5722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ñf"k ea=kky;

(Ñf"k vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2235-—dsUnzh; ljdkj Ñf"k ea=kky; Ñf"k vuqlaèkku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx)

fu;ekoyh 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ekfRL;dh f'k{kk laLFkku] Hkk-Ñ-v-i-] eqEcbZ dk jksgrd dsUnz] dks

ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 13&10@2009&¯gnh@286º

fot; ¯lg] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agriculture Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O. 2235.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Offcial Language (use for official purpose of the Union)

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

notifies the Regional Research Centre, Rohtak of C.I.F.E., Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai where more than 80% of staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. 13-10/2009-Hindi/286]

VIJAY SINGH, Under Secy.

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

(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2236-—tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ la'kks/u vè;kns'k] 2013 dh /kjk 3d dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 6 uoEcj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k %

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM

([k) ds vuqlj.k esa vkSj lacaf/r fo'ofo|ky;ksa@LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;ksa }kjk ;Fkk lwfpr] fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/lwpuk ds

tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gS A

vr% vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds mica/ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu

LokLF; ea=kky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u fd, tkrs gSa_ vFkkZr~%—

Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky; dh fnukad 6 uoEcj] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3325(v) vkSj mlds

la'kks/u esa vafre izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/h izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks tksM+k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%

Ø- la- fo'ofo|ky; dk uke

fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k

pquko dk rjhdk

39-

ef.kiqj fo'ofo|ky;

izks- okbZ bcksrksu ¯lg] izksisQlj vkWiQ esfMflu] ts ,u bafLV~V;wV vkWiQ esfMdy

dksVZ }kjk fuokZfpr

lkbalst] iksjksEir] iwohZ bEiQky] ef.kiqj&795005

40-

fnYyh fo'ofo|ky;

izks- v'ouh oqQekj] izksisQlj] fMikVZesaV vkWiQ ekbØksck;ksykWth] ;wfuo£lVh

dksVZ }kjk fuokZfpr

dkWyst vkWiQ esfMdy lkbalst] 'kkgnjk] fnYyh&110095

¹la- oh- 11013@1@2013&,e bZ ih&1 (oksy- II)º

vfer fc'okl] voj lfpo

ikn fVIi.kh % fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- 138 ds rgr Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa eq[; vf/lwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;

vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~(la'kks/u)] f}rh; vè;kns'k] 2013 (2013 dk 11) ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/r fd;k x;k Fkk A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5723

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014

S.O. 2236.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the

powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informed by the respective universities/health science universities, the

following have been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for four years with effect from the date of issue

of this notification.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government

hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number

S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960, namely:

In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3325(E)

dated the 06th November, 2013 and amendments thereto, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall

be inserted, namely:

S.No. Name of the University

Details of the Elected Member

Mode of Election

39.

Manipur University

Prof. Y. Iboton Singh, Professor of Medicine, JN Institute of

Medical Sciences, Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur-795 005

Elected by the Court

40.

University of Delhi

Prof. Ashwani Kumar, Professor, Department of Microbiology,

Elected by the Court

University College of Medical Sciences, Shahdara, Delhi-110 095.

[No. V. 11013/1/2013-MEP-I (Vol. II)]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

Foot Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960

and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2014

dk-vk- 2237-—tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ la'kks/u vè;kns'k] 2013 dh /kjk 3d dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 6 uoEcj] 2013 dks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ dk iquxZBu fd;k x;k %

vkSj tcfd dsUnz ljdkj us Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM

(x) ds vuqlj.k esa iathÑr vk;q£oKku Lukrd fuokZpu {ks=kksa ls lnL;ksa dk fuokZpu fd;k vkSj fuEufyf[kr O;fDr dks bl vf/lwpuk ds

tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls pkj o"kks± ds fy, Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ ds lnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gS A

vr% vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds mica/ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds rRdkyhu

LokLF; ea=kky; dh fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 138 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u fd, tkrs gSa_ vFkkZr~%—

Hkkjr ljdkj] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky; dh fnukad 6 uoEcj] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3324(v) esa vafre

izfof"V rFkk rRlaca/h izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks tksM+k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%—

Øe la- iathÑr fpfdRlk Lrkud

fuokZfpr lnL; dk fooj.k

fuokZpu dh

fuokZfpr {ks=k dk uke

izfØ;k

13-

if'pe caxky

MkW- fueZy ekth] lkark 8 ua- cLrh] U;w Vkmu eksM+] cuZiqj] vklulksy] c/Zeku

fuokZfpr

¹la- oh- 11013@1@2014&,e bZ ih&Iº

MkW- lat; JhokLro] fMIVh dfe'uj (,e bZ)

ikn fVIi.kh % fnukad 9 tuojh] 1960 ds dk-vk- 138 ds rgr Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa eq[; vf/lwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkkjrh;

vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~(la'kks/u)] f}rh; vè;kns'k] 2013 (2013 dk 11) ds rgr vafre ckj la'kksf/r fd;k x;k Fkk A

5724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2014

S.O. 2237.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the

powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;

And Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) has conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency

and the following has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for four years with effect from the date

of issue of this notification.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of

Health number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960, namely: -

In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3324(E)

dated the 6th November, 2013, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:—

S.No. Name of the Registered Medical

Details of the Elected Member

Mode of Election

Graduate Constituency

13.

West Bengal

Dr. Nirmal Maji, Santa 8 No. Basti, New Town More,

Elected

Burnpur, Asansol, Bardhaman

[No. V.11013/1/2014-MEP-I]

Dr. SANJAY SHRIVASTAVA, Dy. Commissioner (ME)

Foot Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960

and was last amended vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (11 of 2013).

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2238-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi fu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Ø-la-

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus dh

ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkk ek la (Hkkx@

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx) % o"kZ

4752673

20140703

eSllZ VsDllc iEIl

fuEetuh; iEilsV

IS 8034 % 2002

n- la- 43&ch] 'kksHkk uxj jksM]

byUxks uxj] vkokjeiky;e]

dks;EcÙkwj&641006

4752976

20140708

eSllZ fclyjh baVjus'kuy izk;osV fy-

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

2@206A] osfYyiky;e xk¡o] vyUxksEcq

(iSdstcan feujy ty

iksLV] esVwiky;e]

ds vykok)

dks;EcÙkwj&641302

4755376

20140715

eSllZ t; iQqM izksMDV~l

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

,l ,iQ la 614@3B] xkSUMeiky;e]

(iSdstcan feujy ty

x.kifriky;e iksLV] iYyMe rkyqd]

ds vykok)

fr:Iiqj&641605

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5725

4758180

20140721

eSllZ ds ih Vh i`Foh

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

,l ,iQ la 327@1] eq[; jksM]

(iSdstcan feujy ty

Vh- ,u- iky;e CykWd] vjDdu dksVS]

ds vykok)

xkschpsV~Vhiky;e rkyqd] bZjksM&638506

4758079

20140721

eSllZ v;kVkse byfDVªd (vkbZ) izkbosV

uSnkfud fpfdRlh; ,Dl&js IS 7620 % Part 1:

fyfeVsM] ,l ,iQ la 222] usrkth uxj]

midj.k&Hkkx 1&lkfoZd

1986

uUtqUnkiqje jksM] jkeukFkkiqje]

,oa lqj{kk lk/u

dks;EcÙkwj&641036

4757885

20140721

eSllZ t; okVj VªhVesUV daiuh

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

n-la- 1A] ifEiax LVs'ku jksM 5]

(iSdstcan feujy ty

bZjksM&638003-

ds vykok)

4757784

20140721

eSllZ okVjVsd (bafM;k) izkbosV fy-

rIr ,oa vrIr is;ty

IS 15778 % 2007

ikMqoeiYyh xk¡o] okxjk;eiky;e]

forj.k O;oLFkk ds fy,

lqywj rkyqd] dks;EcÙkwj&641659-

DyksfjuÑr ikWyhfoukby

DyksjkbM (lh ih oh lh)

ikbi

4757986

20140721

eSllZ ih ih ,e ,Dok baMLVªhl

iSdstcan is; ty

IS 14543 % 2004

,l ,iQ la 153] d`".kkjk;kiqje xk¡o]

(iSdstcan feujy ty

izhfe;j baMfLVª;y ,LVsV jksM]

ds vykok)

vkokjeiky;e] dks;EcÙkwj&641006-

47578685

20140722

eSllZ esllZ izk;esDl gkse vIyk;salsl

?kjsyw izs'kj dqdj]

IS 2347 % 2006

bafM;k izk;osV fyfeVsM

665@1] dkykiV~Vw (ds jkLrs)]

osYykukiV~Vh] dks;EcÙkwj&641048-

10-

4758584

20140722

eSllZ ÚsaM~l fufV~Vax daiuh

oL=kkfn&lknk (flaxy tlhZ)]

IS 4964 % 2003

459] dkejkt jksM]

cquh (fuVsM) lwrh cfu;ku

frjQIiqj&641604-

11-

4760268

20140728

eSllZ , ds lh IykLVq'ku daiuh

fo|qr izfr"Bkiu ds fy,

IS 9537 (Part 3):

la 28] dSnkeyS jksM]

okfgdk&Hkkx 3&l[r ,oa

1983

mQrqdqyh] frjQIiqj&638751

lknk fo|qr vojks/h okfgdk

12-

4760369

20140728

eSllZ ,Dokfj;l ih oh lh ikbIl

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 4985% 2000

7@79 (1)] vjlkejrq rksV~Ve]

vIykfLVd`r ih oh lh

dksUM;eiky;e] rsUukeuywj iksLV]

ikbIl

rksUMkeqrwj (ds jkLrs)]

dks;EcÙkwj&641109-

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13 % 11º

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

Ø-la-

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus dh

ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkk ek la (Hkkx@

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx) % o"kZ

5726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2014

S.O. 2238.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian standards (Certifica-

tion) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given

in the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and Address (Factory)

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

No. No.

of the Party

Sec. Year

4752673

20140703

M/s. Texsub Pumps

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034 : 2002

D. No. 43-B, Shoba Nagar Road,

Elango Nagar, Avarampalayam,

Coimbatore-641 006

4752976

20140708

M/s. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd.

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

2/206A, Velllipalayam Village,

(other than Packaged

Alangombu (P.O.), Mettupalayam,

Natural Mineral Water)

Coimbatore-641 302

4755376

20140715

M/s. Jai Food Products

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

SF No. 614/3B, Goundampalayam,

(other than Packaged

Ganapathypalayam (Post),

Natural Mineral Water)

Palladam (TK), Tirupur-641 605

4758180

20140721

M/s. KPT Prithvi,

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

SF No. 327/1, Main Road,

(other than Packaged

T.N. Palayam Block, Arakkan Kottai,

Natural Mineral Water)

Gobichetipalayam Taluk,

Erode-638 506

4758079

20140721

M/s. Iatome Electric (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

Diagnostic Medical X-ray

IS 7620 : Part 1:

SF No. 222, Netaji Nagar,

Equipment-Part 1 : General

1986

Nanjundapuram Road,

and Safety Requirements

Ramanathapuram,

Coimbatore-641 036

4757885

20140721

M/s. Jai Water Treatment Company

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

D/No. 1A, Pumping Station Road 5,

(other than Packaged

Erode-638 003

Natural Mineral Water)

4757784

20140721

M/s. Watertec (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Chlorinated polyvinyl

IS 15778 : 2007

Paduvampali Village,

chloride (CPVC) pipes for

Vagarayampalayam, Sulur Taluk,

potable hot and cold water

Coimbatore-641 659

distribution supplies

4757986

20140721

M/s. PPM Aqua Industries

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

SF No. 153, Krishnarayapuram Village, (other than Packaged

Premier Industrial Estate Road,

Natural Mineral Water)

Avarampalayam, Coimbatore-641006

47578685

20140722

M/s. Primex Home Appliances

Comestic Pressure Cookers

IS 2347 : 2006

India Pvt. Ltd.

665/1, Kalapatti (Via.) Vellanapatti,

Coimbatore-641 048

10.

4758584

20140722

M/s. Friends Knitting Company

Textiles-Vest, Cotton,

IS 4964 : 2003

459, Kamaraj Road,

Plain Knitted

Tirupur-641 604

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5727

11.

4760268

20140728

M/s. AKC Plastrusion Company

Conduits for electrical

IS 9537 (Part 3):

No. 28, Kaithamalai Road,

installations : Part 3 Rigid

1983

Uthukuli, Tiruppur-638 751

plain conduits of insulating

materials

12.

4760369

20140728

M/s. Aquarius PVC Pipes

Unplasticized PVC pipes for

IS 4985: 2000

7/79(1), Arasamarathu Thottam,

potable water supples

Kondayampalayam,

Thennamanallur (P.O.),

Thondamuthur (Via),

Coimbatore-641109

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2239-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;

ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykbZlsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gSa %—

vuqlwph

Ø-la-

ykblsal la-

ykbZlsal/kjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykbZlsal

jí gksus dh frfFk

lh ,e@,y&

ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc¼ Hkkjrh;

ekud dk 'kh"kZd

4597485

esllZ raxkef;y Tosyjh fyfeVsM

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

30&07&2014

la 210@C] eqÙkSÕ;k VkWolZ] bZjksM jksM]

f'kYidkjh&'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu]

osYykdksfoy] fr#Iiqj&638111

IS 1417% 1999

4599186

esllZ raxkef;y Tosyjh fyfeVsM

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

30&07&2014

la 210@C] eqÙkSÕ;k VkWolZ] bZjksM jksM]

f'kYidkjh&'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu]

osYykdksfoy] fr#Iiqj&638111

IS 2112% 2003

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13 % 13º

,e- lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2014

S.O. 2239.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifica-

tion) Regulation, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

No. CM/L-

Standard covered by the licence

Cancellation

cancelled/suspension

4597485

M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery Limited

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/

30-07-2014

No. 210/C, Muthiah Towers,

artefacts-fineness and marking

Erode Road, Vellakovil,

IS 1417 : 1999

Tiruppur-638 11

4599186

M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery Limited

Silver and silver alloys, jewellery/

30-07-2014

No. 210/C, Muthiah Towers,

artefacts-fineness and marking

Erode Road, Vellakovil,

IS 2112 : 2003

Tiruppur-638 111

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and Address (Factory)

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

No. No.

of the Party

Sec. Year

5728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2240-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g

vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd rfeyukMq jkT; esa ,UukSj ls enqjkbZ rd

ok;k psaxyiV~Vq&ikUMhpsjh&fr#ph ,yihth ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh

pkfg,_

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu

ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks bl ls

mikc¼ vuqlwph esa o£.kr gS vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk,

tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,_

vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl

(Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962

dk 50) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds

vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS_

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ gS]

ml rkjh[k ls] ftldks bl vf/lwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti=k

dh izfr;k¡ lk/kj.k turk dks miyC/ djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu

ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa mi;ksx

ds vf/dkj ds vtZu ds laca/ esa Jh oh- efudaMu l{ke izkfèkdkjh]

Hkwfe vtZu vf/dkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ikbiykbu

ifj;kstuk] IykV la- 14] t;izdk'k LVªhV] oh-th-ih- uxj] jktkftiqje]

fr#oYyqj] rfeyukMq&602001 dks fyf[kr :i esa vk{ksi Hkst

ldsxk A

vuqlwph

rkyqdk % iksUujh

ftyk % fr#oYywj

jkT; % rfeyukMq

xkao dk uke

losZ{k.k

mi& {ks=kiQy

la-&[k.M

[k.M

gsDVj ,;j

oxZ

la-

ehVj

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

43. vfRFkiV~Vq-II

354

1ch1,

141. iqf”gf/oDde

153

1Mh

155

10Mh

155

10lh

155

10ch

155

10,

155

154

2lh2

154

2lh1

154

3ch1

154

3,2

154

3,1

175

2ch5

175

1ch2

175

2ch3

175

2ch4

175

1ch5

175

1,3

175

1,2

169

168

167

166

164

4ch

162

163

140. uSnkoks;ky-II

2,2

·15

42 .

