and

unjustified and also unfair Labour Practice.

19. That after termination w.e.f. 9^th July, 2004 I

remained unemployed so I am entitled to be reinstated

with full back wages.

His affidavit was tender on 20.12.07. He was cross-

examined on same day.

His examination in chief and cross-examination is as

follows:-

I file my affidavit for evidence exhibit WW1/A along

with documents exhibit WW1/1, Exhibit WW1/2 and

WW1/4 to exhibit WW1/10 . Exhibit WW1/3 as mentioned

in the affidavit has not been placed on the record file.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4705

On SA

It is correct that exhibit WW1/2 , exhibit WW1/7 ,

exhibit WW1/8 are unsigned and photocopies and the

same are objectionable in law. (Vol.). The management did

not object these documents in the written statement.

It is correct that exhibit WW1/4 is a photocopy. (Vol)

the original is already submitted to the management. I have

already submitted the document WW1/4.

I have not submitted the any sick application to the

management and along with medical certificate. The medical

certificate exhibit WW1/4 was sent by me but I informed

to management regarding my illness over telephone. I got

treatment Dr. Saini of Rajendra Nagar I was sick from 25

june to 12 July, 2014.

I was not admitted in the hospital. I got fitness

certificate to the doctor. I came to know the vacancy form

the Chief Engineer Sh. A.B. Pandey and Sh. Diwan C.M.D.

Sh A.B.Pandey was on deputation from the office where

my father work.

No call letter was given to me. (Vol) but written and

oral test was taken by the officers of the management. It is

wrong to suggest that my interview was not taken by

competent officers body. After the test I was offered

appointment in the form of agreement. I signed the first

agreement on 11^th July, 2011. I signed service contract

agreement every 6 months as per the rules of the company.

I filed photocopy of one agreement. It is wrong to

suggest that there is no service contract dated 11.07.2001

that is why I have not filed the other contract agreement

including 11.07.2001.

I am still unmarried. It is wrong to suggest that I did

not sign the agreement as I was unemployed and facing

hunger.

I have filed all the documents regarding my working

of 240 days preceding 12 months of my termination of my

services.

It is wrong to suggest that other draftsmen were not

on similar projects.

It is wrong to suggest that I was appointed on

contractual basis on project.

I did not inform any authority that I signed the

contracts under compulsions.

It is wrong to suggest that my engagement with the

management was contractual was a fixed term. It is wrong

to suggest that I was not selected through proper

procedure to management.

I have no written proof regarding payments made to

the draftsmen as mentioned in para 6 in my affidavit . (VOl.)

the workman mentioned in para 6 told me about payments.

It is wrong to suggest that I was not ill so I have not

filed the any prescriptions and test reports.

It is wrong to suggest that I was not verbally assured

for regularization by any officers of the management.

It is wrong to suggest that I have no standard

qualification for regular draftsman.

It is wrong to suggest that my affidavit is false.

Management in support of its case filled affidavit of

Sh.Vijay Rao on 15/1/2008. Wherein he stated as follows:-

1.That I am conversant with the facts of the case on

the basis of records of the management in respect of the

employment of the workman and I have brought with me

the original records.

2.That no sick leave application was ever submitted

by the workman as admitted by the workman in his cross-

examination in respect of his alleged sickness from

24.06.2004 to 11.07.2004. Even the workman has not

submitted any medical certificate having recommendation

of the Doctor for his bed rest from 24.06.2004 to 11.07.2004

so far as mentioned by him in his statement of Claim’s para

no. 10. The document Ex. WW1/4 is a manipulated

document and not admissible in evidence. Even the

document Ex. WW1/4 is a photocopy of alleged medical

as well as Fitness certificate not admissible in evidence

unless the same is proved in evidence through the Doctor

who has issued the same. Even the workman has not filed

any prescription slip containing recommendation of the

doctor concerned indicating medicines and tests

prescribed for the patient/workman during the period of

alleged illness.

3. That as admitted by the workman in his cross-

examination his appointment was on the basis of service

contract agreement. Ex. WW1/1 . The workman was

appointed to meet urgent/emergent needs/requirement

without following proper selection procedure on Contract

basis as is clear from the Contract of service dated

29.10.2002 Ex. MW1/1 for a period of 3 months commenting

from 03.10.2002 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 3300/-P.M.

Chargeable to H-625 Project or co-terminus with the project

whichever is earlier and will automatically come to an end

on the expiry of the specified period. Next contract of

service dated 06.02.03 Ex. MW1/2 was entered into by the

workman for a period of 6 months for project H-649 .

Another contract of service dated 01.09.2003 Ex. MW1/3

was entered into by the workman for a period of 6 months

in Project H-700 . Contract of service Ex. WW1/4 is for a

period from 02.04.2004 to 30.09.2004 but since the workman

started remaining absent unauthorisedly , as per clause 8

of the Ex. WW1/4 his service was terminated by the

management. Accordinly, the service of the workman being

contractual in nature for a fixed term project-wise was to

be governed by the terms and conditions of the Contract

4706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of service and as such the termination of his service has

been effected on 09.07.2004 as the management was facing

hardships by the unauthorized absence of the workman

since 24.06.2004. Even the workman has not placed any

document on record to prove that he has performed his

duty for atleast 240 days during the preceding 12 months.

Moreover, if the services of the contractual employees

like that of the workman are regularized, it will create a

back door entry in the government service not permissible

as per law settled by the courts.

4. That the engagement of workman with the

management was made without following applicable

procedure for selection and contractual in nature for

specific project requirement. Copy of such rules and

regulations for selection procedure is Ex. MW ¼. The

workman has also admitted that on the recommendation

of his father the Chief Engineer Sh. A.B. Pandey and Sh.

Diwan C.M.D have given him employment and no call

letter from the management was given to him in this respect,

meaning thereby that his interview and test, if any, was

not concluded by any competent authority or Board or

Selection Committee consisting of authorized officials of

the management and his appointment was also not made

by the Competent Authority.

5. That the workman had signed the Contract of

Service from time to time with eyes wide open , having

sound mind and good health and as admitted by him in his

cross examination he never objected to his such contractual

nature of employment either before any authority or before

higher management. Such Contractual appointment of the

workman is excluded by the definition of clause (bb) of

sub section (oo) of section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act

and accordingly the workman is not entitled to raise any

claim except on the basis of terms and conditions of the

contract of Service and Section 25-F of the ID. Act is not

applicable in such like case.

6. That the contents of affidavit in evidence filed by

the workman are containing either false information or the

information based on hearsay or manipulated /fabricated

by him just to attract the undue sympathy of the Hon’ble

Court as admitted by him during his cross-examination

that he has no written proof regarding payments made to

the draftsman as mentioned in para No.6 of his affidavit in

evidence and he has voluntarily stated that the workman

told him about said payments. Even such hearsay piece

of evidence is not admissible in law. The workman being a

contractual employee selected without following due

procedure was not entitled to claim wages and other

benefits applicable to other regular employees of the

organization of the management i.e. Public Sector

Undertaking.

7. That even the workman did not possess the

required qualifications for appointment of regular

draftsman with the management as per rules and

regulations applicable to the management. It is wrong that

the termination of service of the workman is a punishment

to him. Rather the termination is a simplicitor in nature.

8. That it is wrong that the contract of service was

sham and caumafledge or unfair labour practice adopted

by the management. In fact, the termination of the services

of the workman is simplicitor in nature.

9. That Ex. WW1/7 letter dated 10.07.2004 is a

fabricated documents, never sent to the management by

the workman . Ex. WW1/8 is also a false document and

even containing wrong information on hearsay basis.

10. That as per definition of appropriate government

under clause (a) of section (2) of the Industrial Dispute

Act containing a long list of industries having Central

Government as the appropriate Government does not

contain the name of the management. As per knowledge

and information available with the management, there has

been no notification under section 2(a) (i) of the ID. Act,

defining Central Government for certain industries. Hence,

this Hon’ble court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and

decided the dispute of the workman as the reference of

the dispute is bad in law. The disputes between the other

workmen in previous cases have been adjudicated by the

Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunal of Delhi State

Government.

11. That the claim of the workman is not maintainable

due to misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as

the workman has impleaded the Chief Engineer (CD-II)

and CMD in their personal capacity without impleading

the management being necessary party.

12. That as per records of the management, no

assurance was given by any official of the management to

the workman to regularize his service at any stage during

his duration of service with the management.

His affidavit was tender on 11.10.2010. He was cross-

examined on the same day.

His examination in chief and cross-examination is as

follows:-

I tender in evidence my affidavit by way of

examination in chief. It is sined by me at points A and B.

The same is Ex. MW1/A . It be read as part of my statement.

I have filed photo copies of four documents including

three service contracts. Photo copies have been exhibit

marked with the consent of the A/R of the management.

These are Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/4 . Document Ex. MW1/

4 has been exhibit marked for the purposes of showing the

grade of Draftsman Grade III are the qualifications for such

posts which is applicable to the regular posts of Draftsman

only.

XXXXX :- By Sh. B.K. Prasad , A/R for the workman.

On 11.07.2001 also I was working as Sr. Manager

(Admn). I used to have knowledge of all the appointments

made during my tenure as Sr. Manager (Admn). Workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4707

Aakash Kashyap was appointed on 11.07.2001. I know

that the workman was appointed by the Chief Engineer

(CD-II) and CMD of the management company. It is

correct that the work was existing for which the workman

was appointed. It is correct that we had asked the workman

to sign a fresh contract dated 9.07.2004 and that was for

the new project. It is not correct to say that he refused to

sign to that contract and so we discontinued his

engagement. The workman was made to dis-continue

during the continuance of the contract dated 02.6.2004 as

he absented himself without intimation for a long period.

It is incorrect to suggest that the workman could not come

for duty as he was sick and he had given the medical

certificate. Volunteered, that no such intimation was

received nor any medical certificate was received till such

time he was dis-engaged from service. It is incorrect to

suggest that the workman was sick from 1.07.2004 to

11.07.2004. We did not try to enquire about the health or

other problem if any of the workman. It is wrong to suggest

that no projects were continued during the time the

workman was dis-engaged. It is wrong to suggest that we

have victimized the workman in order to deny him

regularization of service and grant of regular pay-scales.

It is incorrect to suggest that the workman fulfils the

required qualification and experience for the posts of

Draftsman Grade III. It is incorrect to suggest that on the

basis of the fulfillment of the required qualification and

experience, employment was given to the workman by the

Chief Engineer and CMD at the time of initial appointment.

It is wrong to suggest that all these things are in the record

of the management. It is correct that the Conciliation Officer

had suggested during the conciliation proceedings to take

back the workman on duty but we told him that as and

when new project would be there, we will consider the

suggestion. I cannot say with authority if unauthorized

absence could be termed as ‘misconduct’ or not. It is

correct that Mr. Neeraj Kumar (Date of joining 1.09.2001,

salary drawn Rs. 5000/- P.M.) Ms. Mithlesh Sharma(Date

of joining 18.2.2002, salary drawn Rs. 5000/- P.M.)

Mr. Sandeep Sharma (Date of joining 1.1.2004, salary drawn

Rs. 7,500/- P.M.) Mr. Kuldeep Raj (Date of joining 1.01.2004,

salary drawn Rs. 7,500/- P.M. ) were appointed but they

were more qualified and more experienced than the

workman and they were selected by the selection

Committee through regular process. My position in the

management is less than the position which the Chief

Engineer and CMD hold. It is wrong to suggest that the

workman has a good case for success in this ID and we

have wrongly done all the acts and have victimized him.

Personnel Department was involved when the workman

was dis-engaged.

Workman on 05.9.2011 submitted written

arguments which are as follows:-

1. That the appropriate Government in the Ministry

of Labour New Delhi, has referred the disputes vide their

order No. L-42012/193/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 21.06.2006

between the above parties for industrial adjudication and

the terms of reference is reproduced as under:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

WAPCOS, New Delhi in terminating the services of

Sh. Aakash Kashyap S/o Sh. Gyan Parkash w.e.f.

09.07.2004 and the practice of insisting the workman

to sing fresh “Contract of Service” after every three

months is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

2. That the management adopted unfair labour

practice for insisting the workman to sign fresh contract

of service after ever three months which is illegal as well

as unjustified and also unfair labour practice as per

item 10 listed in the 5^th Schedule as per section 2(ra) of I.D.

Act 1947.

3. That the management with a view to deny the

statue of regular workman had compelled the workman to

sign contract of service every completion of six months

w.e.f. 11.07.2001 and the workman worked continuously

w.e.f 11.07.2001 upto 9^th July, 2004 completed three years

of service and his services were terminated w.e.f. 9^th July,

2004 without any notice or notice pay in lieu of notice and

compensation every completion of 240 days each of the

calendar year for 15 days pay as compensation. When the

workmen requested the management to regularize his

services he further compelled the workman to sign fresh

contract of service.

4. That all the workmen adduce his evidence as WW1

and all the facts mentioned in their affidavit and it is proved

that the workmen completed more than 240 days in each

of the calendar year and signing of the contract is only

coma fledge to deny the status of regular workman under

the Management.

5. That the section 29(oo)(bb) is not applicable as

the workman completed more than 240 days of his service

and the contract is a mere vague and comafledge to cover

the workman u/s 2(oo)(bb) . In this connection it is

submitted that the Management has a right to fixed the

period only once for six month but in the present case the

workman performed his duty more than three years so the

so called the contractual appointment after every six

months is not excluded by the definition of clause 2(oo)

(bb) of ID. Act and even the junior persons were retained

in service.

6. That the workman also fulfills the educational

qualification as prescribed for regular services and the

qualification of the said is also annexed with this written

statement. In this connection it is submitted that the

present dispute is not for regularization but only against

the illegal termination while compelling the workman for

4708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

signing every six months of new contract. The material

mentioned by the management in their written submission

is against the law as per the recent judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Devinder Singh Vs

Municipal Council , Sanasur reported in AIR 2011 Supreme

Court 2532.The operative portion of the said judgment is

reproduced in para 13,14 and 15 reproduced as under:

13. The source of employment the method of

recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/

contract of service , the quantum of wages/pay and

the mode of payment are not at all relevant for

deciding whether or not a person is a workman within

the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.

14. It is apposite to observe that the definition of

workman also does not make any distinction between

full time and part time employee or a person

appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the

plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be

inferred that only a person employed on regular basis

or a person employed for doing whole time job is a

workman and the one employed on temporary , part-

time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual

employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman.

15. Whenever an employee challenges the

maintainability of industrial dispute on the ground

that the employee is not a workman within the

meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour

Court /Industrial Tribunal is required to consider is

whether the person is employed in an industry for

hire or reward for doing manual , unskilled ,

operational, technical or clerical work in an industry.

Once the test of work is satisfied , the employee

would fall within the definition of workman.

7. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as

referred hereinabove that even workman employed for

contractual basis on faxed wages or as a casual employee

or for doing duty for fixed rupees is workman within the

definition of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947 and in violation

of section 25F (a) and (b) , the retrenchment is illegal and

in violation of the said sections. The workman is entitled

for reinstatement w.e.f 9.7.2004.

8. In view of the above in the present case the so

called contractual service is a vague and with a view to

deny the permanent status of the workman so the

management violated the provisions of Section 25 F and

25 G of I.D. Act so the workman is entitled to be reinstated

from the date of termination and the workman deposed

that he remained employed during the period of termination

i.e. 09.07.2004 to till date so he is entitled to be reinstated

with full back wages.

Management on 06.04.2011 submitted written

arguments which are as follows:-

1. That in the statement of claim, the workman has

inter alia alleged that the action of the management to

terminate the service of the workman is an unfair labour

practice.

2.Admittedly, the workman was a contractual

employee and signed the ‘Contract of Service’ as per

details given below:-

(i)

Contract dated 20.10.2002 for Project No. 625

for a period of three months from 03.10.02 which

expired on 02.01.2003.

(ii)

Contract dated 06.02.2003 for Project No. 649

for a period of six months from 02.01.03 which

expired on 01.07.03

(iii)

Contract dated 01.09.2003 for Project No.H-700

for a period of six months from 02.07.03 which

expired on 02.01.2004.

(iv)

Contract dated 02.06.2004 for a period from

02.04.04 to 30.09.04 where workman was

terminated on 09.07.2004.

3. The workman has pleaded that he was in service

of the management as a Draftsman since 11.07.2001 to

09.07.2004. However, the workman has not produced any

documentary evidence to the effect of his date of

commencement in service with the management . No

doubt, in cross examination, the management witness has

admitted the date of appointment of the workman as

11.07.2001 but his verbal admission against the

documentary records have no force. Inter alia as per clause

8 of the Contract of Service “in case of unsatisfactory

performance, service will be terminated forthwith without

assigning any reason”. The management terminated his

service on 09.07.2004 without giving any show cause

notice or holding of enquiry. The workman has alleged

that he was Diploma holder in ‘Draftsman (Civil). He was

being paid lower than his other colleagues. He was

suffering from typhoid fever and due to that could not

attend the duty and message about his illness and

absenteeism was conveyed telephonically to the

management.

4. Management filed written statement taking the

following objections:-

(i)

Appropriate Government is State Government

and not the Central Government as there has

been no notification under section 2(a) (i)

defining the management as in Central

Government for certain industries . In

Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union

of India, 106 (2004) FJR 269 (Gau. HC) it has

been held that though Corporation is Govt. of

India undertaking but in the absence of any

notification u/s 2(a) (i) , appropriate authority

in relation to Corporation would be State and

not Central Government. Hence, the reference

of a dispute in the case in hand made by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4709

Central Govt. is bad in law and liable to be

returned back. Even the Appropriate

Government i.e. State Government has been

making reference of industrial disputes relating

to management for adjudication e.g. reference

like Mrs. Lallitha Pillai (an employee of

WAPCO) Vs Water and Power Consultancy

Service (India ) Ltd.i.e. the management in this

case was earlier referred by the State

Government and decided by the Labour Court

of State Government.

(ii)

The workman has no cause of action against

the management as he was fully aware that he

was engaged specifically as a ‘Contractual

employee’ for a specific project to cater specific

project requirements from time to time with

his due acceptance without any protest or

reservation and his plea like ‘equal work, equal

wages, regularization and reinstatement are

wrong being illegal. Even formal mandatory

procedure for selection of an employee, as

required in a government undertaking of the

management, was not followed in the

recruitment/selection of the workman as he

was engaged on urgent need basis

temporarily.

(iii)

The dispute as construed in the statement of

claim is not maintainable due to misjoinder

and non-joinder of necessary parties as the

workman has impleaded the Chief Engineer

(CD-II ) and CMD of the management without

impleading the management i.e. Water and

Power Consultancy Service India Ltd.

(WAPCO) and the claim is liable to be

dismissed on this ground only.

(iv)

The workman had contractual appointment

which is excluded by the definition of clause

2(bb) (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and

workman is not entitled to raise any claim

except on the basis of terms and conditions

of the Contract Agreement. Accordingly the

reference made is mechanical in nature and

liable to be returned to the government.

(v)

Even the workman had not completed the

service of 240 days during the proceeding

12 months.

(vi)

Statement of claim is neither signed nor

verified as per law.

(vii)

The service of the workman was never of

regular nature. If the service of such an

employee is regularized , it will create a back

door entry in the government service without

following the proper procedure of recruitment,

training, selection as being adopted in the

case of regular employees of the government

which is bad in law.

(viii)

As per service contracts with the workman

from time to time, the workman has not

completed 240 working days in the preceeding

12 months and it has not been rebutted by the

workman. As per settled law it is the burden

upon the workman to prove that he has worked

for more than 240 days in the preceeding

12 months. However, calculation of days

worked by the workman during the preceding

12 months are shown on a separate sheet

enclosed herewith for kind perusal of this

Hon’ble court.

(ix)

The selection of the workman was not made a

regular employee by following due and

prescribed procedure of recruitment, hence he

was not entitled to get wages equal to the

wages of the regular employees.

(x)

Moreover, the other draftsmen getting more

wages are regular employees having higher

qualifications and working on different

projects. The workman was Diploma Holder

in Draftsman (Civil)+ Matriculation

(10^th standard) whereas the minimum

qualification of a draftsman as prescribed by

the selection rules is Diplomaholder + Senior

Secondary (11^th Standard). Accordingly the

workman does not fulfill the minimum required

qualification for regular appointment.

(xi)

In fact, the workman remained absent

unauthorisedly without any intimation or

submitting any leave application and his

service has been terminated as per terms and

conditions , stipulated in his service contract.

The workman is not entitled to take entry back

door in government service. His termination

from service is simplicitor and not in violation

of any law.

5. That the terms of reference as framed by the Delhi

State Government and as indicated in the statement of

claim by the workman , are as under:-

“Whether the action of the Management in

terminating the services of the workman and the

practice of insisting the workman to sign fresh

‘Contract of Service’ after every three months is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

6.The workman filed an affidavit in evidence

alongwith documents exhibit WW1/1 , WW1/2 and Ex.

WW1/4 to Ex. WW1/10. Exhibit WW1/3 as mentioned in

his affidavit was not placed on the record of the court file.

4710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman in his cross examination has admitted that

Exhibit WW1/2, WW1/7 , WW1/8 are unsigned and

photocopies and not permitted to be read in evidence.

The workman has also admitted in this cross examination

the Ex. WW1/4 i.e. the alleged medical certificate is a photo

copy. However, he has voluntarily stated that the original

thereof has already been submitted by him to the

management but he has categorically and specifically

admitted in his cross –examination that he has not

submitted any sick leave application to the management

alongwith his medical certificate. The workman has not

produced any documentary proof to establish that he had

ever submitted his valid and effective medical certificate

to the management. Hence, his plea that he was medically

not fit is not tenable. Even the workman has further

admitted that he was not admitted in the Hospital whereas

he remained absent from 24.6.2004 onwards and he was

terminated from his service on 09.07.2004 as the work of

the project of the management was suffering . In fact, he

was absent unauthorisedly from duty.

7. Regarding recruitment of the workman, he has

categorically admitted that the came to know about the

vacancy with the management from the Chief Engineer,

Sh. A.B. Pandey and C.M.D. Sh. Dewan and said Sh. A.B.

Pandey was on deputation from the office where the father

of the workman was an employee. In fact, the workman

was engaged on the approach of his father to the then

Chief Engineer and C.M.D and his test or interview, if any,

was not conducted by the competent authority or Board

of Selection Committee consisting of authorized officials

of the management . He has further admitted in his cross-

examination that no call letter was given to his from the

management. He has also admitted that after his interview

and test he was offered appointment in the form of

agreement i.e. contract of service which he signed with

eyes open. The management has filed a document i.e. Ex.

MW1/4 an extract of relevant service rules applicable in

the establishment of the management being a government

undertaking showing the minimum required educational

qualifications in respect of the workman who was allegedly

a draftsman. This document shows the minimum

qualification of a Draftsman Grade –III (workman) as Sr.

Secondary (10+2) and a diploma in Draftsmanship form a

recognized institution. Knowledge in Auto CAD with

two years experience is essential , over one year’s training

in Leroy printing in a Government Department or Public

Sector Undertaking or commercial firm of repute whereas

the workman is simply matriculate (10^th pass) and Diploma

holder and accordingly does not have the required

qualifications. The workman has alleged that he was in

the employment of the management since 11.07.2001 when

he signed a service contract but he has not filed any such

service contract or other documentary evidence to the

effect that he was in service of the management since

11.07.2001. Even the workman has also admitted that he

did not inform any authority that he signed the service

contracts under any compulsion. Hence, his such an

averment is totally wrong. On the contrary , the

management has filed Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/3 i.e. three

service contracts showing that the workman was employed

from 03.10.2002 and the fourth service contract Ex. WW1/

4 has been filed by the workman himself showing his date

of commencement in service from 02.04.2004 to 30.09.2004.

It is submitted that contractual appointment of any

workman is excluded by the definition of Clause (bb) of

sub section (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes

Act and Section 25-F or any other provision of the

Industrial Disputes Act is not following decided cases:-

1. Gangadhar Pillai Vs Siemens Ltd. 2007 LLR 325

(SC) – It has been held that only because an employee has

been engaged as a casual or temporary or that he had

been employed for number of years, the same by itself

may not lead to the conclusion that such appointment

had been made with the object of depriving him of the

status and privilege of a permanent employee, hence it

will not amount to unfair labour practice AND termination

of the workman , employed for projects which would last

from time to time, would not amount to retrenchment even

though such workmen have completed 240 days

continuous service.

(ii)

Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. Vs .

Sudesh Kumar Puri 2007 LLR 414 (SC) it has

held that where a workman was engaged under

an agreement for a specific period and

payment was made at fixedrate for work done,

on disengagement of workman on termination

of contract, provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb)

of the Industrial Disputes Act would be

attracted.

(iii)

Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Darbara

Singh 2006 LLR 68 (SC ) –it has been held that

where engagement of workman was for

specific period , as such his termination will

be excluded as per the provision of Section

(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and

hence no retrenchment compensation will be

payable on his termination even when he has

worked for more than 240 days in the preceding

twelve calendar months.

(iv)

Sh. Ram Kishan and Anr. Vs. The

Management of M/s American Express

Banking Corpn. & Anr. 2009 LLR 1174 (Del.

HC) –it has been held that when the

appointments are made for fixed term and not

renewed, such termination is excluded from

the definition of retrenchment, hence the

appropriate government rightly declined to

refer the dispute for adjudication, hence the

High Court did not find any merit in the petition

as filed by the workmen challenging order of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4711

the appropriate government declining to refer

the dispute.

(v)

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Anil Kumar

Gupta and Anr. 2006 LLR 1246 –it has inter alia

been held that termination of a Junior Engineer

who was initially appointed for specified

period of six-months which period was

extended further, will not amount to illegal

termination since such termination was

squarely cover by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo)

of the I.D. Act excluding termination from

retrenchment . The New Delhi Municipal

Council being instrumentality of State has to

engage some employees on ad hoc and

contractual basis without adhering to

Recruitment Rules but they cannot claim their

permanency and the court should not

encourage.

Hence, termination of his service is a simplicitor as

his engagement was purely of contractual nature.

8. The burden of proof to prove the duration of

service of 240 days in the preceding 12 months is upon

the workman as held in M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar

2003 LLR 113 (SC). But the workman has not filed any

document to show that he worked for 240 working days

during the preceding 12 months. In his cross-examination,

he has simply stated that he has filed all the documents

regarding his working for 240 days during the preceding

12 months from the date of his termination from service i.e.

09.07.2004 but no such document has been proved by

him. Hence, his such assertion is wrong. The records

submitted by the management as well as workman show

that the service of the workman was terminated on 09.07.04.

9. The management has filed the documents which

are Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/4 , Ex. MW1/1 is a service

contract for three months commencing from 03.10.2002 for

project No. 625 Ex. MW1/2 is a service contract for six

months of dated 06.02.03 for project No. 649., Ex. WW1/3

is a service contract for six months of dated 01.09.03 for

project No. 700 Ex. WW1/4 is a service contract from

02.04.2004 to 30.09.2004. But since the workman stated

remaining absent unauthorisedly since 24.06.2004, his

service was terminated on 09.07.2004 as per clause 8 of

the service contract. As stated above, the workman has

categorically admitted during his cross-examination that

he did not submit any leave application. Even he has

miserably failed to prove his alleged averment that he

submitted any medical certificate. Even the submission of

only medical certificate without any supporting leave

application does not have any force as per law settled.

Hence, the termination of his service is not illegal in any

manner.

In view of the above the termination of service of

the workman being simplicitor is not illegal. Rather, the

workman has dragged the management into unnecessary

litigation. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

statement of claim, as filed by the workman, be dismissed

with cost and the reference be returned to the government.

CALCULATION OF 240 DAYS

1. Admittedly, the workman was a contractual

employee and signed the ‘Contract of Service’ as per

details given below:-

(i)

Contract dated 20.10.2002 for Project No. 625

for a period of three months from 03.10.02

which expired on 02.01.2003.

(ii)

Contract dated 06.02.2003 for Project No. 649

for a period of six months from 02.01.03 which

expired on 01.07.03.

(iii)

Contract dated 01.09.2003 for Project No. H-

700 for a period of six months from 02.07.03

which expired on 02.01.2004.

(iv)

Contract dated 02.06.2004 for a period from

02.04.04 to 30.09.04 where workman was

terminated on 09.07.2004.

2. Last contract from 02.04.04 to 30.09.04.

Service terminated on 09.07.04.

Attended duty up to : 23.06.04. Thereafter remained

absent and terminated on 09.07.04.

3. Preceding 12 months duration :10.07.2003 to

09.07.2004.

Calculation of working days from 10.07.2003 to 09.07.04

10.07.03

09.08.03

31 days

10.08.03

09.09.03

31 days

10.09.03

09.10.03

30 days

10.10.03

09.11.03

31 days

10.11.03

09.12.03

30 days

10.12.03

09.01.04

31 days

10.01.04

09.02.04

31 days

10.02.04

09.03.04

29 days

10.03.04

09.04.04

31 days

10.04.04

09.05.04

30 days

10.05.04

09.06.04

31 days

10.06.04

09.07.04

30 days

Total working days

365 days

ABSENTEEISM WITHOUT PAY:

01.09.03

30.09.03

30 days Absenteeism

02.01.04

01.02.04

31 days

02.02.04

01.03.04

29 days There was no contract of

4712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

02.03.04

01.04.04

31 days of service, hence absent.

24.06.04

09.07.04

16 days Absenteeism

Total :

137 days

Net working days : 365-137= 228 days.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the pleadings of claim statement, written

statement and rejoinder and evidence of parties including

principles laid down in the cited rulings by Hon’ble

Supreme Court as well as by Hon’ble High Courts.

Perusal of pleadings of parties shows that it is

admitted fact that workman Sh. Aakash Kashyap was

employed as contractual employee on 11.07.2001. He

remained in service up to 09.07.2004. His term was

exceedings 240 days. He was paid salary of Rs. 3,180 P.M.

He was illegally and unjustifiedly removed /terminated on

09.07.2004. Hence management adopted unfair Labour

Practice. Management adduced no reliable and credible

evidence. On the basis of which it could be presumed that

workman Sh. Aakash Kashyap is not entitled to any relief.

Sh. Aakash Kashyap produced all possible evidence in

the case. Hence workman Sh. Aakash Kashyap is entitled

to relief as principle laid down in case of Devinder Singh

Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur AIR 2011 S.C. 2532 applies

with full force. But what relief shall be provided to him is

to be decided on the basis of settled law of Supreme Court

on the point of reinstatement and back wages.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the

point of reinstatement and grant of back wages which

shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence

wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the

facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.

In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and

Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that reinstatement of workman with

continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case and the

compensation of Rs.50,000 (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall

meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009 Supreme

Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the award

of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the

workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers

has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead

compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgments,

Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement

is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal

or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute

Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and Service Society

Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement,

it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not

automatic.”

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by

following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered

service with the respondent as a contractual worker, thus.

Compensation of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand only) by

way of damages as compensation to the workman/claimant

by Management after expiry of period of limitation of

available remedy against Award. That will meet the ends

of Justice.

Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman

and against Management.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated: 07/05/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1797-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 144@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@193@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1797.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Rayatwari Sub-Area

of M/s. WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/193/2000-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/144/2003

Date: 28.05.2014.

Party No.1 :

The Sub-Area Manager,

Rayatwari Sub-Area ,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Post-Rayatwari,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4713

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The Vice-President,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

Wardha Valley(BMS), Vishwakarma Sadan,

Mahakali Colliery, Post-Babupeth,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)-442403.

AWARD

(Dated: 28^th May, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Rayatwari Sub-Area of Western Coalfields

Ltd. and their workman, Shri Devanand Kurkanji, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/193/2000-IR (CM-II)

dated 12.05.2003, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Rayatwari

Sub-Area (Chandrapur Area) of Western Coalfields

Limited in reducing the pay of Shri Devanand

Kurkanji, Mining Sirdar, Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery

by fixing it at midpoint w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide order

No. Vekoli/Chakshe/Durga/210/2035 dated

22/26.07.1997 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

2. Before mentioning the respective cases of the

parties as presented in the statement of claim and written

statement respectively, I think it necessary to mention

here that the Central Government by letter No. L-22012/

193/2000-IR (CM-II) dated 10.12.2001 had referred the

industrial dispute between the workman and the

management of Sub-Area Manager, Rayatwari Sub-Area

of WCL for adjudication to this Tribunal with the schedule,

“Whether the action of the management of Rayatwari Sub-

Area (Chandrapur Area) of WCL in not regularizing

Shri Devanand Kukanji, Ex-Mining Sirdar and not

protecting his pay is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to? Basing on the said

reference, case No. CGIT/NGP/14/2002 was registered and

parties were noticed to file the statement of claim, complete

with documents and list of reliance and witnesses.

However, the workman finding some mistakes in the

schedule of the reference, made correspondences with

the Central Government through the Ministry of Labour

and Employment for correction of the mistakes.

Government of India instead of issuing of a corrigendum

to correct the schedule of reference, issued letter No.

L-22012/193/2000-IR (CM-II) dated 12.05.2003 with a new

schedule. The new schedule as referred by the Government

is “Whether the action of the management of Rayatwari

Sub Area (Chandrapur Area) of Western Coalfields Limited

in reducing the pay of Shri Devanand Kurkanji, Mining

Sirdar, Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery by fixing it at mid point

w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide order No. Vekoli/Chakshe/Durga/210/

2035 dated 22/26.07.1997 is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?” So, basing on the new

schedule of reference, case No. CGIT/NGP/144/2003 was

registered.

It is also necessary to mention that on the

application of the workman, case No. CGIT/NGP/14/2002

was clubbed with case No. CGIT/NGP/144/2003 as per

order dated 15.07.2011 passed in case No. 14/2002.

3. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement and accordingly, the workman,

Shri Devanand Kurkanji, (‘the workman” in short), filed

the statement of claim through the union, BKKMS (BMS),

(“the union” in short) and the management of Western

Coalfields Limited (“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 party No.1 is a government

company and is a “state” within the provisions of Article

12 of the Constitution of India and under the approval of

Ministry of Coal, Central Government constituted Joint

Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry (“JBCCI” in

short) consisting of all employers of Coal Industry and

the five central Trade unions and the JBCCI jointly

deliberated over the wage structure including dearness

allowance, fitment in revised scale of pay, Pension, fringe

benefits, service conditions and other allied matters

including welfares/safety measures and such deliberations

is known as “National Coal Wage Agreements” (“the

NCWAs” in short) and the JBCCI has several committees

and sub-committees for proper and uniform

implementation of the provisions of NCWAs in the entire

Coal Industry and for maintaining uniformity and proper

implementation, the Secretary, JBCCI issues

implementation instructions from time to time and no

unilateral decision can be taken by any subsidiary in

contravention of the provisions contained in the NCWAs

and the provisions are mandatory and binding on all coal

companies including the party No.1 and so far nine

NCWAs have been deliberated by the JBCCI, Known as

NCWAs I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX dated 11.08.1974,

11.08.1979, 11.11.1983, 27.07.1989, 19.01.1996, 23.12.2000,

15.07.2005, 24.01.2009 and 31.01.2012 with period of

operation from 01.01.1975 to 31.12.1978, 01.01.1979 to

31.12.1982, 01.01.1983 to 31.12.1986, 01.01.1987 to

30.06.1991, 01.07.19991 to 30.06.1996, 01.07.1996 to

30.06.2001, 01.02.2001 to 30.06.2006, 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2011

and 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016 respectively and the Secretary,

JBCCI issued Implementation Instruction No. 26 dated

23.04.1984 in regard to the “fixation benefit to price rated

workers, who are doing time rated Job” and it was directed

that, “management will ensure the minimum guaranteed

benefit and fitment in the revised scales of pay as per

clause 2.8 and 2.9 of NCWA-III respectively with effect

4714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from 01.01.1983, in case it has not already been done” and

the said implementation instruction has not been

superseded as yet and similarly in NCWAs IV to IX,

provisions have been made to give minimum increase to

all workmen in different categories, over and above the

wages fixed on the basis of earlier NCWA and in terms of

NCWA-V, all the workmen were given minimum benefit of

Rs. 235 per month or Rs. 9.04 per day inclusive of interim

relief, over and above the wages prescribed under NCWA-

IV and loader were placed in group V-A and from 01.07.1991,

the revised basic pay of Rs. 88.93 for workload of 100 CFT

and Rs. 104.93 for workload of 118 CFT were fixed for the

loaders as per chapter-III of NCWA-V and besides the

basic pay, it was provided that they would be entitled for

fall back 100% of above revised wages and to special piece

rated allowance (“SPRA” in short) @ Rs. 2.12 per day and

the loaders, who had completed ten years of service or

more in the same group were provided with additional

SPRA w.e.f. 01.07.1994 and again w.e.f. 01.07.1995 and

besides the NCWAs, the service condition of the

employees are also governed by the certified standing

order of party No.1.

The further case of the workman as presented by

the union is that the workman was appointed as presented

by the union is that the workman was appointed on

27.08.1984 as a piece rated loader under group VA at Sarni

Mine of Pathakhera Area, M.P of WCL and he passed the

statutory certificate examination required for the post of

Mining Sirdar on 01.09.1993 and he was authorized to work

as Mining Sirdar as and when required, vide officer order

dated 26.09.1994 and he was getting the group wages,

SRPA and other allowances while working as a Mining

Sirdar at Sarni Mine and the workman and 13 others having

Mining Sirdarship certificate were transferred to different

areas of WCL in Maharashtra, vide order dated 20.09.1994,

with the assurance of providing with the job of Mining

Sirdar and the workman was transferred to Rayatwari

colliery and though the workman was deployed as Mining

Sirdar w.e.f. 22.12.1994, contrary to the transfer letter, the

Manager, Durgapur Rayatwari colliery issued an officer

order dated 30.01.1995, authorizing the workman to work

as Mining Sirdar with condition that he would be paid

wages of Mining Sirdar grade ‘C” with difference i.e. job

rate and that the authorization could be cancelled without

notice and though the workman got wages of loader group

V-A and SPRA, the difference of job rate in addition to the

same to grade C was never paid and as per clause 3.6 of

the certified standing order, the workman was entitled for

confirmation as Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 30.07.1995 in Technical

Supervisory Grade C, with protection of his group wages

of loader group V-A and SPRA and also the difference of

wages as per the order passed in writing by the

management and the other employees, who were

transferred along with the workman under the same office

order regularized as Mining Sirdar since 01.01.1996,

although they had joined one month after the joining of

the workman and the workman was not regularized even

from 01.01.1996 and as such, the workman vide his letter

dated 28.04.1997 approached the Chief General Manger,

Chandrapur Area for redress of his grievance, but no action

was taken by party No.1 on the same, so he again

submitted the letter dated 25.05.1997 to the CGM,

Chandrapur Area, but the same was neither considered

nor replied.

It is also pleaded by the union that though the

workman was entitled for promotion in T & C Grade “C”

just after his transfer and joining, as per the transfer order,

but he was regularized with retrospective effect i.e.

01.01.1996 vide office order dated 22/26.07.1997 of Manager,

Durgapur Rayatwari colliery and his basic wages was

fixed at Rs. 2900, the midpoint of the scale of pay of 1990-

100-2790-110-3670 in Technical and supervisory grade ‘C’

of Mining Sirdar, where as, his monthly wages was group

basic of Rs. 104.93 + SPRA Rs.23.56 = Rs. 128.49 X 26

days) = Rs. 3339.74 + job rate, as per order of the party

No.1 and the workman was entitled for fixation of his basic

wage at Rs. 3560 w.e.f. 30.07.1995, i.e. from the date of

completion of the Probationary period and the party No.1

also deprived the workman from the minimum benefit given

to all the workmen of NCWA-V and NCWA-VI and the

workman addressed a letter dated 24.09.1997 to the

Manager, DRC No. ¾ pits mentioning there in that other

workers similarly situated including Md. Riyaz, who was

also transferred along with him, under the same office order

were given protection of wages and their basic was fixed

at Rs. 3450 per month w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and requested to

give such benefits to him, but party No.1 rejected his

application without going into the merit of the case, vide

letter No. 3490 dated 30.09.1997/ 05.10.1997 and the

workman again appealed to the Manager, Durgapur vide

his application dated 26.10.1997 and the Manager,

Durgapur intimated the workman vide letter dated 10/

13.11.1997 about taking up the matter by the Personnel

Manager, Rayatwari Sub-Area with Nandgaon Incline and

he would be intimated in due course and as no further

communication was received by the workman in that

regard, he made an application dated 24.05.1998 to the

CGM, Chandrapur Area and vide letter no.1167 dated 03/

04.06.1998, he was informed by the manager that the matter

had been referred to higher ups and the President of the

union of Chandrapur also took up the case of the workman

with the management, but management intimated their

disagreement vide letter No. 4231 dated 13/14.06.1998 and

management also vide letter dated 31.05.1999 intimated

that the wages of the workman to have been fixed correctly.

The further case of the workman as presented by

the union is that there was a memorandum of settlement

dated 02.11.1992 between the party No.1 and RKKMS

union and in the said settlement, the party No.1 agreed to

protect the wages of piece rated loader on their conversion

to time rated or monthly rated categories and the said

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4715

settlement was illegal, as the same curtailed certain existing

wages and facilities and was in contravention of the

provisions of NCWA and the same is detrimental to the

rights of the Tub loaders and the record note of discussion

dated 31.10.1995 containing certain modifications to the

settlement was also illegal, as the same was never moved

before the RLC(C), Nagpur for making the modification

and party No.1 did not implement the terms of settlement

dated 02.11.1992 uniformly and vide office order No. 2667

dated 10.02.2000, the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager,

Chandrapur Area instructed all the Sub Areas to protect

the basic wages of all the employees of Chandrapur Area

irrespective of degradation/ reduction in post and category

and party No.1 had has been giving protection of wages

to different employees on pick and choose basis and there

cannot be two types of system in the same company and

the workman is entitled for protection of his wages and

SPRA from 30.07.1995 and annual increment and all other

consequential benefits.

4. The party No.1 in the written statement, after

denying all the adverse allegations made in the statement

of claim by the union, has pleaded inter-alia that on a

dispute being raised by the union in respect of the alleged

non-regularisation and non-protection of wage, the

Ministry of Labour had made a reference vide its order

dated 10.12.2001 and on the basis of such reference, case

No. CGIT/NGP/14/2002 was registered by the Tribunal and

while the said reference was still pending, the Ministry

made another reference dated 12.05.2003 and in both the

references, the parties and issues are identical and such

action of the Ministry is beyond jurisdiction, though, it

has been claimed by the union that the subsequent

reference is by way of corrigendum/correction of the error

crept in in the first reference and on a careful examination

of the subsequent reference, it can be found that the same

is not by way of corrigendum/correction and there is also

no mention in the Ministry’s letter that it was the

modification of the previous reference and the second

reference has been made by the Government without

application of mind, in a routine manner and also by

flouting the principles of natural justice and it is clear from

paragraph two of the statement of claim that

representations were made by the workman for correction

of the typographical errors and other errors in the schedule

of reference of the first reference and it is clear from the

said facts that the Ministry acted for amending the schedule

of the reference on the correspondence made by the

workman, though he was not a party in the reference and

as such, any representation made by the workman in his

individual capacity had no legal entity and the Ministry

should not have taken cognizance to the letters of the

workman and acted upon them and even otherwise also,

when a reference had already been made by the Ministry

on the issues involved, it had no jurisdiction to issue a

fresh reference even by way of amendment/corrigendum

and the first reference was about non-regularization/non-

protection of wages, the second reference is regarding

fixation of wages of the workman at mid-point and as such,

the Ministry has no power to make the second reference

and the reference is liable to be struck down. It is further

pleaded by the party No.1 that the issue involved in the

first reference i.e. regularization/protection of wages had

already stood settled by issuance of the regularity order

and protection of group wages and there was nothing to

adjudicate further and therefore, the issue of midpoint

fixation which was sought to be adjudicated under the

second reference was not required to be referred. The

further case of the party No.1 is that the workman came on

transfer from patherakhera Area in September, 1994, where

he had been working as a loader and from time to time as

mining sirdar and he was posted at Bhatodi project of

Chandrapur Area and in terms of his posting order dated

20.09,1994, he was subsequently authorized to work as a

mining sirdar at Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery vide office

order dated 30.01.1995 and in the said order, the mode of

payment was also mentioned and he was regularized as

mining sirdar vide office order dated 22/26.07.1997 in the

pay scale of Rs.1990-100-2790-110-3670 with retrospective

effect from 01.01.1996,with midpoint fixation of pay and

while fixing the pay of the workman at midpoint of the

monthly scale of grade-C, his wages as loader stood

protected and the post of Mining Sirdar is lowest in the

cadre of mining personnel and the said post is filled by

eligible departmental employees drawn from different

disciplines, such as, piece rated, time rated and monthly

rated having in possession of statutory qualification of a

Mining Sirdar and loaders not being in mining supervisory

promotional channel are selected along with others

through the process of DPC and therefore, normally when

the selected employees are inducted as mining sirdar, they

enter the cadre at the minimum of the grade, but to avoid

monetary loss to them, they are given midpoint fixation

and while giving such midpoint fixation to the workman,

there was no reduction of his wage, rather it was more

than the group wage of a piece rated loader, which the

workman was holding prior to becoming a mining sirdar

and the midpoint fixation of pay was being done in

accordance with the prevailing settlement/agreement and

the same is in order and does not require to be interfered

with.

It is further pleaded by the party no.1 that the power

of the Government to refer the dispute is not absolute/

unlimited and the Government has to exercise the power

judiciously and within the frame work of law and such

power is also subject to judicial scrutiny and the action of

the Manager, Durgapur Rayatwari colliery in placing the

workman as officiating Mining Sirdar was not against any

assurance/commitment and in the transfer order, there was

no assurance of promotion and it was only placement as

Mining Sirdar and the contents of the said office order

4716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has been wrongly interpreted by the union and in any

case, the workman did not object/protest to the officiating

arrangement and complied with the same and no claim of

alleged denial of any benefit arising out of the officiating

order was ever made and the wage calculation made by

the union is not correct and the wages of the workman

was not reduced after being regularized as a Mining Sirdar

and he was not entitled for basic of Rs.3650 and the crucial

date is 01.01.1996, where as, the pay slips for January,

1997 and October, 1997 of the workman have been quoted

and produced by the union and even the said pay slips

show that the total wages of the workman was Rs. 7046.65

in January, 1997, whereas, after fixation of the wages of

the workman in the monthly scale of Mining Sirdar, it was

enhanced to Rs. 8640.25, therefore, apparently there was

no loss of wages and the pay fixation cases of the two

referred employees relate to another establishment i.e.

Nandgaon Enclave and the Sub-Area Manager, Rayatwari

Sub-Area was neither the controlling authority nor

responsible for pay fixation of the said two employees

and on the face of it, their pay fixation appears to be

erroneous and incorrect and the same cannot be treated

as a guidelines at Rayatwari and otherwise also, a wrong

done in one case cannot create a legal right for rectification

of other cases and the interpretation given by the union

of bilateral agreement dated 03.10.1995 is not correct and

the said bilateral agreement, which was reached as

modification of the settlement dated 02.11.1992 has not

been declared null and void and the same continues to

remain in force and the settlement dated 02.11.1992 and

the subsequent modifications are legal and have/had the

legally binding effect and the decisions taken in the other

cases referred by the union in the statement of claim have

nothing to do in the fixation of the wages of the workman

and it had never adopted any pick and choose method in

giving pay protection to the employees and deciding of

each case on its own merit cannot be termed as adopting

of pick and choose method and the workman has already

been given protection of wages including all the

components of wages and he is not entitled for anything

beyond what had been granted to him w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

5. In the rejoinder, the union on behalf of the

workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

statement of claim, after denying the pleadings made by

the party no.1 in the written statement of claim.

6. To prove their respective stands, both the parties

have relied on documentary evidence. Besides

documentary evidence, the workman has examined himself

as a witness in support of his case.

In his evidence on affidavit, the workman has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

The evidence of the workman has remained unchallenged

as management remained absent and did not cross-examine

him. It is necessary to mention here that the case was

fixed to 12.02.2014 for the cross-examination of the

workman. However, on 12.02.2014, nobody appeared on

behalf of the management to cross-examine the workman,

so, order of “no cross” of the workman was passed. It is

also necessary to mention that even though the case was

fixed for adducing evidence from the side of the party

No.1, party No.1 did not adduce any evidence and as party

No.1 did not take part in the reference since 12.02.2014,

order to proceed ex-parte against the party no.1 was

passed on 29.04.2014.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that due to some mistake

in the schedule of the first reference, the Central

Government was moved by the workman to rectify the

schedule and the Government rectified the mistakes and

issued the new schedule with the same letter number and

as the reference is in respect of the workman raised by the

union, there was no illegality to move the Government by

the workman to rectify the mistake in the schedule of

reference and there is also no illegality in rectifying the

schedule by the Government and clubbing the case CGIT/

NGP/14/2002 with case no. CGIT/NGP/144/2003. It was

further submitted that in view of the stands taken by the

party No.1 in the written statement and the evidence on

record, it is crystal clear that the workman is entitled for

protection of his wages w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the midpoint

fixation made by the party no.1 is quite incorrect and as

the group wages + SPRA of a loader was Rs. 3285.62 per

month as on 01.01.1996 as per NCWA, the workman is

entitled at least to Rs. 3450 as basic per month from

01.01.1996 and he is also entitled for the consequential

benefits.

Advocate for the workman has cited the decisions

reported in 1994 I CLR-627 (Narendra Kumar Chandla Vs.

State of Haryana) and 2007 (115) FLR-427 (Mohan Mahto

Vs. M/s. Central Coal Fields Ltd.) in support of the

submissions.

It is necessary to mention here that the decision

reported in 1994 I CLR – 627 (Supra) is in regard to right to

life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case in hand

is not a case of right to life under Article 21 of the

Constitution, but a case of protection of wages. Hence,

with respect, I am of the view that the decision has no

application to the case in hand.

8. In this case, all most all the facts are admitted by

the parties. It is not disputed by party no.1 that the basic

of the workman in the post of Mining Sirdar was fixed at

midpoint. The only contention raised by the management

is that while fixing the basic of the workman at midpoint in

the post of Mining Sirdar, his wages as a loader was

protected and there was no loss of wages of the workman.

Perused the record. Admittedly, the workman was

working as a piece rated loader and he was selected for his

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4717

appointment as a Mining Sirdar and also regularized as a

Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at Durgapur Rayatwari

colliery. However, the party no.1 while regularizing the

service of the workman as a Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 01.01.1996,

fixed his pay at Midpoint of the pay scale of Mining Sirdar.

As the posting of the workman as Mining Sirdar was a

managerial decision, he was entitled for protection of his

wages + SPRA of loader V as on 01.01.1996, the date with

effect of which he was regularized as a Mining Sirdar.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Rayatwari Sub

Area (Chandrapur Area) of Western Coalfields Limited in

reducing the pay of Shri Devanand Kurkanji, Mining Sirdar,

Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery by fixing it at midpoint w.e.f.

01.01.1996 vide order No. Vekoli/Chakshe/Durga/210 /2035

dated 22/26.07.1997 is illegal and unjustified. The workman

is entitled for protection of his basic wages + SPRA of

loader as on 01.01.1996, while fixing his pay in the post of

Mining Sirdar and all other consequential benefits of the

post of Mining Sirdar thereafter. The workman is also

entitled for payment of the differential of wages if any

after such fixation of his pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1798-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksy

iQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

08@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@28@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O. 1798.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08/2008)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Saoner Sub Area of M/s.

WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/28/2007-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/08/2008

Date: 30.05.2014

Party No.1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Saoner Sub Area,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

P O –Saoner,

Nagpur-441107

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The President,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor

Sangh, (INTUC)

Br. Patansawangi Coal Mine,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Tah. Saoner, Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 30^th May, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Saoner Sub Area of WCL and their

workman, Shri Raghunandan Naina Pal, for adjudication,

as per letter No.L-22012/28/2007-IR (CM-II) dated

11.03.2008, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of WCL in

not protecting the wages of Shri Raghunandan Naina

Pal is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement and accordingly, the union, RKKMS

(“the union” short) filed the statement of claim on behalf

of the workman, Shri Raghunandan Naina Pal, (‘the

workman” in short) and the management of Western

Coalfields Ltd. (“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 on 26.03.1981 as a loader category V at

Patansawangi Mine and on 11.09.1990, while he was on

duty in the mine, he met with an accident and sustained

injury on his right hand and he was injured for ten months

and he was examined by the Medical Board on 26.07.1991

and his permanent disability was assessed at 12% and the

Medical Board recommended to give alternate job to the

workman, however, the recommendation of the Medical

Board was not communicated to the workman and he was

not given alternate job as recommended by the Medical

Board and the recommendation of the Medical Board was

counter signed by the CMO on 29.04.1994 and the fact of

such counter signature by the CMO was also not

4718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

communicated to the workman and therefore, under

compelling circumstances, the workman on his own made

communication with the party No.1 to convert him to time

rated worker and he was accommodated as a general

mazdoor category I at Mine No. 3 of Saoner Sub Area, as

per the office order and though the workman was given

time rated job, his wages of loader category- V were not

protected and due to non protection of his wages of loader,

there was loss of his basic wages and the workman is

entitled for protection of his wages of loader. It is further

pleaded by the Union on behalf of the workman that injury

compensation of Rs.11,678.40 was paid to the workman

only on 23.12.1998, instead of in the year 1991 itself, so,

the workman is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% on

the said amount from 1991 to 23.12.1998.

It is further pleaded by the union that the reduction

of the wages of the workman was contrary to the National

Coal Wage Agreement and to the Standing order of party

No.1 and the workman is entitled for protection of his

wages of category V from the date of accident i.e. 11.09.1990

and all consequential benefits.

3. In the written statement, the party No.1 has

admitted about the appointment of the workman as a loader

category V at Patansawangi Mine and his drawing of wages

of category V and that the workman met with an accident

on 11.09.1990 during the course of his employment and

that he was injured for 10 months and that he was examined

by the Medical Board on 26.07.1991 and was declared 12%

disabled and that the Medical Board recommended to give

the workman alternate job in underground duty. However,

party No.1 has denied the allegation that such facts were

not communicated to the workman, It is further pleaded

by the party No.1 that the workman was not able to perform

his duty as a loader and as such, he himself by letter dated

14.07.1995 requested the management to convert him into

time rated employee and prior to that also, the union had

raised the said issue and agreed for the conversion of the

workman to time rated employee and in pursuance to the

letter of the workman, as per office order dated 17.07.1995,

the workman was accommodated in time rated job at mine

No.3 of Saoner Sub Area, as mazdoor category I and the

workman was not transferred, but he was provided with

job of time rated employee at the place, where work was

available and as such,the same cannot be termed as transfer

and as per the request of the workman, he was transferred

to Pipla mine and again to Patansawangi mine and the

workman himself wanted accommodation in category I and

he also accepted the wages of the said category and as

such, he is not entitled for protection of his wages of

category V and injury compensation of Rs.11,678.40 was

paid to the workman and as the workman wanted

accommodation in category I as time rated employee and

accepted the wages of that category, it cannot be termed

as any financial loss to the workman and as the conversion

of the workman to time rated category was on his request,

the question of payment of differential wages does not

arise and there is no victimization and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, it is pleaded on behalf of the

workman, by the union that under compelling

circumstances and considering the hardship and starvation

of the workman and his family members for a period of

four years, the workman agreed for his conversion into

time rated job and neither the union nor the workman had

requested the management to alter the wages from category

V to category-I and the workman was given light job as

per the recommendation of the Medical Board and it was

the management, who failed to offer light job as per with

category V and accommodated him in category-I and party

No.1 had given protection of wages to other employees in

similar situation in number of cases including in the cases

of Abdul Wahid Nizamuddin, Dinadas Dupai, Hazarilal and

ranju Vedu of Patansaongi Mine, who were declared

medically unfit for their regular job and were given light

job by changing their original category V of loader and

from the said facts, it is clear that party no 1 indulged in

unfair labour practice and victimized the workman.