2,2

2,1

540

891

541

542,

544

549

550

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5729

553

554

589

586

603

585

583

582

832

4ch

92. ok;yksjs - II

2049

1456

1457

1400

1394

1392

1391

1383

1384

139. dyiDde

150

149

148

2ch

148

147

1lh

147

1ch

142

1ch

142

135

1ch

135

141

105

1lh

2ch

1ch2

1ch1

139

5ch

2lh

220

2ch

220

1ch

220

222

96. BksÙkdkMq

1lh

1ch

97. osYykIiDde

9ch

6ch

6lh

14ch

14,

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

5730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3ch

2ch

98. ukywj - I

3lh

3ch

1ch1

1ch2

1,3

1,2ch

1ch2

1ch3

1,1

1 ch1

1,2

1,3

5ch

2ch

3,2ch

3,2,

8ch

11lh

4ch

11lh

338

268

7,2

268

7,1

268

6,3

268

6,2

268

6,1

268

4ch

268

3ch

268

336

1ch

269

4ch

269

3ch

269

3lh

269

334

1lh

334

1ch

333

2lh

333

2ch

332

280

303

302

2ch5

302

2ch3

302

2ch1

302

2ch2

302

1ch

302

299

300

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5731

78. vuqIiaiV~Vq-II

312

5ch

312

5,2

313

314

1ch

315

316

317

296

1,iQ

296

1th

296

297

300

1ch

299

2,1

299

2,2

299

3ch

299

2ch

459

457

8ch

457

5ch

457

5lh

457

456

14ch

456

1ch

452

1ch

452

99. ofUuikDde

188

107

108

136

135

1ch

135

134

3ch

134

133

122

1ch

123

1ch

126

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

5732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

130

1Mh

130

1lh

130

1ch

77. vkewj -II

299

298

297

296

2Mh

296

2ch

296

307

295

294

235

242

241

244

219

217

248

250

255

252

5ch

253

106. txukFkiqje-II

377

376

381

382

385

386

10,

355

10lh

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5733

355

10ch

355

10,

355

8lh

355

8ch

355

351

11,

351

11 ch2

351

11 ch1

351

10ch

351

10,

351

349

350

3ch

350

347

345

4ch

345

2,2

344

5ch

344

76. Fkpwj

300

8ch

300

2ch

290

1Mh3

290

1Mh2

290

1Mh1

290

1lh1

290

1ch

290

1,2

290

1,1

286

1ch

259

261

256

7ch

256

7lh

256

255

1Mh

255

1lh

255

1ch

255

253

252

242

241

rkyqdk % mFkqDdksV~VbZ ftyk % fr#oYywj

jkT; % rfeyukMq

93. dksV~VkoqQIie

1ch

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

5734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1,1

2Mh

94. vUunkukdkdoDde 145

146

144

143

3ch

143

3,2

143

2lh

143

2ch

149

150

159

158

161

1ch2

174

1ch

173

1ch

173

177

178

1ch2

191

1ch

196

1ch

196

197

207

1,1

206

95. enfoyxe

4ch1

4ch2

107

308

rkyqdk % fr#oYywj

ftyk % fr#oYywj

jkT; % rfeyukMq

39. v;ypsjh

2ch

4ch

3ch

2ch

3ch

3lh

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@10@2014&vks-vkj- Iº

iou oqQekj] voj lfpo

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5735

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2014

S.O. 2240.—Whereas, it appears to the Central

Government that it is necessary in the public interest that

for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from

Ennore to Madurai Via Chengalpattu, Pondicherry(UT) and

Trichy, a pipeline should be laid in the State of Tamil Nadu

by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government

that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary

to acquire the right of user in land under which the said

pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in

the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroteurn and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)

Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the

said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this

notification are made available to the general public, object

in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for

laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri V. Manikandan,

Competent Authority, Land Acquisition Officer Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, For Petroleum Pipeline Projects, Plot

No.14, Jayaprakash Street, V.G.P. Nagar, Rajajipuram,

Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu - 602 001.

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Ponneri

District : Tiruvallur State : Tamil Nadu

Name of the

Survey

Sub

Area

Village

No.

Division

No.

Hec-

Are Square

tare

Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

43. Atthipattu-11

354

1B1A

141. Puzhidhivakkam

153

155

10D

155

10C

155

10B

155

10A

155

154

2C2

154

2C1

154

3B1

154

3A2

154

3A1

175

2B5

175

1B2

175

2B3

175

2B4

175

1A5

175

1A3

175

1A2

169

168

167

166

164

162

163

140. Neithavoyal - 11

2A2

·15

42 .

2A2

2A1

540

891

541

542A

544

549

550

553

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

5736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

553

554

589

586

603

585

583

582

832

92. Vayalore - II

2049

1456

1457

1400

1394

1392

1391

1383

1384

139. Kalpakkam

150

149

148

147

142

135

141

105

1B2

1B1

139

220

222

96. Thottakadu

97. Vellappakkam

14B

14A

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5737

98.Nalur - I

1B1

1B2

1A3

1A2B

1B2

1B3

1A1

1 B1

1A2

1A3

3A2B

3A2A

11C

338

268

7A2

268

7A1

268

6A3

268

6A2

268

6A1

268

336

269

334

333

332

280

303

302

2B5

302

2B3

302

2B1

302

2B2

302

299

300

78. Anuppampattu-II

312

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

5738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

312

5A2

313

314

315

316

317

296

297

300

299

2A1

299

2A2

299

459

457

456

14B

456

452

99. Vannipakkam

188

107

108

136

135

134

133

122

123

126

130

10D

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5739

130

77. Amur -II

299

298

297

296

307

295

294

235

242

241

244

219

217

248

250

255

252

253

106. Jaganathapuram-II 377

377

376

381

382

385

386

10A

355

10C

355

10B

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

5740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

355

10A

355

351

11A

351

11 B2

351

11 B1

351

10B

351

10A

351

349

350

347

345

2A2

344

76. Thachur

300

290

1D3

290

1D2

290

1D1

290

1C1

290

1A2

290

1A1

286

259

261

256

255

253

252

242

241

Taluk : Uthukkottai District: Tiruvallur State: Tamil Nadu

93. Kottakuppam

1A1

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5741

94. Annadanakaka-

145

vakkam

146

144

143

3A2

143

149

150

159

158

161

1B2

174

173

177

178

1B2

191

196

197

207

1A1

206

95. Madavilagam

4B1

4B2

107

308

Taluk : Tiruvallur

District: Tiruvallur State: Tamil Nadu

39. Ayalcheri

[F. No. R-25011/10/2014-O.R.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

5742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2241-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh èkkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk jkmjdsyk

LVhy IykaV] jkmjdsyk ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa

dks bl vfèkfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV]

vfèklwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vofèk ds fy, ykxw

jgsxhA

mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds vèkhu gS_ vFkkZr~ %&

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk,axs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e ds vèkhu

,slh izlqfoèkk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vfèklwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vkèkkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vofèk ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vofèk dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vfèkfu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vofèk dgk x;k gS) izorZeku

Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr

nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lkèkkj.k) fofu;e] 1950 ds

vèkhu mls mDr vofèk dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkh_

(5) fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkt; chek vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 45

dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds vèkhu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd

;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkfèkd`r dksbZ vU; inèkkjh_

(i)

èkkjk 44 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds vèkhu] mDr vofèk

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkt; chek (lkèkkj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk

;Fkk&visf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vofèk ds

fy, j[ks x, Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn, x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vfèklwpuk ds vèkhu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vofèk

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds lacaèk esa vfèkfu;e

ds micaèk izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

(d) izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDRk

fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkkjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vfèkHkksxkèkhu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk

fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

lank; ls lacafèkr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;

nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkkjh ds

le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k

,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSaA_

(x) izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdRkkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

ysuk_

(Ä) ;Fkk&fuèkkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj tc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

¹la- ,l&38014@12@2014&,l-,l&Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2014

S.O. 2241.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela from the

operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective

for a period of one year from the date of issue of notification.

The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees

are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exempted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall

continue to receive such benefits under the said Act

to which they might have become entitled to on the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5743

basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from

which exemption granted by this notification

operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall

submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act

(hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as were

due from it in respect of the said period under the

Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations,

1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of

the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in

relation to the said factory to be empowered

to:

(a)

require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose

of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause to

believe to have been an employee; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establish-

ment, office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/12/2014-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2242-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vfèkfu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh èkkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

èkkjk 88 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk fgUnqLrku

U;wt¯izV fy- dksV~Vk;ke] dsjy ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vfèkfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g

NwV] vfèklwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vofèk ds fy,

ykxw jgsxhA

mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds vèkhu gS_ vFkkZr~ %&

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vfèkfu;e ds vèkhu

,slh izlqfoèkk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl

vfèklwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ

lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vkèkkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vofèk ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vofèk dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vfèkfu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vofèk dgk x;k gS) izorZeku

Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr

nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lkèkkj.k) fofu;e] 1950 ds

vèkhu mls mDr vofèk dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkh_

(5) fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkt; chek vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 45

dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds vèkhu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd

;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkfèkd`r dksbZ vU; inèkkjh_

(i)

èkkjk 44 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds vèkhu] mDr vofèk

dh ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks

lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

5744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh

jkt; chek (lkèkkj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk

;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vofèk ds

fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_ ;k

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds

iQyLo:i bl vfèklwpuk ds vèkhu NwV nh tk jgh

gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk

gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vofèk

ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds lacaèk esa vfèkfu;e

ds micaèk izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha micaèkksa dk vuqikyu

fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds

fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

(d) izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDRk

fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkkjh vko';d le>rk

gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vfèkHkksxkèkhu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k

djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk

fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds

lank; ls lacafèkr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;

nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; inèkkjh ds

le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k

,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSaA_

(x) izèkku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdRkkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gS fd og depkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj

esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;

nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k

ysuk_

(Ä) ;FkkfuèkkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

(6) fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznRr NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj tc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

¹la- ,l&38014@08@2012&,l-,l&Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2242.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of Hindustan Newsprint Ltd., Kottayam,

Kerala from the operation of the said Act. The exemption

shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of

issue of notification.

The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees

are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exempted employees;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall

continue to receive such benefits under the said Act

to which they might have become entitled to on the

basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from

which exemption granted by this notification

operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already

paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall

submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act

(hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as

were due from it in respect of the said period under

the Employees’ State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of

the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation

authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose

of :—

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of

the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in

relation to the said factory to be empowered

to:

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5745

(a)

require the principal or immediate

employer to him such information as he

may consider necessary for the purpose

of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and

require any person found in charge

thereof to produce to such inspector or

other official and allow him to examine

accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to

him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate

employer, his agent or servant, or any

person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises

or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause to

believe to have been an employee; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory, establish-

ment, office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/08/2012-SS-I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2243-—tcfd eSllZ Vh,lvkj nkjk'kko fyfeVsM

(dksM la[;k ,e,p@ch,,u@36077 ds varxZr ckanz {ks=k esa)

(,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar

vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds

[k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A

vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds

lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku

esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaèk esa mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr) ds

varxZr miyCèk vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs

gSaA

vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh

mi èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu]

,rn~}kjk mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèkksa ds izpkyu ls 01&02&1991

ls vxys vfèklwpuk rd mDr izfr"Bku dks NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@04@2012&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqcaèk

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV

iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±

fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa

ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{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 izfr

Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj

mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]

¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—

(i)

fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj

(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh

vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre

fu;a=k.k gksA

U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk

le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z

djsxk A

vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]

tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV

iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr

izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk

ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;

va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg

dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh

cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e

dh èkkjk 7Fk ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk

nk;h gksxk A

5746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk

vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls

Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A

U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk

n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr

vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A

izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;

va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj

lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk

?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e

vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds

varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A

10-

;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa

dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl

ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw

fd;k tk,xk A

11-

fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A

12-

fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk

ls fuiVk, tk,axs A

13-

U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk 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 vfèkekur%

bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls

lEizsf"kr djsaxs A

14-

U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus

ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd

fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr

fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA

iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,

tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A

15-

fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj

V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus

ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A

16-

U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk

;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj

ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk

tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md

dkjokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A

17-

U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj

Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj

fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj

la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk n~okjk

;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A

18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj

izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa

visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh

cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh

lwpuk nsaxs A

([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh

le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A

(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh

vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;

ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e

ls [kksyk tk, A

(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k

dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh

U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;

ekuk tk,xk A

19-

izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa

dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A

LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls

NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s

fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds

vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr

djsxk A

20-

LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj

izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)

ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftjds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn

esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml

èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj

vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;

ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk

vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls

ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5747

21-

U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k vU;

laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k

vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A

22-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh

lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk

vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'k;ksa ij muds

lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A

23-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa

lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;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,xk A

24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh

;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls

ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d

le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks

vfèkdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd

n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq,

[kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A

([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj

ys[kk&ijh{khr ryu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ

dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k

dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh

tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr

dh tk,xh RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds

dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi

esa miyCèk djkbZ tk,xh A

(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk

vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd ds

fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A

25-

yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa

dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA

26-

fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k

gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk

Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A

27-

U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh

mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacfèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A

28-

fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i

VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk

djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A

29-

fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d

daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds

iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk

gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds

fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A

30-

,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa

ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh

VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij Hkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls

,oa vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";

fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ

djsxkA

31-

dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks

c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku

bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014

S.O. 2243.—Whereas M/s. TSR Darashaw Ltd.

[under Code No. MH/BAN/36077 in Bandra 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 1-2-1991 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/4/2012-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM

THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT

FUND SCHEME, 1952

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

5748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees

the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself

and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from

time to time by the 15th of each month following the month

for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall

be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of

Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues

towards the Board of Trustees.

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.

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.

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.

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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5749

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

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank

of India and Central Government in accordance

with the instructions issued by the Central

Government in this regard.

(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should

be treated as incidental cost of investment by the

Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like

brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be

treated as incidental cost of investment by the

Trust.

19.

All such investments made like purchase of securities

and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India

and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the

same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or

cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such

custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the

name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional

PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request

from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.

20.

The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F.

Commissioner concerned the details of depository

participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),

with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments

made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in

securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the

Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money

as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such

as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and

transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/

her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts

by sale of the securities or other investments standing in

the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the

Regional PF Commissioner.

21.

Any commission, incentive, bonus or other

pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other

institutions for the investments made by the Trust should

be credited to its account.

22.

The employer and the members of the Board of

Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to

abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding

on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their

successors and assignees.

23.

The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also

give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within

the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the

event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally

binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution

in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.

24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by

the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by

a qualified independent chartered accountant

annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO

shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited

by any other qualified auditor and the expenses

so incurred shall be borne by the employer.

(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the

audited balance sheet should be submitted to this

office by the Auditors directly within six months

after the closing of the financial year from 1st

April to 31st March. The format of the balance

sheet and the information to be furnished in the

report shall be prescribed by the Employees’

Provident fund Organisation and made available

with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as

a signed hard copy.

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

5750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2244-—tcfd eSllZ ekmaV f'kokfyd fczosjht

fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k ih,u@4582 ds varxZr paMhx<+ {ks=k esa)

(,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar

vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds

[k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A

vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds

lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku

esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaèk esa mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr) ds

varxZr miyCèk vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs

gSaA

vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh

mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu]

,rn~}kjk mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèkksa ds izpkyu ls 01&03&1988

ls vxys vfèklwpuk rd mDr izfr"Bku dks NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@52@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqcaèk

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV

iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±

fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa

ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{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 izfr

Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj

mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]

¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—

(i)

fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj

(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh

vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre

fu;a=k.k gksA

U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk

le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z

djsxk A

vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]

tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV

iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr

izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk

ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;

va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg

dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh

cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e

dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk

vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls

Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A

U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk

n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr

vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A

izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;

va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj

lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk

?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e

vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds

varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A

10-

;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa

dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl

ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw

fd;k tk,xk A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5751

11-

fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A

12-

fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk

ls fuiVk, tk,axs A

13-

U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk 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 vfèkekur%

bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls

lEizsf"kr djsaxs A

14-

U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus

ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd

fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr

fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA

iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,

tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A

15-

fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj

V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus

ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A

16-

U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk

;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj

ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk

tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md

dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A

17-

U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj

Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj

fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj

la;qDr :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk

n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A

18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj

izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa

visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh

cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh

lwpuk nsaxs A

([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh

le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A

(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh

vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;

ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e

ls [kksyk tk, A

(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k

dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh

U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;

ekuk tk,xk A

19-

izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa

dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A

LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls

NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s

fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds

vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr

djsxk A

20-

LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj

izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)

ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftjds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn

esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml

èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj

vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;

ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk

vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls

ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A

21-

U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k vU;

laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k

vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A

22-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh

lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk

vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'k;ksa ij muds

lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A

23-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa

lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;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,xk A

24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh

;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls

ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d

le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks

vfèkdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd

n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq,

[kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A

5752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls

31 ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj

ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ

dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k

dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh

tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr

dh tk,xh RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds

dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi

esa miyCèk djkbZ tk,xh A

(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk

vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd ds

fy, fu;qDr uk fd;k tk, A

25-

yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa

dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA

26-

fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k

gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk

Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A

27-

U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh

mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacfèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A

28-

fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i

VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk

djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A

29-

fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d

daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds

iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk

gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds

fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A

30-

,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa

ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh

VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij Hkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls

vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";

fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ

djsxkA

31-

dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks

c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku

bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014

S.O. 2244.—Whereas M/s. Mount Shivalik

Breweries Limited [under Code No. PN/4582 in Chandigarh

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).

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.

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 1-3-1988 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/52/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM

THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT

FUND SCHEME, 1952

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.

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.

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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5753

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.

The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees

the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself

and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from

time to time by the 15th of each month following the month

for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall

be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of

Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues

towards the Board of Trustees.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

5754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

All such investments made like purchase of securities

and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India

and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the

same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or

cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such

custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the

name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional

PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request

from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.

20.

The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F.

Commissioner concerned the details of depository

participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),

with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments

made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in

securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the

Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money

as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such

as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and

transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/

her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts

by sale of the securities or other investments standing in

the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the

Regional PF Commissioner.

21.

Any commission, incentive, bonus or other

pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other

institutions for the investments made by the Trust should

be credited to its account.

22.

The employer and the members of the Board of

Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to

abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding

on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their

successors and assignees.

23.

The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also

give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within

the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the

event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally

binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution

in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.

24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by

the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by

a qualified independent chartered accountant

annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO

shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited

by any other qualified auditor and the expenses

so incurred shall be borne by the employer.

(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the

audited balance sheet should be submitted to this

office by the Auditors directly within six months

after the closing of the financial year from 1st

April to 31st March. The format of the balance

sheet and the information to be furnished in the

report shall be prescribed by the Employees’

Provident fund Organisation and made available

with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as

a signed hard copy.

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 fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2245-—tcfd eSllZ ,y ,.M Vh VsDukWyksth

l£olst fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k ,e,p@Vh,p,u@206170 ds varxZr

Fkk.ks {ks=kh; dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr)

us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952

(1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk

17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy,

vkosnu fd;k gS A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5755

vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds

lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku

esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaèk esa mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr) ds

varxZr miyCèk vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs

gSaA

vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh

mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu]

,rn~}kjk mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèkksa ds izpkyu ls 1&1&2014 ls

vxys vfèklwpuk rd mDr izfr"Bku dks NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@74@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqcaèk

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV

iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±

fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa

ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{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 izfr

Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj

mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]

¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—

(i)

fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj

(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh

vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre

fu;a=k.k gksA

U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk

le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z

djsxk A

vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]

tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV

iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr

izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk

ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;

va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg

dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh

cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e

dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk

vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls

Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A

U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk

n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr

vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A

izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;

va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj

lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk

?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e

vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds

varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A

10-

;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa

dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl

ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw

fd;k tk,xk A

11-

fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A

12-

fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk

ls fuiVk, tk,axs A

13-

U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk 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 vfèkekur%

bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls

lEizsf"kr djsaxs A

5756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14-

U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus

ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd

fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr

fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA

iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,

tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A

15-

fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj

V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus

ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A

16-

U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk

;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj

ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk

tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md

dkjokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A

17-

U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj

Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj

fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj

la;qDr :i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk

n~okjk ;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A

18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj

izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa

visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh

cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh

lwpuk nsaxs A

([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh

le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A

(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh

vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;

ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e

ls [kksyk tk, A

(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k

dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh

U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;

ekuk tk,xk A

19-

izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa

dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A

LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls

NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s

fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds

vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr

djsxk A

20-

LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj

izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)

ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftjds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn

esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml

èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj

vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;

ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk

vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls

ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A

21-

U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k vU;

laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k

vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A

22-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh

lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk

vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds

lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A

23-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa

lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;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,xk A

24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh

;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls

ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d

le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks

vfèkdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd

n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq,

[kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A

([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj

ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ

dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k

dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh

tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr

dh tk,xh RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds

dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi

esa miyCèk djkbZ tk,xh A

(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk

vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd ds

fy, fu;qDr uk fd;k tk, A

25-

yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa

dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5757

26-

fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k

gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk

Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A

27-

U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh

mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A

28-

fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i

VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk

djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A

29-

fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d

daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds

iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk

gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds

fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A

30-

,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa

ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh

VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij Hkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls

vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";

fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ

djsxkA

31-

dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks

c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku

bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014

S.O. 2245.—Whereas M/s. L&T Technology

Services Limited [under Code No. MH/THN/206170 in

Regional Office, Thane] (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).

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.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this

notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the

said establishment from the operation of all the provisions

of the said Scheme with effect from 1-1-2014 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/74/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM

THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT

FUND SCHEME, 1952

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.

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.

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.

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.

The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees

the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself

and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from

time to time by the 15th of each month following the month

for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall

be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of

Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues

towards the Board of Trustees.

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.

5758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

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

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5759

transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/

her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts

by sale of the securities or other investments standing in

the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the

Regional PF Commissioner.

21.

Any commission, incentive, bonus or other

pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other

institutions for the investments made by the Trust should

be credited to its account.

22.

The employer and the members of the Board of

Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to

abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding

on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their

successors and assignees.

23.

The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also

give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within

the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the

event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally

binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution

in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.

24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by

the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by

a qualified independent chartered accountant

annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO

shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited

by any other qualified auditor and the expenses

so incurred shall be borne by the employer.

(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the

audited balance sheet should be submitted to this

office by the Auditors directly within six months

after the closing of the financial year from 1st

April to 31st March. The format of the balance

sheet and the information to be furnished in the

report shall be prescribed by the Employees’

Provident fund Organisation and made available

with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as

a signed hard copy.

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 fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2246-—tcfd eSllZ ,y,.MVh xYiQ izkbZosV

fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k ,e,p@202493 ds varxZr {ks=kh; dk;kZy;]

Fkk.ks esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)

(,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk

(1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A

vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds

lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku

esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaèk esa mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr) ds

varxZr miyCèk vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs

gSaA

vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh

mi èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu] ,rn~}kjk

mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèkksa ds izpkyu ls 1&4&2009 ls vxys

vfèklwpuk rd mDr izfr"Bku dks NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@47@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

5760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqcaèk

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV

iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±

fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa

ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{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 izfr

Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj

mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]

¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—

(i)

fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj

(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh

vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre

fu;a=k.k gksA

U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk

le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z

djsxk A

vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]

tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV

iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr

izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk

ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;

va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg

dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh

cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e

dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk

vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls

Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A

U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk

n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr

vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A

izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;

va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj

lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk

?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e

vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds

varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A

10-

;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa

dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl

ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw

fd;k tk,xk A

11-

fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A

12-

fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk

ls fuiVk, tk,axs A

13-

U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk 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 vfèkekur%

bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls

lEizsf"kr djsaxs A

14-

U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus

ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd

fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr

fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA

iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,

tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A

15-

fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj

V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus

ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A

16-

U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk

;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj

ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk

tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md

dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5761

17-

U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj

Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj

fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj

la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk n~okjk

;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A

18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj

izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa

visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh

cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh

lwpuk nsaxs A

([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh

le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A

(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh

vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;

ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e

ls [kksyk tk, A

(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k

dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh

U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;

ekuk tk,xk A

19-

izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa

dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A

LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls

NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s

fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds

vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr

djsxk A

20-

LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj

izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)

ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn

esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml

èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj

vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;

ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk

vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls

ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A

21-

U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k vU;

laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k

vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A

22-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh

lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk

vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'k;ksa ij muds

lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A

23-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa

lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;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,xk A

24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh

;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls

ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d

le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks

vfèkdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd

n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq,

[kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A

([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj

ys[kk&ijh{khr ryu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ

dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k

dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh

tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr

dh tk,xh RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds

dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi

esa miyCèk djkbZ tk,xh A

(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk

vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd ds

fy, fu;qDr uk fd;k tk, A

25-

yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa

dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA

26-

fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k

gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk

Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A

27-

U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh

mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacfèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A

28-

fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i

VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk

djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A

29-

fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d

daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds

iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk

5762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds

fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A

30-

,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa

ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh

VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij Hkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls

vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";

fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ

djsxkA

31-

dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks

c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku

bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014

S.O. 2246.—Whereas M/s. L&T Gulf Pvt. Limited

[under Code No. MN/202493 in Regional Office, Thane]

(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).

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.

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 1-4-2009 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/47/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM

THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT

FUND SCHEME, 1952

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.

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.

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.

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.

The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees

the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself

and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from

time to time by the 15th of each month following the month

for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall

be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of

Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues

towards the Board of Trustees.

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.

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5763

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

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.

5764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also

give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within

the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the

event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally

binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution

in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.

24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by

the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by

a qualified independent chartered accountant

annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO

shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited

by any other qualified auditor and the expenses

so incurred shall be borne by the employer.

(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the

audited balance sheet should be submitted to this

office by the Auditors directly within six months

after the closing of the financial year from 1st

April to 31st March. The format of the balance

sheet and the information to be furnished in the

report shall be prescribed by the Employees’

Provident fund Organisation and made available

with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as

a signed hard copy.

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 fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2247-—tcfd eSllZ vfnR; fcjyk dsfedYl (bafM;k)

fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k ts,p@4989 ds varxZr {ks=kh; dk;kZy;

>kj[k.M esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)

(,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk

(1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A

vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds

lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku

esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaèk esa mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr) ds

varxZr miyCèk vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs

gSaA

vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh

mi èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu] ,rn~}kjk

mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèkksa ds izpkyu ls 01&11&1988 ls vxys

vfèklwpuk rd mDr izfr"Bku dks NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@72@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqcaèk

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV

iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±

fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa

ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{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 izfr

Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj

mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]

¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—

(i)

fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5765

(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh

vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre

fu;a=k.k gksA

U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk

le;≤ ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z

djsxk A

vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk&ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]

tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV

iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr

izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk

ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;

va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg

dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh

cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e

dh èkkjk 7Fk ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk

nk;h gksxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk

vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls

Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A

U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk

n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk&vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr

vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A

izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;

va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj

lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk

?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e

vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds

varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A

10-

;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa

dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl

ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw

fd;k tk,xk A

11-

fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A

12-

fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk

ls fuiVk, tk,axs A

13-

U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk 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 vfèkekur%

bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls

lEizsf"kr djsaxs A

14-

U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus

ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd

fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr

fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA

iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,

tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A

15-

fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj

V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus

ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A

16-

U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk

;Fkk&fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj

ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk

tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md

dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A

17-

U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj

Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj

fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj

la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk n~okjk

;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A

18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj

izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa

visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh

cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh

lwpuk nsaxs A

([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh

le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A

(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh

vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;

5766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e

ls [kksyk tk, A

(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k

dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh

U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;

ekuk tk,xk A

19-

izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls lHkh fuos'k Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa

dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A

LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls

NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s

fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds

vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr

djsxk A

20-

LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj

izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)

ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn

esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml

èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj

vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;

ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk

vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls

ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A

21-

U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k vU;

laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k

vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A

22-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh

lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk

vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'k;ksa ij muds

lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A

23-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa

lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;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,xk A

24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh

;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls

ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d

le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks

vfèkdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd

n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq,

[kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A

([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj

ys[kk&ijh{khr ryu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ

dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k

dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh

tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr

dh tk,xh RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds

dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi

esa miyCèk djkbZ tk,xh A

(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk

vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd ds

fy, fu;qDr uk fd;k tk, A

25-

yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa

dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA

26-

fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k

gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk

Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A

27-

U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh

mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacfèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A

28-

fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i

VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk

djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A

29-

fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d

daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds

iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk

gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds

fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A

30-

,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa

ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh

VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls

vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";

fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ

djsxkA

31-

dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks

c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku

bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014

S.O. 2247.—Whereas M/s. Aditya Birla Chemicals

(India) Limited [under Code No. JH/4989 in Regional Office,

Jharkhand] (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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5767

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter

referred to as the Act).

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.

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 1-11-1988 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/72/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM

THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT

FUND SCHEME, 1952

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.

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.

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.

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.

The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees

the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself

and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from

time to time by the 15th of each month following the month

for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall

be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of

Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues

towards the Board of Trustees.

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.

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.

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.

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

5768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 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

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank

of India and Central Government in accordance

with the instructions issued by the Central

Government in this regard.

(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should

be treated as incidental cost of investment by the

Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like

brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be

treated as incidental cost of investment by the

Trust.

19.

All such investments made like purchase of securities

and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India

and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the

same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or

cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such

custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the

name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional

PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request

from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.

20.

The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F.

Commissioner concerned the details of depository

participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),

with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments

made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in

securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the

Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money

as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such

as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and

transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/

her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts

by sale of the securities or other investments standing in

the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the

Regional PF Commissioner.

21.

Any commission, incentive, bonus or other

pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other

institutions for the investments made by the Trust should

be credited to its account.

22.

The employer and the members of the Board of

Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to

abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding

on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their

successors and assignees.

23.

The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also

give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within

the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the

event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally

binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution

in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.

24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by

the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by

a qualified independent chartered accountant

annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO

shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited

by any other qualified auditor and the expenses

so incurred shall be borne by the employer.

(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the

audited balance sheet should be submitted to this

office by the Auditors directly within six months

after the closing of the financial year from 1st

April to 31st March. The format of the balance

sheet and the information to be furnished in the

report shall be prescribed by the Employees’

Provident fund Organisation and made available

with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as

a signed hard copy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5769

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 fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2248-—tcfd eSllZ dal¯YVx bathfu;¯jx l£olst

(bafM;k) izkbZosV fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k Mh,y@3698 ds varxZr

fnYyh nf{k.k {ks=kh; dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa

lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e]

1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr)

dh èkkjk 17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds

fy, vkosnu fd;k gS A

vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds

lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku

esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaèk esa mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr) ds

varxZr miyCèk vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs

gSaA

vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh

mi èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu]

,rn~}kjk mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèkksa ds izpkyu ls 29&5&1974

ls vxys vfèklwpuk rd mDr izfr"Bku dks NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@68@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqcaèk

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV

iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±

fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa

ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{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 izfr

Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj

mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]

¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—

(i)

fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj

(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh

vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre

fu;a=k.k gksA

U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk

le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z

djsxk A

vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]

tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV

iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr

izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk

ls lap; jkf'k;ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;

5770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg

dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh

cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e

dh èkkjk 7 ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk nk;h

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk

vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls

Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A

U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk

n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr

vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A

izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;

va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj

lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk

?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e

vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds

varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A

10-

;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa

dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl

ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw

fd;k tk,xk A

11-

fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A

12-

fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk

ls fuiVk, tk,axs A

13-

U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk 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 vfèkekur%

bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls

lEizsf"kr djsaxs A

14-

U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus

ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd

fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr

fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA

iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,

tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A

15-

fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj

V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus

ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A

16-

U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk

;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj

ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk

tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md

dkjZokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A

17-

U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj

Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj

fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj

la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk n~okjk

;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A

18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj

izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa

visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh

cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh

lwpuk nsaxs A

([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh

le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A

(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh

vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;

ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e

ls [kksyk tk, A

(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k

dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh

U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;

ekuk tk,xk A

19-

izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa

dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A

LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls

NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s

fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds

vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr

djsxk A

20-

LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj

izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)

ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn

esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5771

èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj

vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;

ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk

vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls

ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A

21-

U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k vU;

laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k

vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A

22-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh

lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk

vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'krksa ij muds

lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A

23-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa

lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;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,xk A

24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh

;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kkdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls

ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d

le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks

vfèkdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd

n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq,

[kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A

([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj

ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ

dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k

dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh

tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr

dh tk,xh RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds

dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi

esa miyCèk djkbZ tk,xh A

(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk

vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd ds

fy, fu;qDr u fd;k tk, A

25-

yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa

dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA

26-

fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k

gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk

Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A

27-

U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh

mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacafèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A

28-

fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i

VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk

djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A

29-

fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d

daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds

iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk

gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds

fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A

30-

,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa

ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh

VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij lHkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls

vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";

fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ

djsxkA

31-

dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks

c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku

bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014

S.O.

2248.—Whereas M/s. Consulting Engineering

Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. [under Code No. DL/3698 in

Regional Office, Delhi (South)] (hereinafter referred to as

the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause

(a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

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.

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 29-5-1974 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/68/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

5772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM

THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT

FUND SCHEME, 1952

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.

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.

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.

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.

The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees

the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself

and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from

time to time by the 15th of each month following the month

for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall

be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of

Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues

towards the Board of Trustees.

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.

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5773

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

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank

of India and Central Government in accordance

with the instructions issued by the Central

Government in this regard.

(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should

be treated as incidental cost of investment by the

Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like

brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be

treated as incidental cost of investment by the

Trust.

19.

All such investments made like purchase of securities

and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India

and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the

same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or

cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such

custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the

name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional

PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request

from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.

20.

The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F.

Commissioner concerned the details of depository

participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),

with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments

made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in

securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the

Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money

as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such

as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and

transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/

her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts

by sale of the securities or other investments standing in

the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the

Regional PF Commissioner.