5. In support of his case, the workman has examined

himself as a witness, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence,

It is to be mentioned here that party No.1 did not

adduce any oral evidence in support of its case.

6. In his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit,

the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

statement of claim and the rejoinder.

In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted

that he met with the accident on 11.09.1990 and from the

year 1995 to 1998, he received the wages of time rated

category without any objection.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman met

with the accident on 11.09.1990, while performing his duty

and sustained injuries and he was examined by the Medical

Board on 26.07.1991 and found to have sustained 12%

permanent disability in his right hand and the Medical

Board recommended to give alternate job to the workman,

but party No.1 did not allow him duty by giving alternate

job as recommended by the Medical Board and the

recommendation of the Medical Board was counter signed

by the Chief Medical Officer only on 29.04.1994, but the

workman was not communicated about the same and

therefore, the workman was without any job since

11.09.1990 and as he was not getting any salary, for the

survival of his family members, he was compelled to request

the party No.1 for giving him time rated job, but he had

never agreed to change his wages of category V to

category-I and in view of the various settlements between

the union and party No.1,the workman is entitled for the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4719

protection of his wages and vide order dated 17.07.1995,

the party No.1 without following the due process of law

converted the workman into time rated category and made

him General Mazdoor category-I, without protection of

his wages of category V and the workman suffered loss of

wages due to illegal change in his service condition and

without any fault on his part and the workman is entitled

to the differential wages of category V and category-I for

the period from September,1990 and the workman is also

entitled for 18% interest per annum from August,1991 to

1998 on the amount of injury compensation.

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 that the documents filed by

the workman have not been duly proved and exhibited

and as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration.

It was further submitted that the statement of claim was

filed by the workman on 24.12.2008, claiming protection of

wages for the period from 1990 onwards and the claim

suffers from delay and latches and the workman has not

been able to show any reason in approaching the Tribunal

after a period of almost 18 years and only on this ground,

the reference is liable to be answered in the negative. It

was further argued that the claims made by the workman

other than wage protection cannot be entertained by the

Tribunal, as the same have not been referred for

adjudication. It was also submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that the workman met with an accident

and after resuming his duties, he was not able to perform

his original job and as such, he requested the party No.1

on 14.07.1995 in writing to convert him from piece rated

employee to time rated employee by giving him alternate

job and the workman in his said letter also consented to

accept the wages of the category, which would be given

to him as alternate job and because of the conversion

from piece rated to time rated, the workman derived much

more benefits and the workman having taken such benefits

for all these years, he is not entitled to any relief as claimed

by him.

In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 that in case it is held that the

workman is entitled for protection of wages, then the

workman can only be given such protection from three

preceding years of the date of approaching the Court, as

per the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble High Court

in different judgments including in W.P. No. 476/

2014(Keshav Vs. WCL and others.)

9. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that

it is settled beyond doubt 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 dispute is limited to the points specifically

referred for its adjudication and matter incidental there to.

In this case, reference has been made by the

Government to adjudicate the validity or other wise of the

denial of party No.1 to give wage protection to the

workman. So, except the issue regarding the protection of

wages of the workman, the claim of the workman for interest

on the amount of injury compensation and all other reliefs

which are not incidental to the issue of wage protection

cannot be entertained.

10. The first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 is to answer the reference in

the negative on the ground that there is inordinate

unexplained delay in raising the dispute by the workman.

Admittedly, the workman was injured in an accident, while

he was on duty in the mine on 11.09.1990 and he was

examined by the Medical Board on 26.07.1991 and the

Medical Board recommended to give alternate job to the

workman after assessing his permanent disability at 12%

and the report of the Medical Board was counter signed

by the Chief Medical Officer on 29.04.1994. It is also not

disputed that the workman made a representation on

14.07.1995 to give him alternate job and also gave his

consent to accept the wages of the category in which he

would be given the alternate job. It is also found that the

statement of claim was filed by the workman on 24.12.2008.

It is found from record that there is a delay of about 17

years in raising the dispute.

However, it is well settled that the dispute should be

referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and

after conciliation proceedings have failed and the delay

would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence

relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not

available. It is also well settled that in case of delay, in

appropriate cases, the court may mould the relief either by

reducing the back wages or by denying it completely.

In this case, the workman has not explained the delay

in raising the dispute. However, the delay in the present

case has not been so culpable. so as to disentitle the

workman to any relief. Hence, the reference cannot be

dismissed on the ground of delay.

11. The party No.1 has filed the settlement entered

by it with RKKMs union dated 02.11.1992 before the

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur. In the

said settlement, the party No.1 had agreed to protect the

group wages including SPRA on conversion from piece

rated to time /monthly rated, where ever applicable.

Likewise, provision to protect the piece rated wages on

conversion of piece rated worker to time rated by

managerial decision was made in the record of discussion

held on 31.10.1995. The copy of the said record of

discussion dated 31.10.1995 has been filed by the party

No.1. From the admitted facts of this case, the provisions

of the settlements as mentioned above and applying the

principles enunciated by the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur

Bench in the decision relied on by the party No 1, it is

found that the workman is entitled for the protection of

his wages of category V.

4720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12. Admittedly, there is unexplained delay of about

17 years in raising the dispute. Taking in to consideration

such delay in raising the dispute and applying the principles

enunciated by the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in

Writ petition No.476/2014 to the case in hand, I think it

proper to give the benefit of protection of wages to the

workman from the preceding three years of raising of the

dispute by the workman before the Conciliation Officer-

cum Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur.

Accordingly, the workman is entitled for the deferential of

wages of Loader category- V and general mazdoor category

I, from the preceding three years of the raising of the

dispute before the Conciliation Officer and not from the

date of accident, as claimed by him. Hence it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of WCL in not

protecting the wages of Shri Raghunandan Naina Pal is

illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled for

protection of his wages from the preceding three years of

the date of his raising of the dispute before the Conciliation

Officer –cum- the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Nagpur. Accordingly, the workman is entitled

for the deferential of wages of Loader category V and

general mazdoor category I, from the preceding three years

of raising of the dispute before the Conciliation Officer

and not from the date of accident, as claimed by him.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1799-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@

2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@4@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1799.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22011/4/2011-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 57/2012

Ref. No. L-22011/4/2011-IR(C.II) dated: 20.03.2012

BETWEEN

Shri RAJENDERA PRASAD, Ex. Manager (D)

R/o 538-K/1172, Triveni Nagar – 11

Lucknow.

And

The Chief Manager

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar

Lucknow.

The Executive Director (North)

Food Corporation of India

Plot No. 2A, 2B, Sector 24

Noida (U.P.) – 201 301

AWARD

1. By order No. L-22011/4/2011-IR(CM-II) dated:

20.03.2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Shri Rajendera Prasad, Ex.

Manager (D), R/o 538-K/1172, Triveni Nagar – 11, Lucknow

and the Chief Manager, Food Corporation of India, TC/3V,

Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow & the Executive

Director (North), Food Corporation of India, Plot No. 2A,

2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.) for adjudication to this CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF FCI, LUCKNOW IN

DECLINING THE STEPPING OF PAY OF SHRI

RAJENDERA PRASAD AT PAR WITH HIS

JUNIORS IS FAIR AND JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT

RELIEF THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO?”

3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that the

workman, Rajendera Prasad, has been working as Manager

(D) with the opposite party when he claim for parity in pay

with one of his junior viz. Shri Swami Nath Sharma who

was stepped up in parity with another junior to the workman

viz. Shri Ramdhari Singh. The management of FCI turned

down his request stating that his pay cannot be stepped

up at par with Swami Nath; since the workman’s date of

joining was 23.05.72; whereas the date of joining of Swami

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4721

Nath was 03.05.72, therefore, Swami Nath was senior to

the workman. It is alleged by the workman that the seniority

is not counted from the date of joining rather is taken with

regard to the marks obtained in written test/interview

during appointment. It is further stated by the workman

that the management while rejecting his request for parity

with Swami Nath, advised the workman that he may apply

afresh with another suitable junior. It has been submitted

by the workman that he again represented for stepping at

par with Shri Ramdhari Singh; but again the management

rejected his requested stating that his pay cannot be

stepped up either with Swami Nath Sharma or any of the

his juniors who have got their pay stepped up with Swami

Nath Sharma. It has been alleged by the workman that the

action of the management in declining the step up benefits

at par to his juniors is against the principle of Equity,

therefore, has prayed that the same be declared illegal and

unjustified and he may be held entitled for stepping up of

his pay w.e.f. 26.12.88 at par with his juniors along with

consequential benefits.

4. The management of the FCI has denied the claim

of the workman by filing its written statement wherein it

has been submitted that the claim of the workman for

stepping up of the pay at par with Swami Nath could not

be considered since he was senior to the workman by the

date of joining. The management has further submitted

that his pay could not step up at par with Ramdhari Singh

because Ramdhari Singh was not found suitable junior to

the workman. It is further submitted by the management

that the stepping up of the pay of the workman could not

be done due directions of Head Quarters vide dated

15.04.2002; wherein it was provided that stepping up could

be done in respect of those only who joined the FCI

between 03.05.72 and 29.09.76. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman be

rejected being devoid of merit.

5. The workman has field its rejoinder wherein he

has stated that the submissions of the management that

stepping up of Ramdhari Singh was done before receipt of

Head Quarter instructions dated 15.04.2002 is against the

principle of equity. He had further submitted that had his

case would have been considered in 1997 like that of

Ramdhari Singh then the fate would have been different.

It is also submitted by the workman that Swami Nath

Sharma joined in West Zone on 03.05.72 as AG-III and

joined North Zone on 29.09.76 on his own request transfer,

thereby loosing his seniority; hence, he should not have

been treated senior to him.

6. The parties have filed photocopies of various

documents in support of their respective claim including

communications and seniority lists. The workman has

examined himself; whereas the management examined

Shri Ranvir Bahadur, Manager WRC in support of their

stands. Parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the

witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral

arguments.

7. Heard workman and the authorized representative

of the management and perused entire evidence on record.

8. The workman has contended that Shri Swami Nath

Sharma who is junior to him is getting more pay and the

management of FCI has turned down his request, stating

that Swami Nath Sharm is senior to him as he joined the

FCI on 03.05.72 whereas the workman joined the FCI on

23.05.72. The workman has also argued that he again claim

parity with one Shri Ramdhari Singh who joined FCI on

29.05.72 and was stepped up at par with Shri Swami Nath.

Then the management of FCI declined to step him at par

with juniors stating that stepping up cannot be done in

pursuance of the directions of the Head Quarter vide letter

dated 15.04.2002. It is contended by the workman that the

management of FCI stepped up as many as five employees

viz. Shri Krishna Bihari Mishra, Jeevan Kumar, Mukesh

Kumar Syyed Ali and Ramdhari Singh. However, the

restriction had been put by the Head Quarter vide its letter

dated 15.04.2002, which mentioned that stepping up shall

not be allowed at par with Shri Swami Nath Sharma to

those officials who joined FCI between 03.05.72 to 29.09.76.

In this regard the workman has submitted that had the

management treated his matter in time then his stepping

up could have been done much before issuance of

instructions dated 15.04.2002.

9. In rebuttal, the management’s representative has

argued that Shri Swami Nath was senior to the workman

by the date of joining, as Shri Swami Nath joined FCI on

03.05.72 and the workman on 23.05.72. He has further

argued that the workman could not be stepped up at par

with Shri Ramdhari Singh because of the restriction put

by the Head Quarter vide its letter dated 15.04.2002.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival contentions of the parties and perused the evidence

available on file in light thereof.

11. From pleadings of the workman it comes out that

the application of the workman to step up his pay was

forwarded vide letter dated 22.11.97 and vide letter dated

10.2.98 the workman was informed that his case is under

consideration. The management denied the stepping up

vide letter dated 13.09.2005 and was advised to seek

stepping with some other suitable junior. Then the

workman again applied for stepping up at par with his

junior Shri Ramdhari Singh in the year 2008, which too

was rejected on the plea that the Head Quarter has put

restriction on stepping up any of the official who joined

between 03.05.72 to 29.09.76.

12. Admittedly, Shri Swami Nath joined the FCI in

West Zone on 03.05.72 and subsequently, he joined North

Zone on 29.09.76 on his own request whereas the workman

joined FCI in North Zone on 23.05.72. The workman in his

evidence has stated that he is claiming parity with Swami

Nath Sharma and none the other junior. The management

4722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has treated Swami Nath Sharma senior, taking his initial

date of joining in FCI; but has ignored this fact that when

he got transferred to North Zone on his own request then

he should have lost his seniority and should have treated

as the junior most official in the North Zone in his category.

From perusal of the documentary evidence available

on record it is evident that the management of FCI granted

parity with Shri Swami Nath to other workmen who joined

on the dates much after the workman. It is evident from

paper No. 5/12, filed by the management that the

management stepped up following officials at par with

Shri Swami Nath Sharma :

Name/Designation

Date of

No.

Joining

Shri Krishna Bihari Mishra, AG-II (D)

09.10.72

Shri Jeevan Kumar, AG-II (D)

06.10.72

Shri Mukesh Kumar, AG-II (D)

24.05.72

Shri Sayyed Ali, AG-II (D)

20.06.72

Shri R.D. Singh, AG-II (D)

29.05.72

Also, from pleading of the workman it is clear that

when the management rejected his request for stepping

up at par Shri Swami Nath Sharma, he requested for his

stepping up at par with Shri R.D. Singh who have been

stepped up at par with Shri Swami Nath; but the

management denied the stepping up stating that there is

restriction put by the Head Quarter vide their instructions

dated 15.04.2002. From perusal of above details, it is very

much clear that all the officials, including Ram Dhari Singh,

joined the FCI much after the workman; but they have

been granted stepping up at par with Shri Swami Nath. No

justification has been forwarded by the management on

this point that under what circumstances the workmen

who joined much after the workman have been granted

stepping up at par which Swami Nath Sharma and the

workman has been spared taking excuse of instruction

issued by the Head Quarter vide dated 15.04.2002.

13. It is also not the case of the FCI that there is

common seniority in all the zones of FCI nor they have

come up with the case that when an official is transferred

from one zone to another on his own request, his seniority

is going to be protected. Hence, the management of the

FCI utterly failed to provide any justification for the fact

that as to why Shri Swami Nath Sharma was treated senior

to the workman who joined North Zone on 29.09.76

whereas the workman joined North Zone on 03.05.72 or as

to how the seniority of Shri Swami Nath Sharma was

reckoned on the basis of his initial joining in FCI, ignoring

this fact that he sought inter zone transfer on his own

request.

The management of FCI again could not justify their

action in stepping up the other five workmen, who joined

FCI later than the workman and also fell within the ambit

of the letter dated 15.04.2002. Further, the contention of

the workman also finds strength that had his case have

been resolved promptly, his case might have not been

covered with the instructions of Head Quarter dated

15.04.2002.

14. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case, I am of the opinion that the action of the

management in not stepping up the pay of the workman at

par with his juniors was neither fair nor justified.

Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman,

Rajendera Prasad is entitled for stepping of pay at par

with his juniors viz. Shri Swami Nath Sharma and Ram

Dhari Singh. He shall also be entitled for consequential

benefits within six weeks from the date of publication of

this award in the gazette, failing he shall also be entitled

for simple interest @ 6% per annum on arrears. The

reference is answered accordingly.

15. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

26^th May, 2014.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1800-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2014)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@17@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O. 1800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/

2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22011/17/2014-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 22^nd May, 2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4723

Present :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 39/2014

(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 Food Corporation of India

and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri K. Rajendran

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Area Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Food Corporation of India

District Office,

Post Box No. 2911

Tatabad

Coimbatore-641012

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner : Absent

For the 2^nd Party/

: M/s M. Imthias,

Management

M. Vijayakumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-22011/17/2014-IR(CM-

II) dated 02.04.2014 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Food

Corporation of India in not providing work to Sri K.

Rajendran, Ancillary Worker under the Direct

Payment System (DPS) of Food Corporation of India

w.e.f. 16.11.2012 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 39/2014 and issued notices to both

sides.

3. Though the petitioner was served with notice, he

has not appeared on the date of first hearing. The case

was adjourned to this date for the appearance of the

petitioner again. However, the petitioner was absent on

this date also. He seems to be not interested in pursuing

the matter. The matter could not be proceeded with in the

absence of the petitioner. Accordingly, the ID is closed.

The reference is answered against the petitioner.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 22^nd May, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Respondent’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1801-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

01@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@39@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/

2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22011/39/2009-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk 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. 01 of 2010

Employers in relation to the management of Food

Corporation of India, Dhanbad Depot

AND

Their workmen

4724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present :

Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers.

None

For the workman.

Sri R. R. Ram, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Food

Dated. 12/5 /2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-22011/39/2009-IR (CM-II), dated

16/12/2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Dhanbad Depot, Dhanbad in

alleged Superannuating Sri Birju Yadav, Sirdar

prematurely is fair and justified? To what relief is the

workman concerned entitled?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 05.01.2010. After receipt of reference, The Sponsoring

Union/workman files their written statement on 07.01.2010.

The management files their written statement-cum-

rejoinder on 07.10.2010. And thereafter the Sponsoring

Union files their rejoinder & document and examined

himself as witness.

3. The short point involved in the case is that whether

the retirement of the concerned workman in 2009 is

premature or real.

4. The workman files documents marked as W-1, it is

School leaving certificate and W-2 Series, is C.P.F.

contribution statement of 2002-2003, 2004-2005, and 2005-

2006. As per cross-examination of WW-1 the workman

appointed in FCI on 24.10.1984

5. Management also files their documents marked

as M-1 Series, In which management files proforma of

Bio-Data, Nomination form of C.P.F., photo copy of PAN

Card, LTC form of many blocks which is filled by the

workman concerned and signed at that point of time , where

he availed LTC with family , in which the date of Birth is

mentioned 11.04.1949. He also files CPF statement for the

block of 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 .

6. Both parties have filed CPF statement. Statement

of the workman’s shows that the date of birth of workman

is 11.04.1959 and retirement date 30.04.2019, but same

document and same block of the statement filed by the

management it shows that the date of birth of the workman

is 11.04.1949 and retirement date 30.04.2009, Management’s

document is Attested by the manager (IR), but workman’s

statement is not authenticated, but stamped.

7. Workman files Ext. W-1, which is School leaving

certificate but at the time of cross-examination he has not

stated the names of the headmaster, and class teacher.

8. At the time of pendency of the case, the workman

concerned died and Ashok Kumar son of the deceased

workman is substituted, After death of the workman, Sri

Ashok kumar files three affidavit , namly (1) Smt. Parwati

Devi, (2.) Satyendra Kumar and himself in which age of Sri

Satyendra Kumar is 20 and 23 of Sri Ashok Kumar which is

tally With LTC form availed by the workman (Ext. M-I

Series) Where his age is tally, there also the Date of Birth

of the workman was 1949 , the same was signed by the

concerned workman. Some of the documents filed by the

workman appears to be interpolated.

9. On the other hand most authentic document filed

and marked in M-I Series i.e Photo copy of PAN Card, in

which the date of birth is mentioned as 11.04.1949. it is

also signed by the concerned workman, is accepted.

10. Belated claim of reduced Date of Birth is not

acceptable either by the authority or by Court.

11. Considering the facts and circumstance of the

case, I hold that the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Dhanbad Depot, Dhanbad in

Superannuating Sri Birju Yadav, Sirdar is fair, Accordingly

the retirement of workman by the management is proper,

Hence he is not entitled to get any relief .

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1802-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@

2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@05@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Food

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4725

Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22011/05/2013-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 38/2013

Date of Passing Order – 19^th December, 2013

Between :

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

At./Po. Shakti Nagar,

New Delhi – 110 007.

The Asst. Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

At./Po. Shakti Nagar,

New Delhi – 110 007.

The Branch Depot Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

At./Po. Shakti Nagar,

New Delhi – 110 009

...1^st Party Managements

And

Sh. Sanatan Das,

S/o. Kunja Das,

At. Kalyanpur, Po. Kalyanpur,

Bhubaneswar, Dist. Puri

...2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

None

For the 1^st Party-Managements.

None

For the 2^nd Party-Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. Parties are absent. No statement of

claim has been filed despite sending notices one by

ordinary post on 16.7.2013 and the other by regd. post on

31.10.2013. The reference was received in this Tribunal on

5.6.2013. Today is the fifth date fixed in the case. The 2^nd

Party-workman has neither appeared on any date nor filed

any statement of claim. Hence it seems that he has either

settled his dispute with the 1^st Party-Managements

amicably out of the court or he is not interested to pursue

the case. Hence a no-dispute award is to be passed as the

case cannot be kept pending for long. Accordingly a no-

dispute award is passed.

2. The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1803-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ- lh- vkbZ-

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@

2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@05@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22011/05/2011-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT

LUCKNOW

Present :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 12/2012

Ref. No. L-22011/5/2011-IR(CM-II) dated: 23.12.2011

Between

Shri Ganshyam, Ex Manager (FCI)

House No. 554/93, D, Post Barha Kalashpuri

Near, Vidhayak Nivas, Alambag

Lucknow.

And

The Chief Manager

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar (U.P.)

Lucknow.

4726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Executive Director

Food Corporation of India Zonal Office

A-2A, 2B, Sector, 24

Noida (U.P.)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-22011/5/2011-IR(CM-II) dated:

23.12.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Shri Ganshyam,

Ex Manager (FCI), House No. 554/93, D, Post Barha

Kalashpuri, Near, Vidhayak Nivas, Alambag, Lucknow and

the Chief Manager, Food Corporation of India, TC/3V,

Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar (U.P.), Lucknow. & the

Executive Director , Food Corporation of India Zonal Office,

A-2A, 2B, Sector, 24, Noida (U.P.) for adjudication to this

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF FCI, LUCKNOW IN

DECLINING THE STEPPING OF PAY OF SHRI

GHANSHYAM AT PAR WITH HIS JUNIORS IS

FAIR AND JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF THE

CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO?”

3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that the

workman, Ghanshyam, has been working as Manager (D)

with the opposite party when he claim for parity in pay

with one of his junior viz. Shri Swami Nath Sharma who

was stepped up in parity with another junior to the workman

viz. Shri Ramdhari Singh. The management of FCI turned

down his request stating that his pay cannot be stepped

up at par with Swami Nath; since the workman’s date of

joining was 24.05.72; whereas the date of joining of Swami

Nath was 03.05.72, therefore, Swami Nath was senior to

the workman. It is alleged by the workman that the

seniority is not counted from the date of joining rather is

taken from the date of seniority number. It is submitted

that the Zonal Office (N) seniority list speaks that the

official who joined in June, 1972 are senior from those,

who has joined in April, 1972 and May, 1972. It is further

stated by the workman that the management while rejecting

his request for parity with Swami Nath, advised the

workman that he may apply afresh with another suitable

junior. It has been submitted by the workman that he

again represented for stepping at par with Shri Ramdhari

Singh; but again the management rejected his requested

stating that his pay cannot be stepped up either with Swami

Nath Sharma or any of the his juniors who have got their

pay stepped up with Swami Nath Sharma. It has been

alleged by the workman that the action of the management

in declining the step up benefits at par to his juniors is

against the principle of Equity, therefore, has prayed that

the same be declared illegal and unjustified and he may be

held entitled for stepping up of his pay w.e.f. 26.12.88 at

par with his juniors along with consequential benefits.

4. The management of the FCI has denied the claim

of the workman by filing its written statement wherein it

has been submitted that the claim of the workman for

stepping up of the pay at par with Swami Nath could not

be considered since he was senior to the workman by the

date of joining. The management has further submitted

that his pay could not step up at par with Ramdhari Singh

because Ramdhari Singh was not found suitable junior to

the workman. It is further submitted by the management

that the stepping up of the pay of the workman could not

be done due directions of Head Quarters vide dated

15.04.2002; wherein it was provided that stepping up could

be done in respect of those only who joined the FCI

between 03.05.72 and 29.09.76. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman be

rejected being devoid of merit.

5. The workman has field its rejoinder wherein he

has stated that the submissions of the management that

stepping up of Ramdhari Singh was done before receipt of

Head Quarter instructions dated 15.04.2002 is against the

principle of equity. It is also submitted by the workman

that Swami Nath Sharma joined in West Zone on 03.05.72

as AG-III and joined North Zone on 29.09.76 on his own

request transfer, thereby loosing his seniority, hence, he

should not have been treated senior to him.

6. The parties have filed photocopies of various

documents in support of their respective claim including

communications and seniority lists. The workman has

examined himself; whereas the management examined Shri

Ranvir Bahadur, Manager, WRC in support of their stands.

Parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses

of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.

7. Heard workman and the authorized representative

of the management and perused entire evidence on record.

8. The workman has contended that Shri Swami Nath

Sharma who is junior to him is getting more pay and the

management of FCI has turned down his request, stating

that Swami Nath Sharma is senior to him as he joined the

FCI on 03.05.72 whereas the workman joined the FCI on

24.05.72. The workman has also argued that he again claim

parity with one Shri Ramdhari Singh who joined FCI on

29.05.72 and was stepped up at par with Shri Swami Nath.

Then the management of FCI declined to step him at par

with juniors stating that stepping up cannot be done in

pursuance of the directions of the Head Quarter vide letter

dated 15.04.2002. It is contended by the workman that the

management of FCI stepped up as many as five employees

viz. Shri, Syyed Ali, Mukesh Kumar, Jeevan Kumar and K.

B. Mishra. However, the restriction had been put by the

Head Quarter vide its letter dated 15.04.2002, which

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4727

mentioned that stepping up shall not be allowed at par

with Shri Swami Nath Sharma to those officials who joined

FCI between 03.05.72 to 29.09.76. In this regard the

workman has submitted that had the management treated

his matter in time his stepping up could have been done

much before issuance of instructions dated 15.04.2002.

9. In rebuttal, the management’s representative has

argued that Shri Swami Nath was senior to the workman

by the date of joining, as Shri Swami Nath joined FCI on

03.05.72 and the workman on 24.05.72. He has further

argued that the workman could not be stepped up at par

with Shri Ramdhari Singh because of the restriction put

by the Head Quarter vide its letter dated 15.04.2002.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival contentions of the parties and perused the evidence

available on file in light thereof.

11. From pleadings of the workman it comes out that

the application of the workman to step up his pay was

forwarded vide letter dated 22.11.97. The management

denied the stepping up vide letter dated 09/12-06-2006

and was advised to seek stepping with some other suitable

junior. Then the workman again applied for stepping up at

par with his junior Shri Ramdhari Singh, which too was

rejected on the plea that the Head Quarter has put

restriction on stepping up any of the official who joined

between 03.05.72 to 29.09.76.

12. Admittedly, Shri Swami Nath joined the FCI in

West Zone on 03.05.72 and subsequently, he joined North

Zone on 29.09.76 on his own request whereas the workman

joined FCI in North Zone on 24.05.72. The workman in his

evidence has stated that he is claiming parity with Swami

Nath Sharma and none the other junior. The management

has treated Swami Nath Sharma senior taking his initial

date of joining in FCI; but has ignored this fact that when

he got transferred to North Zone on his own request then

he should have lost his seniority and should have treated

as the junior most official in the North Zone in his category.

From perusal of the pleadings of the workman it is

evident that the management of FCI granted parity with

Shri Swami Nath to other workmen who joined on the dates

much after the workman, as under:

Name & Desig.

Zonal Seniority

Dt. of Joining

No.

as on

in F.C.I.

Shri Sayyed Ali,

1688 dtd. 31.12.2001

20.06.72

AG-II (D)

Shri Mukesh Kumar, 1670 dt. 31.12.2001

24.05.72

AG-II (D)

Shri Jeevan Kumar,

1967 dtd. 31.12.2001

06.10.72

AG-II (D)

Shri K.B. Mishra,

1766 dtd. 31.12.2001

09.10.72

AG-II (D)

Also, from pleading of the workman it is clear that

when the management rejected his request for stepping

up at par Shri Swami Nath Sharma, he requested for his

stepping up at par with Shri R.D. Singh who have been

stepped up at par with Shri Swami Nath; but the

management denied the stepping up stating that there is

restriction put by the Head Quarter vide their instructions

dated 15.04.2002. From perusal of above details, it is very

much clear that all the officials, joined the FCI much after

the workman; but they have been granted stepping up at

par with Shri Swami Nath. No justification has been

forwarded by the management on this point that under

what circumstances the workmen who joined much after

the workman have been granted stepping up at par which

Swami Nath Sharma; whereas the workman has been spared

taking excuse of instruction issued by the Head Quarter

vide dated 15.04.2002.

13. It is also not the case of the FCI that there is

common seniority in all the zones of FCI nor they have

come up with the case that when an official is transferred

from one zone to another on his own request, his seniority

is going to be protected. Hence, the management of the

FCI utterly failed to provide any justification for the fact

that as to why Shri Swami Nath Sharma was treated senior

to the workman who joined North Zone on 29.09.76

whereas the workman joined North Zone on 24.05.72 or as

to how the seniority of Shri Swami Nath Sharma was

reckoned on the basis of his initial joining in FCI, ignoring

this fact that he sought inter zone transfer on his own

request.

The management of FCI again could not justify their

action in stepping up the other four workmen, who joined

FCI later than the workman and also fell within the ambit

of the letter dated 15.04.2002.

14. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case, I am of the opinion that the action of the

management in not stepping up the pay of the workman at

par with his juniors was neither fair nor justified.

Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the workman,

Ghanshyam is entitled for stepping of pay at par with his

juniors viz. Shri Swami Nath Sharma. He shall also be

entitled for consequential benefits within six weeks from

the date of publication of this award in the gazette, failing

which he shall also be entitled for simple interest @ 6%

per annum on arrears. The reference is answered

accordingly.

15. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

26^th May, 2014.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1804-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ

4728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 24@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@172@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Hindustan Lalpeth

U/G Mines, Mana Incline, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/172/2012-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/24/2012

Date: 22.05.2014.

Party No.1: The Sub Area Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Mines, Mana

Incline,

Post Lalpeth,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No.2: The Joint General Secretary,

Rashtria Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Vaidhya Nagar, C/o. Shri C.R. Tembhare,

Near Ayyapa Mandir, Tukum Ward No.2,

Dist. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22^nd May, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Mines, Mana

Incline and the applicant, Shri Sriniwas, dependent son of

Shri Rajanna Odal Cherkutwar for adjudication, as per letter

No.L-22012/172/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 19.11.2012, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of Chandrapur area

of Western Coalfields Limited in denying

employment to Shri Sriniwas Rajanna Cherkutwar,

the dependant son of Shri Rajanna Odal Cherkutwar,

Production-cum-Safety Assistant, Mana Incline, who

has already put in 35 years service, which is contrary

to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal &

justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The party No.1 appeared through their advocates

on 21.01.2013.

One Shri R.S. Dubey appeared in the case on behalf

of the union claiming himself as the Joint General Secretary

of the union on 29.04.2013 and filed an application for time

to file statement of claim, so, the reference was adjourned

to 01.07.2013 for filing of statement of claim. Thereafter,

the case was adjourned six times for filing of statement of

claim by the petitioner. On 22.04.2014 a last chance was

given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim and

the case was adjourned to 22.05.2014 for filing of the

statement of claim. However, on 22.05.2014, neither the

petitioner appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So,

the reference was closed, holding that the petitioner was

not interested to proceed with the reference and the

reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1805-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4729

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 32@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@225@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Hindustan Lalpeth

U/G Mines, Mana Incline, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/225/2012-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/32/2012

Date: 22.05.2014.

Party No.1: The Sub Area Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery No.1,

Chandrapur Area of WCL,

Post Lalpeth,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No.2: The General Secretary,

Rashtria Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

C/o Shri C.R.Terbhre,Near Ayyapa Mandir

Tumuk, Ward No.2

Dist. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated : 22nd May, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery No.1 and the

applicant, Shri Sriniwas, the dependent son of Shri Sailu

Narasiayya, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/225/

2012-IR (CM-II) dated 16.01.2013, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of

Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery No.1 of Chandrapur Area

of Western Coalfields Limited in denying

employment to Shri Sriniwas Sailu Arutala, the

dependant son of Shri Sailu Narasiayya, Ex-clerk of

H.L.C. No.1, WCL who has already put in 35 years

service and retired on 30.04.2006, which is contrary

to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal &

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The party No.1 appeared through their advocates

on 25.03.2013.

One Shri R.S. Dubey appeared in the case on behalf

of the union claiming himself as the Joint General Secretary

of the union on 30.04.2013 and filed an application for time

to file statement of claim, so, the reference was adjourned

to 01.07.2013 for filing of statement of claim. Thereafter,

the case was adjourned six times for filing of statement of

claim by the petitioner. On 22.04.2014 a last chance was

given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim and

the case was adjourned to 22.05.2014 for filing of the

statement of claim. However, on 22.05.2014, neither the

petitioner appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So,

the reference was closed, holding that the petitioner was

not interested to proceed with the reference and the

reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1806-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ

4730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 36@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@222@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Hindustan Lalpeth

U/G Mines, Mana Incline, and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/222/2012-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/36/2012

Date: 22.05.2014.

Party No.1: The Sub Area Manager,

Bhatadi Open Cast Mine of WCL,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No.2: The Secretary,

Rashtria Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Through Shri Mallesh Kamtam,

Lalpeth Colliery No.3, Shrinagar Ward,

By pass, Kamgar Chowk, Chandrapur,

Dist. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22^nd May, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Bhatadi Open Cast Mine of WCL and the

applicant, Shri Chandrakiran, the dependent son of Shri

Damodar Tamgade,for adjudication, as per letter No.

L-22012/222/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 16.01.2013, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bhatadi

Open Cast Sub Area of Chandrapir Area, Western

Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri

Chandrakiran Damodar Tamgade, the dependant son

of Shri Damodar Tamgade, Ex-clerk of Bhatadi O/C

Sub Area of WCL who has been retired from service

on 31.12.2008, which is contrary to the provisions of

para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal & justified ? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The party No.1 appeared through their advocates

on 30.04.2013.

One Shri R.S. Dubey appeared in the case on behalf

of the union claiming himself as the Joint General Secretary

of the union on 30.04.2013 and filed an application for time

to file statement of claim, so, the reference was adjourned

to 01.07.2013 for filing of statement of claim. Thereafter,

the case was adjourned six time for filing of statement of

claim by the petitioner. On 22.04.2014 a last chance was

given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim and

the case was adjourned to 22.05.2014 for filing of the

statement of claim. However, on 22.05.2014, neither the

petitioner appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So,

the reference was closed, holding that the petitioner was

not interested to proceed with the reference and the

reference was fixed for award.

It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1807-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4731

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 34@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@232@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Rayatwari Sub Area

of Chandrapur , and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/232/2012-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/34/2012

Date: 22.05.2014.

Party No.1: The Sub Area Manager,

Rayatwari Sub Area of Chandrapur Area,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Post Rayatwarii,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No.2: The General Secretary,

Rashtria Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

C/o Shri C.R.Terbhre,Near Ayyapa Mandir

Tumuk, Ward No.2

Dist. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 04^h March, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Rayatwari Sub Area of Chandrapur and

the applicant, Shri Sumedh, the dependent son of Shri

Sitaram Udhav Bhagat for adjudication, as per letter No.

L-22012/232/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 16.01.2013, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Rayatwari

Sub Area of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields

Limited in denying employment to Shri Sumedh, the

dependant son of Shri Sitaram Uddhav Bhagat of

Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL, who has already put in

35 years service and retired on 30.11.2012 in

contradiction to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of

NCWA is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The party No.1 appeared through their advocates

on 30.04.2013.

One Shri R.S. Dubey appeared in the case on behalf

of the union claiming himself as the Joint General Secretary

of the union on 30.04.2013 and filed an application for time

to file statement of claim, so, the reference was adjourned

to 01.07.2013 for filing of statement of claim. Thereafter,

the case was adjourned six time for filing of statement of

claim by the petitioner. On 22.04.2014 a last chance was

given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim and

the case was adjourned to 22.05.2014 for filing of the

statement of claim. However, on 22.05.2014, neither the

petitioner appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So,

the reference was closed, holding that the petitioner was

not interested to proceed with the reference and the

reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1808-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ

4732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 33@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@223@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O.

1808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Durgapur Rayatwari

Colliery Chandrapur, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/223/2012-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/33/2012

Date: 22.05.2014.

Party No.1 (a) :

The Sub Area Manager,

Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery of

Chandrapur

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

(b)

The Sub Area Manager,

Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery of

Chandrapur,

Area of WCL

Post-Rayatwari

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No.2

The General Secretary,

Rashtria Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

C/o Shri C.R.Terbhre,Near Ayyapa

Mandir

Tumuk, Ward No.2

Dist. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22^nd May, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and the applicant, Shri Sandesh the

dependent son of Shri Prakash Goje, Sr. Overman, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/223/2012-IR CM-II)

dated 16.01.2013, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Durgapur

Rayatwari Colliery of Chandrapur area of Western

Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri

Sandesh Prakash Goje, the dependant son of Shri

Prakash Goje, Sr. Overman, WCL who has already

put in 35 years service, which is contrary to the

provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal & justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The party No.1 appeared through their advocates

on 25.03.2013.

One Shri R.S. Dubey appeared in the case on behalf

of the union claiming himself as the Joint General Secretary

of the union on 30.04.2013 and filed an application for time

to file statement of claim, so, the reference was adjourned

to 01.07.2013 for filing of statement of claim. Thereafter,

the case was adjourned six times for filing of statement of

claim by the petitioner. On 22.04.2014 a last chance was

given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim and

the case was adjourned to 22.05.2014 for filing of the

statement of claim. However, on 22.05.2014, neither the

petitioner appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So,

the reference was closed, holding that the petitioner was

not interested to proceed with the reference and the

reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4733

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1809-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 37@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

20@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@229@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O. 1809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Chanda Rayatwari

Colliery, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 20/06/2014.

[No. L-22012/229/2012-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/37/2012

Date: 22.05.2014.

Party No.1 (a) :

The Sub Area Manager,

Chanda Rayatwari Colliery,

Chandrapur (MS)

(b)

The Sub Area Manager,

Chanda Rayatwari Colliery,

Rayatwari Sub Area of Chandrapur

Area,

Western Coalfields Limited

Post Rayatwari,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No.2

The General Secretary,

Rashtria Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

C/o Shri C.R.Terbhre, Near Ayyapa

Mandir,

Tumuk, Ward No.2

Dist. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 22^nd May, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Chanda Rayatwari Colliery and the

applicant, Shri Rajendranath, the dependent son of Shri

Ravindranath Mandal for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-22012/229/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 16.01.2013, with

the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Chanda

Rayatwari Colliery of Chandrapur Area of Western

Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri

Rajendranath Ravindranath Mandal, the dependant

son of Shri Ravindranath Mandal, Sr. Overman of

CRC, WCL (who has already put in 35 years service

and will be retiring on 31.03.2015), in contradiction

to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal &

justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The party No.1 appeared through their advocates

on 25.03.2013.

One Shri R.S. Dubey appeared in the case on behalf

of the union claiming himself as the Joint General Secretary

of the union on 30.04.2013 and filed an application for time

to file statement of claim, so, the reference was adjourned

to 01.07.2013 for filing of statement of claim. Thereafter,

the case was adjourned six times for filing of statement of

claim by the petitioner. On 22.04.2014 a last chance was

given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim and

the case was adjourned to 22.05.2014 for filing of the

statement of claim. However, on 22.05.2014, neither the

petitioner appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So,

the reference was closed, holding that the petitioner was

not interested to proceed with the reference and the

reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered:-

4734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1810-—tcfd eSllZ bafM;u 'kwxj ,fDte

d‚jiksjs’ku fy- [fnYyh ¼nf{k.k½ {ks= ds varxZr dwV la[;k

Mh,y@2731 ds varxZr] ¼blds i’pkr mä çfr"Bku ds :i

esa mfYyf[kr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj çdh.kZ mica/k

vfèkfu;e]1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ blds i’pkr mä vfèkfu;e ds

:i esa mfYyf[kr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½

ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va’knku dh njksa

ds laca/k esa mä çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mä vfèkfu;e

dh /kkjk 6 esa mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk ykHkksa dk Qk;nk

mBk jgs gSa dqy feydj blh çdkj ds fdlh vU; çfr"Bku esa

deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa mä vfèkfu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk Ldhe] 1952 ¼blds i’pkr mä Ldhe ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr½ ds varxZr çnku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de

vuqdwy ugha gSA

3- vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mä vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krksaZ ds v/;k/khu mä

çfr"Bku dks vxyh vf/klwpuk rd 1-04-1970 ls mä ;kstuk

ds lHkh mica/kksa ds çHkko ls NwV çnku djrh gSA

[la- ,l&35015@29@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqca/k

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls

NwV çnku djus laca/kh 'krsaZA

1- fu;ksäk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUæh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls

funs’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds çca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa

,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr

gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

ds çfr Hkfo"; fufèk esa çkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr

ys[kksa vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf’k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA

bl ç;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksäk¸ ls %&

¼i½ fdlh çfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkçsr gksxk_

vkSj

¼ii½ fdlh vU; çfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fä] vFkok

çkfèkdkjh vfHkçsr gksxk] ftldk ml çfr"Bku ds

dkedkt ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA

2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

¼lhih,Qlh½ vFkok mlds }kjk çkf/k—r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk

le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn’kk funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj

dk;Z djsxkA

3- vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]

tks Hkfo"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgsa gSa] ;fn çfr"Bku dks

NwV çnku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k

tk,xkA

4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&çkIr

çfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds çfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksäk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksäk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys

fu;ksäk ls lap; jkf’k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh

O;oLFkk djsxkA

5- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

}kjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr 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;ksäk

U;klh cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy,

vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 7Fk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk

djus dk nk;h gksxkA

6- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk ds ç’kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu

djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU;

dkj.k ls Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ

djsxkA

7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh

fu;ksäk }kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd

ykuk gksxkA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4735

8- fu;ksäk tc dHkh fu;e la’kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

çkfèkdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d çfr

vf/kla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr çfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij çnf’kZr djsxkA

9- çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr

ns; va’knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krsaZ vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys

vkSj lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ

}kjk ?kksf"kr] çR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt]

vfèkfu;e vkSj mlds varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu

mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUæ ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha

gksxkA

10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la’kks/ku] tks çfr"Bku ds fo|eku

fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks]

mls U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la’kks/ku ds yafcr jgrs mu

ij Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xkA

11- fu;ksäk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la’kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA

12-fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds

Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axsA

13- U;klh cksMZ çR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k 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/kekur%

bySDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA çfr"Bku vkof/kd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

}kjk funs’k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVª‚fud :i ls

lEçsf"kr djsaxsA

14-U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds

lekIr gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj çR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%’kqYd

ys[kksa dk okf"kZd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh

lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjä fçaVv‚mV ukeek= ds çHkkj ds lkFk

miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh

ds ikl jgsxh ftls çLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd

:i ls v|ru fd;k tk,xkA

15- fu;ksäk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko’;drkuqlkj

dEI;wVj VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds

leFkZ cukus ds fy, vko’;d çko/kku djsaxsA

16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

}kjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds

Hkhrj ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls

pwd ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk la;qä :i ls

vkSj vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk dh tkus

okyh mi;qä nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA

17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa ds

vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos’k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa

ds vuqlkj fuos’k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ

vyx&vyx vkSj la;qä :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ;k

mlds çfrfufèk }kjk ;Fkk vf/kjksfir vf/k’kqYd dk Hkkxh cu

tk,xkA

18- ¼d½ çfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls çkIr dh tk,axhA bl

çdkj çkIr dh xbZ çfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr

lqfoèkk ds miyC/k u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA

¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt

dh le; ij mxkgh lqfuf’pr djsxkA

¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl laca/k esa dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh

vuqns’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk

vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A

¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos’k

dk çklafxd O;; ekuk tk,A çfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh

nykyh tSls fuos’kksa ds lHkh çdkj ds [kpksaZ dks Hkh U;kl }kjk

fd, tkus okys fuos’k dk çklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA

19- çfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos’k

Hkkjrh; fj”koZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj

çfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds

laj{kd gksaxsA LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk] 1952 ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij çkIr rFkk

vius tek esa iM+s fuos’k dks lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

ds] bl vk’k; ds] vuqjks/k ij lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

dks lh/ks varfjr djsxkA

20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks mu

fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fj”koZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj

}kjk vuqeksfnr½ 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

4736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

çfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos’k ntZ fd, x, gSaA

rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf’k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks

nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksäk dh

lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds

varj.k vkSj çfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh çkfIr;ksa vFkok

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/khu fufèk ds

uke esa iM+s vU; fuos’kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds

fy, visf{kr gksaA

21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos’kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k

vU; laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh’ku] çksRlkgu]

cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA

22- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krksaZ dk ikyu

djus dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i

ls fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf’krksa

ij muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxkA

23- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa

lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g

mu ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds

varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh

cuk,xkA

24- ¼d½ U;klh cksMZ }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk

fdlh ;ksX; Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk

djus ds 'krkZ/khu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko’;d le>k tk,] ogka

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh

vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd }kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,

rFkk bl çdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksäk }kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA

¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr 1 vçSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr

rqyu&i= lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh çfr lh/ks bl

dk;kZy; esa çLrqr dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk çk:i vkSj bl

fjiksVZ esa çLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xh rFkk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk

vk;qä ds dk;kZy; esa bySDVª‚fud çk:i ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr

çfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA

¼x½ ,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/kd ds

fy, fu;qä u fd;k tk,A

25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kksaZ rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath

vkèkkj esa dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV

çkIr gksxhA

26- fu;ksäk çR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj

fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk çko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k

çHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vfèkfu;e dh

/kkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj gksaA

27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksä }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krksaZ ds

fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fä dks bl

laca/k esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh

tk,xhA

28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos’k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds

QyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksäk

uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxkA

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 QyLo:i ;fn çfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ

Hkh cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa çfr"Bku dks

rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A

30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd

bdkbZ@çfr"Bkuksa ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh

bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh VªLVh@fu;ksäk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij

lHkh VªLVh@la;qä :i ls ,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h

gksaxs vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa

ds fo:) mi;qä dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA

31- dsUæ ljdkj çfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,

'krksaZ dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laçsf"kr fd;k tk,xk

;s çfr"Bku bu vfrfjä 'krksaZ dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;

gksaxsA

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2014

S.O.

1810.—Whereas M/s. Indian Sugar Exim

Corporation Ltd. [under Code No.DL/2731 in Delhi (South)

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4737

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 1-4-1970 until further

notification.

[No.S-35015/29/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

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 hi.

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 15^th 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

4738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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 1^st April to 31^st 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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4739

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1811.—tcfd eSllZ nsyQh vkWVksesfVd flLVe

izk- fy- [xqMxkao {ks= ds varxZr dksM la[;k ,p vkj@9476 ds

varxZr] ¼blds i’pkr mä çfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½] us

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj çdh.kZ mica/k vfèkfu;e]1952 ¼1952

dk 19½ blds i’pkr mä vfèkfu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ dh

/kkjk 17 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy,

vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va’knku dh njksa

ds laca/k esa mä çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mä vfèkfu;e

dh /kkjk 6 esa mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk ykHkksa dk Qk;nk

mBk jgs gSa dqy feydj blh çdkj ds fdlh vU; çfr"Bku esa

deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa mä vfèkfu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk Ldhe] 1952 ¼blds i’pkr mä Ldhe ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr½ ds varxZr çnku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de

vuqdwy ugha gSA

3- vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mä vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh

mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krksaZ ds v/;k/khu mä

çfr"Bku dks vxyh vf/klwpuk rd 22-09-1997 ls mä ;kstuk

ds lHkh mica/kksa ds çHkko ls NwV çnku djrh gSA

[la- ,l&35015@33@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqca/k

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls

NwV çnku djus laca/kh 'krsaZ

1- fu;ksäk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUæh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls

funs’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds çca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa

,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr

gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

ds çfr Hkfo"; fufèk esa çkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr

ys[kksa vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf’k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA

bl ç;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksäk¸ ls%&

¼i½ fdlh çfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkçsr gksxk;

vkSj

¼ii½ fdlh vU; çfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fä] vFkok

çkfèkdkjh vfHkçsr gksxk] ftldk ml çfr"Bku ds

dkedkt ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA

2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

¼lhih,Qlh½ vFkok mlds }kjk çkf/k—r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk

le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn’kk&funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj

dk;Z djsxkA

3- vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh

deZpkjh] tks Hkfo"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgsa gSa] ;fn

4740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

çfr"Bku dks NwV çnku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds #i esa

ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&çkIr

çfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds çfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksäk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds #i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksäk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys

fu;ksäk ls lap; jkf’k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh

O;oLFkk djsxkA

5- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

}kjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr 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;ksäk

U;klh cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy,

vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 7Fk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk

djus dk nk;h gksxkA

6- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk ds ç’kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu

djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU;

dkj.k ls Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ

djsxkA

7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh

fu;ksäk }kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd

ykuk gksxkA

8- fu;ksäk tc dHkh fu;e la’kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

çkfèkdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d çfr

vf/kla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr çfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij çnf’kZr djsxkA

9- çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr

ns; va’knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krsaZ vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys

vkSj lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ

}kjk ?kksf"kr] çR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt]

vfèkfu;e vkSj mlds varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu

mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUæ ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha

gksxkA

10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la’kks/ku] tks çfr"Bku ds fo|eku

fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks]

mls U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la’kks/ku ds yafcr jgrs mu

ij Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xkA

11- fu;ksäk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la’kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA

12-fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds

Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axsA

13- U;klh cksMZ çR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k 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/kekur%

bySDVªksfud #i ls j[kk tk,xkA çfr"Bku vkof/kd #i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

}kjk funs’k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVª‚fud #i ls

lEçsf"kr djsaxsA

14- U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds

lekIr gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj çR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%’kqYd

ys[kksa dk okf"kZd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh

lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjä fçaVv‚mV ukeek= ds çHkkj ds lkFk

miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh

ds ikl jgsxh ftls çLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd

#i ls v|ru fd;k tk,xkA

15- fu;ksäk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko’;drkuqlkj

dEI;wVj VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds

leFkZ cukus ds fy, vko’;d çko/kku djsaxsA

16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

}kjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds

Hkhrj ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls

pwd ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk la;qä :i ls

vkSj vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk dh tkus

okyh mi;qä nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA

17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa ds

vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos’k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa

ds vuqlkj fuos’k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ

vyx&vyx vkSj la;qä :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ;k

mlds çfrfufèk }kjk ;Fkk vf/kjksfir vf/k’kqYd dk Hkkxh cu

tk,xkA

18- ¼d½ çfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls çkIr dh tk,axhA bl

çdkj çkIr dh xbZ çfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4741

lqfoèkk ds miyC/k u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA

¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt

dh le; ij mxkgh lqfuf’pr djsxkA

¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl laca/k esa dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh

vuqns’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk

vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A

¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos’k

dk çklafxd O;; ekuk tk,A çfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh

nykyh tSls fuos’kksa ds lHkh çdkj ds [kpksaZ dks Hkh U;kl }kjk fd,

tkus okys fuos’k dk çklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA

19- çfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos’k

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj

çfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds

laj{kd gksaxsA LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk] 1952 ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij çkIr rFkk

vius tek esa iM+s fuos’k dks lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

ds] bl vk’k; ds] vuqjks/k ij lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

dks lh/ks varfjr djsxkA

20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks mu

fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj

}kjk vuqeksfnr½ 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~

çfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos’k ntZ fd, x, gSaA

rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf’k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks

nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksäk dh

lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds

varj.k vkSj çfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh çkfIr;ksa vFkok

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/khu fufèk ds

uke esa iM+s vU; fuos’kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds

fy, visf{kr gksaA

21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos’kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k

vU; laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh’ku] çksRlkgu]

cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA

22- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krksaZ dk ikyu

djus dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i

ls fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf’krksa

ij muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxkA

23- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa

lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g

mu ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds

varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh

cuk,xkA

24- ¼d½ U;klh cksMZ }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk

fdlh ;ksX; Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk

djus ds 'krkZ/khu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko’;d le>k tk,] ogka

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh

vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd }kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,

rFkk bl çdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksäk }kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA

¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vçSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr

rqyu&i= lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh çfr lh/ks bl

dk;kZy; esa çLrqr dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk çk:i vkSj bl

fjiksVZ esa çLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xh rFkk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk

vk;qä ds dk;kZy; esa bySDVª‚fud çk:i ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr

çfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA

¼x½ ,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/kd ds

fy, fu;qä u fd;k tk,A

25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kksaZ rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath

vkèkkj esa dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV

çkIr gksxhA

26- fu;ksäk çR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj

fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk çko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k

çHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vfèkfu;e dh

/kkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj gksaA

27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksä }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krksaZ ds

fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fä dks bl

laca/k esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh

tk,xhA

28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos’k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds

QyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksäk

uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxkA

4742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 QyLo:i ;fn çfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ

Hkh cnyko gksrk gS] rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa çfr"Bku dks

rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A

30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd bdkbZ@

çfr"Bkuksa ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds

fdlh Hkh VªLVh@fu;ksäk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh

la;qä :i ls ,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs vkSj

vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:)

mi;qä dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA

31- dsUæ ljdkj çfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,

'krksaZ dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laçsf"kr fd;k tk,xk]

;s çfr"Bku bu vfrfjä 'krksaZ dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;

gksaxsA

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2014

S.O.

1811.—Whereas M/s Delphi Automotive

Systems Pvt. Ltd. [under Code No. HR/9476 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 22-09-1997 until further

notification.

[No.S-35015/33/2014-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

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 15^th 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4743

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.

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.

4744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 1^st April to 31^st 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.