21.

Any commission, incentive, bonus or other

pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other

institutions for the investments made by the Trust should

be credited to its account.

22.

The employer and the members of the Board of

Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to

abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding

on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their

successors and assignees.

23.

The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also

give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within

the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the

event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally

binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution

in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.

24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by

the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by

a qualified independent chartered accountant

annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO

shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited

by any other qualified auditor and the expenses

so incurred shall be borne by the employer.

(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the

audited balance sheet should be submitted to this

office by the Auditors directly within six months

after the closing of the financial year from 1st

April to 31st March. The format of the balance

sheet and the information to be furnished in the

report shall be prescribed by the Employees’

Provident fund Organisation and made available

with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as

a signed hard copy.

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.

5774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 fnYYkh] 19 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2249-—tcfd eSllZ bafM;k flydk esxfuLV

odZl fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k MCY;wch@42487 ds varxZr ikdZ LVªhV

mi&{ks=kh; dk;kZy; esa) (,rnqijkar izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr)

us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952

(1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkar vfèkfu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh èkkjk

17 dh mi&èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy,

vkosnu fd;k gS A

vkSj tcfd dsUæ ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku dh njksa ds

lacaèk esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;e mDr vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

mi;qDr ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh ln`'k Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku

esa deZpkfj;ksa ds lacaèk esa mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkar ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr) ds

varxZr miyCèk vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk mBk jgs

gSaA

vr%] vc] dsUæ ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 dh

mi èkkjk (1) ds [k.M (d) varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu] ,rn~}kjk

mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh micaèkksa ds izpkyu ls 01&12&2007 ls vxys

vfèklwpuk rd mDr izfr"Bku dks NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@42@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

vuqcaèk

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 ds micaèkksa ls NwV

iznku djus lacaèkh 'krs±

fu;ksDrk le;≤ ij dsUæh; ljdkj vFkok dsUnzh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] n~okjk fn, tkus okys ,sls funs'kksa

ds vuqlkj Hkfo"; fufèk ds izcaèku gsrq viuh vè;{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 izfr

Hkfo"; fufèk esa izkfIr;ksa vkSj mlesa ls Hkqxrku ds mfpr ys[kksa vkSj

mudh vfHkj{kk esa 'ks"k jkf'k ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA bl iz;kstukFkZ]

¶fu;ksDrk¸ ls %—

(i)

fdlh izfr"Bku] tks ,d dkj[kkuk gks] mlds lacaèk esa]

dkj[kkus dk Lokeh vFkok vfèk"Bkrk vfHkizsr gksxk_ vkSj

(ii) fdlh vU; izfr"Bku ds lacaèk esa] og O;fDr] vFkok izkfèkdkjh

vfHkizsr gksxk] ftldk ml izfr"Bku ds dkedkt ij vafre

fu;a=k.k gksA

U;klh cksMZ gjsd frekgh esa de ls de ,d ckj CkSBd

djsxk vkSj og dsUæ ljdkj@dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

(lhih,iQlh) vFkok mlds n~okjk izkfèkÑr fdlh vfèkdkjh n~okjk

le; le; ij tkjh fd, tkus okys fn'kkfunsZ'kkas ds vuqlkj dk;Z

djsxk A

vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2(p) esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr lHkh deZpkjh]

tks HkfOk"; fufèk ds lnL; cuus ds ik=k jgs gSa_ ;fn izfr"Bku dks NwV

iznku ugha dh gksrh] mUgsa lnL;kas ds :i esa ukekafdr fd;k tk,xkA

tgka dksbZ deZpkjh tks igys gh fdlh vU; NwV&izkIr

izfr"Bku ds fdlh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vFkok Hkfo"; fufèk dk

lnL; gks] mls mlds izfr"Bku esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS] rks

fu;ksDrk mls rRdky fufèk ds lnL; ds :i esa ukekafdr djsxkA

fu;ksDrk ,sls deZpkjh ds Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrs esa mlds igys fu;ksDrk

ls lap; jkf';ka varfjr vkSj tek djokus dh Hkh O;oLFkk djsxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk dks mlds n~okjk vkSj deZpkjh ds

n~okjk le;≤ ij vfèkfu;e ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr nj ls ns;

va'knku dks] ftl ekg ds fy, va'knku ns; gksa mlds ckn ds ekg

dh 15 rkjh[k rd U;klh cksMZ dks varfjr djsxkA fu;ksDrk U;klh

cksMZ dks fdUgh ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku esa fdlh foyEc ds fy, vfèkfu;e

dh èkkjk 7Fk ds micaèkksa ds vuqlkj lkèkkj.k C;kt vnk djus dk

nk;h gksxk A

fu;ksDrk Hkfo"; fufèk ds iz'kklu ds lHkh O;; ogu djsxk

vkSj pksjh] MdSrh] xcu] nq£ofu;ksx vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls

Hkfo"; fufèk dks gks ldus okys fdlh ?kkVs dh Hkh HkjikbZ djsxk A

U;klh cksMZ n~okjk ?kksf"kr C;kt esa fdlh deh dks Hkh fu;ksDrk

n~okjk iwjk fd;k tkuk gksXkk vkSj mls lakfofèkd lhek rd ykuk

gksxk A

fu;ksDrk tc dHkh fu;e la'kksfèkr fd, tk,a] leqfpr

izkfèkdkjh n~okjk ;Fkk vuqeksfnr] fufèk ds fu;eksa dh ,d izfr

vfèkla[;d deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkk"kk esa muds vuqokn lfgr izfr"Bku

ds lwpuk iV ij izn£'kr djsxk A

izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fufèk fu;eksa ds varxZr fuèkkZfjr ns;

va'knku dh nj] vfxze dh 'krs± vkSj ek=kk rFkk vU; ekeys vkSj

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5775

lnL; ds ekfld pkyw 'ks"k ij laxf.kr vkSj U;klh cksMZ n~okjk

?kksf"kr] izR;sd lnL; ds [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k C;kt] vfèkfu;e

vkSj mlds varxZr fu£er ;kstuk esa fuèkkZfjr fofHkUu micaèkksa ds

varxZr dsUæ ljdkj n~okjk ?kksf"kr nj ls de ugha gksxk A

10-

;kstuk esa dksbZ la'kksèku] tks izfr"Bku ds fon~;eku fu;eksa

dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, vfèkd ykHknk;d gks] mls U;kl

ds fu;eksa esa vkSipkfjd la'kksèku ds yafcr jgrs mu ij Lor% ykxw

fd;k tk,xk A

11-

fu;ksDrk n~okjk fu;eksa esa dksbZ Hkh la'kksèku {ks=kh; Hkfo";

fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk ugha fd;k tk,xkA {ks=kh;

Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr viuk vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ deZpkfj;ksa dks

viuk #[k Li"V djus dk okftc volj nsxk A

12-

fudklh] vfxze vkSj varj.k ds lHkh nkos deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr vfèkdre le; lhek ds Hkhrj] 'kh?kzrk

ls fuiVk, tk,axs A

13-

U;klh cksMZ izR;sd deZpkjh ds lacaèk 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 vfèkekur%

bYkSDVªksfud :i ls j[kk tk,xkA izfr"Bku vkofèkd :i ls tc

dHkh dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr@{ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr

n~okjk funs'k fn;k tk,] lnL;ksa ds ys[kksa dks bySDVªkWfud :i ls

lEizsf"kr djsaxs A

14-

U;klh cksMZ o"kZ esa ,d ckj foRrh;@ys[kk o"kZ ds lekIr gksus

ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj izR;sd deZpkjh dks fu%'kqYd ys[kksa dk ok£"kd

fooj.k vFkok iklcqd tkjh djsxkA tc dHkh lnL; pkgsa] vfrfjDr

fizaVvkWmV ukeek=k ds izHkkj ds lkFk miyCèk djk, tk ldrs gSaA

iklcqd ds ekeys esa og deZpkjh ds ikl jgsxh ftls izLrqr fd,

tkus ij U;kfl;ksa n~okjk vkofèkd :i ls vn~;ru fd;k tk,xk A

15-

fu;ksDrk lHkh lnL;ksa dks mudh vko';drkuqlkj dEI;wVj

V£euyksa ls vius [kkrs esa iM+h 'ks"k jkf'k dks ns[kus ds leFkZ cukus

ds fy, vko';d izkoèkku djsaxs A

16-

U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk

;Fkk fofgr :i esa ;s foojf.k;ka fofu£n"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj

ekfld@ok£"kd :i ls nk;j djsaxs] ftls u djus ij bls pwd ekuk

tk,xk rFkk U;klh cksMZ vkSj fu;ksDrk la;qDr :i ls vkSj vyx&vyx]

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk dh tkus okyh mi;qDr nkf.Md

dkjokbZ ds Hkkxh gksaxs A

17-

U;klh cksMZ le;≤ ij ljdkj ds funs±'kksa ds vuqlkj

Hkfo"; fufèk ds iSls dk fuos'k djsxkA ljdkj ds funs±'kkas ds vuqlkj

fuos'k djus esa vliQy gksus ij U;klh cksMZ vyx&vyx vkSj

la;qDr #i ls dsUæh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ;k mlds izfrfufèk n~okjk

;Fkk vfèkjksfir vfèk'kqYd dk Hkkxh cu tk,xk A

18-(d) izfrHkwfr;ka U;kl ds uke ls izkIr dh tk,axhA bl izdkj

izkIr dh xbZ izfrHkwfr;ka vHkkSfrd (MhesV) :i eas gksuh

pkfg, rFkk U;kl ds dk;Zpkfyr jgus okys {ks=kksa esa

visf{kr lqfoèkk ds miyCèk u gksus dh fLFkfr esa U;klh

cksMZ lacafèkr {ks=kh; HkfOk"; fufèk vk;qDr dks bldh

lwpuk nsaxs A

([k) U;klh cksMZ fyfi&okj jftLVj cuk,xk rFkk C;kt dh

le; ij mxkgh lqfuf'pr djsxk A

(x) MhesV [kkrk bl lacaèk esa dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk tkjh

vuqns'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh;

ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa ds ekè;e

ls [kksyk tk, A

(?k) MhesV [kkrs dk [kpZ U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k

dk izklafxd O;; ekuk tk, A izfrHkwfr;ksa vkfn dh [kjhn

dh nykyh tSls fuos'kksa ds lHkh izdkj ds [kpks± dks Hkh

U;kl n~okjk fd, tkus okys fuos'k dk izklafxd O;;

ekuk tk,xk A

19-

izfrHkwfr;ksa vkSj ck.Mksa dh [kjhn tSls ,sls fuos'k Hkkjrh;

fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr fu{ksikxkj izfrHkkfx;ksa

dh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk esa ntZ fd, tk,a] tks blds laj{kd gksaxs A

LFkkiuk dh canh ;k ifjlekiu ;k deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk] 1952 ls

NwV ij ;g laj{kd] U;kl ds uke ij izkIr rFkk vius tek esa iM+s

fuos'k dks lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds] bl vk'k; ds

vuqjksèk ij lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks lhèks varfjr

djsxk A

20-

LFkkiuk lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr dks mu fu{ksikxkj

izfrHkkfx;ksa (Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vuqeksfnr)

ds fooj.k ls lwfpr djsxh] ftjds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

esa U;kl ds eku ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn

esa fd, x, fuos'k ntZ fd, x, gSa A rFkkfi] U;klh cksMZ ml

èkujkf'k dh mxkgh dj ldrk gS] tks nkoksa ds fuiVku] fu;ekuqlkj

vfxzeksa dh eatwjh vkSj fu;ksDrk dh lsok NksM+us dh fLFkfr esa lnL;

ds Hkfo"; fufèk lap;u ds varj.k vkSj izfrHkwfr;ksa dh fcØh n~okjk

vU; fdlh izkfIr;ksa vFkok {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds 'krkZèkhu fufèk ds uke esa iM+s vU; fuos'kksa tSls

ckè;dkjh O;;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, visf{kr gksa A

21-

U;kl n~okjk fd, x, fuos'kksa ds fy, fdlh foRrh; ;k vU;

laLFkkvksa n~okjk fn, tkus okys fdlh deh'ku] izksRlkgu] cksul ;k

vU; vkfFkZd ykHk blds [kkrs esa Mkys tk,a A

22-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds lnL; 'krks± dk ikyu djus dh

lgefr nsrs gq, fyf[kr opu nsaxs rFkk ;g oSfèkd :i ls fu;ksDrk

vkSj U;klh cksMZ ds mRrjkfèkdkfj;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'k;ksa ij muds

lkFk&lkFk ckè;dkjh gksxk A

23-

fu;ksDrk vkSj U;klh cksMZ NwV ds jí gksus fd fLFkfr esa

lacafèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr n~okjk fofgr le; lhek ds

Hkhrj rRdky fufèk;ksa dk varj.k djus ds opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu

5776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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,xk A

24-(d) U;klh cksMZ n~okjk vuqjf{kr Hkfo"; fufèk [kkrk fdlh

;ksX; Lora=k pkVZMZ ys[kdkj n~okjk ok£"kd :i ls

ys[kk&ijh{kk djus ds 'krkZèkhu gksxk A tgka Hkh vko';d

le>k tk,] ogka deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu dks

vfèkdkj gksxk fd ;g fdlh vU; ;ksX; ys[kk&ijh{kd

n~okjk [kkrksa dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk, rFkk bl izdkj gq,

[kpZ fu;ksDrk n~okjk ogu fd, tk,axs A

([k) ys[kk&ijh{kdksa n~okjk foRrh; o"kZ vFkkZr~ 1 vizSy ls 31

ekpZ rd dh lekfIr ds ckn Ng eghus ds Hkhrj

ys[kk&ijh{khr rqyu&i=k lfgr ys[kk&ijh{kd dh fjiksVZ

dh izfr lhèks bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk, A rqyu&i=k

dk izk:Ik vkSj bl fjiksVZ esa izLrqr dh tkus okyh

tkudkjh deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk laxBu n~okjk fuèkkZfjr

dh tk,xh RkFkk lacfèkr {ks=kh; Hkfo"; fufèk vk;qDr ds

dk;kZy; esa bySDVªkWfud izk:Ik ds lkFk gLrk{kfjr izfrfyfi

esa miyCèk djkbZ tk,xh A

(x) ,d gh ys[kk&ijh{kdksa dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ds fy, rFkk

vxys foÙkh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV ls vfèkd ds

fy, fu;qDr uk fd;k tk, A

25-

yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o"kks± rd dksbZ gkfu ;k iwath vkèkkj esa

dVkSrh dks vxys foRrh; o"kZ ds igys fnu ls feyh NwV izkIr gksxhA

26-

fu;ksDrk izR;sd ekg dh lekfIr ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{k.k

gsrq ,slh lqfoèkkvksa dk izkoèkku djsxk rFkk ,sls fujh{k.k izHkkjksa dk

Hkqxrku djsxk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj n~okjk vfèkfu;e dh

èkkjk 17 ds mi&[k.M (3) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr le;≤

ij fn, funZs'kksa ds vuqlkj gksa A

27-

U;klh cksMZ ;k fu;ksDrk n~okjk NwV nsus ds fy, 'krks± ds fdlh

mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa nh xbZ NwV lacfèkr O;fDr dks bl lacaèk esa

dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus ds ckn jí dj nh tk,xh A

28-

fdlh Hkh èkks[ks] xcu] xyr fuos'k fu.kZ;ksa vkfn ds iQyLo:i

VªLV dks gq, fdlh Hkh uqdlku dh fLFkfr eas fu;ksDrk uqdlku iwjk

djus dk Hkkxh gksxk A

29-

fdlh foy;] vfoy;] vfHkxzg.k] fcØh] ,dhdj.k] lgk;d

daiuh dk xBu pkgs iw.kZr% LokfeRo okyh gks ;k ugha bR;knh ds

iQyLo:i ;fn izfr"Bku dh dkuwuh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh cnyko gksrk

gS rks nh xbZ NwV fujLr gksxh ,oa izfr"Bku dks rqjar ubZ NwV nsus ds

fy, ekeys dh fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, A

30-

,d gh Hkfo"; fuèkh VªLV esa ,d ls vfèkd bdkbZ@izfr"Bkuksa

ds Hkkx ysus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkx ysus okyh bdkb;ksa ds fdlh Hkh

VªLVh@fu;ksDrk n~okjk dksbZ Hkh pwd gksus ij Hkh VªLVh la;qDr :i ls

vyx ls ftEesnkj@mRrjnk;h gksaxs vkSj vkjih,iQlh vke Hkfo";

fufèk VªLV ds lHkh U;kfl;ksa ds fo#¼ mi;qDr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ

djsxkA

31-

dsUæ ljdkj izfr"Bku dh NwV dh fujarjrk ds fy, 'krks± dks

c<+k ldrh gS vkSj tc Hkh budks laizsf"kr fd;k tk,xk ;s izfr"Bku

bu vfrfjDr 'krks± dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, ckè; gksaxs A

New Delhi, the 19th August, 2014

S.O. 2249.—Whereas M/s. India Silica Magnesite

Works Ltd. [under Code No. WB/42487 in Sub-Regional

Office, Park Street] (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).

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.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said

Act and subject to the conditions annexed with this

notification, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the

said establishment from the operation of all the provisions

of the said Scheme with effect from 1-12-2007 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/42/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM

THE PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT

FUND SCHEME, 1952

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.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5777

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.

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.

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.

The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees

the contributions payable to the Provident Fund by himself

and employees at the rate prescribed under the act from

time to time by the 15th of each month following the month

for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall

be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of

Section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues

towards the Board of Trustees.

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.

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.

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.

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

5778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank

of India and Central Government in accordance

with the instructions issued by the Central

Government in this regard.

(d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should

be treated as incidental cost of investment by the

Trust. Also all types of cost of investments like

brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be

treated as incidental cost of investment by the

Trust.

19.

All such investments made like purchase of securities

and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India

and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the

same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or

cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952 such

custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the

name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the Regional

PF Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request

from the Regional PF Commissioner concerned to that effect.

20.

The establishment shall intimate to the Regional P.F.

Commissioner concerned the details of depository

participants (approved by RBI and Central Government),

with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments

made in the name of trust, viz., investments made in

securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the

Board of Trustees may raise such sum of sums of money

as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such

as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and

transfer of member’s PF accumulations in the event of his/

her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts

by sale of the securities or other investments standing in

the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the

Regional PF Commissioner.

21.

Any commission, incentive, bonus or other

pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other

institutions for the investments made by the Trust should

be credited to its account.

22.

The employer and the members of the Board of

Trustees, shall furnish a written undertaking agreeing to

abide by the conditions and this shall be legally binding

on the employer and the Board of Trustees, including their

successors and assignees.

23.

The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also

give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within

the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the

event of cancellation of relaxation. This shall be legally

binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution

in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.

24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by

the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by

a qualified independent chartered accountant

annually. Where considered necessary the EPFO

shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited

by any other qualified auditor and the expenses

so incurred shall be borne by the employer.

(b) A copy of the Auditor’s report alongwith the

audited balance sheet should be submitted to this

office by the Auditors directly within six months

after the closing of the financial year from 1st

April to 31st March. The format of the balance

sheet and the information to be furnished in the

report shall be prescribed by the Employees’

Provident fund Organisation and made available

with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as

a signed hard copy.

two consecutive years and not more than the

relaxation withdrawn from the first day of the next

succeeding financial year.

25.

Any loss for the three consecutive financial years or

erosion in the capital base shall have the relaxation

withdrawn from the first day of the next succeeding financial

year.

26.

The employer shall provide for such facilities for

inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central

Government may from time to time direct under clause (a)

of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act within 15 days

from the close of every month.

27.

In the event of any violation of the conditions for

grant of relaxation, by the employer or the Board of

Trustees, the relaxation granted shall be cancelled after

issuing a show-cause notice in this regard to the concerned

persons.

28.

In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any

fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the

employer shall be liable to make good the loss.

29.

In case of any change of legal status of the

establishment as a result of merger, de-merger, acquisition,

sale, amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether

wholly owned or not etc., the relaxation granted shall stand

revoked and the establishment should promptly report the

matter for grant of fresh relaxation.

30.

In case there are more than one unit/establishment

participating in the common Provident Fund Trust, all the

trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible

for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer

of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take

suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common

Provident Fund Trust.

31.

The Central Government may lay down further

conditions for continuation of exemption of the

establishment and the establishment shall be bound to

comply with these additional conditions as and when the

same are communicated.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5779

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2250-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkiksZjs'ku 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 117@97)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@113@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O. 2250.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 117/

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Corporation Bank, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/113/96-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/117/97

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Ajit Singh Jadega,

Qr. No. 162-163,

Gudiyari,

Distt. Raipur

.....Workman

Versus

Dy.General Manager,

Corporation Bank, Head office,

Mangala Devi Campus road,

Post Box No. 88,

Bangalore (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of July, 2014

As per letter dated 29-4-97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

113/96-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Corporation Bank in relation to their Branch at Raipur

in terminating the services of Shri Ajit Singh Jadeja,

clerk w.e.f. 5-7-95 is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at page 4/1 to 4/7. Case of workman is that he was appointed

as clerk at Raipur branch on 9-12-1974. He was offered

notional cadre. Considering his unblemished service

record, it was alleged that on 7-2-1983, fictitious Saving

Account was opened at the branch in the name of Miss

Asha Nathani. It was alleged that workman was responsible

for opening said fictitious account accepting Rs.10

voucher. He was working at Teller Counter. That if

workman would not accepted scrutinized voucher, he

would have been responsible for misconduct and

disobedience. He acted without negligence. It was also

alleged that on 24-2-83, amount of Rs. 50,000/- and on

12-3-84, entry of Rs. 21,000/- was credited in the above

Bank account. The Account opening form and credit

vouchers were missing from Bank’s custody. The alleged

credits were posted in the Ledger account of Miss Asha

Nathani by Shri A.k.Shrivastava who appeared later as a

management witness in the domestic enquiry. It was alleged

on 15-3-83 a cheque bearing No. 553773 for Rs.5000/- was

posted in the above Savings Bank Account and encashed.

Said cheque was also not handled by the workman. This

cheque has also been alleged to be missing from the Bank’s

custody. That chargesheet was issued to workman and

peon alleging that they entered office premises at 6.30 PM

on 15-3-83 in drunken condition. Said act was concealed

and not reported in the complaint filed with the police.

That after 10 years of incident, chargesheet was issued to

workman. Workman was suspended w.e.f. April 1983. On

27-3-83. Report was submitted to police by Branch

Manager. Statements of witnesses K.S.Sessaiya, Vinod

Kumar, Chandra Sekhar, Vijay Kumar, Felix D’Souza,

A.P.Vajpayee, C.S.Rao, Ashok Kumar, Praveen Kumar,

C.N.Dubey & P.P.Mishra were accorded by police.

Workman has requested for removal of his suspension

and reinstatement in service. After their acquittal by

Criminal Court on 19-2-1994, it is submitted that the material

witnesses have not attended criminal court even after

bailable warrants issued against them. After workman was

under suspension for more than 10 years, he was served

with chargesheet on 9-9-93. Enquiry was conducted

against him is biased in violation of principles of natural

justice. Workman had requested production of documents-

Teller rough cash book for February and March 1983,

balancing book of Savings Bank Ledger, balancing order

book, stationery stock register, original page of officers

main scroll dated 7-2-83. Workman has reiterated that

enquiry was not properly conducted. The witnesses were

tutored as they are employees or offices of the Bank. That

5780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Disciplinary Authority without applying his mind,

terminated workman from 5-7-95, peon Deb was reinstated

in the bank’s service. Workman raised question why Shri

Deb was not punished alongwith him and he was singled

out for termination of his service. Workman has also

referred to Bipartite Settlement providing appeal against

order of punishment. That his appeal was dismissed

without appropriate reasons. He reiterates that principles

of natural justice were not followed. The provision of

Desai Award were also not applied. That workman was

acquitted by Criminal Court, Punishment imposed against

him is in violation of principles of double jeopardie. That

Bank illegally recovered Rs.5000/- to debit of Savings Bank

Account. The blackmailing tactics worked on the staff

and to save their own skin, they attend their statements in

the domestic enquiry. The actual culprits are left. On all

such grounds, workman is praying for his reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed exhaustive Written Statement at page

11/1 to 11/16. Claim of workman is opposed. It is alleged

that on 7-2-83, workman while working as clerk in cash

department, managed to open fictitious account in name

of Miss Asha Nathani. Nathani had never come to Bank

for giving her specimen signature for opening account.

Workman was working as Special Assistant during 22-2-83

to 8-3-83 taking disadvantage of the post, he made transfer

entries in the account of Miss Asha Nathani dated 24-2-83

& 12-3-83 for Rs.50,000/- & Rs.21,000/- respectively.

Workman was having custody of cheque books bearing

Sl.No.553771 to 553780, he issued cheque No. 553773 dated

15-3-83 for Rs.5000/-. After inspection, it was found that

all those documents pertaining to Account No. 1652 of

Miss Asha Nathani were missing though the entry was

made in ledger book. All other adverse contentions of

workman are denied. It is submitted that workman was

rightly suspended w.e.f. 22-4-1983 and they were directly

involved in misconduct. The incident was reported by

Branch Manager to Police on 17-3-83. Acquittal of workman

is not disputed but it is submitted that workman was given

benefit of doubt while acquitting him. It is open for

management to proceed against him by way of clause 19.11,

19.12 of the Bipartite Settlement, the chargesheet was

issued to workman. Enquiry was conducted against him

giving opportunity for his defence. That amount of

Rs.5000/- was fraudulently withdrawn by him on 15-3-83.

Enquiry officer submitted his report. Considering report

of Enquiry officer, that misconduct alleged against

workman were proved, workman was given showcause

notice. The punishment imposed against workman is illegal.

The domestic enquiry and criminal trial cannot be equated.

The contentions of workman that he was not supplied

documents in domestic enquiry are denied. Workman has

not pointed out specific ingredient of Para 521 of Sastry

Award was not followed. All other adverse contentions of

workman are denied. IInd party prayed for rejection of

claim of workman.

Considering pleadings between parties, my

predecessor has framed issues as under. As per order dated

9-2-2011, issue No.1 is answered. Enquiry is held legal.

Therefore Issue No.2 has become redundant. My finding

on Issue No.3,4 are recorded for the reasons given below.

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

Enquiry is

ment of Whether the Departmental

held legal.

enquiry conducted by the manage-

ment against the workman is proper

and legal?

(ii) Whether the management is entitled

Redundant

to lead evidence to prove the alleged

misconduct of the workman?

(iii) Whether the termination order dated

In Affirmative

22-6-95 is valid and legal?

(iv) Whether the workman is entitled to

In Negative

reinstatement with back wages?

(v) Relief and costs?

As per final

order.

REASONS

Vide order dated 9-2-2011, my predecessor held that

the enquiry conducted against workman is not vitiated.

As enquiry conducted against workman is found legal

and proper, there is no question of allowing management

to lead evidence to prove misconduct alleged against

workman. In view of the order passed by my predecessor,

Issue No.1 is answered in Affirmative. Issue No.2 doesnot

survive.

Issue No.3- In view of enquiry conducted against

workman is found proper and legal, question remains to

be decided is whether the termination of services of

workman is valid and legal. Said issue involves question

whether the charges of misconduct alleged against

workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

or findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.

Learned counsel for workman Shri A.K.Shashi during

course of argument submitted that workman was

suspended on 20-4-83. Chargesheet was issued on 9-9-93

after 10 years of his suspension. The charges against

workman were about opening fictitious account in name

of Miss Nathani. Entries of Rs.50,000/- & 21,000/- deposited

on 24-2-83, 12-3-83 were recorded. Deposit slips were

missing. Amount Rs.5000/- was withdrawn on 15-3-83 as

per cheque No. 553773. That cheque was missing. It is

further submitted that the workman was prosecuted in

Criminal Case No. 217/93. He was acquitted by Criminal

Court. The witnesses remained absent in Criminal case

despite bailable warrants issued by court. After 10 years,

they were examined in Departmental Enquiry, their

evidence cannot be relied upon. The evidence of material

witnesses is not sufficient to prove alleged

misappropriation of Rs. 5000/- by workman. Evidence

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5781

shows that scroll of Rs.10/- was written by management’s

witness Vajpayee. There was overwriting in the name. the

entry of amount was taken at Sl.No. 23 despite of cheque

was missing. Cheque for payment was received by scroll

office. The evidence of management’s witness Felix

D’Souza, Panda, C.S.Rao, Ashok Srivastava is not sufficient

to prove the alleged charges. On such argument, learned

counsel submits that charges are not proved and

termination of workman be set-aside. Workman be

reinstated. Learned counsel for IInd party Narendra Vyas

supported the findings of Enquiry Officer and punishment

imposed against workman pointing out that evidence of

witnesses by Shri C.S.Rao, Panda and A.K.Shrivastava

supports findings of Enquiry Officer. That workman had

received amount of Rs. 5000/-. The findings of Enquiry

Officer are not perverse. Learned counsel prays for

rejection of claim of workman. Several citations are also

relied by learned counsel for parties.

It would be appropriate first to consider the evidence

of management’s witnesses and then various citations

relied by counsel for parties. Incidentally it was submitted

that Enquiry Officer has discussed evidence of witnesses

of management in his report of enquiry. Chargesheet is

issued to workman Exhibit M-1. The misconduct alleged

against workman are given exhaustively. That workman

was entrusted duties of Special Assistant during 22-2-83

to 8-3-83. He was incharge of cash scroll and cheque books

were in his custody. That cheque book containing 10 leafs

bearing No. Sl.No.553771 to 553780, he issued cheque No.

553773 dated 15-3-83 for Rs.5000/-. In name of Miss Asha

Athani, two credit entries of Rs.50,000/- & 21,000/-

recorded on 24-2-83, 12-3-83 in said account. However no

entries were made in Sub Day book regarding credit of

said amount. That amount of Rs.5000/- was withdrawn on

5-3-83 by cheque No. 553773 dated 15-3-83. However

cheque was not entered in Sub Day book. Cheque was

found missing on 15-3-83. That amount of Rs.5000/- was

fraudulently withdrawn when credits of Rs.15,000/- &

21,000/- were made without corresponding debits and from

the removal/ destruction of these credit slips. That on

15-3-83, workman along with Shri Dev entered Bank in

intoxicated stage and they enquired from officers why they

were sitting late. That workman is involved in receiving

cash of Rs.10/- towards the opening of SB Account No.

1652, his failure to ensure the entry of cheque book and

withdrawal of Rs.5000/- on 5-8-83. Whether all those

charges are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings

is a matter involved for decision.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri A.K.

Shashi during course of argument pointed out my attention

to the Enquiry Proceeding dated 13-11-93, 11-12-93,

11-2-94, 8-8-94. As enquiry conducted against workman

is found legal and proper by my predecessor and as said

order has received finality, I donot find substance in

argument advanced on above point. Turning to evidence

of management’s witnesses MW-1 Vajpayee stated that

on 7-5-83 he was Scroll Officer. Workman complained

Jadeja was one of the cashier. He did not recollect name of

other cashier working on that day. Exhibit M-1 is in

handwriting of Shri S.Jadeja against receipt at Sl.No. 61,

there is credit of Rs.10/- towards initial deposit in account

of Shri Athani. For opening account minimum deposit Rs.

300/- to 500/- is required. In respect of this Account, a

cheque book containing cheques leaves numbers 553771

to 553780 was issued. Issue of cheque book should have

been shown in between 28-2-83 to 2-3-83. There is no entry

in Exhibit M-10. That between 23-2-83 to 8-3-83, Shri Jadeja

was Scroll Officer cheque books were in his custody. On

15-3-83, he was Scroll Officer as seen from Exhibit M-3.

Cheque No. 55773 was passed for payment. The Debit

entry in Exhibit M-3 is in handwriting of Shri C.S.Rao. The

corresponding entry is available at Sl.No.23 of Cash Scroll

dated 15-3-83. That around 6.45 PM shri Jadeja and Shri

Sampat R. Deb came to the branch, they asked in a loud

tone as to why he was sitting late when the (R.D) receipt

and debit tallied at 4.45 PM. He says that they were in

drunken condition. Shri Jadeja was saying to Shri D’Souza

why he was locating the difference, he will tally it

tomorrow. After such talks they went out of the branch

premises. On 16-3-83, Shri Jadeja was sitting in branch at

the same seat as he was occupying on 15-3-83 by his side.

That D’Zouza noticed the cheque of Rs.5000/- pertaining

to A/C No. 1652 was not available. The vouchers about

initial deposit Rs.10/- also were not found, both started

locating the cheque. They did not find vouchers about

Rs.50,000/- & 21,000/-. In his cross-examination, witness

says as per procedure Officer should see Account Opening

Form practice was in the Bank but the letter was sent to

Officer Incharge of cash scroll after issuing card. He verify

Account Opening Form and sent to S.B.Account deposit.