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1812.—tcfd eSllZ ÝkWVhZt gsYFkds;j fyfeVsM

fnYyh ¼nf{k.k½ {ks= ds varxZr dksM la[;k Mh,y@25364 ds

varxZr] ¼blds i’pkr mä çfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ us

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj çdh.kZ mica/k vfèkfu;e]1952 ¼1952

dk 19½ blds i’pkr mä vfèkfu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ dh

/kkjk 17 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy,

vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va’knku dh njksa

ds laca/k esa mä çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mä vfèkfu;e

dh /kkjk 6 esa mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk ykHkksa dk Qk;nk

mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh çdkj ds fdlh vU; çfr"Bku esa

deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa mä vfèkfu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk Ldhe] 1952 ¼blds i’pkr mä Ldhe ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr½ ds varxZr çnku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de

vuqdwy ugha gSA

3- vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mä vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh

mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krksaZ ds v/;k/khu mä

çfr"Bku dks vxyh vf/klwpuk rd 01-06-2001 ls mä ;kstuk

ds lHkh mica/kksa ds çHkko ls NwV çnku djrh gSA

[la- ,l&35015@34@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4745

vuqca/k

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls

NwV çnku djus laca/kh 'krsaZA

1- fu;ksäk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUæh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls

funs’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds çca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa

,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr

gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

ds çfr Hkfo"; fufèk esa çkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr

ys[kksa vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf’k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA

bl ç;kstukFkZ] fu;ksäk ls%&

¼i½ fdlh çfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkçsr gksxk;

vkSj

¼ii½ fdlh vU; çfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fä] vFkok

çkfèkdkjh vfHkçsr gksxk] ftldk ml çfr"Bku ds

dkedkt ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA

2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

¼lhih,Qlh½ vFkok mlds }kjk çkf/k—r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk

le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn’kk funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj

dk;Z djsxkA

3- vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh

deZpkjh] tks Hkfo"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgsa gSa] ;fn

çfr"Bku dks NwV çnku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds #i esa

ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&çkIr

çfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds çfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksäk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds #i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksäk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys

fu;ksäk ls lap; jkf’k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh

O;oLFkk djsxkA

5- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

}kjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr 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;ksäk

U;klh cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy,

vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 7Fk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk

djus dk nk;h gksxkA

6- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk ds ç’kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu

djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU;

dkj.k ls Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ

djsxkA

7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh

fu;ksäk }kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd

ykuk gksxkA

8- fu;ksäk tc dHkh fu;e la’kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

çkfèkdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d çfr

vf/kla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr çfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij çnf’kZr djsxkA

9- çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr

ns; va’knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krsaZ vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys

vkSj lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ

}kjk ?kksf"kr] çR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt]

vfèkfu;e vkSj mlds varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu

mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUæ ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha

gksxkA

10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la’kks/ku] tks çfr"Bku ds fo|eku

fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks]

mls U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la’kks/ku ds yafcr jgrs mu

ij Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xkA

11- fu;ksäk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la’kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA

12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds

Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axsA

13- U;klh cksMZ çR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k 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/kekur%

bySDVªksfud #i ls j[kk tk,xkA çfr"Bku vkof/kd #i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

}kjk funs’k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVª‚fud #i ls

lEçsf"kr djsaxsA

4746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14-U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds

lekIr gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj çR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%’kqYd

ys[kksa dk okf"kZd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh

lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjä fçaVv‚mV ukeek= ds çHkkj ds lkFk

miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh

ds ikl jgsxh ftls çLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd

#i ls v|ru fd;k tk,xkA

15- fu;ksäk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko’;drkuqlkj

dEI;wVj VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds

leFkZ cukus ds fy, vko’;d çko/kku djsaxsA

16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

}kjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds

Hkhrj ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls

pwd ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk la;qä :i ls

vkSj vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk dh tkus

okyh mi;qä nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA

17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa ds

vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos’k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa

ds vuqlkj fuos’k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ

vyx&vyx vkSj la;qä :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ;k

mlds çfrfufèk }kjk ;Fkk vf/kjksfir vf/k’kqYd dk Hkkxh cu

tk,xkA

18- ¼d½ çfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls çkIr dh tk,axhA bl

çdkj çkIr dh xbZ çfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr

lqfoèkk ds miyC/k u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA

¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt

dh le; ij mxkgh lqfuf’pr djsxkA

¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl laca/k esa dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh

vuqns’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk

vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A

¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos’k

dk çklafxd O;;] O;; ekuk tk,A çfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos’kksa ds lHkh çdkj ds [kpksaZ dks Hkh U;kl }kjk

fd, tkus okys fuos’k dk çklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA

19- çfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos’k

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj

çfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds

laj{kd gksaxsA LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk] 1952 ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij çkIr rFkk

vius tek esa iM+s fuos’k dks lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

ds] bl vk’k; ds] vuqjks/k ij lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

dks lh/ks varfjr djsxkA

20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks mu

fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj

}kjk vuqeksfnr½ 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

çfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos’k ntZ fd, x, gSaA

rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf’k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks

nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksäk dh

lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds

varj.k vkSj çfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh çkfIr;ksa vFkok

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/khu fufèk ds

uke esa iM+s vU; fuos’kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds

fy, visf{kr gksaA

21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos’kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k

vU; laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh’ku] çksRlkgu]

cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA

22- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krksaZ dk ikyu

djus dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i

ls fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf’krksa

ij muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxkA

23- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa

lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g

mu ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds

varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh

cuk,xkA

24- ¼d½ U;klh cksMZ }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk

fdlh ;ksX; Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk

djus ds 'krkZ/khu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko’;d le>k tk,] ogka

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh

vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd }kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,

rFkk bl çdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksäk }kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA

¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr 1 vçSy ls

31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4747

rqyu&i= lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh çfr lh/ks bl

dk;kZy; esa çLrqr dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk çk:i vkSj bl

fjiksVZ esa çLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xh rFkk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk

vk;qä ds dk;kZy; esa bySDVª‚fud çk:i ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr

çfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA

¼x½ ,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/kd ds

fy, fu;qä u fd;k tk,A

25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kksaZ rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath

vkèkkj esa dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV

çkIr gksxhA

26- fu;ksäk çR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj

fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk çko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k

çHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vfèkfu;e dh

/kkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj gksaA

27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksä }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krksaZ ds

fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fä dks bl

laca/k esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh

tk,xhA

28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos’k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds

QyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksäk

uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxkA

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 QyLo:i ;fn çfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ

Hkh cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa çfr"Bku dks

rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A

30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd

bdkbZ@çfr"Bkuksa ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh

bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh VªLVh@fu;ksäk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij

lHkh VªLVh@la;qä :i ls ,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h

gksaxs vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa

ds fo:) mi;qä dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA

31- dsUæ ljdkj çfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,

'krksaZ dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laçsf"kr fd;k tk,xk

;s çfr"Bku bu vfrfjä 'krksaZ dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;

gksaxsA

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2014

S.O.

1812.—Whereas M/s Fortis Healthcare Ltd.

[under Code No. DL/25364 in Delhi (South) 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 1-6-2001 until further

notification.

[No.S-35015/34/2014-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

4748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 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 15^th 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.

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4749

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 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 1^st April to 31^st 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.

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.

4750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1813-—tcfd eSllZ 'ks[kkorh bUosLVesaV ,.M

VªsMj fy- [ikdZ LVªhV {ks= ds varxZr dwV la[;k MCY;wch@42486

ds varxZr]º ¼blds i’pkr mä çfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½

us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj çdh.kZ mica/k vfèkfu;e]1952

¼1952 dk 19½ blds i'pkr~ mä vfèkfu;e ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds

varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va’knku dh njksa

ds laca/k esa mä çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mä vfèkfu;e

dh /kkjk 6 esa mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk ykHkksa dk Qk;nk

mBk jgs gSa dqy feydj blh çdkj ds fdlh vU; çfr"Bku esa

deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa mä vfèkfu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk Ldhe] 1952 ¼blds i'pkr~ mä Ldhe ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr½ ds varxZr çnku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de

vuqdwy ugha gSA

3- vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mä vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krksaZ ds v/;k/khu mä

çfr"Bku dks vxyh vf/klwpuk rd 01-12-2007 ls mä ;kstuk

ds lHkh mica/kksa ds çHkko vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus rd NwV çnku

djrh gSA

[la- ,l&35015@43@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqca/k

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls

NwV çnku djus laca/kh 'krsaZA

1- fu;ksäk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUæh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls

funs’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds çca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa

,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr

gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

ds çfr Hkfo"; fufèk esa çkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr

ys[kksa vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf’k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA

bl ç;kstukFkZ] fu;ksäk ls%&

¼i½ fdlh çfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkçsr gksxk;

vkSj

¼ii½ fdlh vU; çfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fä] vFkok

çkfèkdkjh vfHkçsr gksxk] ftldk ml çfr"Bku ds

dkedkt ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA

2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ¼lhih,Qlh½

vFkok mlds }kjk çkf/k—r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk le; le; ij

tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxkA

3- vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh

deZpkjh] tks Hkfo"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgsa gSa] ;fn

çfr"Bku dks NwV çnku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds :i esa

ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&çkIr

çfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds çfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksäk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksäk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys

fu;ksäk ls lap; jkf’k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh

O;oLFkk djsxkA

5- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

}kjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr 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;ksäk

U;klh cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy,

vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 7Fk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk

djus dk nk;h gksxkA

6- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk ds ç’kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu

djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU;

dkj.k ls Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ

djsxkA

7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh

fu;ksäk }kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd

ykuk gksxkA

8- fu;ksäk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

çkfèkdkjh }kjk ;Fkk&vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d çfr

vf/kla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr çfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij çnf’kZr djsxkA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4751

9- çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr

ns; va’knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krsaZ vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys

vkSj lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ

}kjk ?kksf"kr] çR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt]

vfèkfu;e vkSj mlds varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu

mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUæ ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha

gksxkA

10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la’kks/ku] tks çfr"Bku ds fo|eku

fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks]

mls U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la’kks/ku ds yafcr jgrs mu

ij Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xkA

11- fu;ksäk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la’kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA

12-fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds

Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axsA

13- U;klh cksMZ çR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k 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/kekur%

bySDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA çfr"Bku vkof/kd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

}kjk funs’k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVª‚fud :i ls

lEçsf"kr djsaxsA

14-U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds

lekIr gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj çR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%’kqYd

ys[kksa dk okf"kZd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh

lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjä fçaVv‚mV ukeek= ds çHkkj ds lkFk

miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh

ds ikl jgsxh ftls çLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd

:i ls v|ru fd;k tk,xkA

15- fu;ksäk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko’;drkuqlkj

dEI;wVj VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf’k dks ns[kus ds

leFkZ cukus ds fy, vko’;d çko/kku djsaxsA

16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

}kjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds

Hkhrj ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls

pwd ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk la;qä :i ls

vkSj vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk dh tkus

okyh mi;qä nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA

17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa ds

vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos’k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa

ds vuqlkj fuos’k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ

vyx&vyx vkSj la;qä :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ;k

mlds çfrfufèk }kjk ;Fkk vf/kjksfir vf/k’kqYd dk Hkkxh cu

tk,xkA

18- ¼d½ çfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls çkIr dh tk,axhA bl

çdkj çkIr dh xbZ çfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr

lqfoèkk ds miyC/k u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA

¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt

dh le; ij mxkgh lqfuf’pr djsxkA

¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl laca/k esa dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh

vuqns’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk

vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A

¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos’k

dk çklafxd O;; O;; ekuk tk,A çfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos’kksa ds lHkh çdkj ds [kpksaZ dks Hkh U;kl }kjk

fd, tkus okys fuos’k dk çklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA

19- çfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos’k

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj

çfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds

laj{kd gksaxsA LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk] 1952 ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij çkIr rFkk

vius tek esa iM+s fuos’k dks lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

ds] bl vk’k; ds] vuqjks/k ij lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

dks lh/ks varfjr djsxkA

20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks mu

fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj

}kjk vuqeksfnr½ 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~

çfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos’k ntZ fd, x, gSaA

rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf’k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks

nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksäk dh

lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds

4752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

varj.k vkSj çfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh çkfIr;ksa vFkok

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/khu fufèk ds

uke esa iM+s vU; fuos’kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds

fy, visf{kr gksaA

21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos’kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k

vU; laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh’ku] çksRlkgu]

cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA

22- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krksaZ dk ikyu

djus dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i

ls fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf’krksa

ij muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxkA

23- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa

lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g

mu ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds

varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh

cuk,xkA

24- ¼d½ U;klh cksMZ }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk

fdlh ;ksX; Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk

djus ds 'krkZ/khu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko’;d le>k tk,] ogka

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh

vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd }kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,

rFkk bl çdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksäk }kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA

¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vçSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijhf{kr

rqyu&i= lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh çfr lh/ks bl

dk;kZy; esa çLrqr dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk çk:i vkSj bl

fjiksVZ esa çLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xh rFkk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk

vk;qä ds dk;kZy; esa bySDVª‚fud çk:i ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr

çfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA

¼x½ ,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/kd ds

fy, fu;qä u fd;k tk,A

25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kksaZ rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath

vkèkkj esa dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV

çkIr gksxhA

26- fu;ksäk çR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj

fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk çko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k

çHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vfèkfu;e dh

/kkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj gksaA

27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksä }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krksaZ ds

fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fä dks bl

laca/k esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh

tk,xhA

28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos’k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds

QyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksäk

uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxkA

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 QyLo:i ;fn çfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ

Hkh cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa çfr"Bku dks

rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A

30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd bdkbZ@

çfr"Bkuksa ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkbZ;ksa ds

fdlh Hkh VªLVh@fu;ksäk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh

la;qä :i ls ,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs vkSj

vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo:)

mi;qä dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA

31- dsUæ ljdkj çfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,

'krksaZ dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laçsf"kr fd;k tk,xk

;s çfr"Bku bu vfrfjä 'krksaZ dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;

gksaxsA

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2014

S.O. 1813.—Whereas M/s. Shekhavati Investments

& Traders Ltd. [under Code No. WB/42486 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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4753

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 01-12-2007 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/43/2014-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

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 15^th 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.

4754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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 1^st April to 31^st 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.

two consecutive years and not more than the relaxation

withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding

financial year.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4755

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1814.—tcfd eSllZ Vªkbcy dkWijsfVo ekdsZfVax

MsoyieSaV QSMjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fy- (fnYyh½ ¼nf{k.k½ {ks= ds

varxZr dksM la[;k Mh&I@11208 ds varxZr] ¼blds i'pkr~

mä çfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

vkSj çdh.kZ mica/k vfèkfu;e]1952 ¼1952 dk 19½ blds i'pkr

mä vfèkfu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr½ dh /kkjk 17 dh mi /kkjk

¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa

ds laca/k esa mä çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mä vfèkfu;e

dh /kkjk 6 esa mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk ykHkksa dk Qk;nk

mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh çdkj ds fdlh vU; çfr"Bku esa

deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa mä vfèkfu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk Ldhe] 1952 ¼blds i’pkr mä Ldhe ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr½ ds varxZr çnku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de

vuqdwy ugha gSA

3- vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mä vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 17 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼d½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vf/klwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krksaZ ds v/;k/khu mä

çfr"Bku dks vxyh vf/klwpuk rd 01-04-1989 ls mä ;kstuk

ds lHkh mica/kksa ds çHkko ls NwV çnku djrh gSA

[la- ,l&35015@54@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqca/k

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds mica/kksa ls

NwV çnku djus laca/kh 'krsaZA

1- fu;ksäk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUæh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] }kjk fn, tkus okys ,sls

funs’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds çca/ku gsrq viuh v/;{krk esa

,d U;klh cksMZ xfBr djsxkA Hkfo"; fufèk U;klh cksMZ esa fofgr

gksxh tks vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

ds çfr Hkfo"; fufèk esa çkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr

ys[kksa vkSj mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf’k ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gksxkA

bl ç;kstukFkZ] ¶fu;ksäk¸ ls%&

¼i½ fdlh çfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds laca/k esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vf/k"Bkrk vfHkçsr gksxk;

vkSj

¼ii½ fdlh vU; çfr"Bku ds laca/k esa] og O;fä] vFkok

çkfèkdkjh vfHkçsr gksxk] ftldk ml çfr"Bku ds

dkedkt ij vafre fu;a=.k gksA

2- U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj cSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

¼lhih,Qlh½ vFkok mlds }kjk çkf/k—r fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk

le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn’kk funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj

dk;Z djsxkA

4756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3- vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼p½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh

deZpkjh] tks Hkfo"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik= jgsa gSa] ;fn

çfr"Bku dks NwV çnku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;ksa ds #i esa

ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

4- tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&çkIr

çfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds çfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksäk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds #i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksäk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa ml ds igys

fu;ksäk ls lap; jkf’k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh

O;oLFkk djsxkA

5- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds }kjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

}kjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr 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;ksäk

U;klh cksMZ dks fdUgha ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy,

vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 7Fk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk/kkj.k C;kt vnk

djus dk nk;h gksxkA

6- fu;ksäk Hkfo"; fufèk ds ç’kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu

djsxk vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nqfoZfu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU;

dkj.k ls Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ

djsxkA

7- U;klh cksMZ }kjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh

fu;ksäk }kjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksxk vkSj mls lkafof/kd lhek rd

ykuk gksxkA

8- fu;ksäk tc dHkh fu;e la’kksf/kr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

çkfèkdkjh }kjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d çfr

vf/kla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr çfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij çnf’kZr djsxkA

9- çfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr

ns; va’knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krsaZ vkSj ek=k rFkk vU; ekeys

vkSj lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ

}kjk ?kksf"kr] çR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt]

vfèkfu;e vkSj mlds varxZr fufeZr ;kstuk esa fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu

mica/kksa ds varxZr dsUæ ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha

gksxkA

10- ;kstuk esa dksbZ la’kks/ku] tks çfr"Bku ds fo|eku

fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vf/kd ykHknk;d gks]

mls U;kl ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la’kks/ku ds yafcr jgrs mu

ij Lor% ykxw fd;k tk,xkA

11- fu;ksäk }kjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la’kks/ku {ks=h; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=h;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxkA

12- fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre le; lhek ds

Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk ls fuiVk, tk,axsA

13- U;klh cksMZ çR;sd deZpkjh ds laca/k 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/kekur%

bySDVªkWfud #i ls j[kk tk,xkA çfr"Bku vkof/kd #i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä@{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

}kjk funs’k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVª‚fud #i ls

lEçsf"kr djsaxsA

14-U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foÙkh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds

lekIr gksus ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj çR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%’kqYd

ys[kksa dk okf"kZd fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh

lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjä fçaVv‚mV ukeek= ds çHkkj ds lkFk

miyC/k djk, tk ldrs gSaA iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh

ds ikl jgsxh ftls çLrqr fd, tkus ij U;kfl;ksa }kjk vkof/kd

#i ls v|ru fd;k tk,xkA

15- fu;ksäk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko’;drkuqlkj

dEI;wVj VfeZuyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds

leFkZ cukus ds fy, vko’;d çko/kku djsaxsA

16- U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu

}kjk ;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofufnZ"V le; lhek ds

Hkhrj ekfld@okf"kZd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls

pwd ekuk tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksäk la;qä :i ls

vkSj vyx&vyx] deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu }kjk dh tkus

okyh mi;qä nkf.Md dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxsA

17- U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa ds

vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos’k djsxkA ljdkj ds funsZ’kksa

ds vuqlkj fuos’k djus esa vlQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4757

vyx&vyx vkSj la;qä :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ;k

mlds çfrfufèk }kjk ;Fkk vf/kjksfir vf/k’kqYd dk Hkkxh cu

tk,xkA

18- ¼d½ çfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls çkIr dh tk,axhA bl

çdkj çkIr dh xbZ çfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd ¼MhesV½ :i esa gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=ksa esa visf{kr

lqfoèkk ds miyC/k u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh cksMZ lacaf/kr

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks bldh lwpuk nsaxsA

¼[k½ U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt

dh le; ij mxkgh lqfuf’pr djsxkA

¼x½ MhesV [kkrk bl laca/k esa dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk tkjh

vuqns’kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk

vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ds ek/;e ls [kksyk tk,A

¼?k½ MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl }kjk fd, tkus okys fuos’k

dk çklafxd O;; ekuk tk,A çfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn dh

nykyh tSls fuos’kksa ds lHkh çdkj ds [kpksaZ dks Hkh U;kl }kjk

fd, tkus okys fuos’k dk çklafxd O;; ekuk tk,xkA

19- çfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos’k

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj

çfrHkkfx;ksa dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds

laj{kd gksaxsA LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk] 1952 ls NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij çkIr rFkk

vius tek esa iM+s fuos’k dks lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

ds] bl vk’k; ds] vuqjks/k ij lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä

dks lh/ks varfjr djsxkA

20- LFkkiuk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä dks mu

fu{ksikxkj çfrHkkfx;ksa ¼Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj

}kjk vuqeksfnr½ 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

çfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn esa fd, x, fuos’k ntZ fd, x, gSaA

rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml /kujkf’k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks

nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksäk dh

lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL; ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds

varj.k vkSj çfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh }kjk vU; fdlh çkfIr;ksa vFkok

{ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds 'krkZ/khu fufèk ds

uke esa iM+s vU; fuos’kksa tSls ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds

fy, visf{kr gksaA

21- U;kl }kjk fd, x, fuos’kksa ds fy, fdlh foÙkh; ;k

vU; laLFkkvksa }kjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh’ku] çksRlkgu]

cksul ;k vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,aA

22- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krksaZ dk ikyu

djus dh lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSf/kd :i

ls fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf’krksa

ij muds lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxkA

23- fu;ksäk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus dh fLFkfr esa

lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qä }kjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxkA ;g

mu ij dkuwuh :i ls ckè;dkjh gksxk rFkk mUgsa fufèk;ksa ds

varj.k esa dksbZ foyac gksus dh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu dk Hkkxh

cuk,xkA

24- ¼d½ U;klh cksMZ }kjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk

fdlh ;ksX; Lora= pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj }kjk okf"kZd :i ls ys[kk&ijh{kk

djus ds 'krkZ/khu gksxkA tgka Hkh vko’;d le>k tk,] ogka

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh

vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd }kjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,

rFkk bl çdkj gq, [kpZ fu;ksäk }kjk ogu fd, tk,axsA

¼[k½ ys[kk&ijh{kdksa }kjk foÙkh; o"kZ vFkkZr 1 vçSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj ys[kk&ijh{khr

rqyu&i= lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ dh çfr lh/ks bl

dk;kZy; esa çLrqr dh tk,A rqyu&i= dk çk:i vkSj bl

fjiksVZ esa çLrqr dh tkus okyh tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

laxBu }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xh rFkk lacaf/kr {ks=h; Hkfo"; fufèk

vk;qä ds dk;kZy; esa bySDVª‚fud çk:i ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr

çfrfyfi esa miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA

¼x½ ,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/kd ds

fy, fu;qä u fd;k tk,A

25- yxkrkj rhu foÙkh; o"kksaZ rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath

vkèkkj esa dVkSrh dks vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV

çkIr gksxhA

26- fu;ksäk çR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj

fujh{k.k gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk çko/kku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k

çHkkjksa dk Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk vfèkfu;e dh

/kkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M ¼3½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funsZ’kksa ds vuqlkj gksaA

4758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

27- U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksä }kjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krksaZ ds

fdlh mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacaf/kr O;fä dks bl

laca/k esa dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh

tk,xhA

28- fdlh Hkh /kks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos’k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds

QyLo:i VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr esa fu;ksäk

uqdlku iwjk djus dk Hkkxh gksxkA

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 QyLo:i ;fn çfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ

Hkh cnyko gksrk gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa çfr"Bku dks

rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg,A

30- ,d gh Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV esa ,d ls vf/kd

bdkbZ@çfr"Bkuksa ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh

bdkbZ;ksa ds fdlh Hkh VªLVh@fu;ksäk }kjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij

lHkh VªLVh la;qä :i ls ,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mÙkjnk;h gksaxs

vkSj vkjih,Qlh vke Hkfo"; fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds

fo:) mi;qä dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djsxkA

31- dsUæ ljdkj çfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy,

'krksaZ dks c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laçsf"kr fd;k tk,xk

;s çfr"Bku bu vfrfjä 'krksaZ dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè;

gksaxsA

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2014

S.O.

1814.—Whereas M/s. Tribal Co-operative

Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. [under

Code No. DI/11208 in Delhi (South) 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 01-04-1989 until further

notification.

(No.S-35015/54/2014-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

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4759

Act from time to time by the 15^th 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.

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

4760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 1^st April to 31^st 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.

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1815-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@

2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@93@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O.

1815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4761

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 11/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

24/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/93/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 11 OF 2013.

PARTIES : The President

BCCL Zone, Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor

Congress, Hirapur, Dhanbad

Vs.

General Manager,

Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL,

Kusunda, Dhanbad

Ministry’s Order No L-.20012/93/2012-IR(CM-I)

Dt. 07.01.2013.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the

: None

workman/union

On behalf of the

: Mr. Nitish Sahay, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 11th March, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. l0 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/93/2012-IR(CM-I) dt.07.01.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda

Area of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Rahmatulla Khan,

Despatch Clerk from the services of the Company

from 8-7-1999 is fair and justified? To what relief is

the workman concerned entitled?

Neither any representative for RCMC, Hirapur, nor

workman Rahmatulla Khan appeared nor any written

statement with any document filed on behalf of the

workman despite last chance for it. But Mr. Niticsh Sahay,

Ld. Advcate for the O.P./Management concerned is

present.

On perusal of the case record, I find the case has

been all along pending for filing the written statement

along with the documents on behalf of the workman, for

which Regd. Notices dt.7.3.2013, 1.10.2013 and lastly

dt. 28.11.2013 have been issued to the President of the

Union concerned on the same address as noted in the

reference itself, yet no response whatsoever from the side

of the Union or the workman. The Union Representative

and the workman by their conducts appear to be quite

reluctant and unwilling to pursue the Industrial Dispute

for its finality. Under these circumstances, the case is

closed as no Industrial Dispute existent; accordingly an

order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1816-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fczfV'k ,vjost

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38 of

2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@23@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O.

1816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 38/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. British Airways, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

24/06/2014.

[No. L-11012/23/2004-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 38 of 2004

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

British Airways

AND

Their workmen

4762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the

: Mr. Rekha Ghosh, Ld. Advocate

Management

On behalf of the

: None

Workman

State : West Bengal

Industry : Airlines

Dated, the 18th March, 2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-11012/23/2004-IR (CM-I) dated

14.09.2004 the Government of India Ministry of Labour in

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 Eastern

India, British Airways PLC, 41 Chowringhee Road,

Kolkata - 700071 in dismissing the services of Shri

B.N. Basu, Senior Reservation Assistant w.e.f. 18.1.02

is legal and justified? If not to what relief is the

workman concerned entitled?”

When the case is taken up today, none appears on

behalf of the workman though the management is

represented by its Ld. Advocate. It appears from the

records that the workman was given several opportunities

to appear before the Tribunal for hearing of the petition

filed by the parties in the matter of settlement of the instant

dispute; but inspite of getting such opportunities he has

not turned up.

The above facts and circumstances go to show that

the concerned workman is not at all interested to proceed

with the reference case further. The said conduct of the

workman also goes to show that he is not at all interested

about the settlement of the case though the application

for settlement has been filed by the parties including

himself

In view of the above facts and circumstances, present

ref rerice is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 18th March, 2014.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1817-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y- ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 148 of 1994) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@398@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O.

1817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 148/1994)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

24/06/2014.

[No. L-20012/398/1993-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (I) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.

Ref. No. 148 of 1994.

Employer in relation to the management of Rajrappa

Washery, M/s. CCL,

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

: Sri D.Mukherjee, Rep

State : Jharkhand.

Industry :-Coal.

Dated 13/5/2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4763

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/398/1993-IR (C-I), dated

14/06/1994, 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 claim of Shri Ram Kumar Mahto and

94 other workmen (as per the list annexed) for

regularization by the management of Rajrappa

washery of C.C.L. with back wages are legal &

Justified? If so, to what relief is the workmen

concerned entitled and from what date ?”

Annexure

M/S. VINAY ENGINEERING

Rajrappa Wabhery Project.

List of workers

Sl. Name

Father’s Name & Address

No.

1. Sri Ram Kumar Mahto Late Fucha Mahto, Vill- Kundru

Khurd, P.O.-Lari, Dt. Hazari

bagh

2. Sri Gulab Mahto

Sri Pusha Mahto, Vill- Mael,

P.O. Chitarpur Distl.-Hazari

bagh

3. Sri Munilal Prasad

Sri Sheo Prasad, Vill. & P.O.

Chitarpur Distt.- Hazaribagh

4. Md. Shafiullah Khalid Md. Atta Ullah, Vill. & P.O.

Chitarpur Distt. Hazaribagh

5. Sri Satydeo Ram

Sri Lilu Mahto, Vill. & P.O. -

Barki Pona Distt.-Hazaribagh

6. Sri Niranjan Sahu

Late Dilunath Sahu, Vill. & P.O.-

Chitarpur, Distt. Hazaribah

7. Sri Govind Karmali

Late Laxman Karmali Vill-

Hethgarha, P.O.-Banda, Dist.

Hazaribagh

8. Sri Anil Kumar

Sri Habbu Mahto, Vill. & P.O.-

Barki Pona, Distt. - Hazaribagh

9. Sri Chandeshwar Das Sri Jivadhan Das, C/O- Kamal

Das (Mael Bazar) Vill. & P.O.-

Chitarpur, Distt. - Hazaribagh

10. Sri Deochand Mahto

Sri Chhutan Mahto, Vill. & P.O.-

Barki Pona, Disll.-Hazaribagh

11. Sri Chanchal Kr. Ghosh Sri G.S. Ghosh, Vill. & P.O.-

Bhavaidighi, Distt.- Bankura,

(W.B.)

12. Sri Ritulal Mahto

Late Puna Mahto, Vill.- Kundru

Khurd, P.O. - Lari, Hazaribagh

13. Sri Baleshwar Prasad

Late Mahadeo Mahto, Vill.-

Chhotaki Pona, P.O.- Barki

Pona, Distt. - Hazaribagh

14. Sri Shivdayal Mahto

Sri Mohit Mahto, Vill. & P.O. -

Honhey. Distt. Hazaribhag

15. Sri Gopal Ram

Sri Habbu Mahto, Vill. & P.O.-

Barki Pona, Distt.- Hazaribagh

16. Sri Bimal Kant Jha

Sri Krishna Jivan Jha, Vill.-

Dhandhua, P.O- Dhandhua, Dt.

Vaishali.

17. Sri Roshanlal Shahu

Sri Dhani Shahu, Vill. & P.O.-

Chitarpur, Distt. Hazaribagh

18. Sri S.N. Goswami

Sri R.B. Goswami, Vill.-

Bishanpura, P.O.-Korupindria,

Distt.- Rohtas

19. Sri T. Bhagat

Late Kunda Bhagat Vill.-

Tapkara, P.O.- Pachanga,

Distt.- Ranchi

20. Sri Dineshwar Thakur Late Meghu Thakur Vill-

Aajania, P.O.- Kunda, Dist-

Aurangabad

21. Sri Ashok Singh

Sri Ramjatan Singh Vill.-

Sondh, P.O.- Sandi- Chitarpur,

Distt. Hazaribagh

22. Sri Kali Mahto

C/o. D.N. Choudhari Vill. & P.O-

Saudi, Distt.- Hazaribagh

23. Sri Lakshman Mahto

Sri Jaldhar Mahto. Vill.-

Borobing, P.O.- Barki Pona,

Distt.- Hazaribagh

24 Md. Nourddin

Late Sirajuddin, Vill. & P.O.-

Chitarpur, Distt.- Hazaribagh

25 Sri Ramdas Kr. Das

Sri Kamal Das, Vill. & P.O.-

Chitarpur, Distt. -Hazaribagh

26 Sri L. N. Singh

Sri D.N. Singh Vill- Sondh, P.O.-

Sandi, Distt. -Hazaribagh

27 Sri Laldeo Mahto

Sri Loka Mahto, Vill.-

Borobing, P.O.-Barki Pona,

Distt. - Hazaribagh

28 Md. Javed Ahmed

Sri Izhar Hussain, Chitarpur,

Distt. Hazaribagh

29 Sri B.K. Sinha

Sri P.N. Sinha Vill.-Bhagwatpur,

P.O.-Katrisarai, Distt.- Nalanda

30. Sri Rajeshwar Ram

Sri Habbu Mahto, Vill. & P.O.-

Dhangi

Barki Pona, Distt.-Hazaribagh

31. Sri Karan Singh

Late Tall Singh Vill.& P.O..

Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan(W.B)

32. Sri Dhaneshwar Mahto Sri Tikka Mahto, Vill.-

Borobing, P.O.- Barki Pona,

Distt.- Hazaribagh

4764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

33. Sri Sakhichand Mahto Late Maharang Mahto, Vill.-

Koihara, P.O.-Sandi, Dist.-

Hazaribagh

34. Sri Amit Kr. Rai

Sri Anath Bandhu Rai, Vill.-

Khudibera, P.O.-Karma, Vill.-

Kashmar, Dt. Giridih,

35. Sri Manohar Ram

Sri

Mishtri,

Vill.-

Marangmarcha, P.O.-Sandi,

Dist.-Hazaribagh

36. Sri Laldeo Munda

Sri Niwaran Munda, Vill.-

Koihara, P.O.-Sandi, Distt.-

Hazaribagh

37. Sri Bishnu Mahto

Sri Jaipal Mahto, Vill.- Koihara,

P.O.-Sandi, Distt.-Hazaribagh

38. Sri D. P. Poddar

Late Radha Shahu, Mael Bazar,

P.O.

Chitarpur,

Distt.-

Hazaribagh

39. Sri Chamu Ram

Sri Meghu Ram, Vill.-

Marangmarcha, P.O.-Sandi,

Distt.-Hazaribagh

40. Sri Jaswant Singh

Sri Ramadhar Singh Vill.-

Sondh, P. O. Sandi, Distt.-

Hazaribagh

41. Sri Dhananjay Kr.,

Late Kumud Sahu, Vill.-

Chitarpur, P.O.-Chitarpur,

Distt.-Hazaribagh

42. Sri Baleshwar

Nand Kishore Upadhyay, Vill-

Huppu, P.O.-Gola, Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

43. Sri Jagdish Prasad

Mochi Sao, Mael Bazar, Vill &

P.O. Chitarpur, Dist. Hazaribagh

44. Sri Ramadhar Tiwari

K. D. Tiwari, Jawahar Road.

Vill. & P.O. Chitarpur. Distt.-

Hazaribagh

45. Sri Umesh Kr. Sinha

Sri D. K. Sinha Near Shanti

Talkese, Ramgarh Cantt. Distt.-

Hazaribagh

46. Sri Surendra Kr. Singh Sri Yamuna Singh Vill.-

Shibnagar, P.O.-Madhupur, Via-

Tekari, Dist.-Hazaribagh

47. Sri Sudhir Kumar

Sri Diwakar Swarnkar, Vill. &

Swarnkar

P.O.- Chitarpur, Distt.-

Hazaribagh

48. Sri Nakul Mahto

Sri Jaldhar Mahto, Vill.-

(N.A.M.C)

Borobing. P.O.-Barki Pona,

Distt. Hazaribag

49. Sri Ishwar Upadhyay

Sri Upadhyay, Vill.-Huppu,

P.O.- Gola, Distt.-Hazaribagh

50. Sri Babulal Mahto

Sri Balram Mahto, Vill. & P.O.-

Honhey, Distt. Hazaribagh.

51. Sri Aist Kr. Paddar

Late Basu Shabu, Vill. & P.O.-

Chitarpur, Distt.-Hazaribagh.

52. Sri Indraeo Singh

Sri S. N. Singh, Vill.-Sondh,

P.O.-

Chitarpur,

Distt.

Hazaribagh.

53. Sri Yugal Prasad

Sri Shyamdeo Mahto Vill.-

Jovia P.O. Banda Distt.-

Hazaribagh

54. Md. Noor Mohammad Md. Rahmat Khan Vill.-

Chitarpur, P.O. Chitarpur, Distt.-

Hazaribagh

55. Puroshottam Nayak

Sri Damodar Nayak Vill & P.O.-

Jaipur Dist. Ganjam (Orissa)

56. Abhay Singh

Sri B. P. Singh Vill. Jothor

Jernia P.O. Jothor Jemia, Distt.

Hazaribhag

57. B. N. Chouhan

Sri Ram Dayal Chouhan Vill.-

Vidya Bhawan P.O.-Naryanpur

Distt. Balia (U.P.)

58. Baldeo Mahto

Sri Kitu Mahto,Vill. Barkajara

P.O.-Banda Distt.-Hazaribhag

59. Munshi Singh

Sri Gurdayal Singh,Vill.& P.O.-

Banahappa Distt. Hazaribagh.

60. Duryodhan Prasad

Sri Ailopi Pd. Verma Vill.

Proadhameda Ka Purba P.O.-

Dhrigraj Distt.-Patapgarh

( U.P.)

61. Md. Anwarulla

Md. Abedur Rahman, Vill &

P.O.-Chitarpur,

Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

62. Pradeep Chatterjee

Sri M. L. Chaterjee Qtr. No. A-

4/9/3 V.K. Nagar, P.O.-

Durgapur, Distt.-Burdwan

(W.B.)

63. Gouri Shankar Thakur Late

R.K.

Thakur,Vill.

Bishanpur, P.O. Bhtahai, Distt.-

Sitarnarhi (Bihar)

64. R. N. Patra

Sri S. S. Patra Vill. Chakdaha

P.O.-Purba Ittara, Distt.-

Mednipur (W.B.)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4765

65. S.N.Pd.

Sri BadriPrasad, Vill & P.O.-

Katkarnsandi,

Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

66. S.M.lqurarnabi

Md. Anwar Nabbi Vill. R.O.

Chitarpur, Distt.-Hazaribgh

67. Md. Ahmad Hussian

Md. Ali Abbas Vill. & P.O.-

Chitarpur, Distt. Hazaribagh.

68. Md. Mohtasimbillah

Md. Fakruddin Ahmad, Vill.

& P.O.-Chitarpur, Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

69. Mahraj Uraon

Sri Lal Singh Vill: Butter Kalan

Distt. Gurdaspur (Punjab)

70. R.K. Mistry

Sri Gujan Mistry Vill, Dewa

Dariya, P.O.-Madania, Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

71. Gopal Singh

Sri Ambika Singh Qtr. No.

B-3/4 At & R.O.-Rajrappa

Colliery, Distt.-Hazaribag

72. Md. Murtuza

Md. Mustafa, Vill & P.O.-

Chitrapur, Distt.-Hazaribagh.

73. Gobind Sahu

Sri Bishun Sahu,Vill & P.O.-

Katkamsandi,

Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

74. Md. Ramjan Ali

Late Md. Abdul

M u t a l i b ,

Vill. P.O.-Chitarpur, Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

75. Bir Singh

Sri Bachan Singh, Vill: Rarnpur

P.O.-Gurnanpur, Distt.-Amritsar

( Punjab)

76. Abdul Wadud

Late Md. Ahmad Hasan, Vill

& P.O.-Chitarpur, Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

77. Mahendar Prasad

Late Bisheshwar Sonar, Vill. &

P.O.-Chitarpur,

Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

78. Birendra Kurnar Singh Sri A. P. Singh Vill: Jethour

Jamua,

Distt.-Bhagalpur

(Bihar)

79. Harandar Yadav

Sri Bishundeo Yadav Vill: &

P.O.-Jarndih, Distt.-Ajamgarh

( U.P.)

80. Md. Safdrul Hoda

Md. Karnrul Hoda Vill & P.O. -

Chitarpur, Distt.-Hazaribagh.

81. Chumen Mahto

Sri Gobardhan Mahto Vill:

Marang Marcha, P.O.-Sandi,

Distt.-Hazaribagh.

82. J. P. Singh

Sri Bishundeo Singh Vill &

P.O.-Nayagaon-I, Distt.-

Khagaria (Bihar)

83. Damodar Yadav

Sri Chhedi Yadav Vill. & P.O.-

Jarndih, Distt.-Ajamgarh(U.P.)

84. BirendraYadav

Sri Chhedi Yadav Vill. & P.O.-

Jarndih, Distt.-Ajamgarh (U.P.)

85. S.K. Acharyajee

Sri P. C. Acharyajee Vill: &

P.O.-Moko, Distt.-Dhanbad.

86. K. B. Thappa

Sri Sashidhar Thappa Vill. &

P.O.-Bijulia Ramgarh Cantt.,

Distt.-Hazaribagh.

87. Jagthwar Mistry

Sri Goutarn Mistry Vill.

Pachgarna P.O.-Bhorne, Distt.-

Gaya

88. S. Anthony

Sri Anthony Oas Vill & P.O.

IAG- Bhadaninagar, Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

89. G. S. Jha

Sri Arvind Jha Vill: Vistikuri,

P.O..-Asarganj,

Distt.-

Bhagalpur,

90. Goutam Dey

Sri Jallandhar Dey, Vill.

Raghunathpur,

P.O.-

Raghunathpur, Oistt- Purulia

( W.B)

91. Basant Kr. Singh

Sri Anirudh Singh, Vill:

Sonpura P.O.-Itkhori, Distt.-

Hazaribagh.

92. Tarsen Singh

Sri Mangal Singh,Vill: & P.O.-

Pakhoke, Distt.-Amritasar

(Punjab)

93. Teju Ram

Sri JodhiSao Vill & P.O.-

Katkarnsandi, Distt.-Hazari-

bagh.

94. Anand Pal Singh

Sri Mangal Singh,Vill: & P.O.-

Pakhoke, Distt.-Amritsar

(Punjab) .

95. Dinesh Yadav

Sri Jhari Gope Vill: Brijbashi

P.O.-Kathara, Distt.-Giridih.

2. After receipt of the reference the parties are

noticed, Though they took steps for certain dates,

subsequently did not appears nor take any interest in the

case. It is presumed that the disputes between parties

have been resolved in the meantime, Hence No Dispute

Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

4766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1818-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dlVe ,vj

dkxksZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;& u- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

03@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&06&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@61@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1818.—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 Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court- No 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Custom

Air Cargo, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24-06-2014.

[No. L-11012/61/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT - II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110032

Present:

Shri HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 03/2010

Sh. Mahavir Singh

Versus

Custom Air Cargo

Ex-parte Award

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-1l012/61/2009-IR (CM-I) dated

17.02.2010 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :-

(i)

Whether the action of the management of

Custom Air Cargo in separating Sh. Mahavir,

Helper/Tea Server from the services w.e.f.

10.09.2006 as contended by the workman

concerned is justified and legal?

(ii)

To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?”

On 22.05.2010 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 03/10 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim

statement. Wherein he stated as follows:-

l. That the workman was the permanent/ regular

employee of management who was appointed as a Helper/

tea Server in Export Shed, Air Cargo, IGI Airport, New

Delhi w.e.f November 2001 and has been working for the

same grade continuously for the period of 5 years.

2. That the workman had been working continuously

in the establishment of the management as a Helper/Tea

Server in Export Shed, Air Cargo, IGI Airport, New Delhi

w.e.f November 2001 till his illegal dismissal on 10

September 2006 with the last drawn salary of Rs. 6000/-

per month. The workman was performing his duties

diligently, continuously, regularly, efficiently and up to

the most satisfaction of management till his illegal

dismissal/termination for the service on10.09.2006.

3. That the workman submits that there were several

persons employed by the management who were not given

any appointment letter during their entire period of

services and terminated the services without any notice

like the workman. It is submitted that the management

used to issue Gate Pass to my client as well as other

persons who are/were employed by the management for

permission to enter in IGI Airport, New Delhi.

4. That the management never issued any

appointment letter either at the time of joining and during

the entire service period to the workman . The management

never provided necessary facilities like festival holidays,

National Holidays, weekly holidays, casual and medical

leaves , bonus, P.F., over-time etc. despite of calling for

the same several times by the workman till his illegal

dismissal on 10.09.2006.

5. That though the workman was appointed for the

work of Helper/Tea Server but the workman used to work

clerical job of making entries in all documents etc.

6. That the workman was doing his duties under the

control, guidance and supervision of the management at

the time of joining or during the entire service period.

There is no complaint against the workman in his entire

period of service.

7. That the workman was forced to work not only his

casual duty but also the personal worklBegar of officials

of the management like money withdrawn from bank, post

office work, their children’s work, marketing and

purchasing households commodities due to which he was

always harassed and tortured. Whenever the workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4767

tied to protest for his illegal demand, maltreatment,

misbehavior and attitude, he was threatened to be

dismissed from his job. The workman was performing his

duties about 12 hours per day in normal routine.

8. That the management used to get annoyed

whenever the workman demanded all such facilities like

festival holidays, National holidays, weekly holidays,

casual and medical leaves, bonus, P.F., over time etc. and

used to threaten the termination of job of the workman.

9. That the management when did not give salary of

the workman till 10.09.2006, the workman demanded his

salary for the month of August 2006 but instead of giving

the earned salary for the month of August 2006, the

management terminated the service of the workman on

same day on 10.09.2006 and thrown out the workman from

office and asked the guard not to allow the workman to

enter in office.

10. That the workman requested the management

not to terminate his job as he has big family to support but

the management clearly refused to take back the workman

on service and terminated his service from 10.09.2008.

11. That the workman since then regularly visiting

your office to get the job but the management refused to

give work to the workman and informed that the service of

the workman has been terminated and there is no work for

him.

12. That the illegal termination of service of the

workman is not only illegal but ab-initio, even the

management had not given notice before illegal termination

as required under the Industrial Dispute Act.

13. That the illegal termination of service of the

workman is in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act and

other provisions of Labour Laws.

14. That seeing no way to settle the dispute the

workman had to send the demand notice on 04.03.2008

through Regd. Post as well as Under Postal Certificate to

the management. But despite of receiving of notice, the

management has not reinstated the workman in his service

till date.

15. That thereafter the workman raised industrial

dispute before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Labour

Commissioner wherein the management appeared however

he refused to take back the workman on service hence the

Assist. Labour Commissioner, ( C) , New Delhi has referred

the said dispute before the Labour Court vide reference

No. L-11012/61/2009-IR(CM-1).

16. That the workman is still unemployed despite of

his best effort to get the job and facing financial crunch

after illegal dismissal/termination by the management and

since then the workman as well as his family is on the

verge of starvation.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to pass the order:-

(i)

To reinstate the services of the workman/

claimant along with all full back wages along

with 18% interest per annum.

(ii)

To pay all the benefits and perquisites such

as increment on salary, leave encashment,

over time, bonus, house rent, conveyance

charges, Medical Bill reimbursement, L.T.A.

D.A., Ex-gracia, etc. should be given to the

workman.

(iii)

To allow the compensation for causing

harassment, mental torture and agony.

(iv)

To pass any other of further relief as this

Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be deemed fit in

favour of workman and against the

management.

Against claim statement management filed following

written statements-

Preliminary Submissions/Objections:

l. That the Statement of claim filed by the Claimant /

Workman is nothing but misuse and abuse of process of

law. No cause of action has accrued to the Claimant /

workman to file the present claim and the same has been

filed for ulterior reasons. The workman has never been the

employee of the management.

2. That the claim petition instituted by the claimant

is absolutely misconceived and is filed in abuse to the

process law.

3. That the Commissioner of Customs (Export) is

the head of department and all department action relating

to appointment are taken by him in accordance to the

prescribed procedure. In the instant case, the complainant

has made the Superintendent Customs (ACE), EFO/IFO

New Custom House, Cargo, Indira Gandhi IGI Airport, New

Delhi as appointment authority and as party.

Superintendent Customs (ACE), EFO/IFO are not

administrative head and are working as subordinate staff.

During the period between November 2001 to 10 September

2006, more than 100 officers were posted as Superintendent

Customs (ACE), EFO/IFO in Air Cargo Export. Mr. Mahavir

Singh was never appointed as permanent / regular

employee by the department and never worked as helper/

tea server on behalf of department at any time between

November, 2001 and 10 September, 2006. Therefore

question, of termination of his services does not arise. Mr.

Mahavir Singh has not given any proof of receipt of salary

from the department. Mr. Mahavir Singh has made

Superintendent Customs (ACE), EFO/IFO as party as

management. Superintendent Customs (ACE), EFO/IFO

are not administrative authority in the department and have

no authority to appoint any person in the department. It is

relevant to inform that period between November, 2001

4768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and 10 September , 2006, more than 100 officer were posted

as Superintendent Customs (ACE), EFO/IFO in Air Cargo

Export.

PARASWISE REPLY :

l. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that the workman had never been

in the employment of the respondent department. It is

further submitted that no payment had ever been made to

anyone in the name of Mr. Mahavir Singh as salary/pay/

wages/remuneration during the period between

November, 2001 to September, 2006. There was/is no post

or position as helper/tea server in the staff sanction of the

respondent department either in export shed or at any

other place and, therefore, there could be no question of

the Complainant having ever been in the employment of

the respondent.

2. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that as already submitted in para 1,

hereinabove, the complainant was never in the

employment of the respondent. The complainant at no

point of time was ever appointed as Helper/Tea Server in

the respondent department and, therefore, there arise no

question of termination of his service as claimed by the

Complainant. Since the complainant was never in

employment of the respondent, no salary was payable or

ever paid to him. The assertion of the complainant that he

was paid regularly up till 10.09.2006 @ Rs. 6,000 per month

as salary is wrong and contrary to the fact on record. As

per practice, all the payment made by the respondent

including the salary to anyone are made through a pay

bill/bills and disbursed to the recipient on receipt/

acknowledgement.

3. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that the respondent herein is a

Government department and all appointment by the

respondent are carried out and done in accordance with

the procedures/rules/regulation set out in this regard. Any

appointment made by the respondent is done only after

issue of appointment letters and, therefore, the claim of

the complainant that he along with many other people

were appointed without issue of appointment letter is

totally false and wrong. Neither the complainant nor any

other person were ever employed by the respondent and,

therefore , there arise no issue of termination of the services

of the complainant or any other person. The Export Shed

at IGIA is the customs bonded area and as a regular

procedure all those persons not in possession of regular

entry permit and having and dealing with the agencies

operating in the bonded are required permission from the

customs for entry. Issue of gate pass is nothing to do with

the claim of the workers/employees of the Customs House

Agents, Exporters and their workmen and officials who

had any work connection with the export shed. The claim

of the complainant of regular employment on the strength

of the gate pass is, therefore, without any basis, as the

respondent being a Government department, cannot and

is not permitted to engage any persons contrary to rules /

regulations and procedures set out in this regard.

4. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that as already submitted

hereinabove in para 1 to 3 , the complainant being never in

the employment of the respondent and in these

circumstances there was no question of providing facility

like holidays, National Holidays, Weekly holidays, Casual

and medical leaves, bonus, provident fund, overtime, etc.

to the workman. The claim of the complainant is only a

bald claim and not supported by any evidence. The

complainant never being in the employment of the

respondent and in these circumstances, his dismissal from

service on 10.9.2006 does not arise.

5. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that the respondent being the

Government department, all work relating to the exports is

carried out by the employees of the respondent in

accordance with the provisions of the Customs Acts and

other allied and applicable acts/rules/regulations, etc.

which has legal implication. Therefore, in no event any

persons not in the employment or with express written

authorization of the respondent can perform any work or

entertain any documentation.

6. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that the complainant being not in

employment of the respondent, evaluation of his work is

out of question.

7. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that having been never engaged

by the respondent, there arise no question of the

harassment etc. as asserted by the complainant.

8. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that in view of the submissions

already made in para 4, hereinabove, no further reply is

required.

9. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that the complainant being never in

the employment of the respondent, there is no question of

payment of salary to him as well as termination of his

services.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4769

10. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that there being no appointment

and employment of the complainant, the question of

termination of the services of the Complainant does not

arise.

11. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied.

12. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that the complainant not being in

the service of the respondent, there arise no issue of notice

for termination or termination itself.

13. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that since the respondent had never

employed the complainant, there arise no issue of

termination and hence there is question of violation of

any of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act.

14. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition are patently wrong and vehemently

denied. It is submitted that the complainant had never

been employed by the respondent and hence there is no

question of termination of this service of reinstatement of

his service arise in the matter.

15. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition need no reply being matter of records.

However, it is submitted that the workmen approached

the Labour Commissioner with mala fide intention to get

benefit from the Management.

16. That the contents of the corresponding para of

the claim petition need no reply being personal averments

of the complainant. However, the complainant be put to

strict proof of the same. It is further submitted that as the

Management /Respondent has never employed the

complainant workmen, the respondent has nothing to do

with his employment or unemployment.

In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is

most respectfully prayed that the claim of the claimant/

workman may please be dismissed with cost as he is not

entitled for the same in any manner.

Workman filed rejoinder wherein he stated as

follows:-

At the very outset it is submitted that the

management has not denied that they had issued Gate

Pass to the workman hence it is admitted that they issued

said Gate Pass to their employee therefore the objection

of the management does not sustain and the statement of

claim of the workman is liable to be allowed however the

workman is filing the replication for abundant

precautions.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-

l. That the contents of the para No. 1 of the

preliminary objection are false frivolous hence denied as

incorrect and it requires strict proof thereof. It is specifically

denied that the statement of claim filed by the workman is

nothing but misuse and abuse of process of law. It is

vehemently denied that no cause of action has accrued to

the claimant/workman to file the present claim and same

has been filed for ulterior reasons. It is further denied that

the workman has never been the employee of the

management.

2. That the contents of the para No. 2 of the

preliminary objection are false frivolous hence denied as

incorrect and it requires strict proof thereof. It is specifically

denied that the claim petition instituted by the claimant is

absolutely misconceived and is filled in abuse to the

process law.

3. That the contents of the para No. 3 of the

preliminary objection are false frivolous hence denied as

incorrect and it requires strict proof thereof. It is specifically

denied that the workman was never appointed as

permanent/regular employee by the department and never

worked as helper/tea server on behalf of department at

any time between November, 2001 and 10 Sep., 2006. It is

further denied that therefore question of termination of

his services dose not arise. It is submitted that the

management used to give salary to the workman in cash.

ON MERITS:-

1-2. That the contents of para No.1 to 2 of the written

statement is false, frivolous , misconceived hence denied

as incorrect and the contents of corresponding para No.

1 to 2 of the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It

is specifically denied that the workman had never been in

the employment of the respondent department/

management. It is further denied that no payment has ever

been made to anyone in the name of Mr. Mahavir Singh as

salary/pay/wages remuneration during the period between

November, 2001 to September, 2006. It is vehemently denied

that there was/is no post or position as helper/tea server

in the staff sanction of the respondent department either

in export shed or at any other place, and therefore, there

could be no question of the workman having ever been in

the employment of the respondent. It is further denied

that the complainant/workman at no point of time was

ever appointed as helper/tea server in the respondent

department. It is correct that the payment has been made

through receipt/acknowledgement which is always kept

by the respondent. The respondent used to give payment

on receipt which was/is in possession of the respondent

hence it is their duty to produce the receipt/

acknowledgment of payment before the Hon’ble Court

and same is entirely at the disposal of the respondent. It is

submitted that the management has not denied the

4770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

issuance of Gate Pass to the workman and the Gate Pass

issued by the management is clearly speaks that the

workman is working as helper/tea server hence the

contentions of the management is bad.

3. That the contents of para no.3 of the written

statement is false, frivolous, misconceived hence denied

as incorrect and the contents of corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

specifically denied that all appointment by the respondent

are carried out and done in accordance with the procedure/

rules/regulation set out in this regard. It is further denied

that the claim of the complainant/workman that he along

with many other people were appointed without issue of

appointment letter is totally false and wrong. It is

vehemently dined that neither the complainant nor any

other were ever employed by the respondent, and,

therefore, there arise no issue of termination of the services

of the complainant. It is vehemently dined that issue of

gate pass is nothing to do with the claim of the workers/

employees of the custom house. It is specifically denied

that the claim of the complainant of regular employment

on the strength of the gate pass is, therefore without any

basis, as the respondent being a government department,

cannot and is not permitted to engage any persons contrary

to rules/regulations and procedures set out in this regard.

It is submitted that the workman was regular employee of

the management who appointed the workman as helper/

tea server however they used to take the work of clerk

from him and proof of same is very much there in

documents submitted by the workman before the Hon’ble

Court.

4. That the contents of para no. 4 of the written

statement is false, frivolous, misconceived hence denied

as incorrect and the contents of corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

specifically denied that the complainant being never in

the employment of the respondent and in these

circumstances there was no question of providing facility

like Holidays, National Holidays, weekly holidays, casual

and medical leaves, onus, provident fund, over times, etc.

to the workman. It is vehemently denied that the claim of

the complainant/workman is only a bald claim and not

supported by any evidence. It is further denied that the

complainant/workman never being in the employment of

the respondent and in these circumstances, his dismissal

from service on 10.09.2006 does not arise.