On 7-2-83, account was opened and checked by Shri Felix

D’Souza, Officer. There was the practice of issuing

passbook to the account holder. He claims ignorance

whether pass book was issued to the Account holder on

7-2-83. His further cross-examination shows that the

persons who issue cheque books should ensure that they

are issued serially. Cheque books issued on the same day

may not sometimes be entered in the serial order but all

the cheque books issued during the day will be entered in

the cheque book issue register. In his further cross-

examination he says that Shri Jadeja was scroll officer

from 23-2-83 to 8-3-83. The entries in cash book issued are

made by the State Bank Ledger Clerk. The evidence of

this witness further shows that on 15-3-83, they were not

aware about difference in balance was because of Saving

Account No. 1652. He didnot find entry of Rs.5000/- in

Sub-day book. On that he told that cheque must be there.

Both of them verified cheque of Rs.5000/- but the cheque

couldnot be found. They verified the other two previous

entries in the ledger for Rs.50,000 & 21,000/-. As there

were no entries in the sub-day book for these items, they

5782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

verified the corresponding entries in sub Day Book but

could not find the entries. He confirmed that the tallying

was done basically by Mr. D’Souza. At that time no other

person was present in the branch.

10.

Witness No.2 Shri Felix D’Souza corroborated the

evidence of witness No.1 that entries in sub day book of

Rs.50,000/- & 21,000/- and amount of Rs. 5000/- were not

found. The cheque was missing. The evidence of

management’s witness No.1,2 on above point is not

shattered in their cross-examination.

11.

Witness No.3 Shri B.N.Panda in his evidence stated

that Ist party alongwith Deb had come in evening and

enquired why they were sitting in the office is not shattered

in their cross-examination. Witness No.3 Panda in his

evidence says that he was working as clerk, he had made

payment of Rs. 5000/- to workman. That Jadeja had come

to his residence asking address of Shri C.S.Rao they had

gone to house of Shri C.S.Rao. Workman was asking

C.S.Rao that he should not tell anyone about payment of

Rs.5000/- under cheque to him. In his cross-examination,

witness No.3 Panda says that on 15-3-83 he told Enquiry

Officer that he did not recollect to whom he had made

payment of cheque of Rs. 5000/-. During course of

argument, Shri A.K.Shashi emphasized immediately after

incident when Witness No.3 did not tell to whom the

amount was paid, his statement recorded after 10 years in

Departmental Enquiry telling that amount Rs.5000/- was

paid to workman cannot be believed. I find substance in

above argument. There is no cogent explanation in

statement of witness No.3 Panda how he recollected

payment of Rs.5000 under cheque to the Ist party workman.

The evidence of witness No.3 lacks reliability. Witness

No.4 C.S.Rao in his statement says he was working as

clerk at Raipur. The entry in respect of Rs.5000/- dated

15-5-83 in ledger folio of Account No. 1652 Exhibit M-3

was made by him. The cheque was given to him by Shri

Jadeja. After entering cheque in the ledger, he sent it to

Scroll Officer. The entry regarding Rs. 5000/- is not

appearing in Sub Day Book. The cheque of Rs. 5000/- did

not come back to him. On 15-3-83, entry was not made in

Sub day book despite of his objection, Jadeja had taken

entry. He had promised to produce cheque. He told him

about difference of Rs. 5000/-. Accordingly the witness

changed figure in sub day book. That Jadeja had come to

his house and requested him not to reveal about issuing

token and payment of Rs. 5000/- under cheque. The

evidence in cross-examination , witness says that he admits

in statement of claim at Page 22 of Exhibit M-20 that Jadeja

had told him not to disclose that he issued token to him.

The evidence on above point is not shattered in his cross-

examination. The evidence of Mr. Balachandra- MW-4 is

about inspection carried by him regarding statement of

witness including workman. He had submitted detailed

report at Exhibit M-20. Evidence of witness Balchandran

corroborates with evidence of C.S.Rao, witness Panda on

material particulars that token of amount of Rs.5000/- was

issued to him. As evidence of witness Shri Panda is

corroborated by those witnesses, their evidence deserve

to be accepted. The legal position with respect to the

appreciation of evidence in Enquiry proceedings is clear.

The Tribunal cannot appreciate evidence. The evidence

needs to be considered to decide whether findings of

Enquiry Officer are perverse. The evidence of Shri Panda

finds corroboration from evidence of Shri C.S.Rao and

P.V.Balachandran. It is also corroborated by statements

submitted alongwith report Exhibit M-20 by management

witness Balchandran. In his report Exhibit M-20, Shri

Balachandran has further explained that workman had

friendship with Panda and because of it, Panda was

reluctant to give statement against the workman. So far as

argument advanced by Shri A.K.Shashi about acquittal in

criminal case, copy of judgment is produced on record,.

Out of 12 witnesses, only evidence of 3 witness was

recorded in criminal case. Evidence of material witnesses

examined in enquiry were not recorded for want of presence

of the witnesses despite of issuing bailable warrants. It is

clear that all the witnesses in Enquiry Proceedings were

not examined in criminal case and failure to secure their

presence. Their statements are recorded in Enquiry

Proceedings cannot be discarded only for the reason that

workman was acquitted in criminal case.

12.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman relies on ratio

held in

Case of Mangat Rai versus Punjab Road Transport

Corporation and another reported in 1998-LAB-I.C.1827.

The ratio held in the case by their Lordship of Punjab and

Haryana High Court that Presiding Officer of Labour Court

is duty bound to examine on merits evidence recorded by

Enquiry Officer and record its own findings on charges

leveled against delinquent.

The ratio in above cited case is clear that evidence

in Enquiry Proceedings needs to be considered by the

Tribunal.

In case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold

Mines Ltd. And another reported in 1999(3) Supreme Court

Cases 679, their Lordship dealt with the point of

simultaneous continuance of with criminal proceedings

with Departmental enquiry.

In present case, Departmental Enquiry was initiated

after acquittal of workman but with difference that the

material witnesses examined in Enquiry Proceedings were

not examined as witnesses in criminal case. Therefore the

principles laid down in the case cannot be applied to case

at hand. For same reasons the observations made in

judgment by his Lordship in Writ petition No. 7622/2005

cannot be benefitially applied to present case.

Copy of award passed by undersigned in R/1/01 is

also submitted for consideration. Evidence in said case is

of auditor making enquiry about misappropriation alleged.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5783

The ratio held in case of Umakant Dwivedi versus State of

MP and others in W.P. No. 7622/2005 by M.P. High Court,

Jabalpur was relied in said case. In para-14 of the judgment

their Lordship dealing with ratio held in case of State of

Mysore and others versus shivbasappa Shivappa

Makapur, AIR 1963-SC-375 observed that the statement

given by a witness previously behind the back of the party,

is required to be put to him again in the disciplinary

proceedings and is required to be admitted in evidence.

In present case, witness Panda was asked question

about his previous statements Exhibit M-3 at Page-20

admitted he did not know to whom amount was paid but

evidence of Shri Panda is corroborated by other witnesses

discussed above. Therefore ratio held in above case

cannot be applied to case at hand.

In case of Sumangal Veerbahadur Rana and State of

Maharashtra and others reported in 2000-I-LLJ-896 relied

by Shri A.K. Shashi , their Lordship dealing with reliefs of

acquittal in criminal proceedings held even though it is

not binding, due consideration must be given before

applying mind for imposing punishment.

In present case, statement of Shri Panda is

corroborated by Shri C.S. Rao and Balachandran. The

token of cheque of Rs. 5000 was given to workman. Amount

was paid to workman. The evidence on point is not

shattered. To be precise, the finding of Enquiry officer are

supported by some evidence. The burden of proof beyond

reasonable doubt is not applicable to the Departmental

proceedings. The proof of misconduct is required to be

decided considering the probabilities. It is apparent to

say that findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by

evidence discussed above.

13.

Counsel for management Shri Vyas relies on ratio

held in State Bank of India and another versus Bela Bagchi

and others reported in 2005-STPL(LE)35024 SC, Divisional

Controller KSRTC versus M.G.Vittal Rao reported in

STPL(LE)45952 SC. The detailed discussion of ratio held

in those cases is not necessary as the evidence discussed

above supports the findings of Enquiry Officer. Therefore

I record my finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.

14.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

misconduct alleged against workman is proved from

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, punishment of dismissal

from service calls no interference. Considering serious

nature of misconduct proved against workman,

punishment of dismissal from service is proper. No

interference is called for. Accordingly I record my finding

in Point No.2.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Corporation Bank

in relation to their Branch at Raipur in terminating

the services of Shri Ajit Singh Jadeja, clerk w.e.f.

5-7-95 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

16.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2251-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 232@98)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@86@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O. 2251.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 232/

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/86/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/232/98

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri R.C. Katkani,

S/o Shri Lakhmi Chand Katkani,

C/o 240, Sethi Nagar Colony,

Freeganj,

Ujjain

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

L.H.O, Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of July, 2014

As per letter dated 15-10-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

86/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

5784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in terminating the services of

Shri R.C. Katkani, Record Keeper w.e.f. 21-11-95 is

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

for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially

appointed as Messenger in 1972 by IInd party Bank. He

was served with chargesheet on 14-3-95. Disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against him. Charges alleged

against him were he drunk wine in the Bank premises and

misbehaved with colleague employees, officers and

customers of the Bank. After chargesheet was issued,

Disciplinary Authority and officers of the Bank tried to

admit the charge with the assurance of either releasing

him from the charge or award minor punishment. On such

promises, he did not submit reply to the chargesheet. At

the time of Departmental Enquiry, he was given

understanding that enquiry is formulated. That he would

be released from charges of minor punishment may be

awarded against him. On such contentions he admitted

charge. He did not produce anything in support of his

defence. He was terminated as per order dated 21-11-95.

He challenged said order preferring appeal. Appeal was

dismissed on 14-2-96 without application of mind.

Workman submits that he was denied opportunity for his

defence. Enquiry was not properly conducted. Principles

of natural justice were not followed. His admission was

not unconditional on the point. Enquiry was closed without

recording evidence of witnesses. Workman did not get

opportunity for his defence. Punishment of dismissed was

imposed without application of mind. Disciplinary

Authority ignored conspiracy for admission of charge by

him. The punishment is illegal.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/

12. IInd party submits that services of workman are

covered by Sastri and Desai Awards. He was served with

chargesheet on 14-3-95, the details of charges against

workman are narrated. That workman in drunken condition

abused and assaulted Branch Manager, Staff and

customers. He denied his behaviour despite of

interrogation by other staff members. That from behavior

of workman, image of Bank was spoiled. IInd party submits

that after chargesheet was issued to him, workman

attended Enquiry proceedings. Charges were read over to

him. Repeatedly workman admitted charges. Therefore

Enquiry Officer did not record statements of management’s

witnesses. Enquiry officer submitted his report that

charges alleged against workman are proved. Showcause

notice was issued to workman by Disciplinary Authority.

Considering entire material, punishment of dismissal was

imposed. Appeal preferred by workman was dismissed for

the reasons that enquiry conducted against workman is

proper and legal. Workman was given opportunity for his

defence. All contentions of workman that admission of

charges were obtained from him giving promises of lesser

punishment are denied. IInd party prayed for rejection of

claim.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/3

reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the mana- In Affirmative

gement of State Bank of India in

terminating the services of Shri

R.C. Katkani, Record Keeper

w.e.f. 21-11-95 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Relief prayed

is entitled to?”

by workman is

rejected.

REASONS

Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal

by my predecessor as per order dated 2-8-2012. Said order

has received finality. Therefore the contentions of

workman about legality of enquiry proceedings needs no

detailed discussion. After enquiry found legal, parties were

given opportunity to lead evidence on other issues.

However no evidence is adduced on other issues. The

record of Enquiry proceedings is produced. Exhibit M-1 is

chargesheet issued to workman clearly shows different

charges against him. Exhibit M-2 is letter given by Ist

party workman to the Disciplinary Authority regretting

his conduct and being ashamed of it, he prayed to be

excused. He assured not to repeat such incident in future.

Said letter is given on 14-4-95. Document Exhibit M-2(a) is

also letter given by workman dated 7-8-95 admitting the

misconduct against him. He has written that he committed

mistake. He was ashamed of his conduct. He would not

commit such mistake in future. He begs to be excused.

Exhibit M-30 also letter given by workman admitting

charges against him on 14-10-95. The document Exhibit

M-4(a) charges were explained to the delinquent employee.

He admitted charges explaining that he was upset and

committed misconduct. He consumed alcohol and he lost

his balance. He begged to be excused. Cheque was issued

inadvertently, adequate amount was not in his Account.

Document M-5 is notice issued to workman by

Disciplinary Authority. Document M-6 is letter given by

workman dated 15-4-95 admitting misconduct on his part.

Document M-7 is memo issued by Disciplinary Authority

explaining the charges. Exhibit M-9 is showcause notice

issued to workman. In all documents discussed above,

workman has clearly admitted misconduct alleged against

him. The admission of misconduct by workman is more

than six months. It is difficult to disbelieve that during all

those period, workman was not knowing the consequences

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5785

of admitting charges against him. Showcause notice was

also issued. Workman had admitted misconduct on his

part in response to said showcause notice. When

consistently workman has admitted misconduct alleged

against him. There was no question of holding further

enquiry and recording further witnesses. Enquiry is found

proper and legal by my predecessor. Consequently the

detailed discussion on this point is not required.

Charges alleged against workman are committing

misbehavior under drunken condition, assaulting Branch

Manager etc. committing such acts during working hours

certainly is misconduct, damaging image of the Bank.

Learned counsel for workman Shri S.K.Nandi

emphasized that alleged misconduct was under drunken

condition. The rules of the Bank provided for pensionary

benefits before this Tribunal can exercise powers under

Section 11-A and punishment be modified to removal with

pensionary benefits.

Reliance is placed by counsel for IInd party

Shri Amit Nagpal in ratio held in

Case of U.P. State road Transport Corporation versus

Subhash Chandra Sharma and others reported in 2000(3)

Supreme Court Cases 324. Their Lordship dealing with

powers of Labour Court to give relief , held doesnot extend

to granting relief where the punishment of removal was

not shockingly disproportionate. The charge that the

delinquent driver of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation

went in a drunken state to the Assistant Cashier in the

cash room, demanded money from him on his refusal

abused and threatened to assault him was a serious charge

of misconduct. Hence punishment of removal after said

charge was found proved in Departmental Enquiry was

not shockingly disproportionate. Their Lordship held

Labour Courts interference therewith substituting the

same by stoppage of one increment was arbitrary.

Counsel for workman Shri Praveen Yadav placed

reliance on ratio held in case of Rajasthan Tourism

Development Corporation Limited and another versus Jai

Raj Singh Chauhan reported in 2012(2) SCC(L&S) 67. Their

Lordship dealing with misconduct of unauthorised/ gainful

absence held could not be taken into consideration.

The ratio cannot be applied in present as misconduct

alleged against workman is not of unauthorised absence.

Considering proved misconduct of workman, the dismissal

of workman cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of State Bank of India

in terminating the services of Shri R.C. Katkani,

Record Keeper w.e.f. 21-11-95 is proper.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

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] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2252-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 186@01)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@156@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O. 2252.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 186/

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Syndicate Bank, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/08/2014.

[No. L-12011/156/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/186/2001

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,

Hardev Niwas, 9,

Sanwer Road, Ujjain

...Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

Syndicate Bank, RO Shikarvarta Road,

4, Indra Press Complex, Zone-I,

M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of May, 2014

As per letter dated 29-11-2001 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/

156/2001-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bhopal

in not regularizing the services of Shri Ganesh Kumar

Barwa is justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled for?”

5786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

through Union Representative Shri Ram Nagwanshi at Page

3/3 to 3/8. Case of Ist party is that he was appointed on

temporary basis as sweeper by the Branch Manager of

IInd party from 24-4-88. That he worked with devotion

without any grievance from any corner. He was doing the

work of cleaning, dusting, sweeping in the Bank. He was

also doing work of providing drinking water to staff and

taking token, books, log books etc,. from different tables.

He worked under Branch Manager Mr. Nair, Srikant and

Mishra. He was paid bonus. The information relating to

workman was submitted time to time to the Regional Office.

Workman submits that since 24-4-88, he was continuously

working. In 1997, he had completed 240 days. He also

submits that he also worked for 2150 days during past 12

years. He submitted application for regularization of the

service, that he had crossed age for getting employment

overlooking his service for 12 years. His services were

discontinued from 24-7-00. He was not provided work.

The work was extracted from him using bogus names like

Anil, Balkrishna, Bala, Keshuji, Ramprasad, Balkishan,

Gendalal etc. The documents about payments are produced

in conciliation proceeding before ALC initiated by

workman. IInd party submitted that panel of temporary

employees was prepared for exigency when permanent

employee was preceding on leave. That name of Munnalal

was at Sl.No.1 & Ganesh at sl.No.2. that Munalal would be

observed first. That Mr. Rajesh had not completed 240

days work. That Munnalal was confirmed on 1-7-88. That

permanent peon Chouhan had taken voluntary retirement.

His post was lying vacant. Workman has given details of

the hearing before ALC, Bhopal in conciliation

proceedings. The report was called during conciliation

proceeding. Overlooking his service for period of 12 years,

he was discontinued illegally which amounts to unfair

labour practice. That his services are discontinued without

compliance of section 25-F. he was not paid retrenchment

compensation. Workman further claims that as he

completed 240 days continuous service in 97-98 is covered

as employee under Section 25-B. The services are

terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G. H of I.D. Act. On

such ground, workman prays for confirmation of his

service.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/

11. That the dispute is raised by Shri G.K.Barau the General

Secretary of Employees Association is not tenable. He

claimed that he was working as part time sweeper claiming

status of permanent employee. Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank

Karmchari Sangh has no concern with the Bank. Said Union

is not functioning in Syndicate Bank. The claimant cannot

be member of said Union as such Union has no locus-

standi to raise dispute. It is further submitted that service

conditions of the awarded staff are covered by various

awards and bipartite settlements that due to unexpected

absenteeism of regular sub staff the work of branch is

abstracted. The Bank find it necessary to engage persons

temporarily on account of absence of regular staff. That

Shri G.K.Baura was engaged as part time sweeper on daily

wage basis when work was available. He was paid minimum

wages. Workman was not employed on Bank. Manager

has to make necessary arrangements engaging temporary

employees. Branch Manager was reimbursed the expenses.

That workman G.K.Barau had not completed 240 days

continuous service. regularization needs availability of

posts, funds for retaining temporary employees.

Regularization cannot be made as thump rule only after

completion of certain years of service. Workman cannot

claim employment as a right as he performed duties of

temporary nature. The appointments in Bank are covered

by statutory rules and regulations. Persons seeking

employment in Bank has to go through the entire procedure

prescribed for appointment. The Regional Manager is

employed to appointment of staff as per seniority.

Workman was never appointed by competent authority.

He was temporarily engaged due to exigencies that as per

directions of Central Govt, employment of sub staff can

be done through Employment Exchange only. It is

mandatory. The vacancies should be filled by candidates

sponsored by Employment Exchange. IInd party has also

pleaded about guarantee of employment under Article 16

and reservation in appointment of SC, ST, OBC and other

categories. With regard to absorption of temporary

attenders, the Bank has entered into a settlement with

recognized Union under Section 12(3) of I.D. Act, 1947 on

9-4-96. The said settlement is based on the guidelines/

procedures laid down by the Govt. the absorption of

candidates will be from the panel of temporary attenders

was prepared. Two candidates were in the panel – Shri

G.K. Baraua and Munnalal. When permanent vacancy arise,

Shri Munnalal was to be given first preference. As and

when permanent vacancies arises, name for the panel of

temporary candidates will be considered subject to

seniority. That not assigning temporary duties to Shri

G.K. Barua is only non-renewal of duties. It doesnot amount

to retrenchment. Above contentions are reiterated by IInd

party in its Written Statement. That workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. he was engaged

as per exigencies. The wages were paid to him. Workman

is not entitled to regularization of service. on such ground,

IInd party prays for his rejection of claim.

Proceeding under Section 33-A is filed by the

workman. It is separately registered as A/5/06. Vide order

dated 20-5-14, said proceeding is merged with present

reference. The contentions of parties in said proceeding

are as under:-

Present proceeding is filed under Section 33-A of

I.D.Act by applicant Ist party workman. It is submitted

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5787

that the applicant was working as attendant with Non-

applicant from 24-4-88. He had completed 240 days

continuous service. he was continuously working for

12 years. That the conciliation proceeding were initiated

before ALC, Bhopal. After conciliation proceedings were

initiated, Non-applicant discontinued his services from

16-12-2000 without issuing notice/ retrenchment

compensation. As such it is alleged that the non-applicant

has violated Section 33 of I.D.Act. Applicant prays for

appropriate relief.

Non-applicant filed reply at Page 5/1 to 5/4. Non-

applicant submits that application is not tenable.

Application is misconceived. That Union has raised

industrial dispute before ALC and Conciliation ended. The

report was sent to the Ministry and dispute is referred to

the Tribunal for adjudication bearing No. R/186/01. The

reference is fixed for evidence of applicant on 13-2-07. In

Written Statement filed in above reference, Non-applicant

has pleaded that applicant was engaged for work of casual

nature as per exigencies and availability of work. The daily

wager itself indicates that the engagement is as per

availability of work. The engagement ends at end of the

day. Workman was not continuously working from

24-4-88. The reference case No. R/186/01 is pending. All

above contentions are reiterated by Non-applicant and

prays for rejection of claim.

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:-

In Case No. R/186/01

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

Affirmative

ment of Regional Manager, Syndicate

Bank, Regional Office, Bhopal in not

regularizing the services of Shri Ganesh

Kumar Barwa is justified?

(ii) If so, to what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to relief as

prayed.

In Case No. A/1/06

(i)

Whether the Applicant proves that

In Negative

Non-applicant violated Section 33

of I.D.Act?

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to

In Negative

relief contemplated under Section 33

of I.D.Act?

(iii) If so, to what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to relief

under

Section 33 A

REASONS

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence in reference

proceeding. He has stated that he was engaged by Branch

Manager of Rajwada Branch from 24-4-88 as Badli/

Attendant sweeper. He was paid salary as per muster roll

in Saving Account No.8598/16. He has given details of his

working-taking vouchers, token book, distribution of

letters etc. he was closing Bank around 6 PM. He was paid

full wages of part time employee Rs.110/- per day for 248

days in 1997. That the wages were paid to him changing

his names like Anil, Balkrishna, Bala, Keshuji, Ramprasad,

Balkishan, Gendalal etc. That he had completed more than

240 days during each of the year. He had crossed age of

getting employment. That he worked from 1988 to 16-2-00.

Thus it is clear that services of Ist party workman were

discontinued from 16-12-00. In his cross-examination,

workman says he doesnot know about the contents of his

affidavit of evidence. Therefore the evidence of Ist party

workman on affidavit cannot be accepted when he himself

claims ignorance about contents of his affidavit.

Management filed affidavit of Shri Sunil Goel .

witness stated that workman was engaged on daily wages

as per exigencies by the Branch manager. Workman had

not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman was

engaged purely on temporary basis on daily wages during

absence of sub-staff. The vacancies of subordinate staff

should be filled in from candidates sponsored through

Employment Exchange. However the vacancies may be

filled in by other sources if Employment Exchange

authorizes or gives non-availability certificate. That

Ganesh K.Barau was never appointed by Competent

Authority against sanctioned post. His name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. It is reiterated

that workman had not completed 240 days service. In his

cross-examination, management witness says he had not

seen documents produced by workman on December 2001.

Affidavit of his evidence is filed as per record. He claims

ignorance for how many days workman worked on daily

wages. He was unable to tell exact period. Workman not

signed on muster roll. The witness claims ignorance about

payment of salary through Saving Account. He says that

he had not seen workman had submitted statement about

working for 240 days. That he had not verified documents

from branch. Management’s witness claims ignorance

whether workman was paid wages in different names. If

wages are paid to workman in different names, certainly it

is fraud on Bank and such practices cannot be appreciated.

As stated above, workman had claimed ignorance about

contents of affidavit of evidence. As such evidence of

workman doesnot support his claim. management’s

witness has not admitted suggestion that workman

completed 240 days continuous service.

10.

Document Exhibit W-1 is letter given by Asstt.

General Manager to Branch Manager Indore. The claim of

5788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

G.K.Barau for regularization could not be accepted.

Though Ist party has produced large bunch of zerox copy

of documents, no care is taken to prove the same. There is

no cogent evidence to prove that the workman was

continuously working from 1988 to 16-2-2000. At the time

of hearing, Union Representative Mr. Nagwanshi

submitted that IInd party has admitted working of Ist party

in Paras 11 , 22 & 23 of the Written Statement. The careful

perusal of the pleadings in those para means that workman

was engaged temporarily engaged as per exigencies.

Completion of 240 days continuous service is not admitted.

In para 47 of Written statement, management had denied

workman had completed 240 days continuous service. As

per terms of reference, workman is claiming regularization

of his services. However any rule Bipartite settlement are

not pointed out under which workman claims

regularization. As per evidence of management’s witness

name of Ist party workman was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. Procedure for appointment of Sub-

Staff was not followed in his case. Therefore claim of Ist

party workman for regularization cannot be accepted.

11.

Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Sharad Punj relies

on ratio held in

Case of M.P.State Agro Industries Development

Corporation Ltd. and another versus S.C.Pandey reported

in 2006(2)Supreme Court Cases 716. Their Lordship of the

Apex Court dealing with question of right to regularisation

of casual labour, temporary employees on completion of

240 days continuous service held only because a

temporary employee completes said period of service, that

by itself would not confer any legal right upon him to be

regularized in service.

12.

In case of APSRTC & others versus K.V. Ramana

and others reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1166. Their

Lordship dealing with regularization of service of

Respondent appointed as contract sweeper and attender

in State Transport Corporation held their services cannot

be regularized as their appointments were de hors rules

and constitutional scheme of public employment.

Considering evidence discussed above, I record my finding

on Point No.1 in Affirmative, in Point No.2- workman is

not entitled to any relief.

13.

Turning to applicant’s application A/5/06,

proceeding under Section 33-A, the applicant has not filed

separate evidence. As per pleadings and evidence in

R/186/01, services of workman were discontinued from

16-12-2000. Reference was pending before this Tribunal.

There is absolutely of evidence how the service conditions

of workman were changed. As such violation of Section

33 of I.D.Act is not proved by evidence by the applicant.

Therefore the action prayed by applicant under Section

33-A of I.D.Act cannot be taken. For above reasons, I

record my finding on Point No.1, 2 in Negative.

14.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management in Case No. R/186/01 is

proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

(3)

Application No. A/5/06 is rejected Parties to bear

their own cost.

15.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2253-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS'kuy

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; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@93) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@375@92&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2253.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/93)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Punjab National Bank, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/375/92-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/51/93

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Pushp Kumar Pathak,

S/o Shri K.P.Pathak,

Chhindwara Kareli,

Distt. Seoni.

.....Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Shastri Bridge,

Jabalpur.

.....Management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5789

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of May, 2014

As per letter dated 3-3-93 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

375/92-IRB-II. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the claim of Shri Pushp Kumar Pathak

that he had worked for more than 240 days in 12

consecutive months with the Punjab National Bank

is correct and whether the action of the management

of Punjab National Bank in terminating his services

is justified? What relief, if any, is the workman Shri

Pushp Kumar Pathak entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/3. Case of Ist party is that he was employed

as full time peon at Kekda branch of the Punjab National

Bank, Distt Seoni of IInd party on 29-9-89, he was

continuously working till 4-11-91. His services were orally

terminated by Branch Manager. That he was engaged

against permanent vacancy of the peon. He was

continuously working for above such period. That as per

Para 508 of Sastry Award, he was deemed to be a

probationer and is deemed to be confirmed workman as

per Para 495 of the Sastry Award. He was not paid wages

for full time employee instead he was paid Rs.7/- per day

in violation of Bipartite Settlement, Clause 4.5(b). That Ist

party workman was continuously working in the bank for

a period of 519 days without break. However his signatures

were obtained on vouchers in names of other persons.

His services are terminated without notice, he was not

paid retrenchment compensation, termination of his

services amount to illegal retrenchment. On such ground,

workman is claiming reinstatement.

IInd party filed Written Statement/ rejoinder at Page

7/1 to 7/3. Case of IInd party is that Ist party workman was

not appointed against vacant post of peon. He was

intermittently engaged as per exigencies. He was paid

wages Rs.7/- per day. It was open for workman to return to

duty on next date. Workman is not entitled to any relief.

As he was engaged as casual employee workman had

wrongly stated that he has passed HSSC Examination.

Workman concealed his educational qualifications. He is

not entitled to reinstatement.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the claim of Shri Pushp

In Negative

Kumar Pathak that he had worked

for more than 240 days in 12 con-

secutive months with the Punjab

National Bank is correct?

(ii) Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of Punjab National Bank in

terminating his services is justified?

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Though workman is challenging termination of his

service for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act, that he

was terminated without notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him, workman has not

participated in the reference proceeding. He has failed to

adduce evidence in support of his claim. Evidence of

workman is closed on 7-11-2013. Evidence of management

is closed on 16-5-2014. As both parties failed to participate

and adduce evidence, the action of the management cannot

be said illegal. Workman has failed to prove that he was

continuously working for 240 days in 12 calendar months

preceding his termination. Therefore I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Negative & Point No.2 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The claim of Shri Pushp Kumar Pathak that he had

worked for more than 240 days in 12 consecutive

months with the Punjab National Bank is not correct

and the action of the management of Punjab National

Bank in terminating his services is proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by

him.

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] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2254-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vksjsuVy cSad

vkWiQ dkseZl 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; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

19@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@6@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O. 2254.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/99)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Oriental Bankof Commerce

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 11/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/6/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

5790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,

9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain

.....Workman/Union

Versus

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Head office,

Harsh Bhawan, Cannaught Place,

New Delhi.

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of July, 2014

As per letter dated 4-12-98 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

6/98/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Oriental

Bank of Commerce in not regularizing the services

of Shri Sitaram Shyamsundar Sharma is legal and

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

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at page 4/1 to 4/3. Case of Ist party workman is that

he was engaged on daily wages by Branch manager Poddar

in Mhow branch. He was doing work of cleaning,

sweeping, dusting in the branch. He was continuously

working till 31-12-90. He was paid Rs.200/- per month. His

signatures were obtained on stamp paper. He was working

more than 8 hours. When workman asked for payment of

bonus, his services were terminated without notice. He

was not paid any compensation. It is further submitted

that he completed 240 days continuous service. He is

covered as employee under section 25(B) of I.D.Act.

principles of last come first go was not followed by the

management. The services were terminated during

pendency of conciliation proceedings. On such ground,

workman is praying for his reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

IInd party filed written statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3.

IInd party raised preliminary objection that workman raised

dispute after 7 years is not tenable. The dispute under

Section 2 is not existing. The recruitment cell are made as

per rules framed by Govt. The name of workman was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. The Bank

Manager had no power to appoint. Workman was not

appointed on regular post. It is denied that workman was

working from 10.30 AM to 6 PM. Workman was engaged

as per exigencies of work for work of gardner and other

cleaning work. workman has not completed 240 days

service during any of the year. There was no question of

issuing notice. As workman was engaged for petty works.

Violation of Section 25-G, H, N is denied. IInd party prayed

for rejection of claim. Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page

9/1 to 9/3 reiterating contentions in statement of claim. It

is denied that workman was engaged for casual petty

works. It is denied that he has not completed 240 days

continuous service.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of Oriental Bank of Commerce

in not regularizing the services of

Shri Sitaram Shyamsundar

Sharma is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Terms of reference pertains to management of

Oriental bank of Commerce not regularising services of

workman whereas the pleadings in statement of claim filed

by workman pertains to illegal termination of service of

the workman in violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D.Act.

Thus the pleadings in statement of claim are beyond terms

of reference.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence stating that

he was continuously working with IInd party bank from

1985 to 1990. When he claimed bonus, his services were

terminated without notice. He was not paid compensation.

In his cross-examination, workman says the Bank is located

at intervening 2-3 squares from his home. Written order

was not given to him about his work. Appointment letter

was not given to him. Wages were paid under voucher.

The voucher was prepared in his name. He was signing

attendance register. He was doing the work of distribution

of dak, he worked from 1985 to 1990. He has not abandoned

his service. During 1985 to 1990, he was not discontinued.

After discontinuing him the Bank engaged one Akash in

his place. However any documentary evidence is not

produced on record.

Management’s witness Shri Poddar filed affidavit

of evidence but not faced cross-examination.

Management’s witness Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani. In his

affidavit of evidence has denied that workman was paid

Rs. 200/- per month. It is denied that workman was engaged

as labour. Management’s witness says workman was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5791

engaged as casual labour for watering the garden. In his

cross-examination, management’s witness says that during

his tenure, workman was not in employment. Workman

was in employment prior to his posting in the branch.

Workman was paid wages under voucher by Branch

Manager. Management’s witness claims ignorance about

his appeal in Labour Court. He has not enquired from his

predecessors. Attendance register is not maintained.

Workman was not paid compensation, bonus.

Management’s witness Dinesh Kumar Bhatta in his

affidavit of evidence says workman was never appointed

in Bank. He was engaged as casual maali. Petty work was

done by workman. In his cross-examination management’s

witness says name of workman was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. Workman was not called for

interview. Any interview call was not given to him.

Workman was working from 1985 to 1990. The pleadings

and evidence of workman pertains to illegal termination

of his service whereas terms of reference pertains to non-

regularisation of workman in service by management.