5. That the contents of para no.5 of the written

statement is false, frivolous, misconceived hence denied

as incorrect and the contents of corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is correct

to say that the all work relating to the exports is carried out

by the employees of the respondent and the workman was

doing the work of exports being employee of the

respondent. It is submitted that the workman was doing

the work under the respondent as he was employee of the

respondent.

6-8. That the contents of para no. 6 to 8 of the written

statement is false, frivolous , misconceived hence denied

as incorrect and the contents of corresponding para no. 6

to 8 of the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

specifically denied that complainant being not in

employment of the respondent, evaluation of his work is

out of question. It is further denied that the workman

having never been engaged by the respondent, there arise

no question of harassment etc. as asserted by the

complainant.

9-11. That the contents of para no.9 to 11 of the

written statement is false, frivolous, misconceived hence

denied as incorrect and the contents of corresponding

para no. 9 to 11 of the statement of claim are reiterated as

correct. It is specifically denied that the complainant being

never in the employment of the respondent, there is no

question of payment of salary to him as well as termination

of his services. It is vehemently denied that there being

no appointment and employment of the complainant, the

question of termination of service of the complainant does

not arise.

12. That the contents of para no.l2 of the written

statement is false, frivolous, misconceived hence denied

as incorrect and the contents of corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is

specifically denied that the complainant not being in service

of the respondent, there arise no issue for termination or

termination itself.

13-15. That the contents of para no.13 to 15 of the

written statement is false, frivolous, misconceived hence

denied as incorrect and the contents of corresponding

para no. 13 to 15 of the statement of claim are reiterated as

correct. It is specifically denied that the respondent had

never employed the complainant , there arise no issue of

termination and hence there is no question of violation of

any provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It is further

denied that the complainant had never been employed by

the respondent and hence there is no question of

termination of his service or reinstatement of his service

arise in the matter. It is further denied that the workman

approached the Labour Commissioner with malafide

intention to get undue benefit from the management. It is

submitted that the respondent has not denied the receiving

of legal demand notice issued on behalf of the workman

hence it amount to admission of the contents of the said

notice.

16. That the contents of para no.16 of the written

statement is false, frivolous, misconceived hence denied

as incorrect and the contents of corresponding para of

the statement of claim are reiterated as correct. It is again

denied that the management has never employed the

complainant workman, the respondent has nothing to do

with his employment or unemployment.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4771

That the last unnumbered para made by the

respondent/management is prayer clause which is highly

misconceived and containing false allegations and as such

is denied.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, requested that the Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to pass the order as prayed in

statement of claim in favour of the workman and against

the management.

Pass any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.

After certain dates no person on behalf of

management appeared so, case proceeded ex-parte against

management. Hence my Ld. Predecessor proceeded to

decide the case on the basis of questions of determination

mentioned in the schedule of reference.

Workman in support of his case filled affidavit in his

evidence. Wherein he stated as follows:-

l. That I am workman/claimant in the above noted

claim and well conversant with the facts and circumstances

of this case, and as such, competent to depose this

affidavit.

2. That the deponent workman/claimant has been

working with the above mentioned management no.1 since

28.10.2007 regularly, continuously, diligently, efficiently,

up to the most satisfaction of the management.

3. That I earnestly state that I was the permanent/

regular employee of management/respondent. I was

appointed as a Helper/Tea Server in Export Shed, Air

Cargo, IGI Airport, New Delhi w.e.f November, 2001 and

has been working for the same grade continuously for the

period of 5 years.

4. That I earnestly state that I had been working

continuously in the establishment of the management as

a Helper/Tea Server in Export Shed, Air Cargo, IGI Airport,

New Delhi w.e.f November, 2001 till my illegal dismissal on

10 September, 2006 with the last drawn salary of Rs. 6000

per month. I was performing my duties diligently,

continuously, regularly, efficiently and up to the most

satisfaction of management till my illegal dismissal/

termination from the service on 10.09.2006.

5. That I earnestly state that there were several

persons employed by the management/respondent who

were not given any appointment letter during the entire

period of service and terminated the services without any

notice like the workman. The management used to issue

Gate Pass to me as well as other persons who are/were

employed by the management for permission to enter in

IGI Airport, New Delhi. The Gate Pass are exhibited as Ex.

WWl/1 (Colly).

6. That I earnestly state that the management never

issued any appointment letter either at the time of joining

and during the entire service period to me. The

management never provided necessary facilities like

festival holidays, National holidays, weekly holidays,

causal and medical leaves,· bonus, P.F., over-time etc.

despite of calling for the same several times by me till my

illegal dismissed on 10.09.2006.

7. That I was appointed for the work of Helper /Tea

Server but the workman used to work clerical job of making

entries in all documents etc. The copies of Entries made

by me are exhibited as Ex. WWl/2 (Colly).

8. That I further state that I was doing my duties

under the control, guidance and supervision of the

management /respondent at the time of joining or during

the entire service period. There is no complaint against me

in my entire period of service.

9. That I further state that I was forced to work not

only my casual duty but also the personal work/Begar of

officials of the management/respondent like money

withdrawal from bank, post office work, their children’s

work, marketing and purchasing households commodities

due to which I was always harassed and tortured.

Whenever I tried to protest for their illegal demand,

maltreatment, misbehavior and attitude, I was threatened

to be dismissed from my job. I was performing my duties

about 12 hours per days in normal routine.

10. That I earnestly state that the management used

to get annoyed whenever the workman demanded all such

facilities like festival holidays, National holidays, weekly

holidays, causal and medical leaves, bonus , P.F., Over-

time etc. and used to threaten the termination of my job.

11. That I earnestly state that when the management

did not give my salary till 10.09.2006, I demanded my salary

for the month of August, 2006 but instead of giving the

earned salary for the month of August 2006, the

management terminated my service on same day on

10.09.2006 and thrown out me from office.

12.That I requested the management not to terminate

my job as I have big family to support but the management

clearly refused to take back me on service and terminated

my service from 10.09.2008.

13. That I earnestly state that since then I am regularly

visiting your office to get the job but the management

refused to give work to me and informed that my service

has been terminated and there is no work for me.

14.That I further state that the illegal termination of

my service is not only illegal but ab-initio, even the

management had not given notice before illegal termination

as required under the Industrial Dispute Act.

4772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15. That I further state that seeing no way to settle

the dispute I had to send the demand notice on 04.03.2008

through Regd. Post as well as Under Postal Certificate to

the management. The demand notice dated 04.03.2008,

receipt of registration; UPC and returned AD card are

exhibited as Ex. WW1/3 to 1/5. But despite of receiving of

notice, the management has not reinstated me in my service

till date.

16. That I further state that I am is still unemployed

despite of my best effort to get the job and facing financial

crunch after illegal dismissal/termination by the

management and since then I as well as my family is on the

verge of starvation.

17. That I further state that other documents are

exhibited as Ex. WW1/6 (Colly). I further states that my

claim is true and correct and same is exhibited as Ex. WWl/

7 and I may be granted the relief claimed therein.

Workman tendered his affidavit on 02.06.2014. His

statement of tendering of affidavit is as follows:-

I tender in evidence my affidavit Ex. WW 1 / A.

Which bears my signature at point A and B I rely upon my

documents Ex. WWl/l to Ex. WWl/7.

Thereafter I have heard the arguments of Ld.A/R for

the workman as case proceeded Ex-parte against

management.

In the light of contention of Ld. A/R for the workman

I perused the pleadings of claim statement, written

statement and Rejoinder including evidence of workman

on record as well as settled law of point including relevant

provisions of concerned law. Perusal of evidence of

workman on record makes it crystal clear that evidence of

workman is unrebbuted evidence of workman because case

proceeded ex-parte against management. So this tribunal

has no option except to believe the pleadings of the

workman supported by his uncontroverted evidence.

Moreover pleadings of management in its written

statement without evidence is a waste paper because

pleadings in itself contain in written statement is

meaningless inwant of evidence. So, it is unworthy of

credence.

In these circumstances as per settled law evidence

of workman shall be taken into consideration.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of

considered view that reference is liable to be decided in

favour of workman and against management. Which is

accordingly decided.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the

point of reinstatement and grant of back wages which

shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence

wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the

facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.

In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and

Anr Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)II LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that reinstatement of workman with

continuity of service and 25% back wages was not proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case and the

compensation of Rs.50,000 (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall

meet the ends of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. AIR 2009 Supreme

Court 3004, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “the award

of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the

workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

preceding the date of termination particularly, daily wagers

has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead

compensation has been awarded.” In catena of Judgments,

Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement

is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal

or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute

Act. In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society

Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement,

it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not

automatic.”

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by

following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered

service with the respondent as a casual worker, thus.

Compensation of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand only) by

way of damages as compensation to the workman/claimant

by Management after expiry of period of limitation of

available remedy against Award. That will meet the ends

of Justice.

Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman

and against Management.

Ex-Parte Award is accordingly passed.

Dated: - 5.06.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1819-&

1819-&

1819-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vfèkfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh &mi&/kkjk¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa

izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4773

dsUæ

{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu

jkTkLo xk¡o

fr:Iiwj ftyk esa

1- osYydksfoy

osYydksfoy

2- vxykjDiky;e

3- nlouSdEiiV~Vh

4- djV~Vqiky;e

5- d:DIiUoylq

6- yDdeuSdEiiV~Vh

7- esV~VqDiky;e

8- eSyjaxe

9- ukxef.kDdEiV~Vh

10- iMIiS

11- lsukifriky;e

12- ipiky;e ¼osYydksfoy½

13- rhFkEiky;e

14- mIiqiky;

15- osYIiuk;dUoylq

[la- ,l&38013@18@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1819.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^st July,2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely: -

Centre

Area Comprising the revenue

villages of

Vellakovil Tiruppur

1. Vellakovil

District

2. Agalaraipalayam

3. Dasavanaickenpatti

4. Karattupalayam

5. Karukppanvalasu

6. Lakkamanaickenpatti

7. Mettukpalayam

8. Mylarangam

9. Nagamanickampatti

10. Padappai

11. Senapathipalayam

12. Pachapalayam(Vellakovil)

13. Theethampalayam

14. Uppupalayam

15. Velappanaickenvalasu

[No. S-38013/18/ 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1820

1820

1820.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vfèkfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa

izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

dsUnz

{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys

fuEu jkTkLo xk¡o

bZjksM ftys ds lR;eaxye rkyqd 1- iqatSiqfy;EiV~Vh

esa iqatSiqfy;EiV~Vh ,oa

2- ekMEiky;e

lR;eaxye

3- uYywj

4- iqaxEiV~Vh

5- foUuiy~yh ¼foUuiYk~yh½

6- eaxjlq oy;iky;e

7- nslhiky;e

8- lR;eaxye

9- bafM;uiky;e

10- vDdjS uxee~

[la- ,l&38013@19@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1820.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

4774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely: -

Centre

Area Comprising the Revenue

Villages of

Punjaipuliampatty&

1. Punjaipuliampatty

Sathyamangalam Sathya-

2. Vinnapalli

mangalam Taluk Erode

3. Madampalayam

District

4. Mangarasu

Valayapalayam

5. Nallur

6. Pungampatty

7. Desipalayam

8. Sathyamangalam

9. Indianpalayam

10. Akkarainehaman

[No. S-38013/19/2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1821-&

1821-&

1821-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vfèkfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj èkkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k mM+hlk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa

izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

^^ftyk ckys’oj ds jsiw.kk rgfly esa dw:Mk] Hkheiqjk]

dkyhnkliqj] ,oa lqrsbZ] ckys’oj rgfly esa lqUnjh ,oa b’kuh]

fuyxhjh rgfly esa ds- ih- egy ,oa rgfly cgkuxk esa

eudgkuh ds jktLo xk¡o**A

[la- ,l&38013@20@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1821.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st July, 2014 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V

and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Odisha namely: -

“The AREAS COMPRISING OF THE REVENUE

VILLAGES OF KURUDA, BHIMPURA, KALIDASPUR

AND SUTELI in the Tahasil of Remuna, SUNDARI AND

ISHANI in the Tahasil of Balasore, K.P.MAHAL in the

Tehsil of Nilgiri and MANAKAHANI in the Tahasil of

Bahanaga in the District of Balasore.

[No. S-38013/20/ 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1822-&

dk-vk- 1822-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e]1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ, 2014 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vfèkfu;e

ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks

pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /

kkjk&77]78]79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh

gS½ ds mica/k jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs]

vFkkZr~%

Øe

jktLo xkWo dk uke

Rkglhy

ftys dk

la-

dk uke

uke

Pkd ';keflagokyk

Jhxaxkuxj Jhxaxkuxj

¼jhdks Qst&1½

Ikfr[kh;k izFke] pd 13]

Jhxaxkuxj Jhxaxkuxj

LNP-II,¼jhdks Qst&2 vkSj

,xzks QwM ikdZ½

[la-&,l&38013@21@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1822.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st July, 2014 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Rajasthan namely: —

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4775

Name of Revenue Village

Name of

No.

Tehsil

District

Chak Shyamsingh wala

Sriganga-

Sriganga

(RIICO Phase-I)

nagar

Patikhiyan First, Chak-13,

Sriganga-Sriganga

LNP-II (RICCO Phase-II

nagar

and Agro Food Park)

[No. S-38013/21/ 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1823

1823

1823.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e]1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ, 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr

vfèkfu;e ds v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa

izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe

jktLo xkWo dk uke

Rkglhy

ftys

la-

dk uke

2 3

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

iwryh

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

lqUnjiqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

jkgsMk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

dY;k.kiqjk [kqnZ

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

daojiqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

Xkksj/kuiqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

Ekksguiqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

dkalyh

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

10.

Qrsgiqjk dyka

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

11.

Lk:.M

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

12.

ukjsgsMk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

13.

Hkkstkokl

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

14.

Tkxnh’kiqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

15.

';ke uxj

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

16.

[ksMk fugky iqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

17.

Pkku pdh

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

18.

jkeflagiqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

19.

xksikyiqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

20.

Ckudk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

21.

lkaxVsMk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

22.

[kjdMh

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

23.

[ksMdh eqDdM

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

24.

'ks[kqiqj

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

25.

eksykgsMk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

26.

[ksMdh ohjHkku

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

27.

Vkijh

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

28.

prqHkqZt

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

29.

ckeuokl

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

30.

Xkksihiqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

31.

gkafl;kokl

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

32.

ukaxy if.Mriqjk

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

33.

[kqnhZ

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

34.

vekbZ

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

35.

Hkkyksth

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

36.

clbZ

dksViwryh

Tk;iqj

[la- ,l&38013@23@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1823.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st July, 2014 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Rajasthan namely:—

4776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Name of Revenue Village

Name of

No.

Tehsil

District

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

PUTLI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

SUNDERPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

RAHEDA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

KALYANPURA KHURD

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

KANWARPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

GORDHANPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

MOHANPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

KANSALI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

10. FATEHAPURA KALAN

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

11. SARUND

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

12. NAREHADA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

13. BHOJAVAS

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

14. JAGDISHPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

15. SHYAM NAGAR

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

16. KHEDANIHALPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

17. CHANCHAKI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

18. RAMSINGPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

19. GOPALPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

20. BANAKA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

21. SANGTEDA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

22. KHARKADI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

23. KHEDAKI MUKKAR

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

24. SHEKHUPUR

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

25. MOLAHEDA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

26. KHEDAKI VEERBHAN

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

27. TAPARI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

28. CHATARBUJ

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

29. BAMANVAS

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

30. GOPIPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

31. HANSIYAVAS

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

32. NANGAL PANDITPURA

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

33. KHURDI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

34. AMAI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

35. BHALOJI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

36. BASAI

KOTPUTLI

JAIPUR

[No. S-38013/ 23 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1824-&

dk-vk- 1824-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vfèkfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k iatkc jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

Øekad jktLo xzke dk uke gncLr la[;k Rkglhy ftyk

Xkq:lj lSus okyk

cfB.Mk cfB.Mk

Tkks/kiqj jksekuk

cfB.Mk cfB.Mk

[la- ,l&38013@24@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1824.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Punjab namely: -

Sr.

Name of the Village Hadbast

Tehsil

Distt.

No.

Gurusar Saine wala

Bathinda

Jodhpur Romana

Bathinda

[No. S-38013/24/ 2014-SS.I]

Ajay Malik, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1825-&

1825-&

1825-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vfèkfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k iatkc jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4777

Øekad jktLo xzke

gncLr

Rkglhy

ftyk

dk uke

la[;k

Ckkys pd

Rkj.k&rkj.k

[la- ,l&38013@25@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1825.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Punjab namely: -

Sr.

Name of the

Hadbast

Tehsil

Distt.

No. Village

No.

Bale Chak

Taran Taran Taran Taran

[No. S-38013/ 25 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1826-&

1826-&

1826-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèkfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vfèkfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

fr:ouarriqje ftyk ds usMqeaxkM rkyqd esa ikukowj

[la- ,l&38013@26@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1826.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Panavoor in Nedumangad Taluk,

Thiruvananthapuram Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 26 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1827

1827

1827-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

fr:ouarriqje ftyk ds UksMqeaxkM rkyqd esa vkukM

[la- ,l&38013@27@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1827.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Anad in Nedumangad Taluk,

Thiruvananthapuram Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 27 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1828

1828

1828-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds r`''kwj rkyqd esa euywj

[la- ,l&38013@28@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

4778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1828.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Manalur in Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur

Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 28 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1829

1829

1829-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds r`''kwj rkyqd esa euDdksMh

[la- ,l&38013@29@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1829.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Manakkodi in Thrissur Taluk,

Thrissur Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 29 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1830-&

1830-&

1830-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

dksVV~;e ftyk ds ehufPPky rkyqd esa jkeiqje

[la- ,l&38013@30@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24 June, 2014

S.O. 1830.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Ramapuram in Meenachil Taluk,

Kottayam Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 30 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1831-&

1831-&

1831-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/

kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr

gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj

/kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk

pqdh gS½ ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds dksMqaxYywj rkyqd esa psa=fIiUuh

[la- ,l&38013@31@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1831.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4779

Revenue village of Chentrappinni in Kodungallur Taluk,

Thrissur Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 31 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1832-&

1832-&

1832-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

dksVV~;e ftyk ds ehufPPky rkyqd esa dqfjfPpÙkkue

[la- ,l&38013@32@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1832.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Kurichithanam in Meenachil Taluk,

Kottayam Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 32 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1833-&

1833-&

1833-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

dksYye ftyk ds dksÍkjDdjk rkyqd esa fpÙkkjk

[la- ,l&38013@33@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1833.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Chithara in Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam

Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 33 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1834-&

1834-&

1834-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

dksVV~;e ftyk ds ehufPPky rkyqd esa dkMukM

[la- ,l&38013@34@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1834.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

4780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Kadanad in Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam

Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 34 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1835-&

1835-&

1835-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/

kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr

gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi

/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh

izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr

{ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

vkyiq’kk ftyk ds dkfrZdIiYyh rkyqd esa dhfjDdkM

[la- ,l&38013@ 35@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1835.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Keerikkad in Karthikappally Taluk,

Alapuzha Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 35 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK,Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1836-&

1836-&

1836-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds r`''kwj rkyqd esa osufxf.k'ksjh

[la- ,l&38013@36 @2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1836.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Venginissery in Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur

Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 36 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1837-&

1837-&

1837-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/

kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr

gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj

/kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk

pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds eqdqUniqje rkyqd esa ,Mfrfjath

[la- ,l&38013@37@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1837.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4781

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely:-

Revenue village of Edathirinji in Mukundapuram Taluk,

Thrissur Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 37 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1838-&

1838-&

1838-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

dksVV~;e ftyk ds ehufPPky rkyqd esa osfYyyfIiYyh

[la- ,l&38013@38@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1838.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Vellilappilly in Meenachil Taluk,

Kottayam Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 38 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1839-&

1839-&

1839-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/

kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr

gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj

/kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk

pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds eqdqUniqje rkyqd esa eqfIiy;e

[la- ,l&38013@39@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi,the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1839.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Mupliyam in Mukundapuram Taluk,

Thrissur Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 39 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1840-&

dk-vk- 1840-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds dksMqaxYywj rkyqd esa dSieaxye

[la- ,l&38013@40@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1840.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Kaipamangalam in Kodungallur

Taluk, Thrissur Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 40 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1841-&

1841-&

1841-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

4782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj èkkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

fr:ouarriqje ftyk ds fr:ouarriqje rkyqd esa 'kkjdjk

[la- ,l&38013@41@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1841.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Sarkara in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk,

Thiruvananthapuram Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 41 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk-

dk-vk- 1842-&

1842-&

1842-&deZpkjh jkT;chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi èkkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/

kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr

gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj

/kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk

pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds eqdqUniqje rkyqd esa dkjye

[la-&,l&38013@42@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1842.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Karalam in Mukundapuram Taluk,

Thrissur Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 42 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1843

dk-vk- 1843.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj [6 /kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj èkkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

r`''kwj ftyk ds dksMqaxYywj rkyqd esa isfjatue

[la-&,l&38013@43@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1843.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue village of Perinjanam in Kodungallur Taluk,

Thrissur Dist.

[No. S-38013/ 43 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1844-&

dk-vk- 1844-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4783

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr

gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

fr:ouarriqje ftyk ds fr:ouarriqje rkyqd esa ifYyiqje

[la- ,l&38013@44@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1844.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1^stJuly, 2014 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force]

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Kerala namely: -

Revenue Village of Pallippuram in Thiruvananthapuram

Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram Distt.

[No. S-38013/ 44 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1845-&

dk-vk- 1845-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tqykbZ] 2014

dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls

izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77 ]78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k mM+hlk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa

izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

^^ftyk xatke dh N=iqj rgfly esa dkueuk]

vftZifYy] ekfV[kkyks] cM+iqfV] ckluiqfV] miqykiqfV]

rkdhfj;kcjgeiqj] ckyd".kiqj] Jh jkepUnziqj] ckucqykifYy]

fjdkifYy] vfHkeU;qiqj] fpdyk[k.Mh] fHkdkjhifYy] nusbZ cjgeiqj]

djifYy] pk.D;iqj] flrkjkeiqj] iqfVxksikyiqj] th-,u-ikye]

fyaxjktiqj ,oa N=iqj ds jktLo xk¡o**A

[la- ,l&38013@45@2014&,l-,l-1]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2014

S.O. 1845 .—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st July, 2014 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Odisha namely: -

“The areas comprising of the Revenue Villages of

Kanamana, Arjipalli, Matikhalo, Badaputi, Basanaputi,

Upulaputi, Takiriaberhampur, Balakrushnapur,

Sri Ramachandrapur, Banabulapalli, Rikapalli,

Abhimanyupur, Chikalakhandi, Bhikaripalli, Danei

Berhampur, Karapalli, Chanakyapur, Sitarampur,

Putigogalpur, G.N. Palam Lingarajpur & Chatrapur in the

Tahasil of Chatrapur in The District of Ganjam.

[No. S-38013/ 45 / 2014-SS.I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1846-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj th- lh-

eksgUrk] daVªdVj] lq¯dnk ØksekbV ekbal ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] HkqousLoj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@23@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O. 1846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the management of G.C.

Mohanta, Contractor, Sukinda Chromite Mines, and their

workman,which was received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-29012/23/2013-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

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. 47/2013

4784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Date of Passing Award – 26^th December, 2014

Between:

Shri G.C. Mohanta, Loading/

1^st Party-Management.

Unloading Contractor,

At. Sukinda Chromite Mines,

TISCO, Po. Kalarangiatta,

Dist. Jajpur, Odisha.

And

Their workman Shri Basanta Mallick,

… 2^nd Party-

S/o. Babaji Mallick, At./Po. Ampoloba,

Workman.

P.S. Sukinda, Dist. Jajpur, Odisha.

Appearances:

None.

For the 1^st Party- Management.

None.

For the 2^nd Party-Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. Both the parties are absent. The 2^nd

Party-workman despite sending two notices, one dated

1.8.2013 by ordinary post and the other dated 26.9.2013 by

regd. post has not filed any statement of claim. Six dates

have been fixed from the date of receipt of the reference

on 28.6.2013. It seems that the 2^nd Party-workman is either

not interested in prosecuting his case or has settled the

case amicably with the 1^st Party-Management out of the

court. Hence there is no use to keep the case pending

indefinitely.

2. Under the above circumstances, a no-dispute

award is to be passed in the case. Accordingly a no-dispute

award is passed.

3. The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1847-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cksykuh vksj

ekbal vkj- ,e- Mh- lsy ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] HkqousLoj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 59@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 17@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@47@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O. 1847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 59/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Bolani Ore Mines, RMD Sail, and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-29011/47/2013-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

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. 59/2013

Date of Passing Order – 13th February, 2014

Between :

The General Manager,

Bolani Ore Mines, RMD SAIL,

At./Po. Bolani, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa.

… 1st Party-Management.

(And)

The President, Barbil Workers Union,

At./Po. Bolani Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa.

…2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

For the 1st Party-Management

None

For the 2^nd Party-Union

None

O R D E R

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-

Union has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. As such it

seems that the 2^nd party-Union is not interested in

prosecuting its case. However the dispute cannot be

adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the

parties. As such there is no alternative except to return the

reference to the Government for necessary action at its

end.

2. Accordingly the reference is returned to the

Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4785

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1848-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkW;y bafM;k

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

02@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@23@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O. 1848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2012)

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 Oil India Limited, and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30011/23/2011-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. 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.02 of 2012

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :

The workmen, represented by Oil India Labour Union,

Guwahati.

-Vrs-

The Management of Oil India Limited, Pipeline Division,

Guwahati.

Appearances :

For the Workman

Mr. L.K.Rajkanwar, Advocate,

For the Management

Mr. S.N.Sarma, Sr. Advocate

Mr. A.Jahid, Advocate,

AWARD

1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute exists between the employers in relation to the

Management of Oil India Limited, Pipeline Division,

Guwahati and their workmen, represented by the Secretary,

Oil India Labour Union, Guwahati, which was referred to

by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under

Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the ID Act vide their order No.L-30011/23/

2011-IR(M), dated 18.10.2011 in respect of the matter

specified in the Schedule below:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Oil India Labour Union

on the management of OIL in its Pipeline Division,

Guwahati demanding extension of the benefits of

the settlement dated 11.8.2010 to the listed WCL

workers (WCL(P)/WCL) of OIL Pipeline Division

working in other locations at par with the listed WCL

workers working at Duliajan and Moran of the same

Pipeline Division is justified? If so, to what relief the

workmen are entitled ?”

2. After registration of this Reference notices were

issued upon both the Union and the Management of Oil

India Limited. Accordingly both the parties appeared along

with their learned Advocates and filed Claim Statement/

Written Statement respectively.

3. The case of the workers Union namely Oil India

Labour Union ( in short OILU), in brief, is that the Oil India

Limited being a Public Limited Company registered under

Companies Act,1956 having its registered Office at Duliajan

in the District of Dibrugarh, Assam, entrusted with the

exploring Crude Oil from different Oil Fields, and supplying

the same to the different Oil Refineries namely Guwahati

Oil Refinery, Bongaigaon Refinery and Barauni Refinery.

The supply of Crude Oil is carried out through different

Pipe Line and accordingly a Pipeline Division has been

created by the OIL. The supply of Crude Oil is being made

from one place to another through pump station and as

such, 10 numbers of Pump Station have been created by

the Pipeline Division, OIL, out of which Pump Station Nos.

1 and 2 are located at Duliajan and Moran, the Pump Station

No.3 to 10 are located at Jorhat, Sekoni, Guwahati,

Bongaigaon, Madarihat, Sonapur, Dumar & Barauni. In

the Pump Station at Duliajan and Moran there are 18

numbers and 6 numbers of contract labourers respectively

performing jobs of helpers to different technicians; and

the identical nature of jobs are also carried out in the Pump

Stations.

But the contract workers working in Pump Station

Nos. 3 to 10 are not getting same wages as being availed

by the similar nature of workers working in pump station

Nos. 1 and 2. These workers are getting 40% above the

minimum wages fixed by the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) payable to all the skilled and

unskilled workers for which the workers working in Pump

Station Nos. 3 to 10 are not getting wages and other

benefits as mentioned above. The Union mentioned that

the Trade Union namely, Asom Toila Shramik Sanstha

(ATSS) and Assam Petroleum Workers Union raised an

Industrial Dispute for the wages payable to the contract

labourer working in the different working fields.

Accordingly a Settlement was arrived at on 11.8.2010

4786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

whereby different wages components to be paid to the

contract labours were ensured. So far the settlement dated

11.08.2010 is concerned it pertains to works contract

labours (listed) and the essence of the present dispute is

that the members of this Union which espoused the present

dispute are works contract labour (listed) and performing

the same, similar and more particularly the identical jobs

as being performed by the listed contract labours at Pump

Station at Duliajan and Moran and hence, the works

contract labours (listed) are entitled to have same benefit

as enshrined in the Settlement dated 11.8.2010. Pursuant

to the aforementioned the conciliatory settlement

Employees Relation Department, Oil India Limited, Duliajan

made a communication through their Head (Employee

Relations) i/c, to all concerned department of Oil fields

vide letter dated 20.11.2010 to the effect that a settlement

was arrived at 11.08.2010 and in terms of this settlement

the benefit is payable to the listed works contract labour

have been refused. It was also intimated that this settlement

would be applicable with respect to 1239 numbers of listed

works contract labours. It is also mentioned in the said

letter that the settlement dated 11.8.2010 would also be

applicable to the contract labour working in the Pump

Station Nos. 1 and 2, and the contract labours working in

Pump Station Nos. 3 to 10 have not been included in this

settlement. The management without any reason made

this discrimination between the workers working in the

pump station Nos.1 and 2 with that of the workers working

in the pump station Nos.3 to 10.

The further case of the Union is that they submitted

the letter dated 12.1.2011 requesting the General Manager

(Pipeline Services), Oil India Limited, PHQ, Narangi to

implement the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.8.2010

for the workers (listed WCL) working in pump station

Nos.3 to 10, and in reply the Management vide their letter

dated 4.4.2011 informed the Union that the Memorandum

of Settlement dated 11.8.2010 is only applicable to those

workers who are working in the Oil Fields, and that those

Oil Fields Workers were covered by a settlement which

was expired on 13.12.2009 and a new settlement was

entered into in this group of workers. But this contention

of the management is not correct as the management vide

their letter dated 10.11.2010 has specifically stated that

this settlement is also applicable to the listed WCL working

in pump station Nos. 1 and 2 and accordingly the concerned

Deputy Chief Engineers of the said pump stations were

informed to implement the same but there is no justifiable

reason to exclude listed contract labourers who are working

in the pump station Nos. 3 to 10. Thereafter they raised a

dispute before the Regional Labour Comissioner (Central),

Guwahati who initiated the conciliation proceeding but it

fails. Hence, this reference.

4. The Management, on the other hand, contested

the proceeding by filing written statement, stating inter-

alia, that the order of reference has been made without

any application of mind as the dispute raised by the Union

had once been rejected by the appropriate authority by its

order dated 22.2.2011 on the ground that the bipartite

settlement dated 12.6.2006 has been given legal sanctity

by the Gauhati High Court and hence, the present dispute

can not be adjudicated by the CGIT; that the service

condition of the contract labour engaged in the Pipeline

Division of Oil India Ltd. namely Pump Stations Nos. 3 to

10 are governed by the conciliatory settlement dated

12.6.2006 which is still in force; and that the contract

labours engaged in the Pipeline Division of Oil India Ltd.

namely Pump Station Nos.3 to 10 have its own Union

known as Oil India Pipeline Mazdoor Union and the said

Union represents the majority of the contract labourers

engaged in pump station Nos. 3 to 10 but the present

Union which raised the dispute is the Union of few contract

labourers and they have no right to represent the majority

of the contract labourers; and hence, the present reference

is not maintainable and it is liable to be rejected. Further

case of the management is that the contract labourers

engaged by the contractor for contractual jobs of pipeline

from pump station Nos. 3 to 10 had its own Union known

as Oil India Pipeline Mazdoor (C) Union which raised a

dispute for regularization and payment of same and similar

wages for the year 1991 and then after discussion between

the management and the Union with the intervention of

the Conciliation Officer a Committee had been formed to

identify the contract labourers who had been performing

same and similar nature of work and thereafter a

conciliatory settlement was signed on 23.12.92 wherein

the Management had agreed to pay the same and similar

wage to those listed 313 contract labourers which were

categorized as WCL(P). During the pendency of the said

settlement the Union preferred a Writ Petition before the

Hon’ble High Court for regularization of the 313 WCL(P)

and also for regularization of another around 100 contract

labourers, and the said Writ Petition was disposed by the

Hon’ble High Court observing that the petitioner union

should approach the appropriate Government for issuance

of necessary notification under Section 10 of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970. Then the

Union approached the Central Government which vide

Notification dated 25.1.2000 had prohibited employment

of contract labour in 20 jobs in the pipeline division of the

Oil India Limited. While the Management challenged the

said Notification dated 25.1.2000 by filing Writ Petition

before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and the said Writ

Petition was dismissed. Again the Management preferred

a Writ Appeal being No.W.A. 208/02 against the judgment

and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court while the

Hon’ble High Court expressed its views and asked the

Union to reconsider their stand in view of the decision

rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in SAIL’s case. Thereafter after several

round of discussion both the management and the Union

agreed on certain terms and conditions and signed a

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4787

Memorandum of settlement dated 12.6.2006 for

enhancement of wages and allowances and certain benefits

in respect of the listed contract labourers categorized as

WCL(P) and other contract labourers engaged by

contractors in OIL’s Pipeline Division. Having enjoyed

the benefit of the settlement dated 12.6.2006 some of the

contract labourers who were earlier member of the OI

Pipeline Mazdoor (C) Union formed a separate union in

the name of Oil India Labour Union and got it registered

on 3.10.2006 and the said new Union has been raising

various dispute/demands from time to time on the points

that had already been settled under the settlement dated

12.6.2006. The management again stated that in view of

the decision in SAIL’s case the present dispute is not

maintainable and hence, prayed for framing preliminary

issue on the maintainability of the order of reference and

denied the contents of the claim statement and prayed for

rejecting the reference.

5. On receipt of the claim statement and the written

statement along with the petition for framing preliminary

issue on the maintainability of the present reference, I

have heard both the sides and disposed of the matter

rejecting the prayer for framing of preliminary issue on the

maintainability of the reference vide my order dated

14.2.2013. During pendency of the proceeding at hearing

stage both the parties prayed for time on the ground that

they are willing to settle up the dispute amicably and

prayed for time. Accordingly considerable time was allowed

to both the parties and finally both the parties appeared

and submitted petition separately expressing their

willingness to dispose of the proceeding on amicable

settlement as per the terms of Settlement arrived at between

the Management and the Union in presence of the

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati.

6. I have perused the petitions submitted by both

the sides along with the copies of Memorandum of

Tripartite Settlement arrived at on 11.2.2014 between the

parties before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Guwahati along with the terms of settlement. I have also

examined Sri Amal Sharma, General Secretary of Oil India

Labour Union, Guwahati. In his statement Sri Amal Sharma

categorically stated that this dispute is regarding refusal

of the benefits of the Settlement dated 11.8.2010 to the

laboures of IOL in its Pipeline Division, Guwahati working

in other locations at par with the listed WCL workers

working at Duliajan and Moran in the same pipeline

Division. He also mentioned that during the pendency of

this reference a Tripartite Settlement was arrived at

between the Union and the Management in presence of

the RLC (C), Guwahati on 11.2.2014 at Guwahati and

accordingly both the parties agreed to the terms and

conditions as enshrined in the Memorandum of Settlement.

He has also proved the zerox copy of Memorandum of

Settlement vide Exhibit-2 (proved on admission/without

any objection from the management side). Sri Sarma, the

General Secretary of the Union has also prayed for disposal

of the reference by passing an award in terms of the

settlement.

7. In view of the above discussion and having

regard to the pleadings of both the sides, statement of the

General Secretary, Oil India Labour Union along with the

Memorandum of Settlement arrived at on 11.2.2014 in

presence of the RLC (C), Guwahati, it is revealed that the

dispute between the parties have been settled up amicably

under the conciliation of Regional Labour Commissioner

(C), Guwahati. In order to maintain good relationship

between the management and the Union and healthy

environment in the Industrial Sector as well as for the

ends of justice, I find no reason to stand as hurdle between

the parties who have already settled up their dispute

amicably. Accordingly this reference is disposed of

allowing the benefits as enshrined in the terms of Tripartite

Settlement arrived at on 11.2.2014 in presence of the RLC(C),

Guwahati marked as Exhibit-2, which will form a part of

this record as well as the Award.

Send the award to the Government as per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

28^th day of February, 2014, at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

FORM-H

[Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957]

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

The Memorandum of Settlement is arrived at on 11th

day of February, 2014, between the management of Oil

India Limited, Pipeline Headquarters, Narangi, Guwahati

(Hereinafter referred as Management) and Oil India Labour

India Labour Union (Herein after referred as Union) in

course of conciliation before Regional Labour

Commissioner (C), Govt. of India, Guwahati-cum-

Conciliation Officer under ID Act, 1947.

P ARTIES TO THE MoS :

Management’s repesentatives from OIL:

Sri R. Chaudhury, General Manager (PLS)

Sri H. C. Borah, Head (Admin) PL

Sri S. K. Rai, Head (L&C) PL

Sri A.K. Khatoniar, CM (Contracts) PL

Sri J.S. Mazumdar, CEPL (Civil)

Sri C.M. Borah, Dy CEPL (M)

Sri A. J. Saikia, Sr. Manager (ER) PL

Sri M. K. Tamuly, Manager (F&A) PL

Representatives from Oil India Labour Union:

Sri Manabendra Das, President

Sri Tapan Kr. Balmiki, Vice-President

4788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sri Amal Sarma, Gen. Secretary

Sri Dimbeswar Barman, Asst. Gen. Secretary

Sri Bikash Deka, Treasurer

Smt. Boby Buragohain, Executive Member

Sri Kumudeswar Kalita, Rep. P.S.3, Jorhat

Sri Debojit Bharali, Rep. P.S.3, Jorhat

Sri Nivas Dasmunchi, Rep. P.S.7, Madarihat

10. Sri Samsuddin Khan, Rep. P.S.8, Sonapur

11. Sri Sanjay Das, Rep. P.S.8, Sonapur

12. Sri Narendr Nath Maji, Rep. P.S.8, Sonapur

13. Sri Lolit Kr. Rajkonwar, Hony. Member/Legal Advisor

14. Sri Ramen Das, Gen. Secretary, AITUC (Assam State

Committee) and All India Petroleum Workers Federation.

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

The General Secretary, Oil India Labour Union (Regn.

No. 2165) vide their letter No. OILU/GHT/13/133 dated

17.06.2013 addressed to General Manager (PLS), Oil India

Limited, Guwahati had served a Charter of Demands along

with strike notice with hope to resolve their demands within

a time bound period, failing the union will be constrained

to resort to agitational programme. The management of

Oil India Limited vide their letter no. PL/ER/S-3/2013/683

dated 24.06.2013 took up the issue with RLC (C), Guwahati

with request to intervene in the matter and initiate

conciliation proceedings under ID Act, 1947 since, the

union has threatened to go for agitational programme/

strike with effect from 01.07.2013. On receipt of the letter

from the Management of OIL, the issue was admitted as

an industrial dispute and conciliation notices vide this

office letter No. G/R.8(35)/2013 dated 02.07.2013 were

issued to the concerned parties fixing the date of

discussion/CP on 29.07.2013. The issue was discussed in

various dates i.e. 29.07.2013, 19.08.2013, 10.09.2013,

23.09.2013, 21.10.2013, 11.11.2013, 03.02.2014 and finally

on 11.02.2014. On 11.02.2014, in course of conciliation/CP

after a protracted discussion held on the Charter of

demands and with active participation and guidance of

RLC (C), Guwahati, the issues raised by the union was

resolved through this MoS.

Oil India Ltd. (OIL) (A Government of India

Enterprise), Pipeline Department, PHQ, Narangi, Guwahati

is engaging contract labours through Contractors for

various skilled and unskilled contractual jobs throughout

the Pipeline Division. The. list of skilled and unskilled

Contract Labours engaged on various contractual jobs

through contractors in the entire Pipeline Division is

enclosed herewith as Annexure -A.

The above list is excluding the number of Works

Contract Labours (Listed), engaged in the Pump Station-1

(Duliajan), Pump Station-2 (Moran) and Pipeline Fields

(PLF), as these laboures are governed by ‘MOS’ dated

11.08.2010 and 28.05.2013 which was signed between the

management, Oil India Ltd., Duliajan and the unions viz.

(i) Assam Petroleum Workers Union (APWU), (ii) Assam

Toila Shramik Sanstha (ATSS) and Sharammik Nyaik Dabi

Parishad (SNDP) and Oil Shromik Oikya Parishad (OSOP).

The Oil India Labour Union, a registered trade union,

the representative body of the Works Contract Labour

(WCL Listed) placed a Charter of Demands vide No. OILU/

GHT/l2/112 dated 24.08.2012 before the OIL management

demanding wage revision, other allowances and other

benefits for the WCL (Listed) workers at par with the

wages, allowances and other benefits as are being paid to

the WCL (Listed) workers engaged in other fields of the

company, The WCL (Listed) workers were governed till

date as per the terms of the ‘MOS’ dtd. 12.06.2006 entered

into between the management of OIL and the OIPM (C)

Union, and the wages to the WCL (Listed) were being

paid at the rate of wages prescribed by the Govt. of India

(Ministry of Labour) circulated by (RLC) from time to time

plus 40% of the said wages as consolidated allowance

and other benefits as per terms of the ‘MOS’ dtd. 12.06.2006.

The Oil India Labour Union was approaching the

management, OIL, from time to time to extend the benefits

of wages, allowances, and other benefits at par with similar

category of contract laboures engaged in other units of

OIL.

The parties to the ‘MoS’ held a series of discussions

and negotiations in various dates on the issues raised in

the aforesaid charter of demands by the OILU. Finally the

parties to the dispute agreed to resolve the issue in

presence of RLC(C), Guwahati through this MoS.

TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT

1.0 Categorization of Labours: Both the parties to the

dispute through this MoS agreed to categorize the WCL

(Listed) workers as follows-

Skilled labours as “Category-I” and

Unskilled labours as “Category-II”

2.0 CATEGORY - I

2.1 WAGES (Basic Pay): The starting basic pay of Grade-I

of Regular employees of Oil India Limited (presently which

comes to Rs. 9,300 per month) will be paid to the category-

I WCL (Listed) workers. As and when this basic pay is

revised for Company’s regular employees, the same revised

starting Basic pay of Grade-l will be made applicable to the

Category-I WCL (Listed) workers.

2.2 ALLOWANCE :

(i)

Dearness Allowance : DA fixed on the date of

implementation will remain fixed throughout the

year up to 31st December of the year. For the

subsequent years the DA will be calculated based

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4789

on the average of the quarterly DA percentages

prevalent during the previous years.

Accordingly, the following % DA will be

applicable. Accordingly, the % DA will be as

under :

Skilled:

For the period - 01.01.2010 - 31.12.2010: @ 19.31%

i.e. Rs. 1,795.83 p.m.

For the period - 01.01.2011- 31.12.2011: @ 35.13%

i.e. Rs. 3,332.43 p.m.

For the period - 01.01.2012 - 31.12.2012: @ 47.35%

i.e. Rs. 4,581.45 p.m.

For the period - 01.01.2013 - 31.12.2013: @ 60.55%

i.e. Rs. 5,975.82 p.m.

For the period - 01.01.2014 - 31.12.2014: @77.70%

i.e. Rs. 7,821.76 p.m.

However, DA will be neutralized in the year when

rivision of basic pay to the regular employees of

Company take place and the said revision of basic

pay will be made applicable to the category-II

labours as per the terms of this ‘MoS’.

Accordingly, in the subsequent year the DA will

be calculated based on the percentage difference

of the average quarterly DA percentages

prevalent during the previous year.

(ii)

House Rent Allowance

The House rent allowance will be paid @ 20% of

Basic pay per month to the WCL(Listed) posted

at PHQ, Guwahati and for other Pump Stations

be paid 10% of Basic pay per month.

(iii)

Medical Allowance

Medical Allowance will be paid @4% on the basic

pay per month from the date of signing of MoS.

(iv)

Consolidated Allowance

The category-I WCLs will be paid @ 20% of their

basic pay per month as consolidated allowance.

2.3 Annual Increment

Annual increment will be paid @2% of their basic pay

payable from 1st January of each year. However, those

WCL (L) will not be entitled for the annual increment on

the following conditions:

(i)

If found Medically unfit

(ii)

Unauthorized absence more than 10 days.

(iii)

In case of misconduct attracting disciplinary action.

2.4 Provident Fund (PF) : The Provident Fund will be

@12 % of Basic pay + DA per month. The responsibility

for deduction of PF and depositing the same along with

Employer’s contribution with the PF authority will be by

OIL India Ltd.

2.5 Other Terms and Benefits :

2.5.1 Annual Leave with wages : 18 (Eighteen days) annual

leave with wages will be granted @1.5 days per month.

2.5.2 Casual Leave : 07 (seven) days casual leave with

wages will be granted per annum.

2.5.3 Holidays : The listed WCLs will be entitled for 09

(nine) days paid holidays per annum on the following

occasions provided the same do not fall on Sunday/

additional holiday(s). However, if any additional holiday(s)

is/are declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act by

the Govt. the benefits will be extended to the WCL (Listed) :

Republic Day

Independence Day

Mahatma Gandhi’s Birthday

Bohag Bihu

Magh Bihu

Durga Puja

Ganesh Puja

Diwali

Chhatt Puja/Kati Bihu/Eid

2.6 Halting Allowance

In view of the operational requirement of pipeline activities

which are unique and requires to depute people on and

off for outstation duty and therefore, the OIL agreed to

pay Rs. 300.00 and Rs.150.00 per day. Rs.300.00 will be

applicable in case when Night Halt is required outside the

place of work and Rs. l50.00 when no night halt is required.

(this benefit will be effective from the date of signing of

this MoS).

3.0 CATEGORY - II

3.1 WAGES (Basic Pay) : The Starting basic pay of

Grade-I of Regular employees of Oil India Limited

(presently which comes to Rs. 9,300 per month) will be

paid to the category-II WCL (Listed) workers. As and when

this basic pay is revised for Company’s regular employees,

the same revised starting Basic pay of Grade-I will be made

applicable to the Category-II WCL (Listed) workers.

3.2 ALLOWANCE :

(i)

Dearness Allowance: DA fixed on the date of

implementation will remain fixed throughout the

year upto 31st December of the year. For the

subsequent years the DA will be calculated based

on the percentage difference of the average

quarterly DA percentages prevalent during the

4790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

previous two years. Accordingly, the %DA will

be as under:

For the period - 01.01.2010 - 31.12.2010: @ 4.86%

i.e. Rs. 451.98 p.m.

For the period - 01.01.2011- 31.12.2011: @ 10.99%

i.e. Rs. 1,042.51 p.m.

For the period - 01.01.2012 - 31.12.2012: @ 20.00%

i.e. Rs. 1,935.14 p.m.

For the period - 01.01.2013 - 31.12.2013: @ 25.57%

i.e. Rs. 2,523.56 p.m.

For the period - 01.01.2014 - 31.12.2014: @ 32.82%

i.e. Rs. 3,303.86 p.m.

However, DA will be neutralized in the year when

revision of basic pay to the regular employees of

Company take place and the said revision of basic

pay will be made applicable to the category-Il

labours as per the terms of this ‘MoS’.

Accordingly, in the subsequent year the DA will

be calculated based on the percentage difference

of the average quarterly DA percentages

prevalent during the previous two years.

(ii)

House Rent Allowance

The House rent allowance will be paid @20% of

Basic pay per month for the WCL(Listed) posted

at PHQ, Guwahati and for other Pump Stations

be paid @ 8% of Basic pay per month.

(iii)

Medical Allowance

Medical Allowance will be paid @ 4% on the

basic pay per month from the date of signing of

MOS.

(iv)

Consolidated Allowance

The category-II WCLs will be paid @ 5% of their

basic pay per month as consolidated allowance.

3.3 Annual Increment

Annual increment will be paid @ 2% of their basic pay

payable from 1st January of each year. However, those

WCL will not be entitled for the annual increment on the

following conditions:

(i)

If found Medically unfit

(ii)

Unauthorized absence more than 10 days.

(iii)

In case of misconduct attracting disciplinary action.

3.4 Provident Fund (PF) : The Provident Fund will be

@12 % of Basic pay + DA per month. The responsibility

for deduction of PF and depositing the same along with

Employer’s contribution with the PF authority will be by

OIL India Ltd.

3.5 Other Terms and Benefits :

3.5.1 Annual Leave with wages : 18 (Eighteen days) annual

leave with wages will be granted @1.5 days per month.

3.5.2 Casual Leave : 07 (seven) days casual leave with

wages will be granted per annum.

3.5.3 Holidays : The listed WCLs will be entitled for 09

(nine) days of paid holidays per annum on the following

occasions provided the same do not fall on Sunday/

additional holiday(s). However, if any additional holiday(s)

is/are declared under the Negotiable Instruments Act by

the Govt. the benefits will be extended to the WCL (Listed) :

Republic Day

Independence Day

Mahatma Gandhi’s Birthday

Bohag Bihu

Magh Bihu

Durga Puja

Ganesh Puja

Diwali

Chhatt Puja/Kati Bihu/Eid

3.6 Halting Allowance

In view of the operational requirement of pipeline activities

which are unique and requires to depute people on and

off for outstation duty and therefore, the OIL agreed to

pay Rs.300.00 and Rs.150.00 per day. Rs. 300.00 will be

applicable in case when Night Halt is required outside the

place of work and Rs. l50.00 when no night haIt is required.

(this benefit will be effective from the date of signing this

MoS).

4.0 Other benefits (for both Category-I &II):

4.1 Age Relaxation : The WCL (L) both skilled and

unskilled categories will be allowed age relaxation to the

extent of service rendered by them as contract labour

through the contractor and will be considered for direct

external recruitment in OIL provided they fulfill all other

notified criteria and are sponsored along with other aspiring

candidates by the Employment Exchange against notified

of vacancies, if any, as per company’s laid down policies.

4.2 Medical Facilities: The listed WCL (L) shall be given

free medical treatment by the Company in the event of

work accident arising out of and in the course of

employment.

4.3 In case of death of a WCL(L) due to work accident

arising out of and in the course of employment, his/her

own son/daughter/spouse will be considered for

engagement by the Contractor as per the respective

category of the deceased WCL(Listed) which is however

subject to the son daughter having attained the age of

18 years an fulfilling the requisite qualification/eligibility.

4.4 Overtime :

Overtime wages shall be paid to the Category-I & II

WCL(L)s as per rules whenever they are engaged to work

beyond 08(eight) hours a day.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4791

5.0 EFECTIVE DATE / PERIOD OF THE MOS : This

‘MoS’ will remain in force for a period of 10 (ten) years

w.e.f. 01.01.2010 and shall expire on 31.12.2019. The same

will be revised thereafter. However, the Medical allowance,

Over time, Halting allowance, Leave will be effective from

the date of signing of MoS. In the event, if the pay scale of

the regular employees of the company are revised during

the intervening period more specifically, on any date during

the effective period of this ‘MoS’, the said revised basic

pay shall be made applicable to both categories of labours

i.e. category-I & II with effect from the same date made

applicable to the regular employee of the company.

The payment of arrears & wages and other allowances as

stated above will be paid by respective contractors and

Oil India Ltd. will reimburse the same to the respective

contractors.

6.0 Both the parties agreed that during the period of

operation of this Memorandum of Settlement, they shall

neither raise any further demand having financial burden

nor put up any fresh demand on the issues which is being

settled by this Settlement.

7.0 Both the parties of the dispute including Management

of Oil India Limited shall report the implementation of the

settlement within 90 days of signing of the Memorandum

of Settlement. If no report is received within the stipulated

period the settlement shall be termed as implemented.

This settlement is just reasonable and fair to both the

parties.

Repesenting the Management of OIL:

-Sd-

(R. Chaudhury)

-Sd-

(H. C. Borah)

-Sd-

(S. K. Rau)

-Sd-

(A.K. Khatoniar )

-Sd-

(J.S. Mazumdar)

-Sd-

(C.M. Barah)

-Sd-

(A. J.Saikia)

-Sd-

(M. K. Tamuly)

Representing the Oil India Labour Union:

-Sd-

(Manabendra Das)

-Sd-

(Tapan Kr. Balmiki)

-Sd-

(Amal Sarma)

-Sd-

(Dimbeswar Barman)

-Sd-

(Bikash Deka)

-Sd-

(Boby Buragohain)

-Sd-

(Kumudeswar Kalita)

-Sd-

(Debajit Poharali)

-Sd-

(Nivas Das Munshi)

10.

-Sd-

(Samsuddin Khan)

11.

-Sd-

(Sanjoy Das)

12.

-Sd-

(Narendra Nath Maji)

13.

-Sd-

(Lolit Kr. Rajkonwar) Legal Advisar

14.

-Sd-

(Ramen Das, Dy. Gen. AITUC, &

AIPWF)

Signed before me on this 11th day of February, 2014 at

Guwahati.

(T. Behera)

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

Conciliation Officer, Guwahati

Witness :

-Sd-

ANN EXURE-A

Sl. No. Name

Sation/Section

Sri Prabin Borah

PS-3

Sri Prabin Kr. Saikia

PS-3

Sri Biju Likhok

PS-3

Sri Amrit Saikia

PS-3

Sri Anil Bora

PS-3

Srid Anil Dutta

PS-3

Srid Jugal Baruah

PS-3

Sri Mukul Ch. Dutta

PS-3

Sri Debojit Bharali

PS-3

10.

Sri Robin Saikia

PS-3

11.

Sri Mintumoni Hazarika

PS-3

12.

Sri Baneswar Bharali

PS-3

Sri Sanjit Kr. Dutta

PS-3

14.

Sri Kumudeswar Kalita

PS-3

15.

Sri Ranju Kr. Dutta

PS-3

16.

Sri Kanak Bora

PS-3

17.

Sri Dulal Talukdar

PS-3

18.

Sri Bitupan Bharali

PS-3

19.

Sri Dandi Ram Bora

PS-3

20.

Sri Pradip Ch. Bora

PS-3

21.

Sri Hiranya Dutta

PS-3

22.

Sri Prasanta Bora (i)

PS-3

23.

Sri Nabin Ch. Dutta

PS-3

24.

Sri Robin Bora

PS-3

4792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25.

Sri Diganta Kr. Bora

PS-3

26.

Sri Dhrubajyoti Dutta

PS-3

27.

Sri Dibyadhar Bora

PS-3

28.

Sri Gakul Barua

PS-3

29.

Sri Ghanakanta Bora

PS-3

30.

Sri Naren Borah

PS-3

31.

Sri Anju Saikia

PS-3

32.

Sri Muhidhar Bora

PS-3

33.

Sri Ananta Bora

PS-3

34.

Sri Haren Ch. Bhuyan

PS-3

35.

Sri Bapdhan Bora

PS-3

36.

Sri Biren Das

PS-3

37.

Sri Mantu Das

PS-3

38.

Sri Bijoy Bharali

PS-3

39.

Sri Pankaj Kr. Bora

PS-3

40.

Sri Biren Bora

PS-3

41.

Sri Amrit Dutta

PS-3

42.

Sri Prasanta Bora (ii)

PS-3

43.

Sri Mahesh Panika

PS-4

44.

Sri Kartik Panika

PS-4

45.

Sri Subhash Ch. Shah

PS-4

46.

Sri Bipin Ganju

PS-4

47.

Sri Jiten Ghatowal

PS-4

48.

Sri Hemo Killing

PS-4

49.

Sri Biren Kharia

PS-4

50.

Sri Debojit Borah

PS-4

51.

Miss Rubi Bhuyan Talukder

PHQ, ER

52.

Sri Mintu Bordoloi

PHQ, ER

53.

Sri Khubir Ali

PHQ, ER

54.

Sri Mormeswar Mahanta

PHQ, ER

55.

Sri Pratap Bezbaruah

PHQ, ER

56.

Sri Dinesh Bezbaruah

PHQ, ER

57.

Md. Ausmuddin Ali

PHQ, ER

58.

Sri Prabin Ch. Barman

PHQ, ER

59.

Sri Barahamdeo Shah

PHQ, ER

60.

Md. Husan Ali

PHQ, ER

61.

Sri Rohit Rai

PHQ, ER

62.

Sri Puren Tumung

PHQ, ER

63.

Sri Dasarath Lalung

PHQ, ER

64.

Sri Ajit Ch. Kalita

PHQ, ER

65.

Md. Latif Ali

PHQ, ER

66.

Sri Manoj Basfore

PHQ, ER

67.

Sri Kapi Raj Telegu

PHQ, ER

68.

Sri Ganesh Ram

PHQ, ER

69.

Sri Sunil Routh

PHQ, ER

70.

Sri Suraj Routh

PHQ, ER

71.

Sri Randhir Ram

PHQ, ER

72.

Sri Chavata John

PHQ, ER

73.

Sri Sanjay Routh

PHQ, ER

74.

Sri Rajesh Ram

PHQ, ER

75.

Sri Manoj Routh

PHQ, ER

76.

Sri Jyotish Routh

PHQ, ER

77.

Sri C. H. Raju

PHQ, ER

78.

Sri Bhadoram Tumung

PHQ, ER

79.

Sri Bhupen Tumung

PHQ, ER

80.

Sri Millick Ch. Boro

PHQ, ER

81.

Sri Kushal Rahang

PHQ, ER

82.

Sri Darashing Tumung

PHQ, ER

83.

Sri Dharmendra Rahang

PHQ, ER

84.

Sri Gojen Rahang

PHQ, ER

85.

Sri Haren Bungrung

PHQ, ER

86.

Sri Anil Tumung

PHQ, ER

87.

Sri Suresh Rahang

PHQ, ER

88.

Sri Umashankar Muchi

PHQ, ER

89.

Sri Phul Teron

PHQ, ER

90.

Sri Suresh Muchi

PHQ, ER

91.

Sri Sulendar Routh

PHQ, ER

92.

Sri Tulshi Horijan

PHQ, ER

93.

Sri Shyam Kr. Ram

PHQ, ER

94.

Sri Bijoy Routh

PHQ, ER

95.

Sri Ramesh Routh

PHQ, ER

96.

Sri Sanatan Routh

PHQ, ER

97.

Sri Karan Horijan

PHQ, ER

98.

Sri Rajkumar Routh

PHQ, ER

99.

Sri C.H. Sainti

PHQ, ER

100.

Sri Nripen Rava

PHQ, ER

101.

Sri Thomes Reddy

PHQ, ER

102.

Sri Bhabajit Sharma

PHQ, ER

103.

Sri Phuljogi Rai

PLM

104.

Mrs. Usha Sharma

PLM

105.

Sri Rohini Kr. Nath

PLM

106.

Sri Gakul Barman

PLM

107.

Sri Ramesh Prasad

PS-5 (OPS)

108.

Sri Hali Ram Barman

RS-8, Dharampur

109.

Sri Biplab Rava

PS.5 (OPS)

110.

Sri Ranjit Chetry

PS.5 (OPS)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4793

111.

Sri Atul Ch. Das

PS-5 (OPS)

112.

Sri Kusha Mushahari

PS-5 (OPS)

113.

Sri Lohit Kalita

Land

114.

Sri Sunil Kr. Roy

Hindi

115.

Sri Manoranjan Kalita

Mech. Maint.

116.

Md. Babluddin

Mech. Maint.

117.

Sri Biswajit Bordoloi

Mech. Maint.

118.

Sri Biswajit Sinha

Mech. Maint.

119.

Sri Kheero Bora

Mech. Maint.

120.

Sri Anandi Hazarika

Mech. Maint.

121.

Sri Anil Barman

Mech. Maint.

122.

Sri Arup Goswami

Mech. Maint.

123.

Sri Siddheswar Sarma

Mech. Maint.

124.

Mrs. Boby Buragohain

Mech. Maint.

125.

Mrs. Jayanti Bala Das

Admin

126.

Sri Amal Kr. Sarma

Admin

127.

Sri Dhiren Barman

Admin

128.

Sri Chittaranjan Deka

Accounts

129.

Sri Pankaj Kr. Kalita

Accounts

130.

Sri Manabendra Das

Materials

131.

Sri Chintu Bora

Materials

132.

Sri Samin Rajbongshi

Materials

133.

Sri Chatindra Kalita

Materials

134.

Sri Biswajit Upadhary

Materials

135.

Sri Sriram Jaiswal

Materials

136.

Sri Bhupen Goswami

Security

137.

Sri Hemodhar Saikia

Security

138.

Sri Jyotish Das

Security

139.

Sri Tapan Balmiki

PL-P

140.

Sri Bikash Deka

PL-P

141.

Sri Khub Chand Thakur

PL-P

142.

Sri Deep Kalita

Civil

143.

Sri Belahu Abang

Civil

144.

Sri Kartik Bungrung

Civil

145.

Sri Jiten Rahang

Civil

146.

Sri Chanakya Das

Civil

147.

Sri Nibaran Deka

Civil

148.

Sri Munna Srivastav

Civil

149.

Sri Jitu Kharmariya

Civil

150.

Sri Mintu Kakati

Civil

151.

Sri Sankar Baitha

Civil

152.

Sri Dhaneswar Engti

Civil

153.

Sri Hari Narayan Kalita

Telemetry

154.

Sri Dimbeswar Burman

Telecom

155.

Sri Mudhab Bezbaruah

Medical

156.

Sri Baneswar Boro

PS-5, Electrical

157.

Sri Binod Ch. Das

PS-6

158.

Sri Naresh Nath

PS-6

159.

Sri Suresh Rai

PS-6

160.

Sri Sanjay Rava

PS-6

161.

Sri Ratirarn Oraon

PS-7

162.

Sri Nivas Das Munshi

PS-7

163.

Sri Rajesh Kumar Shah

PS-7

164.

Sri Vinod Horizon

PS-7

165.

Sri Ratan Naik

PS-7

166.

Sri D.K. Barman

PS-7

167.

Sri Ethora Kharia

PS-7

168.

Sri Kumar Naik

PS-7

169.

Sri Bhakta Prasad Thapa

PS-7

170.

Sri Shayam Bahadur Thapa

PS-7

171.

Md. Nasrul

PS-8

172.

Md. Nasir Sah

PS-8

173.

Md. Kaffiluddin

PS-8

174.

Md. Kashimuddin

PS-8

175.

Sri Buchan Sonar

PS-8

176.

Sri Sankar Kahar

PS-8

177.

Md. Samsuddin Khan

PS-8

178.

Sri Monoj Kr. Dey

PS-8

179.

Sri Gobin Mallik

PS-8

180.

Sri Mantu Mallik

PS-8

181.

Sri Enarmal Mallick

PS-8

182.

Sri Ranjit Das

PS-8

183.

Sri Nidhir Kar

PS-8

184.

Sri Jogender Balmiki

PS-8

185.

Sri Bimal Saha

PS-8

186.

Sri Sabir Alam

PS-8

187.

Sri Monoj Kr. Ram

PS-8

188.

Sri Umesh Harizon

PS-8

189.

Sri Narendra Nath Maji

PS-8

190.

Md. Giasuddin

PS-8

191.

Sri Priyatosh Chakraborty

PS-8

192.

Md. Abdul Khalek

PS-8

193.

Sri Sriram Kahar

PS-8

194.

Sri Kunal Gurung

PS-8

195.

Sri Dilip Singha

PS-8

196.

Sri Bijoy Kr. Prasad

PS-8

4794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

197.

Sri Nandalal Harizon

PS-8

198.

Sri Sanjay Kr. Mallik

PS-8

199.

Sri Biplab Purbey

PS-8

200.

Sri Sanjay Kr. Das

PS-8

201.

Sri Pradeep Kr. Sinha

PS-8

202.

Sri Anil Kr. Routh

PS-8

203.

Sri Bishnu Kahar

PS-8

204.

Sri Chandan Mandal

PS-9

205.

Sri Sitaram Singh

PS-9

206.

Sri Jogadish Sarma

PS-9

207

Sri Ambika Mandal (Rai)

PS-9

208.

Md. Haffizuddin

PS-9

209.

Sri Ram Prasad Mandal

PS-9

210.

Sri Binoy Kr. Singh

PS-9

211.

Sri Ramayan Singh

PS-9

212.

Sri Prakash Choudhury

PS-9

213.

Sri Joginder Sharma

PS-9

214.

Sri Vico Mandal

PS-9

215.

Md. Rijajul

PS-9

216.

Sri Kamaleswari Sharma

PS-9

217.

Sri Shankar Mandal

PS-9

218.

Sri Upendra Mandal

PS-9

219.

Sri Kirtya Nand Yadav

PS-9

220.

Sri Sigeswar Mandal

PS-9

221.

Sri Nowal Kishor Mandal

PS-9

222.

Sri Suresh Choudhury

PS-9

223.

Sri Lalo Rajak

PS-10

224.

Sri Rajesh Kumar

PS-10

225.

Sri Ashok Kumar

PS-10

226.

Sri Shambu Das

PS-10

227.

Sri Balmiki Paswan

PS-10

228.

Sri Rakesh Kr. Routh

PS-10

229.

Sri Shiro Das

PS-10

230.

Sri Budhan Paswan

PS-10

231.

Sri Varahamdev Das

PS-10

232.

Sri Paaro Paswan

PS-10

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1849-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks-,u-th-lh-

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

72@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15025@2@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.72/

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 O.N.G.C. Limited, and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

17/06/2014.

[No. L-15025/2/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE C.G.I.T.-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad

Dated: 20^th March, 2014

Complaint (CGITA) No. 72 of 2005

Complaint (ITC) No. 7 of 2000 (old)

Reference (ITC) No. 172 of 1999

Under Section 33A of Industrial Dispute Act

Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh

C/o Dal Sagar Singh

Khadi Gramudyog Prayog Samiti

Gandhi Ashram, Near Subhash Bridge

Vadaj, Ahmedabad-380027

...Applicant

Versus

The General Manager (Project)

O.N.G.C., Avni Bhavan, Chandkheda

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

Industrial Security Services

C/o. O.N.G.C. Ltd., Avni Bhavan,

Chandkheda, Ahmedabad

Super Denser Pvt. Ltd.

C/o. O.N.G.C. Ltd., Avni Bhavan,

Chandkheda, Ahmedabad

D.B.Enterprise, C/o. O.N.G.C. Ltd.

Avni Bhavan, Chandkheda

Ahmedabad

...Opponent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4795

Appearance :

For the Applicant

Shri Raghuvir Mali

For the O.P. No. 1

Shri K.V. Gadhia,Aadvocate

Shri Mahender K. Patel,

Advocate

For the O.P. No. 2 to 4

None

ORDER/AWARD

This is a complaint case under section 33A of the

I.D. Act,1947 alleging there in that he is one of the workman

out of 49 as per list involved in the reference I.T.C. 172/99

pending for adjudication on the terms of reference specified

in the schedule of the reference order dated 18-11-1999

and that his name is at Serial No. 41 in the list on the

demand of the Union General Mazdoor Sabha is that the

so called contract of under which the 49 employee working

in various department of ONGC, Ahmedabad project is

sham and bogus arrangement and these concerned

employees be treated in direct employment in ONGC,

Ahmedabad project from their date of engagement with

all consequential benefits through the so called

contractors in legal and justified? If so what relief the

concerned workmen are entitled and from which date?’’ It

has been alleged as per complaint application on Ex-1

that he is doing his duty of khalasi deligently for the past

several years but on 12-06-2000 he was stopped from doing

work by verbal order of officer Shri B.M.Shahu and he

was removed from the work by the opponents, praying

also that opponent should be directed to provide him

with work and to pay him the monetary loss suffered by

him. This action of the opponents are illegal, he has given

notice dated 15-06-2000 to the opponents corporation

received on 19-06-2000 but inspite of that he has not

been taken back on duty.

2. O.P.No. 1(O.N.G.C.) had filed W.S.(Ext.11)

interalia denying various contentions raised by the

complainant, stating that this O.P. has not contraverned

any Provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act, and so this

complaint is not maintainable, there’s no relation of master

and servant between this O.P.No. 1 and the complainant.

It has been denied that the complainant is connected

employee of the reference ITC 172/99.The contention of

corporation further is that they have not stopped the

complainant to join duties from 12-06-2000 they have not

removed/terminated the service of complainant orally nor

they have changed the service condition of the

complainant.

3. It may be noted that earlier vide award dated 9-

8-2002 passed by Smt. N. J. Shelat, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal(Central) Ahmedabad the complaint

(Ext. 1) was rejected holding that the Complainant is

not entitled to get any reliefs, on the ground

that complainant was working with the contract or

as per own admission in his cross examination

that at present he is working with the Industrial Security

Services and that contractors have not been made parties

in this complaint case. This award dated 9-8-2002 was

challenged before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in S.C.A.

No. 2281 of 2004 by the complainant Ashok Kumar

Ramkaran Singh and the Hon’ble Court vide oral order

dated 23.12.2004 the award dated 9-8-2002 was set aside

and the matter was remanded back to the Industrial

Tribunal for fresh hearing and decision on own merits after

permitting the petitioner (complainant) to join the

contractors as a party in the complaint. Consequently on

remand of the complaint case for fresh hearing, the

complainant filed application Ext.45 to make O.P.No. 2, 3 &

4 (contractors ) as parties to the case which was allowed

by the tribunal while order passed on 20-8-2010 and these

contractors are impleaded as O.P.No.2 to 4 in this complaint

case.

4. Notice were issued to newly impleaded

contractors (O.P. No. 2 to 4) but none of them appeared in

this case. The complainant side filed an application dated

23-09-2013(Ex-58) seen by Shri M.K.Patel for O.P.No. 1 to

the effect the contractor O.P.No. 4 (D.B.Enterprise) had

stopped the complainant from work at that time and so

contractor O.P.No. 2&3 deleted from the cause title. This

application (Ext.58) was not moved so no order has been

passed. The complainant side also filed an application

dated 23-09-2013 (Ext.59) seen by O.P.No.1 lawyer Shri M.K.

Patel to the effect that inspite of notice impleaded

contractors did not appear in the case and so no need to

adduce fresh evidence and that the evidence already

adduced in the past on behalf of both parties and in

sufficient.

So the oral evidence of the complainant be treated

as closed, Accordingly contesting corporation side (O.P.No.

1) also filed application dated 23-09-2013 (Ex-60) to close

the evidence of O.P.No. 1 since evidence already adduced

in the past. There after fresh argument of the complainant

and O.P.No. 1(O.N.G.C.) were heard and the matter fixed

for order. It may be mentioned here that the record of this

case received on transfer by order of M.O.L. on 25.11.2010

from Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

5. The point for determination is whether the Service

condition of the complainant workmen whose name appear

at Sr. No.41 in the list of workmen involved in the reference

I.T.C. 172/99 was changed w.e.f. 12-06-2000 by stopping

him to perform his duties in the premises of the principal

employee O.N.G.C. in contravention of the provision of

Section 33(1) of the I.D. Act.

6. Both Parties- complainant and O.P.No. 1 adduced

evidence in this case, The complainant Ashok Kumar

Ramkaran Singh has examined himself insupport of case

as per complaint vide Ext.14 on 15-11-2000.He was cross

examined on 08-03-2001 by the lawyer of O.P.No.-1 and he

stated that at present he is working as an employee of

4796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Security Services(Newly impleaded O.P.No. 2)

and doing the work of the 1^st party by reference(opposite

party in this case). He deposed that one Shri Shuklaji is

running this (Industrial Security Services) and he is doing

work given by Shri Shuklaji and that he is being given his

salary by cheque also by the security person Shri Shuklaji

on the other hand O.P.No. 1(O.N.G.C. Ltd.) has examined

Vijayanand Madhusudan Sahu vide Ext.17,working as

Superintending Engineer with the corporation. He

deposed that in his department there is contract of

Industrial Security Service, that 49 as workmen whose name

are stated original I.T.C. 172/99 are workers of contractor

and that the name of complainant Ashok Kumar Ramkaran

Singh is amongst 49 workmen. In cross examination he

deposed that contractor was giving wage slip to workers

and was making payment to workers by cheque. Wage

slips and cheques have been marked exhibits during cross

examination as Exts.22 to 26. He further deposed that

Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh has stopped coming to

work from 2001 and that contractor is looking after the

work of his workman.

7. The Complainant produced 15 documents as per

list Ext.13. Ext.13/1 is non employees entry pass of O.N.G.C.,

Ahmedabad project issued on 10-05-1993 and valid till

30-05-1993 on the name of complainant Ashok Kumar

Singh under M/s. Ganesh Kamdar Mazdoor Sahkari

Mandali with seal and signature of Security Officer of

O.N.G.C., Ahmedabad project. End 13/2 is same type of

pass in the name of Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh for the

period 15-07-1993 to 31-12-1993 under contractor M/s.

Public Power Mazdoor Kamdar contract Labour, End 13/3

is entry pass of Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh issued on

04-12-1994 and expire on 01-05-1995 under contractor public

power Majoor Kamdar Sahkari Mandali Ltd. End 13/4 is

wage slip issued to Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh of

august 1999. Ext.22to26 are wage slips issued by

contractoers Public Power Majoor Kamdar Sahkari Mandli.

Industrial Security Services from the year 1999 upto Jan. 2000.

8. On consideration of the oral and documentary

evidence Ext.13/1 to 13/15 it is proved that the complainant

Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh is one of the workman listed

49 names at Sl.No. 41 in reference case and was working

under different contractors, though contractors used to

be changed at regular interval but complainant was working.

More so, due to not putting any defense by the impleaded

contractors O.P.No. 2 to 4, the evidence of complainant

Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh has to be alleged that he

was stopped orally from working on 12-06-2000 where the

reference case ITC 172/99 was pending and that has

certainly changed his service condition during pendency

under provision of Section 33 of I.D.Act. As per pursis

(Ext.58) duly seen and noted by the lawyer of contesting

O.P. No. 1 without any objection shows that as the relevant

time on 12-02-2000,the complainant Ashok Kumar

Ramkaran Singh was working under contractor

D.B.Enterprize (O.P.No. 4) who stopped him from working

orally that amounting to his termination means change of

service condition during pendeny of the reference I.T.C.

172 of 1999. Since the contractor B.B. Enterprize (O.P.No.

4) stopped the complainant Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh

to do work in the premise of O.P.No. 1(O.N.G.C.) so O.P.No.

1 is also liable why not out of 49 workmen involved one

workman Ashok is comming on duty since 12-06-2000 and

even after notice to O.P. No. 1 being principal employer

O.P.No. 1 failed to resolved the matter for taking Ashok on

work duty by the concerned contractor M/s

D.B.Enterprize,O.P.No. 1 ought to have black listed this

contractor O.P.No. 4 but keeping silence by the principal

employer (O.P.No. 1) Someway also made it liable for

change of service condition during pendency of reference

I.T.C. 172/1999.

9. For the reasons noted above this complainant

U/s 33A of I.D.Act,1947 made by one of the affected

workman Shri Ashok Kumar Ramkaran Singh is allowed

on contract with cost against O.P.No. 1 and exparte with

cost against O.P.No. 4 (D.B.Enterprize). O.P.No. 1 is directed

to pay cost of Rs. 4,000 and O.P.No. 4 is directed to pay

cost of Rs. 40,000 to the complainant.Since the reference

I.T.C. 172/99 is pending so the principal employer (O.N.G.C.,

Ahmedabad Project) O.P.No. 1 is also cost upon a sincere

duty to get the complainant workman Ashok Kumar

Ramkaran Singh reinstated to work through the present

contractor since O.P.No. 1 must be knowing full well

which contractor presently has been given contracting

job of supply of manpower in the premise of O.P.No. 1.

The complainant in the present situation is not entitled for

been wages except for his reinstatement if he is still out of

work.

This award be carried out within one month of the

receipt of copy of award.

Let award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of the

I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1850-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@4@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4797

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/

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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30012/4/2005-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 20^th February, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-53/2005

Reference No. L-30012/4/2005-IR(M)

The Chairman-cum- Managing Director,

Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Scope Complex,

Core No. 2, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

The Sr. Industrial Relation Manager,

I.O.C. Ltd., Indian Oil Bhavan,

G-9, Aliyavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E)

Mumbai-400051

Senior Area Manager,

I.O.C. Ltd., Marketing Division,

Western Region, Area Office,

Navdeep Building, 2^nd Floor,

Opp. Income Tax Office, Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 382110

Plant Manager,

Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.,

LPG Bottling Plant,

Sanand Viramgam Highway,

At & PO- Sanand,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) -382110

The manager,

M/s Dak & Company,

174, Dipanjali Society,

Patanpur Road,

Surat (Gujarat)-395009

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Sh. Bhogilal Laxmanbhai Vaghela

B/22, Vadilal Hospital Staff Quarters,

Ellisbridge,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the first parties

Shri Mahindra K.

Patel, Advocate

For the second party

None

AWARD

Under reference Order No. L-30012/4/2005-(IR(M)

New Delhi, dated 02/06/2005, the Central Government/

Ministry of Labour referred the Industrial Dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal in respect of the matter

specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Shri Bhogilal L. Vaghela,

Ahmedabad for regularisation of his service along

with consequential benefits by the management of

IOCL, Area Office, Western Region, Ahmedabad/

IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant, Sanand is proper and

justified? If so, what relief the concerned worker is

entitled to and what directions are necessary in the

matter?”

2. Notices were repeatedly issued to the 2^nd party

workman but he failed to appear and to file statement of

claim whereas on notice the 1^st party appear and executed

Vakalatnama in favour of Shri Kishor V. Gadhia and Shri

M.K Patel, Advocates to represent in this case on dates,

1^st party’s lawyer are attending the case on dates but 2^nd

party workman did not attend the court on any date.

3. The dispute was raised by the 2^nd party Shri

Bhogilal L. Vaghela but failed to substantiate his claim

due to non-filing of statement of claim. The 1^st party has

only duty to file w.s. when S/c is filed by the 2^nd party in

the case and its onus is upon the 2^nd party to establish his

case for demand of regularisation of his services along

with consequential benefits by the management of the 1^st

party. But the 2^nd party has hopelessly failed to prove his

case.

So the following order is passed.

The demand of Shri Bhogilal L. Vaghela (2^nd party)

for regularisation of his service along with consequential

benefits by the management of the 1^st party No. 3 and 4 is

not proper and justified. The 2^nd party is not entitled any

relief.

This reference is dismissed. No order of cost.

Let copy of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

4798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1851-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@6@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/

2007) 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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30012/6/2007-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1^st May, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 66/2007

Reference Adjudication order No. L-30012/6/2007-IR(M)

The Executive Director,

Gujarat Refinery,

I.O.C. Ltd., P.O. Jawahar Nagar,

Vadodara

...(1^st party)

And

Their workman

Sh. R.P. Parmar,

D/21, Umanagar,

Ankodia Road, Gorwa,

Vadodara (GUJARAT)

...(2^nd party)

For the First Party

Shri Kishor V. Gadhia,

Advocate

Shri Mahendra K. Patel,

Advocate

For the Second Party

Shri Chetan R. Vyas,

Advocate

Shri V. V. Thaker, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No L-30012/6/2007-IR(M) dated

18.07.2007 referred the disputes between the employers in

relation to the management of Gujarat Refinery (I.O.C. Ltd,

P.O., Jawaharnagar) and their workman for adjudication to

this Tribunal (C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad) in

respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd, Gujarat Refinery, Baroda in

terminating the services of Shri R.P. Parmar, Operator

Grade by way of dismissal from service w.e.f.

28.04.2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. The case of the workman (2^nd party) as per

statement of claim (Exxt.8) is that he joined in the 1^st party

organisation on 01.11.1983 as helper and he was working

honestly and deligently and he was promoted as operator

Grade-4 in the year 2000 in M&S section and was

continuing in work for the last 21 year having no adverse

remarks against him and had not absented himself from

duty unauthorisedly before 17.11.2003. But the

management of the 1^st party illegally showed his

absenteeism for 188 days from November 2002 to

September 2003 and show cause notice was issued but

details of absenteeism date wise had not been sent with

notice and so he could not reply to show cause clarified

adequately regarding alleged dates-days of absenteeism.

The days on medical leave and on other leave and the

details of attendance through punch card were not shown

illegally by the management of the 1^st party. He is only

S.C.C. pass and not knowing English to know about

enquiry against the chargesheet issued was not conducted

fairly, principles of natural justice was not followed.

Opportunity was not given to defend himself and the

punishment awarded to him is too harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The

punishment of dismissal caused his economic death, he

remained unemployed. On these ground prayer is to

declare the action of the management of the 1st party

illegal, improper and unjustified in dismissing him from

the services and to reinstate with full back wages

continuity in service and consequential benefits.

3. As against this the case of the 1^st party as per

written statement (Ext.13) inter alia is that the workman

(2^nd party) has made palpably false averment in the

statement of claim and so the workman is not entitled to

any equitable or discretionary relief in this case. The

inquiry has been conducted following the principles of

natural justice and sufficient opportunity given to him to

defend against the charge of unauthorised absenteeism.

It is not admitted fact that the workman did not furnish

any documentary proof with regard to his medical

treatment in the charge sheeted period. In fact in the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4799

inquiry proceeding, the charges levelled against the

workman were admitted in uncertain terms. The workman

as well as his defence representative had singed the inquiry

proceeding without raising any protest. The signature of

workman is in English language. Even the representation/

appeal preferred by the workman is in English language.

At no stage of proceedings, the workman had stated that

he was unable to understand the proceeding. The

averment made in the statement of claim is untenable and

after through that enquiry was not conducted fairly. The

1^st party has denied the allegation of para 2 to 13 of the

statement of claim. Para-1 of S/c is also denied to the effect

that the workman was performing his duty without any

blemish. It has been denied that the services of the

workman were terminated illegally. On proof of serious

misconduct on part of the workman after following the

due process of law, the services have been dispensed

with. On these scores, prayer is made to dismiss the

reference since the workman (2^nd party) is not entitled to

any relief.

4. It may be mentioned that the 2^nd party (workman)

filed a pursis (Ext.29) dated 21.08.2012 as to not challenging

the legality and propriety of the departmental inquiry

proceeding, but not admitting the findings of the inquiry

officer. On the same date 21.08.2012 vide Ext.30 the

workman submitted deposition affidavit that he was

working with the first party as operator grade 4 and he

was terminated after holding departmental inquiry vide

order dated 28.04.2004. He admitted the legality validity

and propriety of inquiry proceeding vide pursis (Ext.29)

he deposed on his unemployment since date of termination

and was cross examined by the lawyer of the 1^st party on

the point of unemployment he (workman) replied that he

submit income tax return showing tax payable nil. The

workman (2^nd party) by filing pursis (Ext.31) on 21.08.2012

closed his evidence. The 1^st party vide pursis dated

16.10.2012 (Ext.32) also closed its case since do not want

to lead any oral evidence. On behalf of the 1^st party the

inquiry papers had been submitted with list Ext.14 marked

Ext. M 14/1 to 14/14 which were given pucca exhibits 15 to 28.

5. In such view of the matter the following issues

are taken for consideration and determination:-

ISSUES

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Whether the workman(2^nd party) has valid cause

of action?

(iii) Whether the punishment awarded to the

delinquent

workman

shockingly

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct

under the charge?

(iv) Whether the action of the management of Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd, Gujarat Refinery, Baroda in

terminating the services of Shri R.P. Parmar,

Operator grade 4 by way of dismissal from

service with effect 28.04.2004 is legal, proper and

justified?

(v) What relief, if any, the concerned workman is

entitled to?

FINDINGS

6. ISSUE NO. (iii) & (iv) : I have gone through the

domestic enquiry papers. Ext.15 to 28. The charge sheet

Ext.15 dated 7.11.2003 is regarding unauthorised

absenteeism from duty for total 188 days from

1^st November, 2002 to 30^th September, 2003 containing

details of unauthorised absence for whole month of

November 2002, 18 days in break up days for December

2002, 29 days absence in January,2003 and only two days

duty on 12 & 13 January, February, 2003 whole month 1^st to

28^th absent, March 2004 , 1 to 10, 10 days absence and for

the reset period on duty in March 2003, April 2003, 1 to 5^th

on duty and 16-19 , 22-26, 30 absence from duty for 10

days, May-2003 absence from duty 1-23 for 23 days, June

2003 absent 2-4 for three days and remaining days on

duty, July 2003, 6 days absence form duty. August 2003,

6 days absence 18, 23, 28-31 and remaining days on duty

and September 2003 two days duty on 7 & 8 and from 1-6,

9-30 absent from duty. The inquiry officer in finding at

Page-6 of its report (Ext.24) found only 182 days absent

from duty excluding 6 days absence from 16 to 21 July as

per charge sheet. It has also been incorporated at para 4-

6 the charge sheeted employee has attended the duty

from 16^th July to 19^th July, 2003(4 days) and off day on 20^th

July and sick leave on 21^st July 2003 as per attendance

report. So the part of unauthorised absenteeism from duty

in the month of July 2003 had gone. It is true that the

documents (Medical Certificates) produced by the C.S.E.

during departmental inquiry were not sufficient to justify

high rate of absenteeism without prior information/

approval, but go to speak to some extent that the C.S.E.

had remained under treatment of orthopaedic Surgeon

prior to absenteeism period and medical certificate of S.S.G

Hospital go to show that his mother was hospitalised from

14.12.2003 to 18.12.2003. More so, out of the seven money

receipt dated 30.08.2003, 06.09.2003, 27.09.2003, 04.10.2003,

18.10.2003 and 01.11.2003 from Bakson Homeopathic

Allergy Clinic, Vadodara 4 money receipts go to connect

purchase of Homeopathic medicines for the period of

absenteeism for August 2003 and September 2003. So from

scrutinising the enquiry papers, I find that the delinquent

workman had fairly admitted the charges of unauthorised

absence from duty. And the documents produced by the

C.S.E go to show reason for his absent from duty for some

month. It is not such case that the C.S.E had not submitted

any medical certificates, prescription regarding treatment.

More so, he is the only son of his ailing mother and also

bread earner of his family. More so during the period of

inquiry he was on duty and after before passing dismissal

order he remained on duty. In Such view of the matter

there was certainly some mitigating circumstances to be

4800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

taken in to consideration for awarding light punishment

of stoppage of some increments with cumulative effect

then to cause economic death of the delinquent in awarding

the severe punishment of dismissal from the service with

immediate effect as per punishment order 28.04.2004

(Ext.25). More so, the appellate authority have also

overlooked to consider the mitigating circumstance

regarding unauthorised absenteeism and that period of

absenteeism for only 182 days was proved against the

charge sheet for 188 days absence from duty.

7. As per discussion and consideration made above,

I am of the considered view that the punishment of

dismissal from service, with immediate effect as per clause

23 (1) (e) of the certified standing orders of the company is

shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct

of the delinquent workman. Such severest punishment

awarded to him go to shock the Judicial conscience of this

tribunal. So, invoking the power under section 11A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I find a fit case to make

interference in the order of the punishment so awarded to

the delinquent workman. For the reasons noted above, I

further find and hold that the action of the management of

Indian Oil corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery, Baroda in

terminating the services of Shri R.P. Parmar, operator Grade

(iv) by way of dismissal from service w.e.f. 28.04.2004 is

illegal, improper and unjustified. Thus issue No. (iii) is

answered in affirmative and issue no. (iv) is answered in

negative and both issues decided against the 1^st party

(management).

8. ISSUE NO. (i) (ii) : As per findings in the

foregoings, I find and hold that the reference is

maintainable and the workman (2^nd party) has valid cause

of action in this case to raise Industrial dispute.

9. ISSUE NO. (v) : In view of the findings to issue

no. (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I am of the

considered view and therefore find and hold that the order

of punishment of dismissal with immediate effect dated

28.08.2004 awarded to Shri R.P. Parmar, Operator Grade

(iv) is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of

misconduct under the charge and so same is hereby set-

aside. Considering the case laws of Rajasthan Tourism

Development Corporation and another vs. Jairaj Singh

Chauhan [2012 (135) FLR 743] Supreme Court, relied upon

on behalf of the 2^nd party. The 2^nd party workman Shri R.P.

Parmar is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service

but without any back wages. This issue is decided

accordingly.

The reference is allowed. However, no order of cost.

This is my Award.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication on u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act,

1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1852-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkMkuh xSl

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

92@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@7@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/

2012) 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 Adani Gas Limited, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30011/7/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 25^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 92/2012

The Vice President,

Adani Gas Ltd.,

8^th Floor,

Heritage Building,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad

M/s. Security with Differences,

4, Neelkanth Complex,

Opp. Maruti Arcade,

Near Jivraj Park Over Bridge,

132 Ft Ring Road,

Jivraj Park cross Road

...(1^st party)

And

Their workman

Shri Navnitbhai Maganbhai Solanki

C/o. General Secretary,

Shram Shakti Labour Union,

66, Jantanagar, Odhav,

Ahmedabad

...(2^nd party)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4801

Appearances:

For the First Party

: Mr. Parakram Sinh Jhala,

Dy. Manager-H.R.

(for Adani Gas Ltd.)

For the Second Party

: Mr. S.N. Gandhi, President &

General Secretary, National

Labour Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/7/2012-IR(M) dated

18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Security with differences a contractor of Adani Gas

Ltd., Ahmedabad in terminating the services of

Shri Navnitbhai Maganbhai Solanki w.e.f. 07.07.2011

without any notice or written order and without any

service benefits is legal an justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. The parties to the case appeared and filed

authority letters. Case is being adjourned for filing S/c

and W/s.

3. A pursis of workman (Ext.7) dated 25.04.2014 is

filed containing signature of workman and Union

representative and also having noted down no objection

of representative of principal employer Adani Gas Ltd.

The parties moved this pursis for disposal of this reference

case since they have settled this dispute outside the court.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the pursis (Ext.7).

Parties to the reference case have settled the matter outside

the court and so workman intend to withdraw from making

contest.

As such reference is disposed of by no dispute

award in view of Ext.7.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 (1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1853-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkMkuh xSl

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

91@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@6@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1853.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/

2012) 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 Adani Gas Limited, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30011/6/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 25^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 91/2012

The Vice President,

Adani Gas Ltd.,

8^th Floor,

Heritage Building,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad

M/s. Security with Differences,

4, Neelkanth Complex,

Opp. Maruti Arcade,

Near Jivraj Park Over Bridge,

132 Ft Ring Road,

Jivraj Park cross Road

...(1^st party)

And

Their workman

Shri Natwarlal Madhavlal Darji,

C/o. General Secretary,

Shram Shakti Labour Union,

66, Jantanagar, Odhav,

Ahmedabad

...(2^nd party)

Appearances :

For the First Party

: Mr. Parakram Sinh Jhala,

Dy. Manager-H.R.

(for Adani Gas Ltd.)

For the Second Party

: Mr. S.N. Gandhi, President &

General Secretary, National

Labour Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/6/2012-IR(M) dated

4802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Security with differences a contractor of Adani

Gas Ltd., Ahmedabad in terminating the services of

Shri Natwarlal Madhavlal Darji w.e.f.21.07.2011

without any notice or written order and without any

service benefits is legal an justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. The parties to the case appeared and filed

authority letters. Case is being adjourned for filing S/c

and W/s.

3. A pursis of workman (Ext.7) dated 25.04.2014 is

filed containing signature of workman and Union

representative and also having noted down no objection

of representative of principal employer Adani Gas Ltd.

The parties moved this pursis for disposal of this reference

case since they have settled this dispute outside the court.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the pursis (Ext.7).

Parties to the reference case have settled the matter outside

the court and so workman intend to withdraw from making

contest.

As such reference is disposed of by no dispute

award in view of Ext.7.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 (1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1854-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkMkuh xSl

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

89@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@4@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/

2012) 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 Adani Gas Limited, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30011/4/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 25^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 89/2012

The Vice President,

Adani Gas Ltd.,

8^th Floor,

Heritage Building,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad

M/s. Security with Differences,

4, Neelkanth Complex,

Opp. Maruti Arcade,

Near Jivraj Park Over Bridge,

132 Ft Ring Road,

Jivraj Park cross Road

...(1^st party)

And

Their workman

Shri Bharatkumar Narottambhai Solanki,

C/o. General Secretary,

Shram Shakti Labour Union,

66, Jantanagar, Odhav,

Ahmedabad

...(2^nd party)

Appearances :

For the First Party

: Mr. Parakram Sinh Jhala,

Dy. Manager-H.R.

(for Adani Gas Ltd.)

For the Second Party

: Mr. S.N. Gandhi, President &

General Secretary, National

Labour Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/4/2012-IR(M) dated

18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Security with differences a contractor of Adani Gas

Ltd., Ahmedabad in terminating the services of

Shri Bharatkumar NaNarottambhai Solanki w.e.f.

01.06.2011 without any notice or written order and

without any service benefits is legal an justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. The parties to the case appeared and filed

authority letters. Case is being adjourned for filing S/c

and W/s.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4803

3. A pursis of workman (Ext.7) dated 25.04.2014 is

filed containing signature of workman and Union

representative and also having noted down no objection

of representative of principal employer Adani Gas Ltd.

The parties moved this pursis for disposal of this reference

case since they have settled this dispute outside the court.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the pursis (Ext.7).

Parties to the reference case have settled the matter outside

the court and so workman intend to withdraw from making

contest.

As such reference is disposed of by no dispute

award in view of Ext.7.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 (1) of the I.D.

Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1855-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkMkuh xSl

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

88@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@3@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. No.

88/2012) 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 Adani Gas Limited, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30011/3/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 25^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 88/2012

The Vice President,

Adani Gas Ltd.,

8^th Floor,

Heritage Building,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad

M/s. Security with Differences,

4, Neelkanth Complex,

Opp. Maruti Arcade,

Near Jivraj Park Over Bridge,

132 Ft Ring Road,

Jivraj Park Cross Road

...(1^st party)

And

Their workman

Shri Mushabhai Ismailbhai Talat

C/o. General Secretary,

Shram Shakti Labour Union,

66, Jantanagar, Odhav,

Ahmedabad

...(2^nd party)

Appearances :

For the First Party

: Mr. Parakram Sinh Jhala,

Dy. Manager-H.R.

(for Adani Gas Ltd.)

For the Second Party

: Mr. S.N. Gandhi, President &

General Secretary, National

Labour Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/3/2012-IR(M) dated

18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Security with differences a contractor of Adani Gas

Ltd., Ahmedabad in terminating the services of

Shri Mushabhai Ismailbhai Talat w.e.f. 03.06.2011

without any notice or written order and without any

service benefits is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

2. The parties to the case appeared and filed

authority letters. Case is being adjourned for filing S/c

and W/s.

3. A pursis of workman (Ext.7) dated 25.04.2014 is

filed containing signature of workman and Union

representative and also having noted down no objection

of representative of principal employer Adani Gas Ltd.

The parties moved this pursis for disposal of this reference

case since they have settled this dispute outside the court.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the pursis (Ext.7).

Parties to the reference case have settled the matter outside

4804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the court and so workman intend to withdraw from making

contest.

As such reference is disposed of by no dispute

award in view of Ext.7.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 (1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1856-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkMkuh xSl

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

87@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@2@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/

2012) 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 Adani Gas Limited, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30011/2/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 25^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 87/2012

The Vice President,

Adani Gas Ltd.,

8^th Floor,

Heritage Building,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad

M/s. Security with Differences,

4, Neelkanth Complex,

Opp. Maruti Arcade,

Near Jivraj Park Over Bridge,

132 Ft Ring Road,

Jivraj Park Cross Road

...(1^st party)

And

Their workman

Shri Jaswantbhai Vrajlal Soni

C/o. General Secretary,

Shram Shakti Labour Union,

66, Jantanagar, Odhav,

Ahmedabad

...(2^nd party)

Appearances :

For the First Party

: Mr. Parakram Sinh Jhala,

Dy. Manager-H.R.

(for Adani Gas Ltd.)

For the Second Party

: Mr. S.N. Gandhi, President &

General Secretary, National

Labour Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/2/2012-IR(M) dated

18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Security with differences a contractor of Adani Gas

Ltd., Ahmedabad in terminating the services of

Shri Jaswantbhai Vrajlal Soni w.e.f. 03.06.2011

without any notice or written order and without any

service benefits is legal an justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. The parties appeared in this case and filed

authority letters. Exts. 5 of the principal employer and

Ext. 7 of the workman. Case is being adjourned for filing

S/c and W/s.

3. A pursis of workman (Ext.7) dated 25.04.2014 is

filed containing signature of workman and Union

representative and also having noted down no objection

of representative of principal employer Adani Gas Ltd.

The parties moved this pursis for disposal of this reference

case since they have settled this dispute outside the court.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the pursis. Parties to

the reference case have settled the matter outside the court

and so workman intend to withdraw from making contest.

As such reference is disposed of by no dispute

award in view of Ext.7.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 (1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4805

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1857-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkMkuh xSl

fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

86@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@06@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@1@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1857.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/

2012) 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 Adani Gas Limited, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30011/1/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 25^th April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 86/2012

The Vice President,

Adani Gas Ltd.,

8^th Floor,

Heritage Building,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad

M/s. Security with Differences,

4, Neelkanth Complex,

Opp. Maruti Arcade,

Near Jivraj Park Over Bridge,

132 Ft Ring Road,

Jivraj Park Cross Road

...(1^st party)

And

Their workman

Shri Rajnikant Pregjibhai Soni

C/o. General Secretary,

Shram Shakti Labour Union,

66, Jantanagar, Odhav,

Ahmedabad

...(2^nd party)

Appearances :

For the First Party

: Mr. Parakram Sinh Jhala,

Dy. Manager-H.R.

(for Adani Gas Ltd.)

For the Second Party

: Mr. S.N. Gandhi, President &

General Secretary, National

Labour Union

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/1/2012-IR(M) dated

18.05.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Security with differences a contractor of Adani Gas

Ltd., Ahmedabad in terminating the services of

Shri Rajnikant Pregjibhai Soni w.e.f. 03.06.2011

without any notice or written order and without any

service benefits is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

2. The parties appeared in this case and filed authority

letters. Ext.5 of the prinicpal employer and Ex.7 of the

workman. Case is being adjourned for filing S/c and W/s.

3. A pursis of workman (Ext.6) dated 25.04.2014 is

filed containing signature of workman and Union

representative and also having noted down no objection

of representative of principal employer Adani Gas Ltd.

The parties moved this pursis for disposal of this reference

case since they have settled this dispute outside the court.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the pursis. Parties to

the reference case have settled the matter outside the court

and so workman intend to withdraw from making contest.

As such reference is disposed of by no dispute

award in view of Ext.6.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 (1) of the

I.D. Act, 1947.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1858-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

4806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1396@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@14@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1396/

2004) 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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Limited, and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 17/06/2014.

[No. L-30012/14/2002-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 12^thMay, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-1396/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No-1/2003(old)

Reference Order No. 30012/14/2002-IR(M)) dated

13.11.2002, New Delhi

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.

Icchapore, Hazira Road,

SURAT (GUJARAT) 394510

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Salimkhan Taslimkhan Pathan

Sahara Darwaja, Umarwada Tekra,

Opp. Bharat Petroleumm

SURAT (GUJARAT)-395003

...Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Yogesh Pathak, Advocate

For the Second Party

Shri Jayesh Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 30012/14/2002-IR(M) dated

13.11.2002, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) with respect to the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether Sh. Salimkhan Taslimkhan Pathan has put

in continuous service in the Bharat Petroleum Corpn.

Ltd. as per provisions of section 25 B of the I.D.

Act? If so, whether the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd, Hazira, Surat through

its officers in discontinuing/terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Salimkhan Taslimkhan Pathan

w.e.f. 01.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter?”

2. The case of the 2^nd party (workman) as per

statement of claim (Ext.3) is that he joined the service of

the 1^st party somewhere in 1989 in the Industrial

Establishment of the 1^st party as casual Helper at daily

wages rate. He had to work at Ring Road, Sahara Darwaja

Depot at Surat. He has served continuously,

uninterruptedly and unblemishly for about eleven years.

The petrol products are stored in the depot and is sold out

in the public commercially. Only one weekly off was a

holiday and for the rest of the days he and other casual

Helper had to work with other employee. The 1^st party

used to make false and fabricated vouchers in the name of

other fictitious persons for the work performed by him,

but was not paid fairly. The 1^st party was not keeping the

records of muster roll in prescribed form. He had worked

for more than 240 days in each year but he was not made

permanent. He was victimised for complaining the Factory

Inspectors on 13.06.2000 for not giving the leave,

attendance cards, wage vouchers, I-card etc. He and other

casual workers have also complained against unfair labour

practice by the officials of the 1^st party (management of

Sahara Darwaja Depot) since he completed eleven years

of service completing 240 days every year. In pursuance

to complaint, the Factories Inspectors visited the work

place at Sahara Darwaja and recorded statement of concern

employees who were the complainants. The factories

Inspector prepared a statement in which name, designation,

number of year of service are mentioned in the hand writing

and the co-employee/co-litigants had signed the said

statement. Due to this complaint the 1^st party started

victimising the workman and other co-worker resulting in

discontinuing/ terminating of the 2^nd party workman and

other co-worker on the pretext of not reporting to duty at

Hazira depot and abandonment of work. On these ground,

prayer is to declare the discontinuation order illegal and

to reinstate the workman with back wages and other

benefits.

3. As against this the case of the 1^st party interalia

as per written statement (Ext.7) and amended W/s (Ext.16)

is that the concerned workman were engaged on casual

basis as per requirement and exigency of work of loading

and unloading wagons at the working place and that they

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4807

were working when other regular were absent and that

they have not worked for 240 days in any calendar year

and have not worked continuously and uninterruptedly,

they were shifted to Hazira depot due to exigency of work

as per requirement in the year 2000. As per direction of the

Central Government & Petroleum department the city depot

at Surat, Sahara Darwaja was shifted to Hazira and city

depot was closed. Since they were casual labourers so,

there was no requirement to comply with the provision of

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, there was no breach of Section

25 G, H and no retrenchment or illegal termination u/s. 2 (rr)

of the I.D. Act arises. On shifting of city depot to Hazira

area, the concerned workman themselves abandoned the

service of their own volition. On these grounds, prayer is

that the 2^nd party workman are not entitled to any relief

and the reference is fit to be rejected.

4. As per rival contention in the pleadings of the

parties, the following issues are taken for discussion and

determination :

ISSUES

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Has the workman involved (2^nd party) got valid

cause of action?

(iii) Whether the 2^nd party workman has put in

continuous service and completed 240 days

works in calendar years from his engagement

and whether he completed 240 days in the

calendar year preceding his discontinuation/

termination?

(iv) Weather the action of the management of Bharat

Petroleum Corp. Ltd, Hazira, Surat through its

officer in discontinuing/terminating the services

of the workman Shri Salimkhan Taslimkhan

Pathan w.e.f. 01.11.2000 is legal, proper and

justified?

(v) Whether the 2^nd party workman is entitled to

reinstatement with back wages? If so, from which

date and if not, what alternative relief, if any, he

is entitled? What directions are necessary in the

matter?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE No. (iii) : The 2^nd party through the list

Ext.25 and 29 submitted several documents in support of

case. Ext. 25/1 is complaint to A.L.C. (Central) Baroda and

Dy. A.L.C. (Central) Baroda filed on 13.08.2000. Ext. 25/2

and 25/3 are complaint to ALC Baroda and letter of Dy.

ALC and ALC Baroda in respect of complaint dated

19.08.2000 and 30.09.2000 Ext. 25/4 is true copy of cover in

which the Govt. Officer sent letter. Ext. 25/5 is statement

recorded by the Factory Inspector dated 31.08.2000. Ext.

29/1 is original E.S.I. Card of 2^nd party of the year 1989. Ext.

29/2 is original I. Card of 2^nd party dated 30.11.1999

Ext. 29/4 is letter regarding nature of work and duty to be

performed by the 2^nd party at the instance of the 1^st party

vide letter dated 31.08.1999 by way of Authority to collect

the refund of Rs. 5000/- with attesting of his signature by

Dy. Manager I/C for Bharat Petroleum Corn Ltd. As per

S.C.A. No. 9107/2000 preferred by the co-litigant/co-

employees before the Hon’ble High Court on 03.07.2000

and was disposed of as withdrawn on 07.03.2000 since the

appropriate Government during pendency of S.C.A.

referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal. From perusal of identity card, the 2^nd party

workman was working as general workman in the 1^st party

depot at Surat. From the statement recorded by the

Factories inspector on 31.08.2000, it go to show that the

statement of concerned workman working in the Surat

depot. The statement prepared by the Factories Inspector

contain signature of Factories Inspectors contain

signatures of workman, Depot Manager, M. Murgan, and

also of Factory Inspector. This statement was recorded

by the Factories Inspector on the basis of complaint made

by Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel ( 2^nd party workman of

reference C.G.I.T..A. 1377/2004) and the Factory Inspectors

by letter dated 30.09.2000 informed to him (Rajubhai

Bhikhabhai Patel) that steps have been taken for issue of

I card and E.S.I. Card. The evidence of the 2^nd party

workman Salimkhan Taslimkhan Pathan vide Ext. 14 and

24 go to show that he was in employment of the 1^st party

from 1989 and was working on day to day basis. He was

given weekly holiday and that he had to work for majority

of days in the year which exceeds qualified period of 240

days. His last drawn daily wage was Rs. 178/- He stated

that the reason of termination was the complaint filed by

them before ALC (C) Baroda and therefore the services

were illegally, arbitrarily terminated on 01.11.2000. About

the non-employment, he states that he tried for job

elsewhere but could not succeed and that during

pendency of reference he gave a pursis vide Ext. 12 for

resuming duties on any condition. Nothing could have

been gained by the 1^st party to discredit the testimony of

the workman (2^nd party).

6. The oral evidence of the 1^st party are of two

witnesses (1) Naresh Juneja (Ext.34) and Vinod Panchal

(Ext. 26) and their cross examination by the lawyer of the

2^nd party and the document of muster roll produced at list

ext. 28 marked Ext.28/1 to 28/4 in the case of another

workman Anand Sonwane which is consolidated by way

of list of documents and the C.S.O. Produced by the 1^st

party as stated in cross examination of witness. From the

perusal of the evidence of the 1^st party’s witness, it is

obvious that the witnesses do not support the written

statement in toto and the 1^st party by virtue of the

statement of witnesses could not discard the evidence of

the 2^nd party that he and other co- workers have not

completed 240 days work in any Calendar year. More so,

all the muster roll of relevant years have not been produced.

4808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The evidence of witness Mr. Naresh Juneja (Ext.34) is quite

contradictory that as per advance notice dated 13.06.2000,

Surat City depot, Sahara Darwaja depot (City) was to shift

from Surat City w.e.f. 01.07.2000 and the workman did not

report for duty to new shifting place of depot at Hazira

Industrial area and they abandoned their works and that

the 1^st party management had not discontinued them. The

closure notice has not been produced as documentary

evidence. The statement of workman recorded by the

Factories Inspector on 31.08.2000 at Sahara Darwaja Depot

speaks a volume against the pleading and evidence of

the 1^st party and that go to prove that on 31.08.2000, the

city depot at Sahara Darwaja, Surat city had not been

shifted fully as per closure notice from 01.07.2000 and the

concerned workman including the 2^nd party were found

working at city depot and on the steps taken by the

Factories Inspectors, Identity Cards, E.S.I. Cards were

issued to the concerned workman. So, it is proved that the

2^nd party workman completed 240 days works in calendar

year and also in the calendar year preceding his

termination/ discontinuation.

7. Thus on consideration of the evidence and

materials on the record, I find and hold that the 2^nd party

workman was continuously working as casual Helper and

has completed 240 days works in calendar years and also

completed 240 days work in calendar year preceding his

oral discontinuation/termination by the management of

the 1^st party. This issue is accordingly answered in the

affirmative.

8. ISSUE No. (iv) : As per findings to issue No.(iii)

in the foregoing paras, it is held further that Shri Salimkhan

Taslimkhan Pathan (2^nd party workman) has put in

continuous service as casual helper in the Bharat Petroleum

Corp. Ltd. as per provisions of Section 25-B of the I.D Act

and so, the management of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

without complying with the mandatory provisions of

Section 25F of the I.D. Act viz not issuing retrenchment

notice, not giving one month pay in lieu of notice, not

paying retrenchment compensation to Salimkhan

Taslimkhan Pathan have illegally terminated him from works

and so, the action of the management of Bharat Petroleum

Corp. Ltd. Hazira, Surat through its officers in discounting/

terminating the services of the workman Shri Salimkhan

Taslimkhan Pathan w.e.f. 01.11.2000 is illegal, improper and

unjustified. This issue is answered against the 1^st party.

9. ISSUE No. (i) & (ii) : In view of the findings to

issue No.(iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find and hold that

the reference is maintainable and the 2^nd party workman

Shri Salimkhan Taslimkhan Pathan has got valid cause of

action.

10. ISSUE No. (v) : In the past due to violation of the

mandatory provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act by the

employer, usually the casual workman who completed 240

days works in calendar year were granted relief for the

reinstatement to work with back wages to any percentage

according to the merit of each case, but in the recent years

there have been change in the view of the Hon’ble Apex

Court that since casual workers even completing 240 days

work do not hold a post as that of regular employee. So as

a matter of right casual labourer cannot claim reinstatement,

rather a reasonable compensation should be awarded to

them. In the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph

(Traffic), Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others

reported in 2010 III CLR 17= 2010 (b) SCC 773 , it has been

held by their Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (D.B.)

–‘‘ grant of reasonable compensation to the workman

instead of reinstatement and back wages in case of

termination of service is found illegal will sub serve the

ends of justice.” But in the instant case the 2^nd party

workman Shri Salimkhan Taslimkhan Pathan was working

from 1989 continuously and uninterruptedly as casual

Helper and thus completed more than 240 days work every

year before his termination/discontinuation w.e.f.

01.11.2000 which has been held to be illegal and unjustified

action on party of the 1^st party employer. So, his claim for

reinstatement as Casual helper in the 1^st party organisation

is also found to be justified due to continuous and

uninterrupted service in the organisation of the 1^st party,

though he did not hold a post as that of regular employee.

In the alternative option the 2^nd party workman is also

entitled for reasonable amount of compensation from the

1^st party.

11.Considering the long tenure of service in

continuity from 1989 to 01.11.2000 for about 10 years, the

workman Shri Salimkhan Taslimkhan Pathan is directed to

be reinstated as casual Helper in the organisation of the 1^st

party with continuity of service and with 30% of back

wages. If the 2^nd party workman choose to exercise the

alternative option of getting compensation from the 1^st

party, then a lumpsum compensation of Rupees One Lakh

Eighty Thousand Only (Rs. 1,80,000/-) is directed to be

paid to him by the 1^st party. So, this issue is decided

accordingly.

The reference is allowed. However no order of cost.

The 1^st party is directed to reinstate the 2^nd party

workman Shri Salimkhan Taslimkhan Pathan within one

month of receipt of copy of award, failing which the back

wages will carry interest 9% P.A. and if the 2^nd party

workman choose to exercise alternative option of getting

compensation, then the 1^st party will pay the compensation

of Rs. One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only to him within one

month of receipt of copy of award, failing which the amount

of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4809

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1859-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1377@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@6@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@44@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1859.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1377/

2004) 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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/6/2014.

[No. L-30012/44/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 12th May, 2014

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1377/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No. 2/2002 (old)

Reference Order No. 30012/44/2001-IR(M)

dated 20.10.2001, New Delhi

Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.,

Icchapore, Hazira Road,

SURAT (GUJARAT) 394510

......First Party

And

Their Workman,

Shri Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel

Sahara Darwaja, Umarwada Tekra,

Opp. Bharat Petroleum

SURAT (GUJARAT)-395003

.....Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Yogesh Pathak, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri Jayesh Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 30012/44/2001 (IR(M)) dated

20.10.2001, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) with respect to the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether Sh. Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel has put in

continuous service in the Bharat Petroleum Corpn.

Ltd. as per provisions of Section 25 B of the I.D.

Act? If so, whether the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd., Hazira, Surat through

its officers in discontinuing/terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel w.e.f.

01.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and

from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter?”

The case of the 2nd party (workman) as per statement

of claim (Ext.4) is that he joined the service of the 1st party

from 10.01.1989 as casual Helper at daily wages rate. He

had to work at Ring Road, Sahara Darwaja Depot at Surat.

He has served continuously, uninterruptedly and

unblemishly for about 13 years. The petrol products are

stored in the depot and is sold out in the public

commercially. Only one weekly off was a holiday and for

the rest of the days he and other casual Helper had to

work with other employee. The 1st party used to make

false and fabricated vouchers in the name of other fictitious

persons for the work performed by him, but was not paid

fairly. The 1st party was not keeping the records of muster

roll in prescribed form. He was issued I. Card, E.S.I. Card,

payment vouchers etc. He had worked for more than 240

days in each year but he was not made permanent. He was

victimised for complaining the Factory Inspectors on

13.06.2000 for not giving the leave, attendance cards, wage

vouchers, I-card etc. He and other casual workers have

also complained against unfair labour practice by the

officials of the 1st party (management of Sahara Darwaja

Depot) since he completed 13 years of service completing

240 days every year. In pursuance to complaint, the

Factories Inspectors visited the work place at Sahara

Darwaja and recorded statement of concern employees

who were the complainants. The factories Inspector

prepared a statement in which name, designation, number

of year of service are mentioned in the hand writing and

the co- employee/co-litigants had signed the said

statement. Due to this complaint the 1st party started

victimising the workman and other co-worker resulting in

discontinuing/ terminating of the 2nd party workman and

other co-worker on the pretext of not reporting to duty at

Hazira depot and abandonment of work. On these ground,

prayer is to declare the discontinuation order illegal and

to reinstate the workman with back wages other benefits.

4810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As against this the case of the 1st party interlia as

per written statement (Ext.12) along with amended W/s is

that the concerned workman were engaged on casual basis

as per requirement and exigency of work of loading and

unloading wagons at the working place and that they

were working when other regular were absent and that

they have not worked for 240 days in any calendar year

and have not worked continuously and uninterruptedly,

they were shifted to Hazira depot due to exigency of work

as per requirement in the year 2000. As per direction of the

Central Government & Petroleum department the city depot

at Surat, Sahara Darwaja was shifted to Hazira and city

depot was closed. Since they were casual labourers so,

there was no requirement to comply with the provision of

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, there was no breach of Section

25 G, H and no retrenchment or illegal termination u/s. 2 (rr)

of the I.D. Act arises. On shifting of city depot to Hazira

area, the concerned workman themselves abandoned the

service of their own volition. On these grounds, prayer is

that the 2nd party workman are not entitled to any relief

and the reference is fit to be rejected.

As per rival contention in the pleadings of the

parties, the following issues are taken for discussion and

determination :

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the workman involved (2nd party) got valid

cause of action?

(iii)

Whether the 2nd party workman has put in

continuous service and completed 240 days works

in calendar years from his engagement and whether

he completed 240 days in the calendar year

preceding his discontinuation/termination?

(iv)

Weather the action of the management of Bharat

Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Hazira, Surat through its

officer in discontinuing/terminating the services of

the workman Shri Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel w.e.f.

01.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified?

(v)

Whether the 2nd party workman is entitled to

reinstate with back wages? If so, from which date

and if not, what alternative relief, if any, he is entitled?

What directions are necessary in the matter?

FINDINGS

Issue No. (iii):- The 2nd party through the list Ext. 8

and 28 submitted several documents. Ext. 8/1 is copy of

petition filed on 03.07.2000 in S.C.A. No. 9107/2000. Ext. 8/

2 is copy of order of Gujarat High Court dated 07.03.2000

by which the S.C.A was withdrawn since the appropriate

Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal. Ext. 8/3 is complaint to A.L.C (Central)

Baroda and Dy. A.L.C. (Central) Baroda filed on 13.08.2000.

Ext.8/4 is original E.S.I. Card of 2nd party dated 10.01.1989.

Ext.28/1 is complaint to A.L.C (Central) Baroda. Ext.28/2 is

letter to Dy A.L.C and A.L.C (Central) for breach of labour

laws. Ext. 28/3 is original letter of Dy. ALC and A.L.C

(Central) in respect to complaint of workman. Ext. 28/4 is

original cover in which the Govt. Officer sent letter. Ext.

28/5 is statement recorded by the Factory Inspector on

dated 31.08.2000. As per I. Card, the 2nd party was working

as watchman in the 1st party Surat depot. From the

statement recorded by the Factory Inspectors on

31.08.2000, it go to show the names of concerned casual

workers working in the city depot, Surat regularly with

number of years. The 2nd party workman is at serial No. 4

showing working as helper for the last 13 years. This

statement prepared by the Factories Inspectors contain

signatures of casual worker including the 2nd party

workman, also contain the signature of M. Murgan, Depot

manager and the signature of the Fatory Inspector. This

statement was recorded on the basis of complaint made

by Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel (2nd party workman of

reference C.G.I.T.A. 1377/2004) and the Factory Inspectors

by letter dated 30.09.2000 informed to him (Rajubhai

Bhikhabhai Patel) that steps have been taken for issue of

I Card and E.S.I. Card. Ext.29 is copy of correspondence of

A.L.C, Surat on complain of Rajubhai Bhikhabhai and

Others. Ext. 30 is also correspendence to Rajubhai and

Others by Asst. Commissioner of Labours, Surat. The 2nd

party Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel in his affidavit in lieu of

examination in chief (Ext.22) has deposed in support of his

claim that has also corroborated by the statement recorded

by the Factory Inspectors that he and other co-workers

are continuously working as daily rated worker without

break. Similar type of the reference cases – Reference

(CGITA No. 1370 to 1377/04 and 1396/04 were consolidated

for the purpose of cross examination of the 2nd party

workman and one workman Mr. Sanjay Limba Sonwane

was cross examined by the lawyer of the 1st party that

covers the claim of all the affected workman of reference

cases. The 2nd party Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel in his

evidence Ext.22 supported the claim statement and in his

evidence (Ext.27) on point of unemployment has proved

that since after termination/discontinuation from work at

the hands of officials of the 1st party organisation he

remained unemployed and having burden of maintaining

his family with immense financial crisis and that his wife is

performing miscellaneous work. Nothing could have been

gained by the 1st party to discredit the testimony of the

workman (2nd party).

The oral evidence of the 1st party are of two

witnesses (1) Naresh Juneja (Ext.36) and Vinod Panchal

(Ext. 26) and their cross examination by the lawyer of the

2nd party and the document of muster roll produced at

list ext. 28 marked Ext.28/1 to 28/4 in the case of another

workman Anand Sonwane which is consolidated by way

of list of documents and the C.S.O. Produced by the 1st

party as stated in cross examination of witness. From the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4811

perusal of the evidence of the 1st party’s witness, it is

obvious that the witnesses do not support the written

statement in toto and the 1st party by virtue of the

statement of witnesses could not discard the evidence of

the 2nd party that he and other co- workers have not

completed 240 days work in any Calendar year. More so,

all the muster roll of relevant years have not been produced.

The evidence of witness Mr. Naresh Juneja (Ext.36) is quite

contradictory that as per advance notice dated 13.06.2000,

Surat City depot, Sahara Darwaja depot (City) was to shift

from Surat City w.e.f. 01.07.2000 and the workman did not

report for duty to new shifting place of depot at Hazira

Industrial area and they abandoned their works and that

the 1st party management had not discontinued them.

The closure notice has not been produced as documentary

evidence. The statement of workman recorded by the

Factories Inspector on 31.08.2000 at Sahara Darwaja Depot

speaks a volume against the pleading and evidence of

the 1st party and that go to prove that on 31.08.2000, the

city depot at Sahara Darwaja, Surat city had not been

shifted fully as per closure notice from 01.07.2000 and the

concerned workman including the 2nd party were found

working at city depot and on the steps taken by the

Factories Inspectors, identity cards, E.S.I. Cards were

issued to the concerned workman. So, it is proved that the

2nd party workman completed 240 days works in calendar

year and also in the calendar year preceding his

termination/ discontinuation.

Thus on consideration of the evidence and materials

on the record, I find and hold that the 2nd party workman

was continuously working as casual Helper and has

completed 240 days works in calendar years and also

completed year preceding his oral discontinuation/

termination by the management of the 1st party. This issue

is accordingly answered in the affirmative.

Issue No.(iv) :- As per findings to issue No.(iii) in

the foregoing paras, it is held further that Shri Rajubhai

Bhikhabhai Patel (2nd party workman) has put in

continuous service as casual helper in the Bharat Petroleum

Corp. Ltd. as per provisions of section 25-B of the I.D Act

and so, the management of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

without complying with the mandatory provisions of

section 25F of the I.D. Act viz not issuing retrenchment

notice, not giving one month pay in lieu of notice, not

paying retrenchment compensation to Rajubhai

Bhikhabhai Patel have illegally terminated him from works

and so, the action of the management of Bharat Petroleum

Corp. Ltd. Hazira, Surat through its officers in discounting/

terminating the services of the workman Shri Rajubhai

Bhikhabhai Patel w.e.f. 01.11.2000 is illegal, improper and

unjustified. This issue is answered against the 1st party.

Issue No. (i) & (ii) :- In view of the findings to issue

No.(iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find and hold that the

reference is maintainable and the 2nd party workman Shri

Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel has got valid cause of action.

10.

Issue No. (v):- In the past due to violation of the

mandatory provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act by the

employer, usually the casual workman who completed 240

days works in calendar year were granted relief for the

reinstemnet to work with back wages to any percentage

according to the merit of each case, but in the recent years

there have been change in the view of the Hon’ble Apex

Court that since casual workers even completing 240 days

work do not hold a post as that of regular employee. So as

a matter of right casual labourer cannot claim reinstatement,

rather a reasonable compensation should be awarded to

them. In the case of senior superintendent Telegraph

(Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh kumar Seal and others

reported in 2010 III CLR 17= 2010 (b) SCC 773 , it has been

held by their Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (D.B)

–‘‘grant of reasonable compensation to the workman

instead of reinstatement and back wages in case of

termination of service is found illegal will sub serve the

ends of justice.” But in the instant case the 2nd party

workman Shri Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel was working since

10.01.1989 continuously and uninterruptedly as causal

Helper and thus completed more than 240 days work every

year before his termination/discontinuation w.e.f.

01.11.2000 which has been held to be illegal and unjustified

action on part of the 1st party employer. So, his claim for

reinstatement as Casual helper in the 1st party organisation

is also found to be justified due to continuous and

uninterrupted service in the organisation of the 1st party,

though he did not hold a post as that of regular employee.

In the alternative option the 2nd party workman is also

entitled for reasonable amount of compensation from the

1st party employer.

11.

Considering the long tenure of service in continuity

from 10.01.1989 to 01.11.2000 for about 13 years, the

workman Shri Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel is directed to be

reinstated as casual Helper in the organisation of the 1st

party with continuity of service and with 30% of back

wages. If the 2nd party workman choose to exercise the

alternative option of getting compensation from the 1st

party, then a lumpsum compensation of Rupees Two Lakh

Only (Rs. 2,00,000/-) is directed to be paid to him by the

1st party. So, this issue is decided accordingly.

The reference is allowed. However no order of cost.

The 1st party is directed to reinstate the 2nd party

workman Shri Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel within one month

of receipt of copy of award, failing which the back wages

will carry interest 9% P.A. and if the 2nd party workman

choose to exercise alternative option of getting

compensation, then the 1st party will pay the compensation

of Rs. Two lakh Only to him within one month of receipt of

copy of award, failing which the amount of compensation

will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

4812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1860-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1376@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@6@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@43@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1376/

2004) 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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/6/2014.

[No. L-30012/43/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum -Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 12th May,2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-1376/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No. -1/2002(old)

Reference Order No. 30012/43/2001-IR(M))

dated 20.12.2001, New Delhi

Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.

Icchapore, Hazira Road,

SURAT (GUJARAT) 394510

......First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane

Sahara Darwaja, Umarwada Tekra,

Opp. Bharat Petroleum

Surat (Gujarat) -395003

.....Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Yogesh Pathak, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri Jayesh Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 30012/43/2001-IR(M)) dated

20.12.2001, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) with respect to the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether Sh. Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane has put in

continuous service in the Bharat Petroleum Corpn.

Ltd. as per provisions of section 25 B of the I.D.

Act? If so, whether the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd, Hazira, Surat through

its officers in discontinuing/terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane w.e.f.

08.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and

from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter?”

The case of the 2nd party (workman) as per statement

of claim (Ext.4) is that he joined the service of the 1st party

from 05.05.1986 as casual Helper at daily wages rate. He

had to work at Ring Road, Sahara Darwaja Depot at Surat.

He has served continuously, uninterruptedly and

unblemishly for about 14 years. The petrol products are

stored in the depot and is sold out in the public

commercially. Only one weekly off was a holiday and for

the rest of the days he and other casual Helper had to

work with other employee. The 1st party used to make

false and fabricated vouchers in the name of other fictitious

persons for the work performed by him, but was not paid

fairly. The 1st party was not keeping the records of muster

roll in prescribed form. He was issued I. card, E.S.I. card,

payment vouchers etc. He had worked for more than 240

days in each year but he was not made permanent. He was

victimised for complaining the Factory Inspectors on

13.06.2000 for not giving the leave, attendance cards, wage

vouchers, I-card etc. He and other casual workers have

also complained against unfair labour practice by the

officials of the 1st party (management of Sahara Darwaja

Depot) since he completed 14 years of service completing

240 days every year. In pursuance to complaint, the

Factories Inspectors visited the work place at Sahara

Darwaja and recorded statement of concern employees

who were the complainants. The factories Inspector

prepared a statement in which name, designation, number

of year of service are mentioned in the hand writing and

the co- employee/co-litigants had signed the said

statement. Due to this complaint the 1st party started

victimising the workman and other co-worker resulting in

discontinuing/ terminating of the 2nd party workman and

other co-worker on the pretext of not reporting to duty at

Hazira depot and abandonment of work. On these ground,

prayer is to declare the discontinuation order illegal and

to reinstate the workman with back wages and other

benefits.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4813

As against this the case of the 1st party interlia as

per written statement (Ext.14) along with amended W/s is

that the concerned workman were engaged on casual basis

as per requirement and exigency of work of loading and

unloading wagons at the working place and that they

were working place when other regular were absent and

that they have not worked for 240 days in any calendar

year and have not worked continuously and

uninterruptedly, they were shifted to Hazira depot due to

exigency of work as per requirement in the year 2000. As

per direction of the Central Government & Petroleum

department the city depot at Surat, Sahara Darwaja was

shifted to Hazira and city depot was closed. Since they

were casual labourers so, there was no requirement to

comply with the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act,

there was no breach of section 25 G,H and no retrenchment

or illegal termination u/s. 2 (rr) of the I.D. Act arises. On

shifting of city depot to Hazira area, the concerned

workman themselves abandoned the service of their own

violation. On these grounds, prayer is that the 2nd party

workman are not entitled to any relief and the reference is

fit to be rejected.

As per rival contention in the pleadings of the

parties, the following issues are taken for discussion and

determination :

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the workman involved (2nd party) got valid

cause of action?

(iii)

Whether the 2nd party workman has put in

continuous service and completed 240 days works

in calendar years from his engagement and whether

he completed 240 days in the calendar year preceding

his discontinuation/termination?

(iv)

Weather the action of the management of Bharat

Petroleum Corp. Ltd, Hazira, Surat through its officer

in discontinuing/terminating the services of the

workman Shri Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane w.e.f.

08.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified?

(v)

Whether the 2nd party workman is entitled to

reinstatement with back wages? If so, which date

and if not, what alternative relief, if any, he is entitled?

What directions are necessary in the matter?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii):- The 2nd party through the list

(Ext.7) submitted several documents which are given pucca

exhibits 12 to 17. Ext. 15 is copy in S.C.A No. 9107/2000.

Ext.16 is copy of order of Gujarat High Court dated

07.03.2000 by which the S.C.A. was withdrawn since the

appropriate Government referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Ext. 12 is complaint

to ACL Baroda and Dy. ACL Baroda filed on 13.08.2000.

Ext.13 is original I. Card of the 2nd party. Ext.14 is original

E.S.I. card of 2nd party dated 05.05.1986 Ext.17 is copy of

E.S.I. form No.6, As per I. Card, the 2nd party workman

was working as casual worker and watchman in the 1st

party depot. In the E.S.I. card the date of entry is shown as

05.5.1986 which is in consonance with the statement of

claim which proves the date of joining of the 2nd party.

From Ext.13 and 14, 16 the old service of the 2nd party is

proved. On the contrary the defence of the 1st party about

(1) casual nature of work provided at the time of exigency

of employment in place of other absenting regular

employee stands disproved and was kept on the status of

casual for long period of 14-15 years. From the statement

recorded by the Factories Inspector on 31.08.2000, it go

to show the names of concerned casual workers working

in the city depot, Surat regularly with number of years.

The 2nd party workman Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane is at

Serial No. 5 showing working as Helper for the last 15

years. This statement prepared by the Factories Inspectors

contain signatures of casual worker including the 2nd party

workman, also contain the signature of M. Murgan, Depot

manager and the signature of the Factory Inspector. This

statement was recorded on the basis of complaint made

by Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel ( 2nd party workman of

reference C.G.I.T.A. 1377/2004) and the Factory Inspectors

by letter dated 30.09.2000 informed to him that steps have

been taken for issue of I card and E.S.I. Card. The 2nd

party Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane in his (evidence) affidavit

in lieu of examination in chief (Ext.22) deposed in support

of his claim that has also been corroborated by the

statement recorded by the Factory Inspectors that he and

other co-workers are continuously working as daily rated

worker. Similar type of the reference cases – Reference

CGITA No. 1370 to 1377/04 and 1396/04 were consolidated

for the purpose of cross examination of the 2nd party

workman and one workman Mr. Sanjay Limba Sonwane

was cross examined by the lawyer of the 1st party that

covers the claim of all the affected workman of reference

cases. The 2nd party Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane in his

evidence (Ext.22) supported the claim statement and he in

his cross examination also stood the veracity test.

Evidence on point of unemployment is unchallenged; the

1st party has not lead evidence on gainful employment of

the 2nd party workman. The 2nd party is facing immense

burden of maintaining his family under financial crisis.

Nothing could have been gained by the 1st party to

discredit the testimony of the 2nd party.

The oral evidence of the 1st party are of two

witnesses (1) Naresh Juneja (Ext.32) and Vinod Panchal

(Ext. 26) and their cross examination by the lawyer of the

2nd party and the document of muster roll produced at list

ext. 28 marked Ext.28/1 to 28/4 in the case of another

workman Anad Sonwane which is consolidated by way of

list of documents and the C.S.O. Produced by the 1st party

as stated in cross examination of witness. From the perusal

of the evidence of the 1st party’s witnesses, it is obvious

4814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the witnesses do not support the written statement in

toto and the 1st party by virtue of the statement of

witnesses could not discard the evidence of the 2nd party

that he and other co- workers have not completed 240

days work in any Calendar year. More so, all the muster

roll of relevant years have not been produced. The

evidence of witness Mr. Naresh Juneja (Ext.32) is quite

contradictory that as per advance notice dated 13.06.2000,

Surat City depot, Sahara Darwaja depot (City) was to shift

from Surat City w.e.f. 01.07.2000 and the workman did not

report for duty to new shifting place of depot at Hazira

Industrial area and they abandoned their works and that

the 1st party management had not discontinued them.

The closure notice has not been produced as documentary

evidence. The statement of workman recorded by the

Factories Inspector on 31.08.2000 at Sahara Darwaja Depot

speaks a volume against the pleading and evidence of

the 1st party and that go to prove that on 31.08.2000, the

city depot at Sahara Darwaja, Surat city had not been

shifted fully as per closure notice from 01.07.2000 and the

concerned workman including the 2nd party were found

working at city depot and on the steps taken by the

Factories Inspectors, identity cards, E.S.I. Cards were

issued to the concerned workman. So, it is proved that the

2nd party workman completed 240 days works in calendar

year and also in the calendar year preceding his

termination/ discontinuation.

Thus on consideration of the evidence and materials

on the record, I find and hold that the 2nd party workman

was continuously working as casual Helper and has

completed 240 days works in calendar years and also

completed year preceding his oral discontinuation/

termination by the management of the 1st party. This issue

is accordingly answered In the affirmative.

ISSUE NO.(iv) :- As per findings to issue No.(iii) in

the foregoing paras, it is held further that Shri Anand

Arjunbhai Sonwane (2nd party workman) has put in

continuous service as casual helper in the Bharat Petroleum

Corp. Ltd. as per provisions of section 25-B of the I.D Act

and so, the management of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

without complying with the mandatory provisions of

section 25F of the I.D. Act viz not issuing retrenchment

notice, not giving one month pay in lieu of notice, not

paying retrenchment compensation to Anand Arjunbhai

Sonwane have illegally terminated him from works and so,

the action of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corp.

Ltd. Hazira, Surat through its officers in discounting/

terminating the services of the workman Shri Anand

Arjunbhai Sonwane w.e.f. 08.11.2000 is illegal, improper

and unjustified. This issue is answered against the 1st

party.

9. ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii) :- In view of the findings to issue

No.(iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find and hold that the

reference is maintainable and the 2nd party workman Shri

Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane has got valid cause of action.

10.

ISSUE NO. (v):- In the past due to violation of the

mandatory provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act by the

employer, usually the casual workman who completed 240

days works in calendar year were granted relief for the

reinstatement to work with back wages to any percentage

according to the merit of each case, but in the recent years

there have been change in the view of the Hon’ble Apex

Court that since casual workers even completing 240 days

work do not hold a post as that of regular employee. So as

a matter of right casual labourer cannot claim reinstatement,

rather a reasonable compensation should be awarded to

them. In the case of senior superintendent Telegraph (Traffic)

Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others reported in

2010 III CLR 17= 2010 (b) SCC 773, it has been held by their

Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (D.B) — ‘‘grant of

reasonable compensation to the workman instead of

reinstatement and back wages in case of termination of

service is found illegal will sub serve the ends of justice.”

But in the instant case the 2nd party workman Shri Anand

Arjunbhai Sonwane was working since 05.05.1986

continuously and uninterruptedly as causal Helper and

thus completed more than 240 days work every year before

his termination/discontinuation w.e.f. 08.11.2000 which has

been held to be illegal and unjustified action on party of

the 1st party employer. So, his claim for reinstatement as

Casual helper in the 1st party organisation is also found

to be justified due to continuous and uninterrupted service

in the organisation of the 1st party, though he did not

hold a post as that of regular employee. In the alternative

option the 2nd party workman is also entitled for

reasonable amount of compensation from the 1st party.

11.

Considering the long tenure of service in continuity

from 05.05.1986 to 08.11.2000 for about 15 years, the

workman Shri Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane is directed to be

reinstated as casual Helper in the organisation of the 1st

party with continuity of service and with 30% of back

wages. If the 2nd party workman choose to exercise the

alternative option of getting compensation from the 1st

party, then a lumpsum compensation of Rupees Two Lakh

Twenty Thousand Only (Rs. 2,20,000/-) is directed to be

paid to him by the 1st party. So, this issue is decided

accordingly.

The reference is allowed. However no order of cost.

The 1st party is directed to reinstate the 2nd party

workman Shri Anand Arjunbhai Sonwane within one month

of receipt of copy of award, failing which the back wages

will carry interest 9% P.A. and if the 2nd party workman

choose to exercise alternative option of getting

compensation, then the 1st party will pay the compensation

of Rs. Two Lakh Twenty Thousand Only to him within one

month of receipt of copy of award, failing which the amount

of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4815

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1861-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1374@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@6@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@42@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1374/

2004) 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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/6/2014.

[No. L-30012/42/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT -cum- Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 12th May,2014

Reference : (CGITA) No-1374/2004

Reference : (I.T.C) No-30/2001(old)

Reference Order No. 30012/42/2001-IR (M)

Dated 10.10.2001, New Delhi

Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.

Icchapore, Hazira Road,

SURAT (GUJARAT) 394510

.....First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Sanjay Limba Sonwane

Sahara Darwaja, Umarwada Tekra,

Opp. Bharat Petroleum

SURAT (GUJARAT)-395003

.....Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Yogesh Pathak, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri Jayesh Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 30012/42/2001-IR(M) dated

10.10.2001, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) with respect to the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether Sh. Sanjay Limba Sonwane has put in

continuous service in the Bharat Petroleum Corpn.

Ltd. as per provisions of section 25 B of the I.D.

Act? If so, whether the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn Ltd, Hazira, Surat through

its officers in discontinuing/terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Sanjay Limba Sonwane w.e.f.

08.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and

from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter?”

The case of the 2nd party (workman) as per statement

of claim (Ext.5) is that he joined the service of the 1st party

from 04.07.1991 as casual Helper at daily wages rate. He

had to work at Ring Road, Sahara Darwaja Depot at Surat.

He has served continuously, uninterruptedly and

unblemishly for about 11 years. The petrol products are

stored in the depot and is sold out in the public

commercially. Only one weekly off was a holiday and for

the rest of the days he and other casual Helper had to

work with other employee. The 1st party used to make

false and fabricated vouchers in the name of other fictitious

persons for the work performed by him, but was not paid

fairly. The 1st party was not keeping the records of muster

roll in prescribed form. He was issued I. card, E.S.I. card,

payment vouchers etc. He had worked for more than 240

days in each year but he was not made permanent. He was

victimised for complaining the Factory Inspectors on

13.06.2000 for not giving the leave, attendance cards, wage

vouchers, I-card etc. He and other casual workers have

also complained against unfair labour practice by the

officials of the 1st party (management of Sahara Darwaja

Depot) since he completed 11 years of service. In

pursuance to complaint, the Factories Inspectors visited

the work place at Sahara Darwaja and recorded statement

of concern employees who were the complainants. The

factories Inspector prepared a statement in which name,

designation, number of year of service are mentioned in

the hand writing and the co- employee/co-litigants had

signed the said statement. Due to this complaint the 1st

party started victimising the workman and other co-worker

resulting in discontinuing/ terminating of the 2nd party

workman and other co-worker on the pretext of not

reporting to duty at Hazira depot and abandonment of

work. On these ground, prayer is to declare the

discontinuation order illegal and to reinstate the workman

with back wages and other benefits.

4816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As against this the case of the 1st party interlia as

per written statement (Ext.13) along with amended W/s is

that the concerned workman were engaged on casual basis

as per requirement and exigency of work of loading and

unloading wagons at the working place and that they

were working when other regular were absent and that

they have not worked for 240 days in any calendar year

and have not worked continuously and uninterruptedly,

they were shifted to Hazira depot due to exigency of work

as per requirement in the year 2000. As per direction of the

Central Government & Petroleum department the city depot

at Surat, Sahara Darwaja was shifted to Hazira and city

depot was closed. Since they were casual labourers so,

there was no requirement to comply with the provision of

section 25F of the I.D. Act, there was no breach of section

25 G,H and no retrenchment or illegal termination u/s. 2 (rr)

of the I.D. Act arises. On shifting of city depot to Hazira

area, the concerned workman themselves abandoned the

service of their own volition. On these grounds, prayer is

that the 2nd party workman are not entitled to any relief

and the reference is fit to be rejected.

As per rival contention in the pleadings of the

parties, the following issues are taken for discussion and

determination :

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the workman involved (2nd party) got valid

cause of action?

(iii)

Whether the 2nd party workman has put in

continuous service and completed 240 days works

in calendar years from his engagement and whether

he completed 240 days in the calendar year

preceding his discontinuation/termination?

(iv)

Weather the action of the management of Bharat

Petroleum Corp. Ltd, Hazira, Surat through its officer

in discontinuing/terminating the services of the

workman Shri Sanjay Limba Sonwane w.e.f.

08.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified?

(v)

Whether the 2nd party workman is entitled to

reinstatement with back wages? If so, which date

and if not, what alternative relief, if any, he is entitled?

What directions are necessary in the matter?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii):- The 2nd party through the list Ext.9

and 27 submitted several documents. Ext. 9/1 is copy of

petition filed on 03.07.2000 in S.C.A. No. 9107/2000. Ext.

9/2 is copy of order of Gujarat High Court dated 07.03.2000

by which the S.C.A was withdrawn since the appropriate

Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal. Ext. 9/3 is complaint to A.L.C (central)

Baroda and Dy. A.L.C. (Central) Baroda filed on 13.08.2000.

Ext.9/4 is original E.S.I. card of 2nd party dated 04.07.1991.

Ext.27/1 is complaint to ALC Baroda & letter of Dy.

Commissioner of labour and ALC in respect of complaint

marked Ext.28. Ext. 27/2 is letter dated 19.08.2000 from

ALC Baroda (marked Ext.29) Ext.27/3 is original reply ALC

Baroda dated 30.09.2000 (marked Ext.30) Ext. 27/4 is true

copy of cover in which the govt. Officer, send letter (marked

Ext.31) Ext.27/5 is statement recorded by Factories

Inspector (original) dated 31.08.2000 (marked ext.32, From

the statement recorded by the Factories Inspector on

31.08.2000, it go to show the names of concerned casual

workers working in the city depot, Surat, regularly with

number of years. The name of 2nd party workman is at

serial No.3, showing working as Helper for the last 10 years.

This statement by the Factories Inspector was recorded

on the basis of complainant made by co-worker (Rajubhai

Bhikhabhai Patel) (reference C.G.I.T.A. 1377/2004) and the

Factory Inspectors by letter dated 30.09.2000 informed to

him (Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel) that steps have been taken

for issue of I card and E.S.I. Card. Ext.29 is copy of

correspondence of A.L.C, Surat on complain of Rajubhai

Bhikhabhai and others. Ext. 30 is also correspondence to

Rajubhai and others by Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Surat. The 2nd party workman Shri Sanjay Limba Sonwane

in his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief (Ext.19 and

Ext.26) has deposed in support of his claim that has been

also corroborated by the statement recorded by the Factory

Inspector that he and other are continuously working as

daily rated worker without break. Similar type of reference

cases Reference CGITA No. 1370 to 1377/2004 and 1396/

2004 were consolidated for the purpose of cross-

examination of 2nd party workman and one workman Mr.

Sanjay Limba Sonewane (present 2nd party) was cross-

examined by the lawyer of the 1st party that covers the

claim of all the affected workman of reference cases. The

2nd party Sanjay Limba Sonwane in his evidence Ext.19

supported the claim statement and in his evidence (Ext.26)

on point of unemployment has proved that since after

termination/discontinuation from work at the hands of

officials of the 1st party organisation he remained

unemployed and having burden of maintaining his family

with immense financial crisis and is pulling rickshaw for

the time being. Nothing could have been gained by the

1st party to discredit the testimony of the workman (2nd

party).

The oral evidence of the 1st party are of two

witnesses (1) Naresh Juneja (Ext.37) and Vinod Panchal

(Ext. 26) and their cross-examination by the lawyer of the

2nd party and the document of muster roll produced at

list ext. 28 marked Ext.28/1 to 28/4 and the C.S.O. Produced

by the 1st party as stated in cross-examination, it is

obvious that the witnesses do not support the written

statement in toto and the 1st party by virtue of the

statement of witnesses could not discard the evidence of

the 2nd party that he and other co-workers have not

completed 240 days work in any Calendar year. More so,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4817

all the muster roll of relevant years have not been produced.

The evidence of witness Mr. Naresh Juneja (Ext.37) is quite

contradictory that as per advance notice dated 13.06.2000,

Surat City depot, Sahara Darwaja depot (City) was to shift

from Surat City w.e.f. 01.07.2000 and the workman did not

report for duty to new shifting place of depot at Hazira

Industrial area and they abandoned their works and that

the 1st party management had not discontinued them.

The closure notice has not been produced as documentary

evidence. The statement of workman recorded by the

Factories Inspector on 31.08.2000 at Sahara Darwaja Depot

speaks a volume against the pleading and evidence of

the 1st party and that go to prove that on 31.08.2000, the

city depot at Sahara Darwaja, Surat city had not been

shifted fully as per closure notice from 01.07.2000 and the

concerned workman including the 2nd party were found

working at city depot and on the steps taken by the

Factories Inspectors, identity cards, E.S.I. Cards were

issued to the concerned workman. So, it is proved that the

2nd party workman completed 240 days works in calendar

year and also in the calendar year preceding his

termination/ discontinuation.

Thus on consideration of the evidence and materials

on the record, I find and hold that the 2nd party workman

was continuously working as casual Helper and has

completed 240 days works in calendar years and also

completed 240 days work in the Calendar year preceding

his oral discontinuation/termination by the management

of the 1st party. This issue is accordingly answered in the

affirmative.

ISSUE NO.(iv) :- As per findings to issue No.(iii) in

the foregoing paras, it is held further that Shri Sanjay Limba

Sonwane (2nd party workman) has put in continuous

service as casual helper in the Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

as per provisions of section 25-B of the I.D Act and so,

the management of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. without

complying with the mandatory provisions of section 25F

of the I.D. Act viz not issuing retrenchment notice, not

giving one month pay in lieu of notice, not paying

retrenchment compensation to Sanjay Limba Sonwane

have illegally terminated him from works and so, the action

of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Hazira,

Surat through its officers in discounting/terminating the

services of the workman Shri Sanjay Limba Sonewane

w.e.f.08.11.2000 is illegal, improper and unjustified. This

issue is answered against the 1st party.

ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii) :- In view of the findings to issue

No.(iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find and hold that the

reference is maintainable and the 2nd party workman Shri

Sanjay Limba Sonwane has got valid cause of action.

10.

ISSUE NO. (v):- In the past due to violation of the

mandatory provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act by the

employer, usually the casual workman who completed 240

days works in calendar year were granted relief for the

reinstatement to work with back wages to any percentage

according to the merit of each case, but in the recent years

there have been change in the view of the Hon’ble Apex

Court that since casual workers even completing 240 days

work do not hold a post as that of regular employee. So as

a matter of right casual labourer cannot claim reinstatement,

rather a reasonable compensation should be awarded to

them. In the case of senior superintendent Telegraph

(Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others

reported in 2010 III CLR 17= 2010 (b) SCC 773 , it has been

held by their Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (D.B)

–‘‘grant of reasonable compensation to the workman

instead of reinstatement and back wages in case of

termination of service is found illegal will sub-serve the

ends of justice.” But in the instant case the 2nd party

workman Shri Sanjay Limba Sonwane was working since

04.07.1991 continuously and uninterruptedly as causal

Helper and thus completed more than 240 days work every

year before his termination/discontinuation w.e.f.

08.11.2000 which has been held to be illegal and unjustified

action on part of the 1st party employer. So, his claim for

reinstatement as Casual helper in the 1st party organisation

is also found to be justified due to continuous and

uninterrupted service in the organisation of the 1st party,

though he did not hold a post as that of regular employee.

In the alternative option the 2nd party workman is also

entitled for reasonable amount of compensation from the

1st party.

11.

Considering the long tenure of service in continuity

from 04.07.1991 to 08.11.2000 for about 10 years, the

workman Shri Sanjay Limba Sonwane is directed to be

reinstated as casual Helper in the organisation of the 1st

party with continuity of service and with 30% of back

wages. If the 2nd party workman choose to exercise the

alternative option of getting compensation from the 1st

party, then a lump sum compensation of Rupees One Lakh

Seventy Thousand Only (Rs. 1,70,000/-) is directed to be

paid to him by the 1st party. So, this issue is decided

accordingly.

The reference is allowed. However no order of cost.

The 1st party is directed to reinstate the 2nd party

workman Shri Sanjay Limba Sonwane within one month

of receipt of copy of award, failing which the back wages

will carry interest 9% P.A. and if the 2nd party workman

choose to exercise alternative option of getting

compensation, then the 1st party will pay the compensation

of Rs. One lakh Seventy Thousand Only to him within one

month of receipt of copy of award, failing which the amount

of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

4818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1862-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1372@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@6@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@46@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1372/

2004) 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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/6/2014.

[No. L-30012/46/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 12th May, 2014

Reference : (CGITA) No-1372/2004

Reference : (I.T.C) No-28/2001(old)

Reference Order No. 30012/46/2001 -IR(M)

Dated 10.10.2001, New Delhi

Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.

Icchapore, Hazira Road,

SURAT (GUJARAT) 394510

...First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel

Sahara Darwaja, Umarwada Tekra,

Opp. Bharat Petroleum

SURAT (GUJARAT)-395003

...Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri Yogesh Pathak, Advocate

For the Second Party

: Shri Jayesh Patel, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 30012/46/2001 - IR(M) dated

10.10.2001, referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) with respect to the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether Sh. Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel has put

in continuous service in the Bharat Petroleum Corpn.

Ltd. as per provisions of section 25 B of the I.D.

Act? If so, whether the action of the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd, Hazira, Surat through

its officers in discontinuing/terminating the services

of the workman Sh. Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel

w.e.f. 10.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter?”

The case of the 2nd party (workman) as per statement

of claim (Ext.5) is that he joined the service of the 1st party

from 04.06.1995 as casual Helper at daily wages rate. He

had to work at Ring Road, Sahara Darwaja Depot at Surat.

He has served continuously, uninterruptedly and

unblemishly for about five years. The petrol products are

stored in the depot and is sold out in the public

commercially. Only one weekly off was a holiday and for

the rest of the days he and other casual Helper had to

work with other employee. The 1st party used to make

false and fabricated vouchers in the name of other fictitious

persons for the work performed by him, but was not paid

fairly. The 1st party was not keeping the records of muster

roll in prescribed form. He was issued I. card, E.S.I. card,

payment vouchers etc. He had worked for more than 240

days in each year but he was not made permanent. He was

victimised for complaining the Factory Inspectors on

13.06.2000 for not giving the leave, attendance cards, wage

vouchers, I-card etc. He and other casual workers have

also complained against unfair labour practice by the

officials of the 1st party (management of Sahara Darwaja

Depot) since he completed 5 years of service completing

240 days every year. In pursuance to complaint, the

Factories Inspectors visited the work place at Sahara

Darwaja and recorded statement of concern employees

who were the complainants. The factories Inspector

prepared a statement in which name, designation, number

of year of service are mentioned in the hand writing and

the co- employee/co-litigants had signed the said

statement. Due to this complaint the 1st party started

victimising the workman and other co-worker resulting in

discontinuing/ terminating of the 2nd party workman and

other co-worker on the pretext of not reporting to duty at

Hazira depot and abandonment of work. On these ground,

prayer is to declare the discontinuation order illegal and

to reinstate the workman with back wages and other

benefits.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4819

As against this the case of the 1st party interlia as

per written statement (Ext.10) along with amended W/s is

that the concerned workman were engaged on casual basis

as per requirement and exigency of work of loading and

unloading wagons at the working place and that they

were working when other regular were absent and that

they have not worked for 240 days in any calendar year

and have not worked continuously and uninterruptedly,

they were shifted to Hazira depot due to exigency of work

as per requirement in the year 2000. As per direction of

the central Government & Petroleum department the city

depot at Surat, Sahara Darwaja was shifted to Hazira and

city depot was closed. Since they were casual labourers

so, there was no requirement to comply with the provision

of section 25F of the I.D. Act, there was no breach of

section 25 G, H and no retrenchment or illegal termination

u/s. 2 (rr) of the I.D. Act arises. On shifting of city depot to

Hazira area, the concerned workman themselves

abandoned the service of their own volition. On these

grounds, prayer is that the 2nd party workman are not

entitled to any relief and the reference is fit to be rejected.

As per rival contention in the pleadings of the

parties, the following issues are taken for discussion and

determination :

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Has the workman involved (2nd party) got valid

cause of action?

(iii)

Whether the 2nd party workman has put in

continuous service and completed 240 days works

in calendar years from his engagement and whether

he completed 240 days in the calendar year

preceding his discontinuation/termination?

(iv)

Weather the action of the management of Bharat

Petroleum Corp. Ltd, Hazira, Surat through its officer

in discontinuing/terminating the services of the

workman Shri Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel w.e.f.

10.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified?

(v)

Whether the 2nd party workman is entitled to

reinstatement with back wages? If so, from which

date and is not, what alternative relief, if any, he is

entitled? What directions are necessary in the

matter?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii):- The 2nd party through the list

Ext. 9, 29 and 33 submitted several documents. Ext. 9/1 is

copy of petition filed on 03.07.2000 in S.C.A. No. 9107/

2000. Ext. 9/2 is copy of order of Gujarat High Court dated

07.03.2000 by which the S.C.A was withdrawn since the

appropriate Government referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Ext. 9/3 is complaint

to A.L.C (Central) Baroda and Dy. A.L.C. (Central) Baroda

filed on 13.08.2000. Ext.9/4 is original E.S.I. card of 2nd

party dated 04.06.1995. Ext.33/1 is original I. Card of 2nd

party. Ext.29/1, 29/2 and 29/3 are letter of Dy. Commissioner

of labour and ALC Baroda in respect to complain of

complainant. Ext. 29/4 is original cover in which the Govt.

Officer sent letter. Ext. 29/5 is statement recorded by the

Factory Inspector (original) dated 31.08.2000. As per I.

Card, the 2nd party was casual workman and watchman

both. E.S.I. card date entry corroborate date of joining by

the 2nd party on 04.06.1995. From the statement recorded

by the Factory Inspectors on 31.08.2000, it go to show the

names of concerned casual workers working in the city

depot, Surat regularly with number of years. The 2nd

party workman is at serial No. 1 showing working as helper

for the last 6 years. This statement prepared by the

Factories Inspectors contain signatures of casual worker

including the 2nd party workman, also contain signature

of M. Murgan, Depot manager and the signature of the

Factory Inspector. This statement was recorded on the

basis of complaint made by Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel

(2nd party workman of reference C.G.I.T..A. 1377/2004) and

the Factory Inspectors by letter dated 30.09.2000 informed

to him (Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Patel) that steps have been

taken for issue of I card and E.S.I. Card. Ext.29/1, 29/2 and

29/3 are copies of correspondence of A.L.C, Surat on

complain of Rajubhai Bhikhabhai and others. The 2nd

party Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel in his affidavit in lieu

of examination in chief Ext.23 and Ext.28 stated that he was

in employment of the 1st party from 1995 and was involved

in work on day to day basis. He was given weekly holiday.

He further states that out of 365 days he had to work for

majority days which crosses the qualified period of 240

days. His last drawn salary per day was Rs. 178/- This has

also been corroborated by the statement recorded by the

Factory Inspectors that he and other co-workers are

continuously working as daily rated worker without break,

similar type of the reference cases – Reference (CGITA

No. 1370 to 1377/04 and 1396/04 were consolidated for the

purpose of cross examination of the 2nd party workman

and one workman Mr. Sanjay Limba Sonwane was cross

examined by the lawyer of the 1st party that covers the

claim of all the affected workman of reference cases. The

2nd party Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel in his evidence

Ext.23 supported the claim statement and in his evidence

(Ext.28) on point of unemployment has proved that since

after termination/discontinuation from work at the hands

of officials of the 1st party organisation he remained

unemployed and having burden of maintaining his family

with immense financial crisis. Nothing could have been

gained by the 1st party to discredit the testimony of the

workman (2nd party).

The oral evidence of the 1st party are of two

witnesses (1) Naresh Juneja (Ext.38) and Vinod Panchal

(Ext. 26) and their cross examination by the lawyer of the

2nd party and the document of muster roll produced at

4820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

list ext. 28 marked Ext.28/1 to 28/4 in the case of another

workman Anand Sonwane which is consolidated by way

of list of documents and the C.S.O. Produced by the 1st

party as stated in cross examination of witness. From the

perusal of the evidence of the 1st party’s witnesses, it is

obvious that the witnesses do not support the written

statement in toto and the 1st party by virtue of the

statement of witnesses could not discard the evidence of

the 2nd party that he and other co-workers have not

completed 240 days work in any Calendar year. More so,

all the muster roll of relevant years have not been produced.

The evidence of witness Mr. Naresh Juneja (Ext.38) is quite

contradictory that as per advance notice dated 13.06.2000,

Surat City depot, Sahara Darwaja depot (City) was to shift

from Surat City w.e.f. 01.07.2000 and the workman did not

report for duty to new shifting place of depot at Hazira

Industrial area and they abandoned their works and that

the 1st party management had not discontinued them.

The closure notice has not been produced as documentary

evidence. The statement of workman recorded by the

Factories Inspector on 31.08.2000 at Sahara Darwaja Depot

speaks a volume against the pleading and evidence of

the 1st party and that go to prove that on 31.08.2000, the

city depot at Sahara Darwaja, Surat city had not been

shifted fully as per closure notice from 01.07.2000 and the

concerned workman including the 2nd party were found

working at city depot and on the steps taken by the

Factories Inspectors, identity cars, E.S.I. Cards were

issued to the concerned workman. So, it is proved that the

2nd party workman completed 240 days works in calendar

year and also in the calendar year preceding his

termination/ discontinuation.

Thus on consideration of the evidence and materials

on the record, I find and hold that the 2nd party workman

was continuously working as casual Helper and has

completed 240 days works in calendar years and also

completed 240 days work in the calendar year preceding

his oral discontinuation/termination by the management

of the 1st party. This issue is accordingly answered in the

affirmative.

ISSUE NO.(iv) :- As per findings to issue No.(iii) in

the foregoing paras, it is held further that Shri Maheshbhai

Kantibhai Patel (2nd party workman) has put in continuous

service as casual helper in the Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

as per provisions of Section 25-B of the I.D Act and so,

the management of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. without

complying with the mandatory provisions of section 25F

of the I.D. Act viz not issuing retrenchment notice, not

giving one month pay in lieu of notice, not paying

retrenchment compensation to Maheshbhai Kantibhai

Patel have illegally terminated him from works and so, the

action of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Hazira, Surat through its officers in discounting/terminating

the services of the workman Shri Maheshbhai Kantibhai

Patel w.e.f. 10.11.2000 is illegal, improper and unjustified.

This issue is answered against the 1st party.

ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii) :- In view of the findings to issue

No.(iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I find and hold that the

reference is maintainable and the 2nd party workman Shri

Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel has got valid cause of action.

10.

ISSUE NO. (v):- In the past due to violation of the

mandatory provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act by the

employer, usually the casual workman who completed 240

days works in calendar year were granted relief for the

reinstemnet to work with back wages to any percentage

according to the merit of each case, but in the recent years

there have been change in the view of the Hon’ble Apex

Court that since casual workers even completing 240 days

work do not hold a post as that of regular employee. So as

a matter of right casual labourer cannot claim reinstatement,

rather a reasonable compensation should be awarded to

them. In the case of senior superintendent Telegraph

(Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others

reported in 2010 III CLR 17= 2010 (b) SCC 773 , it has been

held by their Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (D.B)

–” grant of reasonable compensation to the workman

instead of reinstatement and back wages in case of

termination of service is found illegal will sub serve the

ends of justice.” But in the instant case the 2nd party

workman Shri Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel was working

since 04.06.1995 continuously and uninterruptedly as

casual Helper and thus completed more than 240 days

work every year before his termination/discontinuation

w.e.f. 10.11.2000 which has been held to be illegal and

unjustified action on part of the 1st party employer. So,

his claim for reinstatement as Casual Helper in the 1st

party organisation is also found to be justified due to

continuous and uninterrupted service in the organisation

of the 1st party, though he did not hold a post as that of

regular employee. In the alternative option the 2nd party

workman is also entitled for reasonable amount of

compensation from the 1st party.

11.

Considering the long tenure of service in continuity

from 04.06.1995 to 10.11.2000 for about six years, the

workman Shri Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel is directed to

be reinstated as Casual Helper in the organisation of the

1st party with continuity of service and with 30% of back

wages. If the 2nd party workman choose to exercise the

alternative option of getting compensation from the 1st

party, then a lumpsum compensation of Rupees One Lakh

Only (Rs. 1,00,000/-) is directed to be paid to him by the

1st party. So, this issue is decided accordingly.

The reference is allowed. However no order of cost.

The 1st party is directed to reinstate the 2nd party

workman Shri Maheshbhai Kantibhai Patel within one

month of receipt of copy of award, failing which the back

wages will carry interest 9% P.A. and if the 2nd party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4821

workman choose to exercise alternative option of getting

compensation, then the 1st party will pay the compensation

of Rs. One lakh Only to him within one month of receipt of

copy of award, failing which the amount of compensation

will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1863-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;jiksVZ

vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 48@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 17@6@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11011@3@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1863.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17/6/2014.

[No. L-11011/3/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI.

I.D. No. 48/2012

The General Secretary,

Airports Authority Employees Union,

T-3/2, 3, 4, INA Colony,

New Delhi - 110023

.....Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

Airports Authority of India,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi - 110003

.....Management

AWARD

Airport Authority of India (in short the Authority)

signed an agreement with joint venture companies, namely,

Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd., (in short DIAL) and

Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd., (in short MIAL) on

4.4.2006, when it decided to lease out some office premises

of Indira Gandhi International Airport and Chhaterpati

Sivaji International Airport for a period of 30 years at an

annual lease of Rs.100.00 per year. As a result of this

agreement, 2550 acres of land at Delhi Airport and 1875

acres of land at Mumbai Airport were handed over for

designing, development, construction, functioning,

operating and maintaining the two airports. As a result of

signing of this agreement, the Airport Authority Employees

Union (in short the union) belaboured under a belief that

existing terms and conditions of employment of the

employees of the Authority were changed. The union took

up the matter with the Authority, but to no avail.

Constrained by these circumstances, the union raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since dispute raised

by the union was contested by the Authority, 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-11011/3/2011-

IR(M), New Delhi dated 27.02.2012, with following terms:

(i)

Whether the demand of the Airports Authority

Employees Union challenging action of the

management of Airport Authority of India, after

signing OMDA, in changing the existing terms and

conditions of employment of the employees of

Airports Authority of India, being violative of

Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is

legal and justified?

(ii)

Whether the demand of Airport Authority

Employees Union for implementing the ‘on the job

training’(OJT) as per Airports Authority of India

circular No.Pers.II/1004/DIAL/2009/1757 dated

30.09.2009 by the management of Airports Authority

of India based on manpower committee’s report dated

24.08.2009 is legal and justified?

(iii)

Whether the demand of Airport Authority

Employees Union for retaining the transferred

employees at New Delhi/Mumbai by the

management of Airports Authority of India, is legal

and justified?”

Claim statement was filed by the union pleading that

the Authority signed an agreement with two joint venture

companies, namely, DIAL and MIAL and handed over

2550 acres of land at Delhi and 1875 acres of land at Mumbai

for designing, developing, constructing, functioning,

operating and maintaining the two airports. However, the

union was not a party to the said agreement nor have

4822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

signed and/or agreed to any stipulation concerning the

employees. A similar agreement nicknamed MIHAN was

also entered into by the Authority in respect of Nagpur

airport in 2008. Since the Authority entered into

Operations, Management and Development Agreement

(in short the OMDA) without knowledge, consent or

willingness of the workmen, hence the same is not binding

on them. Furthermore, OMDA cannot supersede statutory

provisions contained in the Airports Authority of India

Act, 1994, as amended from time to time. OMDA rquires

the Authority to provide operation support to the joint

venture companies for a period of three years, during which

period the workmen actually work under control and

supervision of joint venture companies. 60% of the

workmen are required to join the joint venture companies.

However, workmen can decline to join the joint venture

companies after the end of the three year period, which

situation would make them surplus and liable to be

retrenched. The workmen would not only lose status of

public servant bestowed on them under section 32 of the

Airport Authority Act and protection of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, but certain workmen, who belong to

SC, ST and OBC, will lose additional benefit of reservation

policy. The fact that only 60% of workmen will be absorbed

by joint venture companies is also discriminatory in nature

and violates fundamental right of equal treatment, available

to the workmen. Thus, it is clear that the OMDA will have

clear direct negative and adverse effect on service

conditions of the workmen. The Authority, being a public

sector undertaking, was supposed to function as a model

employer and required to hold discussions/negotiations

with the union before signing the OMDA.

As regards dispute No.(ii) and (iii), the same are

interconnected. Around 1200 members at Delhi and

Mumbai declined to join DIAL and MIAL. These workmen

were threatened to accept transfers to non-Metro stations

arbitrarily. They were subject to additional pressure by

not releasing their salary/wages for months and threats of

disciplinary action. The union pleads that the Authority

be directed to restore and maintain status quo ante in

respect of terms, conditions and status of the workmen as

public servants.

Demurral was made by the Authority pleading that

this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue

as proceedings relating to the issue are pending

adjudication before the High Court of Delhi in writ petition

No.WP(C) No.8008 of 2008 filed by the union, hence the

dispute has become infructuous and ineffective. The

decision was taken by the Ministry of Civil Aviation,

Government of India, New Delhi, hence the grievance does

not relate to the Authority. The present case is a gross

abuse of law and based on false, frivolous, incorrect,

confusing and misleading facts and the union is guilty of

suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The case is based on

conjunctures and surmises, hence totally baseless,

concocted and without any substance. It has been filed

with the sole intention to extract undue monetary gain in

an unlawful manner. The claim may be dismissed, being

devoid of merits, pleads the Authority.

Shri Arun Kumar Sharma entered the witness box to

substantiate the claim raised by the union. To rebut facts

Shri V.B. Sharma gave evidence on behalf of the Authority.

No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Inderjit Singh,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the union. Shri Sunil Dutt, authorized representative,

raised submissions on behalf of the Authority. 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:

In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

Shri Arun Kumar swears that by signing the OMDA, the

Authority has violated provisions of Section 9-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He declares that while being

employees of the Authority, workmen of Group B, C and D

categories have status of public servants and protection

granted by the Constitution of India. The said status and

protection has been taken away when employees were

compelled to work with other employers, viz. joint venture

companies. The issues, raised before the High Court of

Delhi through writ petition No.WP(C) 8008 of 2008, are

different than those referred in the present dispute, hence

this Tribunal is competent to adjudicate the issues. The

Authority had not challenged the reference order, hence

cannot question validity of it.

Shri V.B. Sharma declares in his affidavit Ex.MW1/A

that the dispute, referred for adjudication to this Tribunal,

has become infructuous and ineffective. The agreement

has been implemented. The dispute raised before this

Tribunal is the same, which was raised before the High

Court of Delhi by way of writ petition, claims Shri Sharma.

The Authority claims that the issues, raised before

this Tribunal, are those very issues which have been raised

before the High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition

No.8008 of 2008. It has been agitated that the dispute,

referred for adjudication to this Tribunal, has become

infructuous and ineffective. Contra to it, the union presents

that the issues raised before the High Court are distinct

and different. Except the rival submissions, parties opted

not to file copy of writ petition, which pends adjudication

before High Court of Delhi. Without availability of exact

case, filed by way of writ petition, the Tribunal will proceed

to adjudicate as to whether the dispute has become

infructuous.

10.

This Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the industrial dispute relating to any matter specified in

the Second and Third Schedule appended to the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), besides performing

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4823

“such other functions as may be assigned to it under the

Act”. It would be considered as to whether a Civil Court is

competent to adjudicate an industrial dispute, relating to

rights and liabilities created under the Act. Such

proposition was raised before the Apex Court in Premier

Automobiles Ltd. [1975 (II) LLJ. 445], wherein following

principles were enunciated:

“(I) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor

does it relate to enforcement of any other right under

the Act the remedy lies only in the Civil Court.

(II) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out

of a right or liability under general or common law

and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil

Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the

suiter concerned to choose his remedy for relief

which is competent to be granted in a particular

remedy.

(III) If the industrial dispute relates to the

enforcement of a right or an obligation created under

the Act, then the only remedy available to the suiter

is to get an adjudication under the Act.

(IV) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a

right created under the Act such as Chapter V-A

then the remedy for enforcement is either Section

33-C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the

case may be.”

However, in relation to Principle No.2, the Court

added that “there will hardly be a dispute which will be an

“industrial dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(k) of

the Act and yet will be arising out of a right or liability

under the general or common law only and not under the

Act”.

11.

In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (1995

Lab. I.C. 2241), the Apex Court analysed the earlier dicta

and re-stated the law as follows:

“(1) Where the dispute arises from general law of

contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis

of the general law of contract, a suit filed in civil

court cannot be said to be not maintainable, even

though such a dispute may also constitute an

“industrial dispute” within the meaning of Section

2(k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

(2)Where, however, the dispute involves

recognition, observance or enforcement of any of

the rights or obligations created by the Industrial

Disputes Act, the only remedy is to approach the

forums created by the said Act.

(3)Similarly, where the dispute involves the

recognition, observance or enforcement of rights

and obligations created by enactments like Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 which can

be called ‘sister enactments’ to Industrial Disputes

Act- and which do not provide a forum for resolution

of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to

approach the forums created by the Industrial

Disputes Act provided they constitute industrial

disputes within the meaning of Section 2(k) and

Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act or where such

enactment says that such dispute shall be either

treated as an industrial dispute or says that it shall

be adjudicated by any of the forum created by the

industrial Disputes Act. Otherwise, recourse to Civil

Court is open.

(4) It is not correct to say that the remedies provided

by the Industrial Disputes Act are not equally

effective for the reason that access to the forum

depends upon a reference being made by the

appropriate government. The power to make a

reference conferred upon the government is to be

exercised to effectuate the object of the enactment

and hence not unguided. The rule is to make a

reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a

totally frivolous one ex-facie. The power conferred

is the power to refer and not the power to decide,

though it may be that the government is entitled to

examine whether the dispute is ex facie frivolous,

not meriting an adjudication.

(5)Consistent with the policy of law aforesaid, we

commend to the Parliament and State Legislatures

to make a provision enabling a workman to approach

the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directly – i.e.,

without the requirement of a reference by the

Government – in case of industrial disputes covered

by Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This

would go a long way in removing the misgivings

with respect to the effectiveness of the remedies

provided by the Industrial Disputes Act.

(6)The certified Standing Orders framed under and

in accordance with the Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are statutorily imposed

conditions of service and are binding both upon the

employers and employees, though they do not

amount to “statutory provisions”. Any violation of

these Standing Orders entitles an employee to

appropriate relief either before the forums created

by the Industrial Disputes Act or the Civil Court

where recourse to Civil Court is open according to

the principles indicated herein.

(7)The policy of law emerging from Industrial

Disputes Act and its sister enactments is to provide

an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to the

workmen, a mechanism which is speedy, inexpensive,

informal and un-encumbered by the plethora of

procedural laws and appeals and revisions applicable

to civil courts. Indeed, the powers of the Courts and

4824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are far

more extensive in the sense that they can grant such

relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances

for putting an end to an industrial dispute”.

Same view was taken by the Apex Court in Steel

Authority of India [2001 (7) SCC 1].

12.

Facts detailed in preceding sections make out that

the rights which the union claim in favour of the employees

and obligations which are imposed on the Authority in

respect of count No.1 of the dispute, referred for

adjudication to the Tribunal, arise out of rights and

obligations created by the Act. In respect to count No.2

and 3 of the dispute the union declared that these disputes

have become infructuous and obsolete, hence require no

adjudication. The Authority noded in approval to the

submission, so made by the union. As emerge out of facts,

relating to count No.1 of the dispute, an industrial dispute

within the meaning of Section 2(k) was referred for

adjudication by the appropriate Government to this

Tribunal, invoking its powers under clause (d) of sub-

Section (1) of section 10 of the Act. A Civil Court is not

competent to adjudicate an industrial dispute. Hence,

principle (2) referred in para 10 and principle (1), referred in

para 11, do not come into play. Therefore, factum of filing

a writ petition and its pendency before the High Court

would not restrain the union in any manner, from agitating

its claim against the Authority before this Tribunal.

13.

The Authority has been constituted by the Central

Government under the provisions of Section 3 of the

Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. It is a body corporate

having perpetual succession and a common seal, with

powers to acquire, hold and dispose of property both

movable and immovable, and to contract and shall sue

and be sued in its name. The Authority shall exercise

functions such as to manage airports, civil enclaves and

the aeronautical communication stations effectively. It

shall also be functions of the Authority to provide air

traffic services and air transport services at any airport

and civil enclaves. It may plan, develop, construct and

maintain runways, taxiways, aprons and terminals and

ancillary buildings at the airports and civil enclaves,

besides establishing airports or assist in the establishment

of private airports by rendering such technical, financial

or other assistance which the Central Government may

consider necessary for such purpose, enacts Section 12

of the said Act. Thus, it is emerging that main functions of

the Authority is to manage airports, civil enclaves and

aeronautical communication stations.

14.

In public interest or in the interest of better

management of airports, the Authority may lease out

premises of an airport (including buildings and structures

thereon and appertaining thereto) to carry out some of its

functions, stipulates Section 12A of the aforesaid Act.

The said lease shall be made with previous approval of

the Central Government. Bare reading of the aforesaid

provisions would make it apparent record that the

Authority is competent to lease out premises of an airport

to carry out its functions of managing the airports. While

exercising its above functions, the Authority signed

operations, management and development agreement with

joint venture companies, giving right to them to design,

operate, manage, upgrade, modernize and develop airports,

referred above. The agreement entered into between the

Authority and the joint venture companies was within its

competence and entered into by the Authority with

previous approval of the Central Government. Thus, it

crystal clear that the agreement, effected between the

Authority and the joint venture companies, is within the

ambit of functions available to the Authority, under the

aforesaid Act.

15.

OMDA entered into between the Authority and the

joint venture companies have been scanned with a view

to appreciate the controversy between the parties. Relevant

portion of the agreement has been extracted thus:

“6.1 Operation Support

6.1.1 For a period of 3 (three) years from the Effective

Date (herein referred to as the “Operation Support

Period”), AAI shall provide operational support to

the JVC through the General Employees in the manner

and subject to the terms provided herein (such

support is hereinafter referred to as “Operation

Support”). The estimated annual Operation Support

Cost is Rs.96 Crores (Rupees Ninety Six Crores), as

per the break-up in Schedule 23.

6.1.2 (i) General Employees shall be retained at the

Airport for the duration of the Operation Support

Period by the AAI and shall be dealt with in the

manner provided herein. In order to provide

Operation Support, AAI shall procure that the

General Employees perform such functions and

undertake such duties, and in such capacities, as

may be required by JVC, subject to compliance with

Applicable Law and the existing terms of employment

of such employees. For the limited purposes of

provision of Operation Support, the AAI shall act

for and on behalf of the JVC and shall direct the

General Employees to undertake such functions and

duties as may be reasonably directed by JVC.

(ii) JVC may require AAI to take disciplinary action

against/remove from the Airport (or cause to be

removed) any General Employee who:

(a)

persistently fails to perform or undertake his

duties and function in accordance with

instructions;

(b)

persists in any misconduct or lack of care or

carries out duties incompetently or

negligently; or

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4825

(c)

persists in any conduct which affects, or

which may reasonably be expected to affect,

JVC’s compliance with its obligations under

this Agreement (including, by way of example

only, its obligations to operate the Airport so

as to achieve the standards set out in this

Agreement). provided, in each case, the

person’s acts or omissions would justify

disciplinary action under the terms of his

employment with AAI. Upon receipt of such

complaint, AAI shall initiate proceedings

against such General Employee in accordance

with its rules and regulations.

6.1.3 During the Operation Support Period or until

the relevant General Employees have joined the JVC,

the JVC shall pay to the AAI, monthly Operation

Support Cost in relation to such General Employees

(excluding (i) those General Employees who have

joined the JVC; and (ii) those who are no longer

working at the Airport). The JVC shall from time to

time cause the Escrow Bank to make payment of the

monthly Operation Support Cost to AAI in advance

on or prior to the 7th day of each month by cheque

drawn in favour of AAI. Notwithstanding Delhi

International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Operation,

Management and Development Agreement anything

contained herein, the JVC shall during the Operation

Support Period be liable to pay the monthly

Operation Support Cost to AAI in advance on or

prior to the 7th day of each month. Upon JVC making

such payment to the AAI, it shall not be held

responsible for non-payment of emoluments by AAI

to the relevant General Employees.

6.1.4 At any time during the Operation Support

Period but not later than three (3) months prior to

the expiry of the Operation Support Period, the JVC

shall make offers (on terms that are no less attractive

in terms of salary, position, etc, than the current

employment terms of such employees) of

employment to the General Employees that it wants

to employ. Provided however that JVC shall be

required to make offers to a minimum of 60.00 % of

the General Employees (as reduced for retirements,

transfers, death and any fractions to be rounded off

to the nearest whole number). Any offers already

made and accepted during the Operation Support

Period will be counted for the purposes of such

minimum number of offers. The General Employees

shall have the option of accepting or declining the

offers within one month. The General Employees

accepting the employment offers of the JVC, upon

resigning from AAI, shall cease to be AAI employees

from the date of acceptance of the offer or completion

of the Operation Support Period, as applicable. The

JVC shall be the new employer for these employees

on terms and conditions mutually agreed between

the JVC and such employees. Provided however that

if less than 60.00 % of the General Employees (as

reduced for retirements, transfers, resignations and

death and any fractions to be rounded off to the

nearest whole number) accept the offers of

employment made by the JVC, then the JVC shall

pay to AAI Retirement Compensation for such

number of General Employees as represent the

difference between 60.00 % of the General Employees

(as reduced for retirements, transfers, death and

any fractions to be rounded off to the nearest whole

number) and the number of General Employees

accepting offers of employment made by JVC,

including cumulatively the offers made and accepted

during the Operational Support Period.

6.1.5 While testing whether the terms and conditions

offered to the General Employees under the terms of

Article 6.1.4 hereof, are no less attractive in terms of

salary, position, etc., than the current employment

terms of such employees, a cost to company basis

comparison would be undertaken.

6.1.6 At any time during the Operation Support

Period, if a General Employee is transferred out of

the Airport, then notwithstanding anything

contained hereinabove, from the date of the transfer,

the JVC shall not be liable for making payment of the

monthly Operation Support Cost with respect to the

said General Employee.

6.1.7 At the end of the Operation Support Period,

the General Employees opting to continue

employment with AAI or those not receiving offers

from JVC, shall continue their employment with AAI

and be deployed at establishments other than the

Airport.

6.1.8 It is expressly agreed by the Parties that during

the Operation Support Period AAI shall not be liable

for any losses, costs, charges, expenses and

damages caused to the JVC or any third Entity as a

result of any acts, deeds or things done or omitted

Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Operation,

Management and Development Agreement to be

done by any General Employee or as a result of failure

or negligence on the part of any General Employee

to perform any of its obligations, or committing

breach of any of the terms and conditions of its

employment contract or on the failure of the General

Employee to perform any of its statutory duties or

failure or negligence on the part of the General

Employee to comply with any statutory provision.

Provided however that nothing contained herein

shall apply in the case of losses, costs, charges,

expenses or damages caused as a result of

4826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

instruction or instigation by AAI to any General

Employee.

6.2 Personnel

During the Transition Phase, JVC along with the

Airport Operator shall put in place, in a phased

manner increasing numbers of senior management

(employees above the level of Deputy General

Managers or equivalent of AAI on the date hereof)

to manage the Airport in conjunction with existing

AAI senior management (employees above the level

of Deputy General Managers or equivalent of AAI

on the date hereof) at the Airport. During the

Transition Phase, AAI senior management would

continue to manage the Airport in conjunction with

personnel of the JVC. JVC shall have the right to

appoint its senior management at the Airport.

Consequently upon such appointments by the JVC,

AAI shall reduce (at no cost to JVC) the number of

its senior management (employees above the level

of Deputy General Managers or equivalent of AAI

on the date hereof) located at the Airport, such that

upon the expiry of the Transition Phase, no such

AAI senior management (employees above the level

of Deputy General Managers or equivalent of AAI

on the date hereof) remain at the Airport. It is

expressly understood by the Parties that salary,

benefits, statutory payments, perks and contribution

towards terminal benefits payable to the senior

management of the AAI for the duration of their

deployment at the Airport during the Transition

Phase shall be paid by the JVC to the AAI.

Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing,

the JVC shall engage the experts listed in Schedule

15 hereof at the Airport for the duration mentioned

therein.”

16.

As noted above, employees of the Authority were

having an option of accepting or declining the offer given

by the joint venture companies within a period of one

month. On their acceptance of offer of employment, given

by the joint venture companies, they ceased to be

employees of the Authority from the date of acceptance

of the offer or on completion of operation and support

period, as applicable. In case an employee opts to continue

in the employment of the Authority or those not receiving

any offer of employment from the joint venture companies,

they will continue to be in the employment of the Authority

and may be deployed at the establishments, other than

the Airports. Thus, it is obvious that there was an option

available to the employees and on exercise of that option,

they become employees of the joint venture companies or

remained in the employment of the Authority, as the case

may be.

17.

Whether provisions of section 9A of the Act become

applicable to the present controversy ? For an answer, it

would be expedient to note provisions contained in the

said section. For sake of convenience, provisions of

section 9A of the Act are extracted thus:

“9A. Notice of change.- No employer, who proposes

to effect any change in the conditions of service

applicable to any workman in respect of any matter

specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such

change,—

(a)

without giving to the workmen likely to be

affected by such change a notice in the

prescribed manner of the nature of the change

proposed to be effected; or

(b)

within twenty-one days of giving such notice:

Provided that no notice shall be required for

effecting any such change—

(a)

where the change is effected in pursuance of

any*[settlement or award]; or

(b)

where the workmen likely to be affected by

the change are persons to whom the

Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service)

Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service

Regulations, Civilians in Defence Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or

the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any

other rules or regulations that may be notified

in this behalf by the appropriate Government

in the Official Gazette, apply.”

18.

The object of section 9A of the Act is to prevent

unilateral action on the part of an employer changing

conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen,

without giving an opportunity to the workmen to consider

the effect of the proposed change and, if necessary, to

present their point of view on the proposal and such

consultation further serves to stimulate a feeling of common

joint interest of the management and workmen in the

industrial progress and increase productivity. Any

change, made in conditions of service applicable to any

workman in respect of any matters specified in Fourth

Schedule, appended to the Act, without complying with

the requirements of the section shall be a nullity and void

ab initio. As soon as an employer proposes a change in

conditions of service applicable to any workman,

provisions of section 9A of the Act are attracted and the

employer has to give notice under the said section to the

workman. The Legislature has contemplated three stages

in making provision for the notice of change under section

9A of the Act. The first stage is the proposal by the

employer to effect change, second stage is the time when

he gives notice and the third when he effects change on

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4827

expiry of 21 days from the date of notice. Conditions of

service do not stand changed either when the proposal is

made or notice is given but they are effected only when

change is actually made, i.e. when new conditions of

service are actually introduced. Law to this effect was laid

by the Apex Court in Northbrook Jute Co. Ltd. [1960 (I)

LLJ 580]. Also see Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [1972 (II) LLJ

259].

19.

For attracting provisions of section 9A of the Act,

firstly there should be a change in the conditions of service

and secondly such change should be related only to

conditions of service enumerated in the Fourth Schedule

appended to the Act. For instance, where service

conditions have been changed at the own request of the

employees, provisions of section 9A of the Act would not

come into play. In Coal India Ltd. [1993 (1) LLJ 646], the

employer was having a number of establishments. In some

of the establishments, five day week was observed while

in other establishments, employees work for six days a

week. Some of the workmen protested at the establishments

observing five days and requested the management to

post them at establishments observing six days week. After

having been so posted, they claimed that the management

had violated section 9A of the Act by effecting a change

in their service conditions, without the notice as required

under section 9A of the Act. High Court of Calcutta held

that there was no breach of section 9A of the Act, firstly

because workmen had not denied averment of the

management that security personnel are required to work

for six days in a week for eight hours daily and secondly

the workmen were transferred to those establishments at

their own request.

20.

In Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur (1987 Lab.

IC 365), workmen working as tailor in the Ordnance Factory

agreed to work as labour B in apprehension of their

retrenchment. When a dispute was raised claiming to be

change in service conditions, in violation of provisions of

section 9A of the Act, the Allahabad High Court held that

though the workmen continued to be in the employment

of the same employer, but the employment was not the

same. It was ruled that for absorption of the workmen as

labour B, no notice as contemplated under section 9A of

the Act was required. Court emphasized that furthermore

change was brought about at the volition of the workmen,

it was not necessary to give notice.

21.

Opening words of Section 9A of the Act indicate

that requirement of notice would apply if an employer

proposes to effect changes in conditions of service and

not to a case where certain conditions of service become

applicable to the employees by operation of law. In other

words, change contemplated by section 9A of the Act is

one which employer has violation to make or not to make.

Where an employer is compelled to give effect to any

statutory rules or order which brings about change in

terms of employment, such change would not fall within

the ambit of section 9 A of the Act.

22.

Provisions of section 9A of the Act comes into play

when change in conditions of service applicable to any

workman, in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth

Schedule appended to the Act, is effected. Provisions of

section 9A of the Act would not be attracted when service

itself is changed instead of there being a change proposed

or brought about in the conditions of service to which the

workman belongs. So long as workmen are in service, there

may be no change in the conditions thereof in respect of

any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, appended to

the Act, without the requisite formalities, including notice

to the workmen being gone into to. But where there is a

cessation of service itself and the workman are absorbed

differently, it does not appear that the said situation would

also be covered by section 9A of the Act.

23.

As noted above, employees of Group B, C and D

were given option to accept or not to accept offer of

employment given by the joint venture companies. One

months’ time was given to them to take a decision to accept

or not to accept offer of employment, so given by the joint

venture companies. Employee, who opted to decline the

offer, was to remain in the employment of the Authority.

Employees to whom offer was not given by the joint venture

companies also remained in the employment of the

Authority. These two categories of employees were to be

deployed at establishments other than the airports. Thus,

it is evident that on acceptance of offer, employees opted

to join services of the joint venture companies of their

own. Hence, it were the employees who were instrumental

in giving effect of change in conditions of service and the

Authority had not effected any change from its side. When

offer was accepted by 60% of the employees, it was case

of cessation of service of the Authority and the workmen

were absorbed in service of the joint venture companies.

24.

From facts detailed above, it is evident that it was

not a case which was covered under section 9A of the

Act. At the cost of repetition, it is said that the change in

service conditions was brought about with the violation

of the workmen and provisions of section 9A of the Act

had not come into operation. These facts make it apparent

that the dispute raised nowhere answers parameters of

section 9A of the Act. Disputes, referred at count No.2 &

3 of the Schedule, were not agitated by the union for

articulation. Obviously, it was so done since the same

became obsolete. For reasons detailed above claim

statement put forward is brushed aside. An award is passed

in favour of the Authority and against the union. It be

sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 04.06.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

4828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1864-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (113@2006) izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y-&12012@148@2005&vkbZ vkj (ch-&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/

2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

25/6/2014.

[No. L-12012/148/2005-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 22nd April, 2014

Reference (CGITA) No. 113/2006

Reference adjudication order No. L-12012/

148/2005-IR (B-II)

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Dena Bank,

8th Floor, Maker Towers,

‘E’ wing, Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai-400005

. . . .First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Jayantilal Hiralal Solanki,

Block-26B, Gajanan House-3

Shahibaug, Girdharnagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

. . . .Second Party

For the First Party :

Shri P.F. Zaveri, Advocate

For the second Party : Shri Amrish Patel, Advocate

Shri Kalpesh Venkaiya,

Advodate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/148/2005-IR

(B-II) dated 17-04-2006 referred the dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal (CG.IT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad) in respect of the matters specified in the

Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank in terminating the services of Sh.Solanki

Jayantibhai Hiralal from the post of clerk-cum-

cashier from its Talod Branch, is legal and

justified ? If not, what relief workman is entitled

to and to what extent ?”

The case of the workman (S.P) as per statement

of claim (Ext.4) is that he was working with the 1^st party

Bank since more than 15 years in the clerical category. He

was serving as receiving cashier at Talod Branch since

1991. He was served with the chargesheet dated 12.12.1994

with allegation that while working as receiving cashier at

Talod branch on 06.09.1994 at around 1:30 p.m. you had

left the branch while taking away the cash of bank

amounting Rs. 9250/- unauthorisedly from your custody

without handing out the cash received from customer to

Head Cashier and leaving the branch unauthorisedly and

that your said act constituted an act of gross misconduct

in terms of clause 19.5 (d) and 19.5 (j) of bipartite settlement.

In reply to the chargesheet he narrated that his sister

Gitaben is suffering from hysteria and because of her illness

she died on 19.09.1998 making out defence case that on

06.09.1994 at about 1:00 p.m. he received a message that

her sister has a massive hysteria attack and he should

immediately contact at Home at Ahmedabad. Then he went

to nearest C.T.O. office for making phone call at

Ahmedabad away from the bank premises. Since he was

disturbed he had forgotten to give information to Bank

high officers. Further case is that the all money of bank

were in the drawer of his cabin, there was also no lock in

the cabin and the drawer was also not lockable. In this

regard earlier complaint to the manager and high officers

had been made but no action taken for proper locking. So

he was not aware who had taken the Bank money and

other papers. He was arrested in the morning of 07.09.1994

by the police in connection with police case lodged by the

Bank official against him. He had not misappropriated the

amount of Rs.9250 and without prejudice to his right and

contention he is ready to deposit the amount which was

refused by the Bank to accept by the Bank officers. Further

case is that the departmental inquiry against him was not

conducted fairly and the principles of natural justice was

not followed, he was not given opportunity to defend

himself properly, he was not allowed to examine

defence witness, the E.O. was biased. Further case is

that he was suspended on 07.09.1994 by issuing

suspension order and on the same day police complaint

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4829

(F.I.R.) was lodged at Talod Police station. During

pendency of criminal case the bank had not conducted

inquiry.On 24.09.1998 he (workman) was acquitted in

criminal trial by J. M. 1^st class. Then he (workman) requested

the Bank on 17.11.1998 for withdrawing the suspension

order and on 23.12.1998 his suspension order was revoked.

Then on 21.01.1999 departmental inquiry started

explanation to chargesheet was asked and he submitted

written explanation on 04.02.1999, Shri N.C Brahmbhatt

was appointed E.O. on 18.05.1999 and he raised objection

as to appointment of Mr. Brahmbhatt vide letter 17.08.1999.

But even then inquiry proceeded and witnesses of

management were examined and under protest he

participated in the inquiry proceedings. Then on

concluding enquiry the E.O. submitted inquiry report dated

12.02.2000 and on the basis of report of E.O. the Disciplinary

authority passed order on 3^rd April 2000 regarding

terminating his services and his acquittal in criminal trial

by J.M. 1^st class for the offence u/s 406, 406, 408 and 420

I.P.C. was not considered by the D.A. while passing serve

punishment order of termination causing his economic

death. On these scores prayer is made to set aside the

order of termination since the punishment order has been

passed on perversed findings of the inquiry officer and so

the termination is illegal and unjustified and for his

reinstatement with back wages and with continuity of

service and future benefits.

As against this the case of the 1^st party Bank

inter alia as per written statement (Ext.16) is that the

reference is not maintainable and the same is barred by

principles of delay and latches. The 1^st party has stated

that the departmental inquiry was conducted observing

the principles of natural justice and opportunities were

given to the delinquent to defend himself. It was submitted

that the tribunal should decide the preliminary point as to

legality and propriety of domestic inquiry. It is the case of

the 1^st party that the act of delinquent workman was a

deliberate act of leaving the branch unauthorisedly during

the business hours without the information/permission of

his superior officer along with cash. The allegation at para

1 to 11 have been denied. It is the case of the 1^st party that

the S.P. (Workman)_ was working as receiving cashier at

Talod Branch of Dena Bank and was issued charge sheet

dated 12.12.1994 for leaving the branch at around 1:30

p.m. along with cash of Rs. 9250/- received by him from

the customers and without handing over the cash to the

Head Cashier to cause wilful damage to the property of

the Dena Bank or any of its customers (2) Doing an ant

prejudicial to the interact of the bank or gross negligence

or negligence or likely to involve the bank in serious loss.

During inquiry, the S.P. was given ample opportunities to

defend himself and he was assisted by defence

representative of his choice. All the relevant documents

on which the bank relied were furnished to the second

party. Management witnesses were examined and

opportunity was given to cross examine them and

opportunity was given for producing evidence in support

of defence. The acquittal of the 2^nd party in criminal trial

does not negate the domestic inquiry proceeding and

observation are also not applicable. The process of inquiry

has been carried out in accordance with provisions of

bipartite settlement and proper and legal punishment has

been imposed upon the 2^nd party which does not warrant

interference. At para 20 alternative plea was taken that in

case inquiry is vitiated on any grounds by this tribunal

then the 1^st party be given opportunity to conduct inquiry

before the court for justifying its action so taken against

the 2^nd party. On these grounds prayer is made to dismiss

the reference since the delinquent (S.P) is not entitled to

any relief in this case.

It may be mentioned at the outset that the 2^nd

party in his S/c challenged the validity and propriety of

domestic enquiry held against him and in this regard also

filed a pursis (Ext.17) that domestic inquiry held against

him is completely unjust, unfair , in violation of principles

of natural justice and the 2^nd party will rely upon the same

at the time of argument on legality and validity of inquiry

and so the 2^nd party does not wish to lead oral evidence

and so the 2^nd party close its stage of oral evidence for the

purpose of legality and the validity of the inquiry and

reserve its liberty to rely upon the pleadings and

documents. Then the 1^st party filed a pursis(Ext.18) to the

effect that the 2^nd party has not challenged the legality of

the enquiry and also not want to lead oral evidence on the

issue of inquiry. Then on 27.03.2012 the 2^nd party also filed

a pursis (Ext.19) that the S.P. at present does not wish to

challenge legality and validity of the inquiry, however,

reserves its right to lead oral evidence as well as

submission on findings of report. Then case was fixed for

leading evidence by the 2^nd party on point of non-

employment and the S.P. filed affidavit (Ext.21) and he was

cross examined by the lawyer of the 1^st party on gainful

employment/non employment after termination.

In view of the rival contention of the parties the

following issues are taken for determination in this case:

ISSUES

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Has the 2^nd party (delinquent workman) valid cause

of action?

(iii) Whether the departmental enquiry held by the

management of Bank against the delinquent

workman Jayantilal Hiralal Solanki is valid proper

observing the principles of natural justice?

(iv) Whether the findings of the inquiry officer in its

report dated 12.02.2000 is perversed?

(v) Whether the punishment of termination awarded

to the delinquent is shockingly disproportionate

to the gravity of misconduct under the charges?

4830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(vi) Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Solanki

Jayantibhai Hiralal from the post of clerk-cum-

Cashier from its Talod branch is legal and justified?

(vii) To what relief the workman (2^nd party) entitled to

and to what extent?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. (iii) & (iv):- The 1^st party bank

submitted 18 documents as per list Ext.15 which are part

and parcel of the departmental inquiry held against the 2^nd

party workman. Ext. 15/1 is original suspension order dated

07..09.1994 passed against the 2^nd party Jayntibhai H.

Solanki working as receiving Cashier at Talod branch on

06.09.1994. This is not disputed that this suspension order

was issued by Regional office Dena Bank, Gandhinagar

due to lodging of Police complaint against him at Talod

Police Station in the evening of 06.09.1994 followed by

arrest of Mr. Solanki on 07.09.1994 by Talod police. Ext. 15/3

is copy of chargesheet dated 12.12.1994 issued against

M. J.H. Solanki (2^nd party) cashier-cum-clerk (under

suspension) Dena Bank Talod (S.K). Ext.15/2 is order dated

28.12.1998 as to revocation suspension order of Mr. J.H.

Solanki (2^nd party) by Asst. General manager & Disciplinary

Authority Dena Bank in view of his representation dated

17.11.1998 and posting him (Mr. Solanki) at Khedbrhma

branch with immediate effect mentioning that revocation

of your suspension is without any prejudice to the Bank’s

right of initiating appropriate disciplinary action, including

the departmental proceedings already initiated against you

vide chargesheet dated 12.12.1994. Ext.15/4 is original copy

of written explanation of J.H. Solanki, Cashier-cum-clerk,

Khedbrahma branch, Dena Bank forwarded to Regional

Manager, Gandhinagar Region, Dena Bank in connection

with charge sheet dated 12.12.1994. He accepted vide para-

1 of written explanation that about 1:00 p.m. the three

customers deposited cash of Rs. 9250/- vide para-2 he

stated that his sister had an attack of hysteria and he had

to make contact at Ahmedabad house and he left the cabin

for contacting on phone with relation. He also stated that

his sister died on 17.09.1998 i.e. after four years of the

incident of 06.09.1994 after 1:30 p.m. when he left his cash

cabin at Talod branch and cash received from customer of

customer were left in the drawer and that he had not taken

the cash Rs. 9250/-. Ext.15/5 is copy of medical certificate

dated 06.09.1999 granted to J.H. Solanki. Ext.15/6 is letter

dated 30.07.1999 of presenting officer to Shri N.C.

Brahmbhatt inquiry officer submitting with list 8

documents and list of three management witnesses. The

documents are 1 & 2 cash scroll (Xerox dated 05.09.1994

and 06.09.1994) (3.) attendance register (Xerox) from dated

14.08.1994 to 20.08.1994. (4.) Zerox copy of vouchers

of A/c no. S.B. 5778 dated 06.09.1994 & statement of the

account. (5.) Loan /c of A.V. Makwana, Receipt dated

06.09.1994 & statement of the account (6.) Xerox copy of

voucher of SB A/c No. 2045 dated 06.09.1994 & statement

of the account of the same, (7.) letter from J.H. Solanki

dated 21.04.1994 for medical leave (8.) letter from J.H.

Solanki dated 24.05.1994 for relief on deduction of Festival

instalment. M Ext.1 to M Ext.13 are documents produced

by the presenting officer and its copy received by the

charge sheeted workmen with his defence representative.

The zerox copy of voucher dated 06.09.1994 making good

of shortage of Rs. 9250/- from receiving counter was made

by Dena Bank from suspense payment to tally the receiving

amount by receiving cashier on 06.09.1994 to the payment

cashier for days transaction and its copy handed over to

presenting officer and defence representative during

inquiry proceeding. Ext. M 15/7 is original inquiry

proceeding dated 30.07.1999, 17.-8.1999, 16.11.1999 and

24.11.1999. All these inquiry proceeding contains the

signature of E.O., P.O. C.S.E. and D.R. at the end of each

day’s proceedings and its copy received by the defence

representative for the charge sheeted employee

J.H. Solanki. On the 1^st date of inquiry sitting on 30.07.1999

the C.S.E. admitted to have received charge sheet dated

12.12.1994 and on explaining of charge sheet by E.O. he

not accepted the charges and stated to defend in inquiry

by Shri V.T. Kayastha , president of Dena Bank employees

Union, Ahmedabad. The presenting officer brought the

list of management witness and management Exhibits

(MEX). Next date of sitting was fixed on 17.08.1999, original

documents were inspected by C.S.E. and his D.R. and

management Exhibits number were given MEX-1 to MEX-

13. The D.R. submitted his letter dated 17.08.1999

addressing to E.O. taking objection regarding that this

letter should have been addressed to the Disciplinary

Authority who appointed the inquiry officer and the matter

was referred to Disciplinary Authority for deciding suitably

in the matter and inquiry sitting was adjourned to be fixed

after necessary instruction. Then on 16.11.1999 inquiry

sitting was held and M.W.1 Sharad A Parikh, then Head

Cashier (Category E) at Talod branch, M.W.2 Shri R.J. Baria,

then Paying cashier at Talod Branch, Then M.W. 3 Dilip

K. Meharchandani, then officer at Talod working on loan/

SDR etc were examined and cross examined by D.R. of

C.S.E. and the proceeding were signed by E.O.,P.O. C.S.E.

and D.R. and the three witnesses M.W.1, M.W.2 and

M.W.3. In the next sitting of inquiry on 24.11.1999 M.W. 4

Shri J.A. Parikh, then passing officer at Talod branch was

examined and cross examined by D.R. of C.S.E. and the

proceeding were signed by E.O., P.O., C.S.E. , D.R. and

M.W. 4. The presenting officer concluded presentation of

case and then D.R. was asked to produce defence witness/

defence exhibits to which D.R. stated to E.O. at present

I have nothing to submit and no witness to be called and

reserve right to submit any exhibits/reference along with

written arguments and the inquiry proceeding was

concluded. At Ext.15/8, the Defence representative

submitted written argument to E.O. dated 17.08.1999. Ext.

15/9 is letter dated 29.10.1999 of E.O. to the delinquent

workman Shri J.H. Solanki informing for next inquiry

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4831

sitting on 16.11.1999 at Regional office, Gandhinagar.

Ext. 15/10 is forwarding of written argument by the

presenting officer Shri U.B. Makwana to the E.O. Shri N.C.

Brahmbhatt with forwarding letter dated 03.12.1999. Ext.15/

11 is copy of written argument dated 11.12.1999 of Shri

V.T. Kayastha (D.R) addressed to E.O. Shri N.C.

Brahmbhatt. Ext. 15/12 is inquiry report dated 12.02.2000

submitted by the E.O. to the D.A. (Disciplinary Authority)

regarding departmental inquiries conducted against Sh.

J.H. Solanki, Cashier-cum-Clerk, Khedbrahma in

connection with charge sheet dated 12.12.1994. Ext.15/13

is letter dated 14.02.2000 of Disciplinary Authority (Asst.

General Manager) to Shri J.H. Solanki (delinquent

workman) forwarding copy of inquiry report dated

12.02.2000 to him (2^nd party) asking to submit comments.

Ext.15/14 is written comments dated 24.02.2000 submitted

by Shri J.H. Solanki to the D.A (Asst. General Manager)

and its copy, General Secretary, Dena Bank Employees

Union, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ext.15/15 is 2^nd show

cause notice dated 09.03.2000 of Asst. General manager

(disciplinary Authority) regarding proposed punishment

of Termination of service with three months’ pay &

allowance in lieu of notice given to the delinquent Shri

Jayantibhai H. Solanki. Ext.15/16 is written explanation of

J.H. Solanki to the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.03.2000

regarding 2^nd show cause notice with proposed

punishment. Ext.15/7 proceeding of personal hearing dated

16.03.2000 given by the disciplinary Authority to C.S.E. &

his Defence representative attached with original letter of

Shri J.H. Solanki (C.S.E.) to D.A. that his D.R., V.T.

Kayastha is not present today and so Shri Girish C. Parikh

will be his Defence representative for personal

hearing. Ext. M 15/18 is the punishment order dated

03.04.2000 imposed by the Disciplinary Authority upon

the C.S.E. Shri Jayantibhai H. Solanki of termination of

service with three months’ pay and allowance in lieu of

notice.

I have gone through the entirte inquiry

papers discussed above and I am of the considered

view and therefore find and hold that the departmental

inquiry against the 2nd party was conducted

by the management of Dena Bank in respect of charge

sheet dated 12.12.1994 is vaild and proper manner

observing the principles of natural justice and providing

equal opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself. I

have also gone throgh the enquiry report dated

12.02.2000 of the inquiry officer and I am of considered

view that the finding in the report are based upon the

materials and evidence oral and documentary produced

and the inquiry officer has meticulously examined the

material and has given findings. So, I further find and hold

that the findings of the inquiry officer in his report dated

12.02.2000 is not perversed and thus there is no ground to

vitiate the domestic inquiry held against the delinquent

workman Shri Jayantibhai H. Solanki. So, issue No. (iii) is

answered in affirmative and issue No. (iv) is answered in

negative.

ISSUE NO. (V) & (vi):- As per charge sheet dated

12.12.1994 (ext.15/3 the delinquent while working as a

receiving cashier at Talod branch of Dena Bank on

06.09.1994, leaving the branch without permission at

around 1:30 p.m. by the delinquent is admitted fact. It is

also proved that on that day before leaving the branch, he

(delinquent) had received cash from three customers

amounting to Rs. 9650/- and cash of Rs. 9250/- was found

falling short on search of the drawer of cash cabin and

only Rs. 400/- was found . So, there was shortage of cash

of Rs. 9250/- that was made good by the Bank manager by

passing suspense payment voucher for tallying the amount

for depositing to the paying cashier. The language of

charge is –”You have left the branch without handing

over the cash received by you to the Head Cashier. So as

per charge there was no misconduct as to act of

misappropriation of the bank money of Rs. 9250/-. The

inquiry officer in its report dated 12.02.2000 (Ext.15/12)

has given findings…… it is also proved that he had left

the branch unauthorisedly, without the permission/

information of his superior, and without handing over the

cash received by him as a Receiving Cashier to the paying

cashier. This has resulted in shortage of cash by Rs. 9250/-

for which CSE Shri Solanki is solely responsible.” It is

admitted position that Mr. Solanki had left the bank (his

cash cabin) around 1:30 p.m. on 06.09.1994 without handing

over the received cash of three customers to paying cashier

and without taking permission to leave the bank. From the

beginning his defence was that due to sudden hysteria

attack to his sister, he was to contact at Ahmedabad by

phone and so in hurry without taking permission and

without handing over cash to paying cashier he left the

cabin with cash in the drawer. His such defence is not to

be accepted that cabin lock and drawer lock were out of

order so those could not be locked. If the locks of cabin

and drawer were defective then it was more responsibility

on his part to ensure protection of cash received by him

then shifting liability that other person might have removed

cash of Rs. 9250/- from drawer since it was unlocked. Now

it has to be examined whether shortage of cash by Rs.

9250/- was due to deliberate action of the delinquent in

leaving the branch unauthorisedly without permission

during the business hours. The disciplinary Authority in

its punishment order dated 03.04.2000 (Ext. 15/18) has

mentioned at page-2. “The present case is not merely a

simple case of cash shortage…but this is a deliberate action

of the cashier leaving the branch along with the cash

received by him…” the language of charge sheet para-1

last line is “You have left the branch without handing over

the cash received by you to the Head Cashier” but the

findings of the inquiry officer at page 4 of its report has

concluded….there is no other option open but to conclude

that C.S.E is proved guilty of leaving the branch premises

unauthorisedly without permission of his superiors along

with the part of the cash received by him as a receiving

4832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Cashier. It has not been mentioned in the findings about

evil intention or mensrea on part of C.S. E. to leave branch

along with cash of Rs. 9250/- There was written explanation

of the C.S.E to the chagesheet that due to peculiar

circumstance he left bank without taking permission since

knowing the information of serious illness of his sister

due to hysteria attack who subsequently died. The E.O.

concluded as to shortage of cash by Rs. 9250/- for which

C.S.E. Shri Solanki is solely responsible.” In the 2^nd show

cause submitted to the D.A. dated 24.02.2000 (ext.15/14)

that as per written argument submitted by D.R. at para-6 it

has been mentioned that Shri Solanki has left the branch

to meet his urgent social obligation with disturbed mind

after knowing hysteria attack to his sister at Ahmedabad.

In the reply to 2^nd show cause to Disciplinary Authority it

was also mentioned about such peculiar circumstances to

Mr. Solanki that he left the Bank from his cash cabin at

around 1:30 p.m. on 06.09.1994 without taking permission

without handing over the cash received by him which was

found cash shortage of Rs. 9250/-. As per findings of the

E.O. having no intentional action of misappropriation of

Bank money by Rs. 9250/-. Since the criminal trial based

on committing offence of criminal branch of trust, cheating

embezzlement /misappropriated of Bank money was not

proved and the delinquent (accused) was acquitted of the

offences under section 406,409 and 420 I.P.C by the

Judicial Magistrate 1^st class Prantij in Criminal Trial

1241/84 by judgement dated 24.09.1990. Then the state

of Gujarat went in appeal against the acquittal in criminal

Appeal No. 29 of 1999 and the Hon’ble Court vides

decision dated 23.09.2009_ dismissed the appeal filed

by the state of Gujarat mentioning …… “aforesaid

findings of fact and conclusion drawn by the trial court

could not be assailed in any ways perversed or illegal”

on behalf of the 2^nd party copy of judgment of acquittal

of trial Magistrate and of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat

are Ext. M 26/2 and M 26/1 respectively. So, the

allegation of intentional and deliberate action of the

C.S.E. workman taking away the cash received by him

has no leg to stand rather it has to be viewed with

negligence on part of the C.S.E. resulting in cash shortage

due to unauthorisedly leaving the Bank without permission

of superior and not depositing the money received to

paying cashier.

On behalf of the 2^nd party case law of Capt. M.

Paul Antony and Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another

(1999 (2) LLN 640), Union of India and M.B.R. Patel

(2004 III LLJ 1032) have been cited on the point that when

departmental enquiry and criminal case are on same facts

and when Respondent acquitted in criminal case, appellate

authority considering it modifying punishment –Tribunal

competent to do so-Criminal court decision relevant to

departmental

enquiry.

Another

case

law

relied upon is of Suraj Bhan Vs. Food Corporation of

India (1992 II CLR 131)-Departmental proceedings cannot

be held on identical charges as that of criminal trial in

which person is acquitted, charge sheet in criminal case

and charge sheet in departmental proceedings being quite

identical, impending departmental proceedings against

petitioner are liable to be quashed. In the case of the

management of singareni collieries Lt. Vs. Industrial

Tribunal (C) Hyderabad & others (1989 II LLJ 608) Acquittal

of workman in criminal charges-Disciplinary authority is

bound to take in to account acquittal of criminal court and

give due weight to the Judgement.

10.

On the other hand the 1^st party have also cited

several case laws (1) 2013-I LLJ 475- Delhi temporary

embezzlement of customers’ money is serious

misconduct-

punishment

dismissal

not

disproportionate does not have application in the instant

case because there is no chargesheet of misappropriation

or embezzlement of money rather as per findings of E.O.

the delinquent was guilty of shortage of money due to

unauthorisedly leaving Bank during business hour. (2)

2004-I-LLJ 319-Bombay- Disciplinary proceedings

distinct from criminal trial standard of proof mode of

enquiry in one different from other. (3) 2012 II CLR 942-

When even an employee is dismissed from service due

to conviction in criminal case and is acquitted in appeal,

the management shall review the order of his dismissal

and may either reinstate him or proceed against him

departmentally as per the provision/rules of service

conditions. (4) 2004 LLR 1056 S.C. –question arose,

whether decision of the criminal court binding on the

labour court- Held the charges proved, established the

alleged misconduct of the workman. Even proceeding on

the basis that the charges of extortion has not been legally

established and ought not to be considered as misconduct.

The other charges proved were sufficient to establish the

misconduct of the workman. It was open to the labour

court to come to an independent conclusion dehors the

findings of the criminal court. (5) 2005 LLR 281 Gujarat

High Court-A person, who is guilty of grave and serious

misconduct like misappropriation of money and public

fund, deserves serious punishment holding it to be

disproportionate. This case law is not applicable in the

instant case because chargesheet as to misconduct was

not regarding misappropriation of Bank money as per

findings of E.O. the unauthorisedly leaving the Bank

during business hours without handing over case

received to paying cashier resulted in short fall of money

where as the charge for the offence of misappropriation

criminal breach of trust and cheating in criminal trial failed

against delinquent and there after departmental proceeding

to charges of misconduct was conducted (6) 2011-III 13

(S.C)- Acquittal in criminal case cannot sustain challenges

to dismissal of employee previously ordered. But in the

instant case acquittal of workman was given first in 1998

and then departmental enquiry proceeded in 1999. (7) Case

law of U.P. state Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod

Kumar (2008 I SCC (L&S) has been cited on section 11A of

the I.D. Act, 1947. Interference by tribunals and courts

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4833

scope where the workman removed from service had

challenged only the conclusion reached by the inquiry

officer and the quantum of punishment but not the legality

or fairness of the enquiry proceeding held labour court

could not examine the findings of the inquiry officer and

hold the charge was not proved. In the instant case the

legality and fairness of the inquiry has been held valid

and proper and findings of the inquiry officer is not

perversed. Rather mainly the 2^nd party workman has

challenged the quantum of punishment which is being

scrutinized under issue no. (v) together with issue No. (vi)

(8) The case law of west Bokaro Colliery (Tisco Ltd) Vs.

Ram Pravesh Singh (2008 I.S.C.C. (L&S) 890 has been

cited on scope of Section 11A of I.D. Act, 1947 where it

has been held where two views are possible on evidence,

Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in interfering with

the findings arrived at in domestic enquiry. Standard of

proof in domestic enquiry is prepondence of probabilities

and not proof beyond reasonable doubts.

11.

In view of the case laws as discussed above which

were relied on by both sides in support of respective case

and also considering the findings of the inquiry officer-

“he (C.S.E.) had left the branch unauthorisedly, without

the permission/information of his superior and without

handing over the cash received by him as a Receiving

cashier. This has resulted in shortage of cash by

Rs. 9250 for which C.S.E. Shri Solanki is solely responsible.”

So though the charges levelled-(1) Wilful damage or

attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or

any of its customers (ii) Doing any acts prejudicial to the

interest of bank or gross negligence or negligence

involving or likely to involving or likely to involve the

bank in serious loss were proved but the disciplinary

Authority in its punishment order date 03.04.2000 failed

to consider whether there was extenuating circumstances

to the C.S.E. Mr. Solanki to leave the Bank premise during

business hours without permission and without handing

over the cash received by him. The explanation of the

C.S.E. was not considered in right perspective from the

very beginning that due to receiving news of hysteria

attack to his sister at Ahmedabad he with disturbed mind

left the cash cabin without permission for contacting

relatives at Ahmedabad on trunk call. More so, it was also

not considered by the D.A. that though charge sheet was

issued to the workman on 12.12.1994 but departmental

proceeding remained stayed due to pendency of criminal

trial for the charges u/s. 406,409 and 420 I.P.C. and by

judgement dated 24.09.1998 of criminal court (J.M. 1^st class,

Prantij) the workman accused was acquitted of all the

charges and the workman remained under suspension and

only on his representation dated 17.11.1998 the suspension

order was revoked and was posted as cashier cum clerk

at Khedbrahma by order dated 28.12.1998. Till then

department proceeding not held as per chargesheet dated

12.12.1994 rather departmental proceeding was only put

on initiation on the written explanation dated 04.02.1999

(Ext.15/4) of the C.S.E. and then enquiry sitting started

from 23.11.1999 and onwards. The D.A. also failed to

take into accounts the 15 years of clean service record

of the C.S.E. Mr. Solanki and it was the only misconduct

on part of the C.S.E. and so failed to impose lesser

punishment under clause 19.6 (b) or (c) or (d) or (e) even

on proof of gross misconduct under clause 19.5 (d)

and (j).

12.

So taking into account all these aspect this

tribunal is of considered view that there are ground to

invoke the jurisdiction of section 11A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 for making interference in the

punishment order dated 03.04.2000 passed by the

Disciplinary Authority because the same certainly

shocked the conscience and is also disproportionate to

the gravity of misconduct . The Disciplinary Authority

ought to have awarded stoppage of some increment of

the C.S.E. Mr. Solanki with recovery of the shortage of

money of Rs. 9250/- from him which might have been

adequate for his such gross misconduct in the

circumstances.

13.

For the reasons given in the foregoings, I find

and hold that the punishment of termination u/s. 19.3 (c)

of the bipartite settlement as per order dated 03.04.2000 is

too harsh and also shockingly disproportionate to the

gravity of misconduct for the charges and so invoking

the power under section 11A of the I.D. Act. Such

punishment order is fit to be modified to stoppage of

two increment with cumulative effect and recovery of

money of Rs. 9250/- from the C.S.E. Mr. Solanki/ I also

find and hold that the action of the management of Dena

Bank in terminating the services of Shri Solanki

Jayantibhai Hiralal from the post of clerk cum cashier is

not legal and justified. Thus issue no. (v) and (vi) are

decided against the 1^st party and are answered in affirmative

and negative respectively.

14.

ISSUE NO.(i) & (ii) :- In view of the findings to

issue no. v & vi on the foregoings, I further find and hold

that the reference is maintainable and the 2^nd party

workman has valid cause of action to raise industrial

disputes.

15.

ISSUE NO.(viii):- In view of findings to issue

No.(i), (ii), (v) and (vi) in the foregoing paras. I am of the

considered view and therefore find and hold that the 2^nd

party workman Shri Solanki Jayantibhai Hiralal is entitled

for reinstatement with 50% back wages from 03.04.2000.

His punishment of discharge from the services is set-aside

and the punishment is modified/to be stoppage of two

increments with cumulative effect under clause 19.6(d).

The 1^st party will recover the amount of shortage of money

of Rs. 9250/- from the 2^nd party by deducting the same

from his wages.

The reference is accordingly allowed in part. No order of

any cost.

4834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The 1^st party is directed to implement the award within two

months of receipt of the copy of award, failing which the

50% back wages will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

Let two copies of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 (1) of the

I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1865-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbiQ bU'kqjsUl

dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2013) izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@6@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y-&17012@15@2013&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O. 1865.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/

2013) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/6/2014.

[No. L-17012/15/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 57 of 2013

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance

Corporation of India

A N D

Their workman

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the : Ms. Saumya Ghosh, Ld. Advocate.

Management

On behalf of the

: None.

Workmen

State : West Bengal

Industry : Life Insurance

Dated: 27^th May, 2014.

AWARD

By Order No.L-17012/15/2013-IR(M) dated 28.10.2013

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in 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 Life

Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the

services of Shri Kaushik Bndyopadhyay working as

Development Officer on probation, is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

When the case is taken up for hearing today,

none appears on behalf of the workman through the

management is represented by its Ld. Counsel. It appears

from the record that the workman is absent for the last

three consecutive dates.

From the above facts and circumstances and the

conduct of the workman it may reasonably be presumed

that the workman is not willing to proceed with this case

further. Perhaps he has got no grievance against the

management at present.

In view of the above, instant reference is disposed

of by passing a “No Dispute Award”

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

the 27^th May, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1866-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;qdks cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ 23@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y-&12011@48@2000&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1866.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between management of UCO Bank and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 25/06/2014.

[No. L-12011/48/2000-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4835

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 23 of 2000

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

UCO Bank

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the

Mr N. Joardar, Chief Manager

Management

of the Bank

On behalf of the

None.

Workman

State : West Bengal

Industry : Banking

Dated : 26th May, 2014.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/48/2000-IR (B-II) dated

23-06-2000 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10 (1) (d) and (2A) of

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal adjudication :

“Whether the action of the management of UCO

Bank, 12, Old Court House Street, Calcutta-700001

in adopting the principle of ‘No work no pay’ in

respect of employees of those branches which could

not fulfill the targets of balancing of books which is

reportedly a part of routine functioning is justified?

If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2. When the case is taken up today for hearing,

none appears on behalf of the union, though the

management is represented by its authorized

representative. It appears from the record that on the

previous day opportunity was given to the union to appear

before the Tribunal, but the union has not turned up.

3. Considering the above, it may reasonably be

presumed that the union does not want to proceed with

the case further, Perhaps the union has got no grieavances

against the management.

4. In view of the above, instant reference case is

disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award” .

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated , Kolkata the 26th May, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1867-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj f'k¯ix dkiksZjs'ku

bafM;k fy- ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y-&32011@1@2003&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1867.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 25/2003) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Shipping Corpn. India

Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 25/06/2014.

[No. L-32011/1/2003-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 25 of 2003

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, . . . .Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the :

None.

Management

On behalf of the

None.

Workman

State : West Bengal

Industry : Shipping

Dated : 26th May, 2014.

AWARD

By Order No. L-32011/1/2003/IR (B-II) dated

31-07-2003 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

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 35 unregistered chipping and painting

contract workmen under Shipping Corporation of

India entitled for any revision of fixed additional wages

after the revision of National Wage Board w.e.f. 1-1-

1998 and if so whether they are entitled for any arrears

in view of the revision in the fixed additional wages

component w.e.f. 1-1-1998 to 31-10-1998? If not, what

relief the workmen are entitled to?”

4836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. When the case is taken up today for hearing,

none appears on behalf of either of the parties. It appears

from the record that on the previous day last opportunity

was given to the parties to appear before the Tribunal, but

union has turned up even this day.

3. Considering the above facts and circumstance

and conduct of the parties, it may reasonably be presumed

that the matter has been amicably settled between the

parties out of the Tribunal and union has got no grievance

at present.

4. In view of the above, instant reference case is

disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award” .

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata The 26th May, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1868-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M

¯l/ cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh 2 ds iapkV (lanHkZ 61@07)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y-&12012@59@2007&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/07)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Punjab &

Sindh Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 25/06/2014.

[No. L-12012/59/2007-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 61/07

Sh. Ramesh Chand Semwal

Versus

Punjab & Sindh Bank

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-12012/59/2007-IR(B-II) dated

17.10.2007 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab

& Sindh Bank in terminating/ disengaging Sh. Ramesh

Chand Semwal employed as sub-staff at Mussoorie Branch

of Punjab & Sindh Bank w.e.f 11.05.2003 without any notice

& compensation under the provisions of I.D Act, 1947 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concern

workman is entitled to an from which date?

On 26/10/2007 reference was received in this

tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 61/07 and claimant

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of

witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed

claim statement on 05.11.2007. Wherein he stated as

follows:-

That he was reappointed on 16.12.1996 as

subordinate staff on the post of temporary/orderly by

Punjab and Sindh Bank Branch, Mansoorie ,District

Dehradoon. Intimation of which was transmitted to Zonal

Manager by branch manager, Mansoorie through his letter

dated 17.12.1996.

Workman was continuously working as temporary

Orderly and Daftari . He was working on vacant post and

he was temporary employee of the panel.

Workman completed 240 days work in each calendar

year. Workman bears qualification and experience of

subordinate staff.

Letters written by branch manager’s of Punjab and

Sindh Bank Branch, Mansoorie ,District Dehradoon

conforms that workman since 16.12.1996 regularly worked

as Orderly/Daftari .

Management without given prior notice

unreasonably and illegally terminated his service on

11.05.2003 which is against provisions of Section 25 F of

ID.Act, 1947.

Branch Manager in his letter dated 12.05.2003 to

zonal manager mentioned that workman be terminated. He

also demanded to appoint casual labour/orderly which

goes to show that on the termination of services of

workman there was vacancy of the post on which workman

works.

Workman during his tenure raised demand before

management to get him regularized another person who

was appointed by management on the basis of die in

hireness.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4837

Workman continuously worked since 16.12.1996

to 11.05.2003 in Punjab and Sindh Bank Branch, Mansoorie

,District Dehradoon regularly as sub- staff panel member

which conforms from the attendance and pay register of

the bank.

Workman field petition no. 205 of 2003 (SS) in

Hon’ble High Court of Nainital for his regularization of

service which was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court

directing to petitioner workman to seek remedy from proper

forum.

In aforesaid petition branch manager of bank filed

counter affidavit in annexure C-1 wherein he admitted that

workman continuously work for more than 240 days.

Workman was paid arrear of Rs. 16759 by

management on the basis of by bipartite agreement on

A/c of short payment made to workman for a period of

01.11.97 to 31.07.2001.

Branch Manager of Punjab and Sindh Bank Branch,

Mansoorie wrote letter to zonal manager through which

they demanded that workman is a fit person to be

regularized as Orderly /Daftari etc.

Workman is legally entitled for reinstatement with

full back wages. On the basis of aforesaid contents

workman prayed that workman be reinstated with full back

wages expenses of dispute and management be directed

to pay the amount to workman.

In support of his claim statement workman filed list

of 42 documents.

Against claim statement management filed

following written statement:-

Preliminary Submissions

1. That the claimant himself as admitted that he was

engaged on temporary basis from 21.09.1998 to 1992 and

claim to have worked for a period of 4 years. The claim of

the claimant is that during this 4 years he had worked for

a period of 240 days consecutively in calendar year. Thus

he is filing the present claim on the basis of working

temporarily from 1988 to 1992. The claim therefore is highly

belated and is time barred.

2.The claim also suffers from delay and latches.

3.That it is pertinent to mention that the claimant

was engaged temporarily in the year 1988 and the letter

dated 19.09.1988 was issued to the Claimant is reproduced

hereunder:-

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

Regional Office

Aa/2 Rajpur Road, Dehradoon -248001

Dated 19.09.1988

Shri Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Indramani

Dear Sir,

Reg : Your application for service in the Bank as a

peon.

We have the pleasure in offering you a temporary

post of peon for 30 days only at B/o Haridwar w.e.f 21.09.88

on the following term and conditions:-

1.You will be paid a salary of 430/- (Rupees Four

Hundred and Thirty only) plus D.A and other allowance

payable to a peon from the said date i.e. 21.09.88.

2. Your service will be purely on temporary nature.

3. You can be relived within the said period without

assigning any reason.

4. In case you are agreeable to verve on the above

term and conditions please return copies at this letter duly

signed by you intake of having accepting the same and

report for duty to the said branch on 21.09.88.

Yours Faithfully

(Regional Manager)

4. It is clear from the above letter that the claimant

was engaged purely on temporary basis and claimant was

aware of the same.

5.The said letter further reveals that the engagement

of the Claimant was contractual and bank could have

relieved him without any assigning any reason.

6. It is well settled law now that mere completion of

240 days is not sufficient to grant any status on the

claimant particularly when he was aware that his

engagement is only for temporary period. The bank has

right to terminate his services as this was one of the

condition of his engagement. The bank has exercised the

right under the contract and terminated his services. Thus

no claim lies against such termination of contract.

7.That it is true that workman had filed a writ-petition

in the Hon’ble High Court at Nainital and after hearing,

when the petition was going to be dismissed in view of

the decision given in the case of secretary, state of

Karnataka V. Uma Devi & Ors. Reported in 2006 AIR SCW

1991, Claimant had withdrawn the said petition and the

same was dismissed. This is a good ground for dismissal

of claim of the claimant.

8.That Mr. Ramesh Chandra Semwal was not

recruited at all in accordance with the recruitment

procedure of the bank for the post of peon against any

permanent vacancy. The bank has got its own recruitment

rules/procedure for recruitment of peons against

permanent vacancies. The branch manager can only hire

the services of a person as casual labour to perform odd

and unskilled jobs against payment, whenever required.

9.That Since Mr. Ramesh Chandra Semwal was not

appointed by the Competent authority in 1996. It is also

4838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

very clear from the claim of the claimant that during 1992

to 1996, he was not engaged by the bank. Therefore no

right would accrue to him to raise Industrial Dispute over

refusal of the bank to continue his engagement as casual

worker.

10. Admittedly the claimant was engaged illegally

and unauthorizedely purely on temporary/casual basis to

carry on the work of attendant periodically whenever the

exigencies of services required to facilitating the employees

of the bank.

11.Thus, the case does not fall under Section 25 F of

the Industrial Dispute Act as the claimant was not a

workman nor entitled to any benefit under section 25 F

and 2 G nor the question of illegal termination was before

the Tribunal. It is stated that question of retrenchment

was not before the Ld. Tribunal to be decided under section

25 F because the Respondent No.1 was never engaged by

the Petitioner Bank nor was Petitioner Bank employer in

terms of 2G of Industrial Dispute Act.

12.Thus, if the reinstatement could not have been

granted on the basis of Section 25 F of Industrial Dispute

Act by holding that since the Respondent No.1 has

worked for more than 240 days, the bank terminated him

illegally and thereafter Ld. Tribunal granted subsequent

benefits of reinstatement and back wages.

13.The five judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in State of Karnataka case (copy of which was placed on

the records of the court) held that:

“When a person enters a temporary employment or

gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and

the engagement is not based on a proper selection as

recognized by the relevant rules or a procedure, he is aware

of the consequences of the appointment being temporary,

casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot

invoke the theory of legitimate expectation of being

confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post

could be made only following a proper procedure for

selection and in concerned cases, in constitution with the

Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of

legitimate , contractual or casual employees. It cannot also

be held that the State has held out any promise while

engaging these persons either to continue them where

they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot

constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious

that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief

of being made permanent in the post.”

14.In the present case no procedure for employment

was followed nor his engagement was done through

employment exchange as is required under the rules of the

bank and the law of the land as the bank is a public sector

bank and services of class employees can be done only

through the employment exchange.

15.That in the Constitutional Bench of five judges

the Hon’ble Court in secretary of State of Karnataka Vs.

Umadevi and others reference to all the judgments relating

to unlawful and illegal engagement of causal /temporary

workers, who were made to complete 240 days and then

given the benefit of the regularization of service was

discussed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the

said case as under:

“But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and

the Constitutional scheme of public employment is by-

passed. The union, the states, their departments and

instrumentalities have reported to irregular appointments,

especially in the lower rungs the Public Service Commission

or otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these

irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on

daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out

those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned

and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the

post. It has also led to persons who get employed, without

the following or a regular procedure or even through the

backdoor or on daily wages approaching courts, seeking

directions to make them permanent in their posts and to

prevent regular recruitment to the concerned posts and to

prevent regular recruitments to the concerned posts.

Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind

and have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and

have occasionally even stayed the regular process of

employment being set in motion and in some cases, even

directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants

be absorbed into service. A Class of employment which

can only be called litigious employment has risen like a

phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme such

Constitution of India. Whether the wide powers under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the wide

powers under Article 226 of constitution is intended to be

used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social

justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative

action in the matter of public employment as recognized

by our Constitution, has to be seriously pondered over. It

is time that Courts desist from issuing orders preventing

regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such

persons and from issuing directions for continuance of

those who have not secured regular appointments as per

procedure established. The passing of orders for

continuance tends to defeat the very Constitutional

scheme of public employment. It has to be emphasized

that this is the role envisaged for High Courts in the scheme

of things and their wide powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India are not intended to be used for the

purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or

improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public

employment. Its role as the sentinel and the equal rights

protection should not be forgotten.

This court has also on occasions issued directions

which could not be said to be consistence with the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4839

Constitutional scheme of public employment. Such

directions are issued presumably on the basis of equitable

considerations or individualization of justice. The question

arises, equity to whom? Equity for the handful of people

who have approached the Court with a claim, or equity for

the teeming millions of this country seeking employment

and seeking a fair opportunity for competing for

employment? When one side of the coin is considered,

the other side of the coin has also to be considered and

the way open to any court of law or justice, is to adhere to

the law as laid down by the Constitution and not to make

directions , which at times, even if do not run counter to

the Constitutional scheme, certainly tend to water down

the Constitutional requirements. It is this conflict that is

reflected in these cases referred to the Constitution

Bench.”

16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed

that:

“The power of a State as an employer is more limited

than that of a private employer in as much as it is subjected

to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised

arbitrarily (See Basu’s Shorter Constitution of India).

Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the

power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the

conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be

appointed to public services and posts in connection with

the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That Article

contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to

regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions

of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well

acknowledged that because of this , the entire process of

recruitment for services is controlled by the detailed

procedure which specify the necessary qualification, the

mode of appointment etc. if rules have been made

accordance with the rules . The State is meant to be a

model employer. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory

Notification of Vacancies ) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensure

equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this

Act may not oblige an employer to employ only those

persons who have been sponsored by employment

exchanges, it places an obligation on the employer to

notify the vacancies that may arise in the various

departments and for filling up of those vacancies , based

on a procedure. Normally, statutory rules are framed under

the authority of law governing employment. It is

recognized that no government order, notification or

circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed

under the authority of law. This is because , following any

other course could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive

the security of tenure and the right to equally conferred

on civil servants under the Constitutional scheme. It may

even amount to negating the accepted service

jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed

under Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive,

the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based

on the rules so framed.

17.The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed

that:

“What is sought to be pitted against the approach,

is the so called equity arising out of giving of temporary

employment of engagement on daily wages and the

continuance of such persons in the engaged work for a

certain length of time. Such considerations can have only

a limited role to play, when every qualified citizen has a

right to apply for appointment the adoption of the concept

of rule of law and the scheme of the constitution for

appointment to posts. It cannot also be forgotten that it is

not the role of courts to ignore, encourage or approve

appointments made or engagements given outside the

constitutional scheme. In effect, orders based on such

sentiments or approach would result in perpetuating

illegalities and in the jettisoning of the scheme of public

employment adopted by us while adopting by us while

adopting the Constitution. The approving of such acts

also results in depriving many of their opportunity to

compete for public employment. We have, therefore, to

consider the question objectively and based on the

constitutional and statutory provisions. In this context,

we have also to bear in mind the exposition of law by a

Constitutional Bench in State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh

and Ors. Manu/SC/ 0273/1963. It was held therein, “in our

opinion, where a Government has no right to a post or to

a particular status, though an authority under the

Government acting beyond its competence had purported

to give that person a status.”

18. It is further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held in number of cases that any person illegal

engaged does not get any rights or claim on the

employment at that post.

PARAWISE REPLY

1.That the contents of para 1 are wrong and denied

as stated the Claimant was engaged vide letter dated

19.09.1988 by which he was engaged only on temporary

basis. He has not worked for the period of 4 years regularly.

The Claimant was allowed to carry on work of attendant

periodically purely on temporary basis whenever the

exigencies of service required for facilitating . That the

contents of preliminary objections be read as part of the

reply to this para.

2. That the contents of para 2 are wrong and denied.

The engagement of Claimant was discontinued and

thereafter there was no sanction of any authority to engage

him. The engagement of the Claimant in 1996 was without

authorization as no request was given by the Claimant nor

any employment letter was given to him. In any case he

has engaged on casual basis and he was very well of the

said facts. He was not engaged through employment

exchange nor any authority was vested in the bank manager

to engage him. Further he was aware that even for

temporary engagement proper sanction is required as was

4840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

done in 1988. In engagement from 1996 no such letter of

sanction was given and during the period 1992 to 1996 he

does not claim to have worked in the bank.

3. That the contents of para 3 are wrong and denied.

The claimant was not working as peon or daftary or in any

other capacity.

4. That the contents of para 4 are wrong and denied.

The Claimant has not completed 240 days in every year

nor he was engaged against any vacant post.

5. That the contents of para 5 are wrong and denied.

None of the letter stated to be filed b the Claimant prove

that he was working regularly or he has completed 240

days in terms of section 25 of ID Act.

6. & 7 That the contents of para 6 &7 are wrong and

denied. The provisions of section 25 F does not apply to

his as the Claimant was aware that he had been engaged

on temporary /casual basis and no notice was required to

be given to him. Any way the claimant was engaged on

temporary basis unauthorizedely and as soon as

controlling office came to knowledge of such engagement

the branch manager was directed vide letter dated

27.02.2003 to discontinue the illegal and unauthorized

engagement of the claimant.

8.That the contents of para 8 are wrong and denied.

9.That the contents of para 9 are wrong and denied.

It is incorrect that the claimant served in the branch from

16.12.1996 to 11.05.2003 on regular basis.

10.That the contents of para 10 are matter of record

and need no reply.

11.That the contents of para 11 are wrong and

denied.

12.That the contents of para 12 are wrong and

denied. The Claimant is not entitled to any amount.

13.That the contents of para 13 are wrong and denied

as stated, The engagement of claimant by the branch

manager was illegal and unauthorized and the movement

the illegality came to knowledge to the higher officials the

branch manager was directed to stop the illegal and

unauthorized practice of engaging the claimant on

temporary/casual basis. It is further stated that the illegality

does not confer any right for claim upon the Claimant nor

it bound the bank to continue the said illegality. It is most

respectfully stated that if such illegality and deceptive

way of back door entry of the person in the employment

of the government is allowed, then it would be against the

various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which

has condemned such back door entry into the govt.

employment by unscrupulous person. These Supreme

Court judgments clearly brings out that –

(a) The working continuously for 240 days does not

automatically grant benefit of regularization in service.

(b) Seeking employment in govt. organization

through back door entries with the help of section 25 F

must be dealt with severely.

person was completed 240 days continuously has to be

regularized.

14.That the contents of para 14 are wrong and

denied. There is no violation of section 25 F.

15.That the contents of para 15 are wrong and

denied. The claimant is not entitled to any benefit of

reinstatement and back wages.

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances hereinabove the claim

of the claimant be rejected.

On the basis of aforesaid contents he prayed, he be

reinstated with full back wages.

On 08.07.2008 in reply to written statement filed

rejoinder. Wherein he reaffirmed the contents of the claim

statement.

My Ld. Predecessor proceeded on the basis of

questions of determination mentioned in schedule of

reference. Hence not framed any issues.

On 05.07.2008 workman filed his affidavit in his

evidence in support of his case mentioned in Claim

statement.

His affidavit was tendered on 08.02.2010. He was

cross-examined on same day.

His examination in chief and cross-examination is as

follows:-

I tender in evidence my affidavit which bears my

signatures on all the three pages, as evidence. The facts

stated therein are correct. Award may kindly be passed in

my favour. My affidavit is Exb. WW1/ A.

XXXX

By Sh. Pranav Jha, A/R for the Management.

It is correct that I have not filed any document along

with my affidavit Exb. WWW1/A. However, I have filed

documents alongwith with my statement of claim. I was

given appointment letter dated 19.09.88 by the Regional

Manager, the photocopy of which is Exb. WW1/1. It is

correct that I was offered a temporary job of Peon for 30

days only vide this document. After the lapse of 30 days I

was never given any other document by the management,

thereby extending my engagement as temporary Peon. It

is incorrect to suggest that I was engaged only for a few

days sometime as and when the Branch Manager had such

a requirement and I never worked continuously in any

calendar year. I am not in possession of any document to

prove that I have worked in Punjab & Sindh Bank from

12.05.2002 to 11.05.2003. i.e. a year preceding my

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4841

disengagement/ termination. It is wrong to suggest that I

have no case against the management. I never applied for

a job in the Bank. My name was also never sponsored by

any Employment Exchange in response to any recruitment

drive of Peons made by the management Bank.

In support of its case management filed affidavit of

Sh. Tripatinder Singh , Manager of the management Bank

on 28.03.2011 is as follow:-

1.That the Deponent states that the Deponent has

worked at the Branch Office Mussoorie, during the period

2001 -2001.

2.That the Deponent states that the deponent is

well conversant with the facts and circumstances of case

he had access to all the relevant record regarding the

present case and is competent to file the present affidavit

and further states that the Deponent is deposing on the

basis of record maintained by the management.

3.That the Deponent states that the Claimant himself

has filed the present case belatedly and is liable to be

dismissed on this ground only.

4.That the Deponent states that the workman

Claimant was engaged/hired temporarily in the year 1988

and the letter dated 19.09.1988 was issued to the Claimant

is reproduced hereunder:-

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

Regional Office

Aa/2 Rajpur Road, Dehradoon -248001

Dated 19.09.1988

Shri Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Indramani

Dear Sir,

Reg: Your application for service in the Bank as a

peon

We have the pleasure in offering you a temporary

post of peon for 30 days only at B/o Haridwar

w.e.f 21.09.88 on the following term and conditions:-

1.You will be paid a salary of 430/- (Rupees Four

Hundred and Thirty only) plus D.A and other allowance

payable to a peon from the said date i.e. 21.09.88.

2.Your service will be purely on temporary nature.

3.You can be relived within the said period without

assigning any reason.

4.In case you are agreeable to verve on the above

term and conditions please return copies at this letter duly

signed by you intake of having accepting the same and

report for duty to the said branch on 21.09.88.

Yours Faithfully

Sd/-

(Regional Manager)

It is clear from the above letter that the claimant was

engaged /hired purely on temporary basis and claimant

was aware of the same.

5.That the Deponent states that the engagement of

the Claimant was contractual and bank could have relieve

him without any assigning any reason.

6.That the Deponent states that the Claimant has

never worked regularly for a period of 240 day

consecutively in any calendar year for the period claimed

by him and his removal was automatic as the management

has exercised its right as per the terms and condition of

the contract.

7.That the claimant was not hired against any

permanent vacancy. The Deponent further states that the

claimant was not engaged /hired as per the recruitment

procedure of the Bank as it was a pure temporary in nature.

8.That the Deponent states that the Bank has its

own recruitment rules and procedure for the recruitment

of peons against the permanent vacancies and the hiring

of the workmen was not done by the said procedure as he

was merely hired for the services of person as casual labour

to perform odd and unskilled jobs against payment,

whenever required. The deponent further states that the

claimant was hired by the Branch Manager, who can only

hire a person to do casual and unskilled work and he is not

the appointing authority for any person against the

permanent post in the management.

9.That the Deponent states that the claimant was

not engaged/hired by the Bank during the period 1992-

1996.

10.That the Deponent states that the claimant was

only hired by the Bank periodically whenever the exigencies

of services required to facilitate the employees of the Bank.

11.That the Deponent states that the claim of the

Claimant is illegal, unjustified and without having any valid

documents and the same has been filed by him as to get

the employment by putting pressure upon the

management.

12.That the Deponent states that the claimant has

never worked for 4 (four) years regularly at any point of

time.

13.That the Deponent states that the Claimant was

not engaged/hired in 1996 by the competent authority

against the sanction post as no request was given by him

and no employment letter was given to him. The Deponent

further states that the claimant was hired on casual basis

and the claimant was aware of this fact. The Deponent

further states that the when the competent authority came

into the knowledge about the temporary hiring of the

claimant , they immediately ordered to discontinue the

illegal and unauthorized services of the claimant.

4842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.That the Deponent states that the claimant has

never worked on regular basis from 16.12.1996 to

11.05.2003.

15.That the Deponent states the claim of the claimant

is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.

Affidavit tendered on 08.11.2011. MW1 Sh.

Tripatinder was cross-examined by Ld. A/R for workman.

His examination-in-chief and cross-examination is

as follows:-

I tender in evidence my affidavit by way of

examination in chief. It is signed by me and is correct . The

same is Ex. MW1/A.

XXXXX by Sh. Kamlesh Srivasstav, A/R for the

workman.

I remained posted at Mussorrie branch of the

management bank for months in the year 2001. Mr. M.M

Kapoor was the branch manager there. Ramesh Chand

Semwal workman was working during my posting at

Mussoorie and even earlier to that on daily wage basis. I

cannot tell the exact period prior to my posting when he

was working there as daily wager. No payment of arrears

was made to the workman during my posting there. Only

branch manager can employ someone on daily wage basis

as and when required for the working of the branch in

case the regular peon happens to be on leave on a

particular day. The workman was not disengaged during

my posting there. He was not at all a regular employee but

was working only as when required in case of any

contingency like leave of the peon etc.

Ld. A/R’s for the parties orally argued. Workman

also filed written arguments on the basis of which he claimed

that following facts are established on the basis of

contents of written argument.

1. That workman continuously work in year 1988 to

1992 as well as he worked since 16.12.96 to 11.05..2003.

2. That workman worked continuously more than

240 days in each calendar year.

3. That nature of work of workman was of permanent

nature and there is work for workman in bank still today.

4. Appointment of workman is not without right

because zonal manager knows it through letter dated

17.12.1996 that workman has been appointed.

5. That respondents terminated the services of

workman illegally and improperly in violation of Section

25 F and G ID. Act.

On aforesaid ground workman prayed that he be

reinstated with all back wages and reference is liable to be

decided in favour of workman.

In support of his oral and written arguments Ld.A/R

of workman cited following rulings:-

1. Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Rakesh

Kumar

2006(108 ) FLR 592 S.C.

2. Deep Chandra V/s State of U.P. and another

Civil appeal no. 4588 of 1999, 14.11.2000 S.C

3. U.P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. Vs.

Ramanuj Yadav and others.

2003 (99) FLLR 331 S.C.

4. Mahastra State Road Trpt. Cor. Vs. Abdul Gani

and others

2011(128) FLR 315 Bombay High Court-Nagpur

Bench .

5. Smt. Madhu Vs. P.O. Labour Court Amritsar and

anothers

2012 (134 ) FLR 829 . Punjab & Haryana High Court.

6. Ex. Engineer Bhima Irrigation Division solapur

Vs. VitthalMahipati Kale

2012 (134) FLR 1084 Bombay H.C

7. Mehboob Vs.

Executive Engineer Agriculture Constriction

Division Nagpur.

2012 (134 FLR 1082 Bombay High Court-Nagpur

Bench.

8. Ramesh Singh Vs. Agragami Kheshtra Vikas

Agency Etawah

2011 (131) FLR 511 Allahabad H.C.

While on the other hand Ld. A/R for the management

replied that workman has been not appointed through

proper process of appointed . Hence he is not entitled to

any relief as claimed by workman. In support of his

contentions he placed reliance on by their lordship of

Hon’ble Court in case of “Secretary state of Karnataka

and others Vs. Uma Devi and others. AIR 2006 Supreme

Court Pg. 1806. Wherein their Lordship of Hon’ble

Supreme Court laid down as follows:-

Constitution of India, Art, 16- Service jurisprudence

– Regularization of daily wagers/temporary /contractual

employee- Does not mean permanence in service –But

only infers compliance with one of elements in process of

selection which does not go to root of the process.

Constitution of India, Arts. 14 , 16- Employment on

daily wage- Confers no right of permanent employment-

Daily wager appointed on less than minimum wages that

was made known to him- Not forced labour- Continued on

post for long period –Daily wagers form a class by

themselves – They cannot claim parity vis-a vis those

regularly recruited on basis of relevant Rules and cannot

be made permanent in employment.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4843

Ld. A/R for the workman stressed that workman

worked for about 7 years as Orderly/Daftari. Thus workman

work more than 240 days but his services were terminated

on 11.05.2003 without prior notice. Hence there is violation

of provision of Section 25 F ID Act, 1947 etc. Hence he is

entitled for reinstatement with full back wages etc.

While on the otherhand Ld. A/R for the management

replied that workman has not work for 240 days in each

calendar year when his services were terminated on

11.05.2003 . Hence he is entitled to no relief.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

of Ld. A/R’s of parties I perused the pleadings of claim

statement, written statement and rejoinder, written

arguments of workman as well as evidence of the parties,

principle laid down in the cited rulings and settled law of

Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of Hon’ble High court

of Uttrakhand at Nainital on the point when workman is

required to work for 240 days in each calendar year.

It is relevant to mention here that my Ld. Predecessor

in ID No. 220/1998 Babu Singh V/s ONGC and other passed

award on 09.04.2008. Through which he dismissed the claim

statement and hold that workman is not entitled to any

relief because he has not filed any document to show that

he has worked for 240 days prior to termination of his

services. Workman filed writ petition No. 1878 of 2008 (M/

S) in the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital

which was allowed on 03.04.2014 by his Lord Ship of

Hon’ble of High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital and award

passed by my Ld. Predecessor has been quashed. Matter

has been remanded back for decision afresh. Parties were

directed to appear on 26.05.2014 before this Tribunal.

While deciding the aforesaid writ-petition his

lordship held that the settled position of law is that

workman is not required to work for 240 days in each and

every calendar year nor it is required that he should have

worked for 240 days in a year when his services are

terminated. Rather, settled position of law is that workman

should have work continuously for 240 days in any

calendar year.

It is also relevant to mention here that workman in

the instant case produce all possible evidence to show

that he continuously work for 240 days in each calendar

year . On the basis of which Branch Manager of concerned

branch of Punjab & Sindh Bank wrote letter to higher

authorities for regularization of workman.

In addition to it management has not produce muster

roll etc. to rebut the evidence of the workman that he has

worked 240 days continuously in each calendar year.

Hence following principle of Hon’ble Supreme Court

laid down in case of H.D Singh V/s RBI (1985)

4 S.C.C. 201 shall be applicable:-

“Employer’s failure to produce the attendance

days he had actually worked , will lead to an inference of

the correctness of the workman’s claim.”

As well as settled law as reaffirmed by his lordship

of Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital shall apply

in the instant case because there is unrebbuted evidence

of workman.

In addition to it aggrieved party of the instant case

can seek remedy of writ-petition from Hon’ble High Court

of Uttrakhand at Nainital. Hence principle laid down are

reaffirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital

shall be binding on this tribunal.

Principle laid down in ruling cited on behalf of

management is inapplicable in the instant case because of

distinguishable facts. Hence on that count management

is entitled to no benefit.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of

considered view that reference is liable to be decided in

favour of workman and against management. Which is

accordingly decided.

Workman Sh. Ramesh Chand Samwal in the instant

case rendered service as a casual worker as Orderly/ Daftari

for more than 240 days in each calendar year to

management. So, he is entitled for reinstatement with

regularization of his services. Management is directed to

reinstate workman Sh. Ramesh Chand Samwal and

regularized him as Orderly/ Daftari after expiry of period of

limitation of available remedy against award but workman

is not entitled for back wages as he has neither pleaded in

his claim statement nor proved that he remained

unemployed since his termination on 11.05.2003 upto the

date of Award. This will meet the ends of justice.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 09.06.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1869-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

cMksnk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-1278@2004)

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y-&12013@71@98&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

4844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1869.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 1278/2004)

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 25/06/2014.

[No. L-12013/71/98-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 13^thMay,2014

Reference: (CGITA) No-1278/2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No-9/1999(old)

Reference Order No.L- 12013/71/98 IR (B-II)

The Assistant General Manager,

Regional Office, Bank of Baroda,

(Surat District Branch)

Saifee Building, Dustch Road, Nanpura,

SURAT (GUJARAT) 395001.

.....First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Mahesh G. Shah,

Through the General Secretary,

Surat Mazdoor Sabha,

101, Shalibhadra,

Nanpur, Tamaliwad, Surat

SURAT (GUJARAT)-3950031

. . . .Second Party

For the First Party:-

Shri Jaivadan B. Jariwala,

Advocate

(But Failed to attend this tribunal

at Head Quarter for argument)

For the Second Party:- Shri Mahesh G. Shah,

(the workman himself)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. 12013/71/98 (IR(B-II)) dated

19.03.1999/30.03.1999, referred the dispute for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) in relation to the

matters specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda, Surat through the Asst. General Manager (SCR),

Bank of Baroda, Surat in imposing the punishment of

stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect with the

further direction to recover Rs. 20,000.00 from the concerned

workman Sh. M.G. Shah and not to consider the period of

suspension as period on duty is legal, just, proper and

proportionate to the charges allegedly to have been

committed by the workman? If not, what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to and for what other

directions are necessary in the matter?”

2. The case of the 2^nd party (Union) as per statement

of claim (Ext.6) narrated 78 pages in narrow compass is that

the workman Mr. M.G. Shah was employed in the 1^st party

Bank as cash clerk on 24.08.1981. In February 1988 he was

working as Receipt Cashier at the Udhana Branch of BOB.

On 11.02.1988 he was performing the duties of Receipt

Cashier. On that date while tallying the cash received from

customer in the cash counter there was a shortage of

Rs. 20,000.00/- in the total receipt on 11.02.1988. Mr. M.G.

Shah is said to have made oral submission to the Branch

Manager of Udhana Branch in this regard. On the next day

i.e. 12.02.1988 he gave a letter in writing to the Branch

manager for lodging a criminal case and alos submitted

that there is no negligence on his part for the cash shortage

of Rs. 20,000/- in receipt cash on 11.02.1988 and that a

person who performed the duty to assist him is responsible

for the said shortage. The Branch manager on 12.02.1988

gave reply to Sh. M.G. Shah to make good shortage of cash

and to give explanation as to how shortage has occurred

on in the cash on 11.02.1988. Subsequently the workman

M.G. Shah offered to make good the shortage by way of

monthly instalment which was not accepted. The concerned

workman was suspended vide letter dated 03.03.1988 issued

by the Regional Manager of Bank. A criminal case for the

offence u/s. 409 I.P.C. of criminal misappropriation of Bank

money of Rs. 20,000/- was lodged at Police station against

the workman. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated

by issuing chargesheet dated 17/19.05.1988 as to gross

negligence of causing shortage of cash receipt of Rs. 20,000

on 11.02.1988 regarding (1) your act prejudicial to the

interest of the Bank (2) you did an act of gross negligence

involving or likely to involve the Bank in a serious loss (3)

you acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank employee.

However, during pendency of the criminal case/trial the

domestic inquiry remained in abeyance. Further case is

that since the workman was acquitted of the charge u/s 409

I.P.C. by C.JM, Surat on 31.01.1994 and so, there was no

justification to initiate domestic inquiry for the same charge

of shortage of money of Rs. 20,000/-. However, suspension

order was revoked vide order dated 03.05.1991 seeing the

protracted criminal trial against him. Thereafter departmental

enquiry proceeded against the workman which had been

kept in abeyance during criminal trial. Also such plea was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4845

taken that inquiry was not conducted observing the

principles of natural justice and opportunity was not given

to defend properly. On these scores, prayer is to set aside

the punishment order passed by the disciplinary Authority

as to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect

and also to direct the Bank to treat the period of suspension

of the workman MR. M.G. Shah spent on duty and for

payment of pay of suspension period with interest and

also to repay Rs. 20,000/- to him (workman) by the Bank

with interest to release and pay the difference of increment

which had been stopped with cumulative effect and also

for cost of this case.

3. As against this the contention of the 1^st party

(Bank) pleading interlia as per written statement (Ext.19) is

that the reference is devoid of any merit, and not

maintainable, the Union/workman has no valid cause of

action and the 2^nd party (Union/workman) is not entitled to

any relief as claimed in the statement of claim. The averments

made in all the paragraphs of the statement of claim are

baseless and not true and so are not admitted by the Bank

(1^st party) and the 2^nd party is put to strict proof of the same.

It is the case of the 1^st party that Mr. Mahesh G. Shah was

working as a receiving cashier in Udhana Branch at Surat

on 11.02.1988. At the end of the day cash shortage of Rs.

20,000/- was found while comparing the total cash receipts

as entered by him (Mr. M.G. Shah) in his cash scroll. He

was asked to make good the cash shortage. As his reply

was not found satisfactory, the Regional Manager, Surat

District Region and Disciplinary Authority initiated

disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet dated

19.04.1988. Initially the disciplinary proceedings were kept

in abeyance in view of criminal case filed against him (Mr.

M.G. Shah). The disciplinary proceedings were restarted

since Mr. M.G. Shah was acquitted by C. J.M. giving

benefits of doubt to the charge under section 409 I.P.C due

to non-proof that the money of Rs. 20,000/- was converted

by him for wrongful gain of criminal misappropriation. But

in the domestic inquiry under the charge sheet dated

19.05.1988 there is no allegation of criminal breach of trust/

criminal misappropriation rather allegation of gross

negligence in taking due and proper care of cash received

by him from the customers of the Bank and because of his

gross negligence the Bank suffered a loss of Rs. 20,000/-.

Initially Mr. M.G. Shah tried to prolong the departmental

inquiry on one or other pretext and ultimately he remained

present in the departmental inquiry and the inquiry was

conducted observing the principles of natural justice and

he was allowed to cross examine the management witness

and was also allowed to produce his evidence and he was

given ample opportunity to defend his case against the

charges. After conclusion of inquiry the E.O. in its findings

found the charges proved and the disciplinary authority

giving opportunities to 2^nd show cause notice, passed the

proper punishment order of stoppage of one increment

with cumulative effect and also ordered and confirmed the

suspension period of Mr. M.G. Shah as period not spent on

duty and also ordered to recover the loss of Rs. 20,000/-

from Mr. M.G. Shah. Moreover it was also decided that Mr.

M.G. Shah will not be entitled to any payment over and

above the subsistence allowance paid/payable for the

period of suspension. Further the case is that inspite of his

previous misconduct the disciplinary Authority observed

a very lenient view towards the workman Mr. M.G. Shah in

awarding lenient punishment of stoppage of only one

increment. Further case is that order regarding recovery of

Rs. 20,000/- and confirmation of suspension period not

spent on duty and he (Mr. Shah) is not entitled to any

payment over and above the subsistence allowance is not

an order of punishment, but it is an administrative order

and so the said part of the order cannot be challenged in

this reference. The appeal preferred by the workman Mr.

Shah was also dismissed after careful consideration vide

order dated 17.10.1997. Alternative plea has been taken

that if this tribunal comes to the conclusion that the

departmental inquiry was not legal and proper , then the 1^st

party may be allowed to prove the misconduct of Mr.

Mahesh G. Shah before this tribunal by conducting fresh

enquiry to justify its action so taken. On these scores prayer

is made to dismiss the reference with cost.

4. The validity and propriety of domestic enquiry

held by the managment of the 1^st party against the 2^nd party

workman Shri M.G.Shah was decided as preliminary issue

by Shri P.R. Dave then presiding officer of Industrial

Tribunal, Surat in Reference I.T.C. No. 9/99 by order dated

21.11.2002 when the reference case was pending thereon

and the domestic enquiry against the workman vitiated

and held invalid as against the principle of natural justice

and the 1^st party Bank was directed to justify its action

taken against the workman Shri M.G Shah by conducting

fresh inquiry before the tribunal against the chargesheet

leveled under the charge sheet dated 19.05.1988. In the

fresh inquiry conducted before the tribunal, the 1^st party

examined three witnessed (1) Jitendrabhai Natubhai Desai

(ext.175) (2) Subhashbhai Laxmikantbhai Pandya (ext,177)

and (3) Bharatbhai Motabhai Desai (Ext. 180). Those

witnesses were cross examined at length by the lawyer of

the 2^nd party workman Shri Jayesh Patel, Advocate. As per

documentary evidence the 1^st party has relied upon Ext.137

the Xerox copy of cash Receipt and payment Book dated

11.02.1988, Ext. 138 Xerox copy of cash Discrepancy

Rs.20,000/- by voucher payment from suspense A/c of Bank

of Baroda on 11.02.1988 in support of charge sheet dated

19.05.1988 (ext.77).

5. The following issues are taken for determination

in this case:-

ISSUES

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Whether the 2^nd party Union/workman has valid

cause of action to raise industrial dispute in this

case?

4846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii)

Whether the 1^st party has been able to justify its

action so taken against the workman Shri Mahesh

G. Shah by conducting fresh inquiry before the

Tribunal?

(iv)

Whether imposing punishment of stoppage of one

increment with cumulative effect by the

Disciplinary Authority against the workman Shri

M. Shah is proportionate to the gravity of

misconduct as per charge sheet dated 19.05.1988?

(v)

What relief the concerned workman is entitled in

this case? What directions are necessary in the

matter?

FINDINGS

6. ISSUE NO. (iii) & (iv) :- In the written argument

prepared on behalf of the 2^nd party workman Shri M.G. Shah,

it has been challenged that the charges levelled is vague.

Now coming to examine the chargesheet (Ext.77) dated

19.05.1988. The charge sheet was issued to Shri M.G. Shah,

Cash clerk , Udhana branch Para-1 of charge sheet speaks

while working as cash clerk at our Udhana Branch from

04.09.1981 to 25.02.1988 it has been reported against you

as under:-

Para-2:- on 11.02.1988 while you were working as

Receipt cashier at our Udhana branch an amount of Rs.

20,000/- was found short in your cash till due to your sheer

negligence.

Para-3 you were advised to make arrangement for

the shortage found in your till.

Para-4:- You submitted explanation denying your

liability vide your letter dated 18.02.1988 and 22.02.1988

which are not found satisfactory.

Para-5:- Due to your above acts the Bank may suffer

a loss of Rs. 20,000/-

Para-6:- Your above acts of commission and omission

if proved would amount to gross misconduct in terms of

bipartite settlement.

Para-7:- It has been therefore decided to institute a

departmental enquiry. Accordingly, the Bank charges you

as under:-

a) You did an act prejudicial to the interest of the

Bank.

b) You did an act of gross negligence involving or

likely to involve the Bank in a serious loss.

c) You acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank

employee.

Para-8:- It has been decided to ...... hold a

departmental enquiry against you......

Para-9:- You may give your written statement in your

defence to E.O. at least seven days before.......... permitted

to be defended by a representative of the registered trade

Union of Bank employees.......

Para-10:- Enquiry may proceed if you do not remain

present before inquiry officer......

The charge sheet contains factual aspect of

allegation together with article of charge. From plain reading

of charge sheet it does not appear that there is any

vagueness or ambiguity. So the contention raised as to

vagueness of charges has no leg to stand.

7. Vide Ext.175 Witness Jitendrabhai Desai deposed

he was chief (Head) Cashier & payment cashier at Udhana

branch from 1973 to 1988, and that he has control of cash

safe with joint control of accountant Mr. Pandya. He says

concerned workman Mahesh Shah was performing duty of

receipt Cashier. Cash peon was performing duty of stitching

notes of cash received from customer by receiving cashier.

Receipt cashier used to give notes to cash peon and after

stitching notes bundle he had to returned stitched notes

bundle to concerned cashier vide para-4 he deposed the

denomination wise entry of payment made during day on

back of cheque is noted along with payment register and at

end of day total payment is checked physically with

cheques and register for tallying day transaction. Vide para-

5 he says system of receipt casher is such that turn by turn

he receives cash from customer with pay in slip and checks

denomination and after counting note he puts them on

main voucher and counter foil and putting his signature

returns counter foil to customer and note down

denomination and slip wise all receipt in register. The notes

written as per slip is there or not is verified by cashier and

same amount with account number is noted down in cash

scroll kept with officer and at end of day register and scroll

are tallied. At day end after mixing this amount is handed

over to Head Cashier. Thereafter mixed cash of receipt and

payment cashier deposited in cash safe by calling

accountant and he confirm cash is tallied with register and

scroll by signing cash balance book along with head

cashier. Vide para -7 cash cabin was dividend in two parts

(1) cash Payment and (2) Cash receipt. We have to enter in

common door and through that I have to go my counter

and all three counters can be reached from that common

door. Vide para-9, Height of cabin was as good as counter

side height. Vide para 11, I or any other cashier has not

given any complain in writing regarding condition of cabin

and locking system defective. Vide para-12 shortage of Rs.

20,000/- was not traced how it occurred in receiving cashier

cabin. Vide para 13 he was shown Ext.137 the noting of

Maheshbhai Cash receipt and has signed it. Denomination

wise checking of cash was done. Vide para-14 supported

that one special voucher was prepared by bank for shortage

of Rs. 20,000/-. Ext.139, it was treated payment towards

shortage. He proved his signature and stamp on ext.139

and on back of voucher shortage was shown where in

signature of Maheshbhai Shah is there. Vide para-15 entry

in cash discrepancy register regarding shortage of cash in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4847

Ext.138 that bears signature of branch manager, this witness,

receipt cashier Maheshbhai and accountant. Vide para 16

generally any shortage of cash occurs during work then in

normal course it is responsibility of cashier.Vide para 17

question asked who is responsible for shortage of

Rs. 20,000/- you or Maheshbhai, Answer circumstances

are responsible. Admitted circumstances in the instant case

is that shortage of Rs. 20,000/- was found in cash receipt

counter where Mahesh was receiving cash from the

customer and entering denomination of cash in register. So

this witness (Head Cashier/Paying Cashier) cannot be held

responsible for cash shortage in cash receipt counter/cabin.

Vide para -19 last line- this shortage can be due to

misappropriation under some circumstances, either mistake

or negligence can take place while receiving cash from

customer. Vide par-23 it has come that work of stitching of

note by standing behind on the day of shortage of

Rs. 20,000/- was being done by Bhupendra Patel, Peon. By

such question to witness during cross examination the

negligence is on part of receipt cashier who was non-else

than concerned workman Maheshbhai cannot be shifted

to cash stitching peon Bhupendra Patel because overall

liability was of receipt cashier and not of stitching peon.

Vide para-25 nobody generally enter in cash cabin during

functioning. Though some loose statement has been given

by Mr. Jitendra Desai paying cashier who is now not in

bank service but such statement does not prove helpful to

the concerned workman Mr. Maheshbhai from exonerating

him from his negligence that causes shortage of Rs. 20,000

on cash counter receiving money from customers on

11.02.1988. Mr. Subhashbhai Laxmibhai Pandya (Witness

No.2) Ext. 177 was the accountant in Udhana branch of

Bank. He deposed that Jitendra Desai was head cashier

and maheshbhai was receiving cashier and no transaction

take place between me and receiving cashier. Cash

transactions are between receipt and payment cashier. He

deposed further cash taken out from strong room is noted

in register how many bundles of which denomination are

taken out. Jitubhai Desai makes payment during day time

and he note details of payment to customers in payment

receipt register kept with him. Denomination wise nothing

is done, in this way after tallying all receipt received by him

hand over to head cashier. By verifying how much cash

payment and receipt has been transacted head cashier

closes cash and counts the cash lying with him and after

properly mixing cash. Cash balance on hand is kept in strong

room at day end and strong room is closed with dual control

key and noting in cash balance book is also done. He further

deposed nobody can take away cash from the closed

counter cabin. For helping cashiers one peon is there who

stitches note bundles and this way he returns bundles

after stitching. He supported that on 11.02.1988 shortage

of Rs. 20,000/- was found in receiving cashiers counter.This

shortage was found in cash of Mr. M.G. Shah. Reason for

this shortage may be mistake in receiving cash from

customer. He further stated that Mr. Mahesh did not make

good of shortage in spite of reminder and as per instruction

Rs. 20,000/- was debited to suspense account and voucher

was prepared for that referred Ext. 139, containing his

signature as well signature of manager B. Desai and M.G.

Shah. He supported shortage was notedin cash discrepancy

(concerned workman) and head cashier. He also supported

the receipt register (Ext.137) signed by M.G. Shah concerned

workman. He has to keep record of receipt received during

whole day. If any shortage is found during day, he is

responsible for that. He was cross examined at length by

the 2^ndparty workman’s lawyer but nothing significant has

been gained to discredit his testimony for exonerating Mr.

Mahesh of his negligence causing shortage of Rs. 20,000/

- on 11.02.1988. Third witness is Mr. Bharatbhai Motabhai

Desai who was working as Sr. Branch Manager at Undhana

Branch between 07.08.1987 to 26.04.1989. According to him

workman Shri M.G. Shah was performing his duties as receipt

cashier, Jituhbhai Desai was head cashier/paying cashier.

Cash control was with accountant Subhasbhai Pandya.

One key was kept with him and other key of cash safe was

with Jitubhau Desai where Bank’s cash balance was kept.

For doing work of cashier separates cabin were there

condition of cash cabin was good. This has been supported

by witness No. 2 Pandya (Accountant) All the three

witnesses have supported that for work of paying cashier

and receiving cashier separate cabin was there at Udhna

branch. He came to know about shortage of Rs. 20,000/-

through accountant Shri Pandya. Even after rechecking

shortage of Rs. 20,000/- remained unchanged Regional

officer was informed and according to their instruction by

obtaining signature of M.G. Shah, Accountant Pandya and

I signed general ledger suspense account. The said

shortage was adjusted and Mr. M.G. Shah was informed to

pay Rs. 20,000/- He did not pay money at that time and that

Bank has suffered economical loss and amount was kept

with suspense account till he did not paid. He supported

Ext.139 (voucher). Supported Ext. 138 cash discrepancy

supported Ext. 137 receiving cash register signed by M.G.

Shah and which is also in his writing. This witness filed

police complaint on 13.02.1988 at police station, regarding

the incidence of 11.02.1988.He denied that Mr. M.G. Shah

was first person to inform him regarding shortage of Rs.

20,000/- rather accountant Mr. Pandya informed him. This

witness was also cross examined at length by workman

side (2^nd party) could not gain signafanlty to discredit

testimony of Bank manager regarding the incidence of

shortage of Rs. 20,000/- by receiving cashier Mr. Mahesh

G. Shah. It has come in cross examination Mr. Shah and

Jitubhai were sitting side by side in cabin. On 11.02.1988

Bhupendra Patel was working in cash cabin. He was not

sitting in cashier cabin but has to perform his work by

4848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sitting in separates space allotted outside cabin.

Bhuupendrawas doing work of stitching note bundles. He

stated that he heard regarding fraud committed by

Bhupendra worth Rs. 3 Lakh subsequently. Subsequent

offence/misconduct by Bhupendra in no way will connect

that on 11.02.1988 since he was stitching note bundles of

receiving cashier and paying cashier so he might have

been involved causing shortage of Rs. 20,000/- out of money

received from customer by the concerned workman Shri

Mahesh G. Shah. F.I.R. was not lodged jointly against

Mahesh and Bhupendra rather it was lodged solely against

Mahesh by witness No. 3 (Branch Manager) Bharatbhai

Desai. More so, departmental inquiry as to gross negligence

causing shortage of Rs. 20,000/- was initiated against

concerned receiving cashier Shri Mahesh and not against

Peon Bhupendrahaving duty of stitching note bundles of

both cashiers-receiving cashier and paying cashier. The

2^nd party lawyer has cross examined all the three witness

on the point that locking system of cash cabin was defective

in respect of which out of three witnesses only witness

No. 1 has stated about defectiveness to some extent but

witness No 2 and 3 have categorically stated that locking

system of cashier cabin and main gate of cashier counter

were quite O.K. The witnesses have categorically ruled

out possibility of entering in cash cabin by peon Bhupendra

or any outsider. Bhupendra was returning stitched bundles

to cashier by not entering into cash cabin rather through

small size window hole.

8. The case law reported in 2007 LLJ 1004 S.C (Govt.

of A.P. vs. A.B. Rayad) on vagueness of charge is not at all

applicable in the instant case because chargesheet given

to concerned workman Mr. Mahesh is crystal clear having

no ambiguity and the evidence in domestic inquiry has to

be considered on preponderance of circumstances and not

requiring proof of misconduct beyond all reasonable

shadow of doubt as it require in criminal trial as to charge

of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust and

cheating. Admitted position is this that Mr. Shah was

sitting in receiving cashier cabin separate of paying cashier

cabin and also separate of duty place of stitching of note

bundles by peon Bhupendra Patel on 11.02.1988. It is sole

duty and function of Mr. Mahesh being receipt cashier to

enter in the register as to denomination of note in receipt

customers from cashier receipt counter. It was also duty

and function of Mr. Mahesh to give note bundles for

stitching to Bhupendra through a small window hole and

after stitching Bhupendra had to return the stitched note

bundle to him (Mr. Mahesh). It was duty and function of

Mahesh to verify the cash received from customer at day

end of business hour through entry in cash receipt register

and then to hand over the entire cash received from

customer to paying cashier/ Head Cashier for its keeping

in iron safe by calling accountant who keep one of key of

strong room iron safe in the bank and another key with

Head Cashier. So there is no need to explain in the charge

sheet as to detail manner of acts of Mr. Mahesh prejudicial

to bank’s interest. Mr. Mahesh was asked to make good

the shortage of Rs. 20,000/- but he did not do show and

harping on the tune that he is innocent. The question is

clear how Mr. Mahesh can be innocent because he had

received money from customers during business hours

on 11.02.1988 and no one entered in his cabin and so

shortage of Rs. 20,000/- was due to his negligence and not

due to negligence of paying cashier or notes bundle

stitching peon Bhupendra. So the negligence as to acted

in a manner unbecoming of bank employee or gross

negligence for which bank is likely to suffer loss are clear

charges levelled against Mr. Mahesh having no iota of

vagueness. The case law of A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 858 is not

applicable in the instant case as relied upon by the 2^nd

party. More so, acquittal of Mr. Mahesh in criminal case for

the charge u/s. 409, 420 I.P.C. after giving benefit of doubt

by trial Magistrate has no bearing to the gross negligence

on part of Mr. Mahesh that he caused shortage of

Rs. 20,000/- on 11.02.1999 charge for criminal offence

required proof beyond all reasonable doubt having with

criminal intent/ mensrea. But the charge of gross

negligence in domestic inquiry can be established by

preponderance of evidence not requiring proof beyond

reasonable doubts by establishing that the charge sheeted

employee was performing duty of receiving cashier and

was taking money from customer under pay in slip/

vouchers and had duty to note details in receipt register

and any shortage found in physical verification of cash,

the liability is upon the receiving cashier for causing such

shortage of money and the circumstances itself speaks a

volume that due to his gross negligence Bank was put to

financial loss.

9. The case law of Arbind Kumar Hiralal Mehta Vs.

Bank of Baroda (1983 LLR 30 Bombay is not applicable in

the instant case because charge sheet (Ext.77) issued to

Mr. Mahesh concerned workman is without vagueness

and ambiguity. The case law of RoopsinghNegi Vs. P.N. B

& others (2009 LLR 252 S.C.) is not applicable in the instant

case because acquittal of concerned workman Mr. Mahesh

in criminal trial has not been followed by his dismissal in

domestic inquiry proceeding rather punishment of

stoppage one increment was imposed and the Bank has

every right by administrative order to recover the amount

of shortage of money caused due to gross negligence on

part of concerned workman Mr. Mahesh. The case law of

Neeta Kalpesh Vs. P.O. Labour Court & another of S.C. in

C.A no. 6079 of 1988 is based on dismissal of delinquent

workman where as in the instant case concerned workman

was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment

and in the given case law management declined to lead

evidence where as in the instant case management has

lead fresh evidence before the tribunal after vitiating of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 28] 2014@vk"kk<+ 7] 1936

4849

domestic inquiry. In the instant case the management has

lead evidence denovo before the tribunal. So case law

reported in 2005 (107) FLR 268 Allahabad H.C. has no

applicability. The case law reported in 2007 (112) FLR 1216

Karnataka H.C. is not applicable in the instant case because

the workman was not dismissed rather he was awarded

punishment of stoppage of one increment. The case law of

HanmantPandurangIndarkar Vs. Tata Engineering and

Locomative (20006 (109) F.L.R. 443 Bombay High Court

rather go to support the case of the 1^st party when inquiry

vitiated and the management company was entitled to

examine all its witness afresh. In the instant case the

management of B.O.B. examined all the witness afresh

before the tribunal and they were cross examined at length

on behalf of concerned workman. The case law reported in

1981 (o) GLHEL S.C. 32957 has got no application in the

instant case. Likewise case law reported in 1972 (o) SC

2123 has got no application in the instant case. In the instant

case since the domestic inquiry vitiated and the management

of Bank of Baroda was directed to justify its action by

fresh inquiry before the tribunal the management of Bank

examined afresh all witnesses who were cross examined at

length, so the case law reported in 2004 LLR 495 Bombay

H.C. has got no application. The case law cited on behalf

of the 2^nd party BoduTarmamad Vs Dt. Supdt of Police.,

Jamnagar and another as got no bearing in the instant

case. The case law relied on by the 2^nd party oxford Mission

Trust Association Vs. State of West Bengal (2009 (121)

FLR 673 Calcutta High Court is not applicable in the instant

case because in the given case law factual aspect is

termination of workman while on the verge of

superannuation. The case law of Sayalmal Bhansali Vs.

Judge Labour Court, Udaipur & another can be applicable

only when the management of the 1^st party (Bank of Baroda)

fails to justify its action of imposing stoppage of one

increment of concerned workman Mr., M.G. Shah. And if

the management is justified in its action then the concerned

workman cannot claim entitlement of any amount-viz

repayment of Rs. 20,000/- by Bank with interest and

recovery of full pay during suspension period treating at

duty with interest. The case law reported in AIR 2006 S.C.

2129 is not applicable in the instant case and is not helpful

to the 2^nd Party. The case law of Andhra Bank Vs. W.T.

Sesha Chalam (2004 (1) GLH 781 S.C is not helpful to the

2^nd party in the instant case. In the given case law employee

who is acquitted in a criminal proceeding was found

entitled to full pay and allowance. But in the instant case

the 2^nd party workman Mr. M.G. Shah was suspended but

due to protracted criminal trial his suspension was revoked

and posted as receipt cashier in another branch . On

conclusion of domestic inquiry the Disciplinary Authority

imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with

recovery of Rs. 20,000/- having no entitlement of other

than period of subsistence allowance during the period of

suspension.

10. After careful consideration of the fresh materials

on the record as discussed in the forgoing paragraphs. I

am of the considered view and therefore find and hold that

the 1^st party (Bank of Baroda) has been able to justify its

action taken against the 2^nd party workman Shri M.G. Shah

by conducting fresh inquiry before this Tribunal. On further

careful consideration of the order of punishment imposed

by the disciplinary Authority dated 5.07.1997. I am of the

considered view and therefore further find and hold that

imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with

cumulative effect by the workman Shri. Mahesh G. Shah is

proportionate to the gravity of misconduct as per charge

sheet dated 19.05.1988 and his previous misconduct was

not taken into account. I find no any ground to make

interference in the punishment order awarded to the

workman. SO Issue No. (iii) and (iv) are answered in

affirmative.

11. ISSUE NO. (i) & (ii) : - In view of the findings

above, I further find and hold that the reference is not

maintainable and the 2^nd party workman Shri Mahesh G.

Shah has no valid cause of action to raise industrial dispute.

12. ISSUE NO. (v) :- In view of the findings, to issue

No. (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) in the foregoings, I further find and

hold that the 2^nd party workman Shri Mahesh G. Shah is not

entitled to get any relief in this case.

Accordingly this reference case is dismissed.

However no order of any cost.

This is my award.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the

I.D. Act.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 1870-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydkrk iru

U;kl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 18@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25@06@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y-&32012@2@2004&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2014

S.O.

1870.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

4850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 28, 2014/ASADHA 7, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Kolkata

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 25/06/2014.

[No. L-32012/2/2004-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 18 of 2005

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Kolkata Port Trust

AND

Their workman.

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

Mr. Gautam Mukhopadhyay,

Management

Industrial Relations Officer

Advocate.

On behalf of the

None.

Workman

State : West Bengal.

Industry: Port & Dock.

Dated: 26^th May, 2014.

AWARD

By Order No.L-32012/2/2004-IR(B-II) dated

28.04.2005 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

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 Kolkata

Port Trust in awarding punishment of reducing pay

by three stages for a period of three years with

cumulative effect and not allowing to draw increment

for the above period in respect of Sh. Dharamraj

Jeswra is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. When the case is taken up for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the union, though the management

is represented by its authorized representative. It appears

from the record that on the previous day opportunity was

given to the union to appear before the Tribunal, but the

union has not turned up.

3. Considering the above, it may reasonably be

presumed that the union does not want to proceed with

the case further, Perhaps the union has got no grievance

against the management

4. In view of the above, instant reference case is

disposed of by passing a “No Dispute Award”

Dated, Kolkata, The 26^th May, 2014.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.