Though the termination of workman appears in

contravention of Section 25-F of I.D.Act, said point is not

referred for adjudication. Evidence on record shows

workman was not appointed following recruitment rules.

His name was not sponsored through Employment

Exchange. Therefore the claim of workman as per terms of

reference cannot be allowed.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri R.N. Roy argues

that appointment of workman was not legal relying ratio

held in case of

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus

Umadevi and others reported in 2006(4) SCC-I. Learned

counsel prays that award be passed in favour of the

management. In para-45, their lordship observed while

directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be

regularized or made permanent, the courts are swayed by

the fact that the person concerned has worked for sometime

and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is

not as if the person who accepts an engagement either

temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of

his employment. He accepts the employment with open

eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain

– not at arms length. Since he might have been searching

for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and

accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it

would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional

scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person

who has temporarily or casually got employed should be

directed to be continued permanently.

In Para-43 of the judgment, their Lordship observed

similarly a temporary employee could not claim to be made

permanent on expiry of his term of appointment. It has

also to be clarified that merely because a temporary

employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time

beyond the terms of appointment, he would not be entitled

to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent,

merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original

appointment was not made by following a due process of

selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open

to the court to prevent regular appointment at the instance

of temporary employees whose period of employment has

come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very

nature of their appointment, donot acquire any right.”

For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Oriental Bank of

Commerce in not regularizing the services of Shri

Sitaram Shyamsundar Sharma is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2255-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 11@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@8@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O. 2255.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2003)

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

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/08/2014.

[No. L-12011/8/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute 11 of 2003

Between –

Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Virendra Smriti Complex,

Civil Lines Kanpur,

5792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

The Assistant General Secretary,

U.P. Bank Employees Union,

426, W-2 Basant Vihar,

Kanpur-208021.

AWARD

Central Government MOL, New Delhi vide

notification No.L-12011/08/2003-IR(B-II) dated 16.4.2003

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal-

Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India, Kanpur, in dismissing Sri Daulat Singh, daily rated

peon/temporary workman from service with effect from

31.08.2001 is legal and justified? If not what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?

Brief facts are-

It is alleged by the claimant that he was engaged as

a temporary cepoy with effect from 14.09.92 by the opposite

party and was required to perform all the duties of a regular

cepoy. He was initially paid Rs. 20 per day was enhanced

to Rs. 40 per day. It is stated that at that branch of the

bank there was only one daftary and there was no cepoy

at that branch as such there was a vacant post of cepoy at

Ganjmooradabad Branch of the bank and that he

continuously worked at the said branch from 14.09.92 to

05.01.98, when his services were abruptly terminated by

the bank. Thereafter he continued to approach the manager

of the branch after his termination, consequently he was

offered employment as temporary safai karamchari at

Roorisadikpur Branch of the bank with effect from 28.05.98.

When the union raised a dispute before the ALC soon

thereafter the bank terminated the services of the workman

on 31.08.01.

It is also alleged by the workman that he had worked

for more than 240 days of continuous work preceding 12

calendar months from the date of his termination and that

the bank at the time of terminating his service has neither

offered him any retrenchment compensation, notice pay

or pay in lieu of notice, therefore, the action of the bank in

retrenching the services of the workman is bad in law and

he is entitled for his reinstatement with full back wages,

continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

The opposite party bank has filed their reply refuting

entire claim of the workman on the ground that there never

existed any relationship of master and servant between

the bank and the claimant and if at he was engaged by the

manager of the bank he might have been engaged as a

daily rated workman according to need of the branch and

that he was never paid his wages as that of a regular

employee. Lastly it is alleged by the bank that as there

never existed any relationship of master and servant

between the workman and the bank, therefore, compliance

of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes in the case of

the claimant was not warranted. As such it has been

claimed by the opposite party that the claim of the workman

is absolutely false and baseless and he is not entitled for

any relief and his claim should be rejected out rightly.

Heard the arguments at length and perused the file.

Complainant has adduced himself as a witness

W.W.1. He has filed three papers i.e. paper no.12/2-4. I

have examined the genuineness of these papers along

with the statement of W.W.1 coupled with evidence of

opposite party M.W.1 and 2.

These papers are photocopies, not admissible in

evidence.

10.

Workman has totally failed to prove paper no.12/2

also which alleged to have been written by one person

named as P.N. Kureel who was working at that time in the

bank, but the workman did not produce Shri P.N. Kureel

though he had remained present on one or two occasion

in the court. It was the duty of the workman to produce

said Kureel if he was a relevant witness in the case. Why

was he not produced the reason is known to the workman.

11.

W.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that there

is no other document is available in the records of the

bank like paper no.12/2. Paper no.12/3-4 does not bear

any stamp of the bank and there is no signature of the

workman. The claimant admitted in his cross that he

himself has prepared these photocopies, therefore, there

is no authenticity of these documents, and therefore, these

documents cannot be relied upon.

12.

Workman admitted in his cross-examination that he

was never issued any appointment nor he was ever

subjected for regular selection by the bank. He also

admitted that he has not filed any documents relating to

the payments of his wages prepared by the bank in the

name of his wages before this tribunal.

13.

I have examined the evidence adduced by the

management. MW.1 has specifically stated on oath that

the workman has never worked against any regular post

continuously for 240 days or more. Some work might

have been taken casually by the branch manager according

to the necessity. He was never transferred to Roorisadikpur

branch of the bank. Paper no.12/2-4 are the forged paper.

They have also contended that though he was engaged

for casual work for some time even then when the vacancies

were advertised the workman was permitted in the test but

since he was not found suitable he was not appointed.

Witness going on to state that as the workman could not

get his selection through regular selection therefore, he

has adopted the present measure through the adjudication

process for seeking his employment through back door

entry in public employment.

14.

Therefore, after considering the facts, circumstances

and legal position of the case, the tribunal has come at a

conclusion that the workman has palpably failed to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5793

establish the fact that he had completed for more than 240

days of continuous work with the opposite party or there

had remained any relationship of master and servant

between the bank and workman. As such the claimant

fails to prove his case and as such the reference is bound

to be answered against the workman and in favour of the

bank.

15.

Accordingly it is held that the workman is not entitled

for any relief pursuant to the present reference order.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2256-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vdfll cSad

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] dksydrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 24@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@06@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@65@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O. 2256.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2013)

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. Axis Bank Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

28/06/2014.

[No. L-12011/65/2011-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 24 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Axis Bank Limited

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the

: Mr. S. Roy, Ld. Counsel for Axis

Management

Bank Ltd.

Mr. S. K. Karmakar, Ld. Counsel

for M/s. Security & Investigation

Bureau.

On behalf of the

: Mr. S.H. Quader, Ld. Counsel.

Workmen

State : West Bengal

Industry: Banking.

Dated: 4th June, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/65/2011-IR(B-I) dated

10.04.2013 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 management of M/s. Security &

Investigation Bureau, a contractor of Axis Bank Ltd.

in denying the charter of demands submitted by the

Union (as per Annexure-I) is legal/or justified? If

not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

When the case is taken up for hearing today, Ld.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the management files copy

of the order dated 10.04.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court, Calcutta in W.P. No. 28406(W) of 2013. It appears

from the said order that the instant order of reference has

been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

In view of the above order of the Hon’ble High Court,

present reference is dropped by passing an Award.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 4th June, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2257-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fn LVUVZM

pk£VM 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] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 3@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12025@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2257.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of the Standard Charted Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 23/07/2014.

[No. L-12025/01/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

5794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B.KATAKE, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/3 of 2009

(Arising out of Ref.CGIT-2/29 of 2006 &

Ref. CGIT-2/27 of 2007)

Mrs. Anupama Naik,

B-202, Pascoal Square,

Sunder Nagar, Kalina,

Santacruz (E)

Mumbai-400 098

.....Complainant

V/s.

The Standard Chartered Bank,

23/25, M.G. Road, Fort,

Mumbai 400 001

.....Opponent.

APPEARANCES :

For the Complainant : Mr. P. Gopalkrishnan,Advocate.

For the Opponent

: Mr. Ashok D. Shetty, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 16th June, 2014

AWARD

This Complaint is filed under Section 33-A of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter for brevity referred

as I.D. Act. According to the complainant she was

employee of the opposite party and was recruited on

15/02/1988 as a Clerk. She served in the opposite party

Bank till the date of her dismissal by the order dated

17/05/2006. According to the complainant the opposite

party issued her showcause notice as to why she should

not be dismissed from employment for misconduct. The

Complainant by her reply informed the Opposite party

that they cannot dismiss her without any inquiry.

Thereafter the opposite party issued a charge sheet dated

28/08/2006 to her alleging to have committed misconduct.

The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He commenced the

inquiry on 06/10/2006 and concluded the same on 21/04/

2009. The delay was due to the opposite party and the

inquiry officer appointed by it. The Inquiry Officer

submitted his report. Copy thereof was served on the

complainant and her explanation was called for. The

complainant pointed out the biasness of the Inquiry

Officer, omission and commission in decision making

process and also pointed out perversity in his findings.

However the opposite party did not consider the

explanation of the complainant and accepted the report of

the Inquiry Officer and dismissed the complainant from

services with immediate effect.

While dismissing the complainant from service, by

order dated 14/10/2009 a reference of the union was pending

before this Tribunal. The management neither obtained

approval of the Tribunal/Labour Court for its action of

dismissal nor followed the provisions of Section 33 of the

I. D. Act. The said order of dismissal is illegal and not

sustainable under law. Therefore complainant has filed

this complaint and prays that the order of dismissal dated

14/10/2009 be declared illegal, void and the same be

quashed. Complainant also prays that the opposite party

be directed to reinstate the complainant in the employment

with immediate effect with full back wages and difference.

The complainant also prays for cost.

The Opposite party resisted the complaint vide its

written statement at Ex-7. According to them the

complainant is not ‘workman’. Therefore this complaint is

not tenable. They further contended that the complainant

was involved in a case of theft of credit card and she had

withdrawn the amount from the opposite party Bank by

using the stolen credit card. Therefore show cause notice

was given to her and she was charge sheeted. The

departmental inquiry was initiated against her. The Inquiry

Officer held her guilty and after giving her hearing, the

Disciplinary Authority dismissed the complainant from

service. As complainant is not a ‘workman’ as defined

under Section 2 (s) of I.D. Act, it was not necessary to pay

her one month’s pay and approval of the Tribunal was

also not necessary. Therefore they pray that the complaint

be rejected.

Following are the points for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. Points

Findings

No.

Whether the complainant is ‘workman’

No.

as defined under Section 2 (s) of the

I.D. Act.?

If yes, Whether the opposite party

No.

is guilty of contravening provisions

of Section 33 2 (b) of I.D. Act?

If yes, what relief the complainant is

As per

entitled to?

final order.

REASONS

In this respect the ld. adv. for the Opposite party

submitted that the same type of complaint was filed by

this complainant before the Hon’ble CGIT-1 and the

Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to reject the said complaint

with observations that the complainant is not a ‘workman’.

Therefore opposite party was not under obligation to apply

for approval and to follow the procedure laid down under

Section 33 2 (b) of I.D. Act. The said award came to be

passed after the arguments in this case were heard.

Therefore instead of rejecting the complaint on that ground,

I would like to decide the same on merit.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5795

Point nos.1 to 3 :-

In this respect ld. adv. for the complainant submitted

that the management treated the complainant as a

‘workman’. Inquiry was held against her for breach of

provisions of Model Standing Orders and thereby treated

the complainant as ‘workman’. Therefore ld. adv.

submitted that, now the employer is estopped from

denying the fact that employee is a ‘workman’. In support

of his argument ld. adv. resorted to Bombay High Court

ruling in Sarang V/s. Forge and Allied Industries Ltd.,

Thane &ors. 1995 I CLR 837 wherein the Hon’ble Court

observed that;

“If an employer continuously and consistently

proposes and takes action against its employee on

the footing that he is covered by Model Standing

Orders, thereby implying that the employee is a

‘workman’ within the meaning of the Act. Then such

employer must be estopped from denying the said

fact, when the dispute regarding the dismissal of

the employee finally land up before the Industrial

Adjudicator.”

The same principle is reiterated by Hon’ble Bombay

High Court in George Thomas Thakkeyil V/s. Science

Technical Centre 2007 II CLR 185 (2) Arvind Ramdas Vaike,

Nagpur V/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. &Ors. 2008 (III) CLR

1002 (Bom).

The same ratio was also followed by Hon’ble

Madras High Court in M. Ganesan V/s. Management of

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. 2009 II CLR 406

In this respect the ld. adv. for the Opposite party

pointed out that, the opp. party never treated the

complainant as a ‘workman’ On the other hand from the

pleadings in the complaint it is clear that, when the

complainant was arrested by Police in the case of theft of

credit card, and for withdrawal of amount by using the

stolen credit card, show cause notice was issued to the

complainant as to why she should not be dismissed from

the service for loss of confidence on commission of act of

serious misconduct. It is pleaded by the complainant

herself in para 5 of the complaint that she replied to the

show cause notice that, she being a workman cannot be

dismissed from employment for loss of confidence without

conducting any inquiry. Thereafter by way of abundant

precaution, the opp. party appointed Inquiry Officer and

conducted the inquiry though it was not necessary. That

does not mean that the opposite party was treating the

complainant as workman. On the other hand they were

treating the workman as an officer. Therefore after the

theft case came into light straight away they had issued

the notice as to why she should not be dismissed from

services for loss of confidence. The inquiry was conducted

as it was insisted by the complainant. It indicates that

employer had never treated the complainant as a

‘workman’. Therefore the above referred rulings are not

attracted to the set of facts of the present case.

10.

In this respect the ld. adv. for the opposite party

submitted that, the complainant has admitted in her cross

at Ex-10 that, she was promoted as Officer in 2000. She

further says that at the time of dismissal, her designation

was Teller at Juhu Branch. She has also admitted that she

has worked as Recovery Officer of credit card dues and

her net pay after all deductions was Rs.31,399.66 ps. She

has further stated that she is bound by Employees

Discipline Policy of Standard Chartered Bank (India). She

has further admitted that every year there was performance

appraisal and she used to sign form for the officers. She

had admitted her signatures on pages 488 to 495 of Ex-9

and pages 488-489, 491 and 495 at Ex-17 (colly). She has

also admitted that her grade was 8-B when she was

dismissed from service. In this respect the ld. adv. for the

opposite party has submitted that complainant herself has

admitted that she was promoted as an officer in the year

2000 and worked as Recovery Officer and has also signed

the performance appraisal form for officers. In the

circumstances heavy burden is on the complainant to

show that again she was reverted or she was working as

‘workman’ at the time of dismissal from the service.

According to him burden lies on the complainant to plead

and prove that she was a ‘workman’. She has also not led

any evidence to show that she was a ‘workman’ and

performing duties as contemplated under Section 2 (s) of

I.D. Act. The onus was on the complainant to prove that

she was ‘workman’. In support of his argument the ld.

adv for the opposite party resorted to Apex Court ruling in

Mukesh K. Tripathi V/s. Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC &

Ors. 2004 III CLR 534 wherein the Hon’ble Court on the

point in para 37 observed that;

“In case any person raises a contention that his

status has been changed from apprentice to a

workman, he must plead and prove the requisite

facts. In absence of any pleading or proof that either

by novation of the contract or by reason of the

conduct of the parties, such a change has been

brought about, an apprentice cannot be held to be

workman.”

11.

Likewise the complainant who was promoted as an

officer in the year 2000 cannot be said ‘workman’ unless

there is pleading and proof in respect of the change of

cadre from Officer to Clerk or Cashier. In short, the

complainant is not a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2

(s) of the I.D. Act.

12.

In this respect it is the case of the opposite party

that the complainant is not member of the union who is

party to the reference pending before this Tribunal. Specific

suggestion was put to the complainant in her cross

examination at Ex-10 that she was not member of Grindlays

Bank Employees Union. She has not produced any

subscription receipt or list of members reflecting her name

therein. She has not led any evidence to show that, either

she was ‘workman’ or the member of the union concern.

5796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Therefore I hold that approval for dismissal of the

complainant is not necessary and the opposite party was

not required to follow the procedure as contemplated

under Section 33 2 (b) of the I. D. Act. Accordingly I

decide this point no.1 in the negative that the complainant

is not a ‘workman’. Consequently I hold that as

complainant is not ‘workman’, the opposite party cannot

be held guilty of contravening provisions of Section 33 2

(b) of I.D. Act. Thus I decide this point no. 2 also in the

negative and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint stands dismissed with no order as to

cost.

Date : 16/06/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2258-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

gSnjkckn 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] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 8@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@66@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2258.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2013)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.

2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

30/07/2014.

[No. L-12011/66/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 8/13

Sh. Sanjay Singh,

General Secretary,

Delhi Offices & Establishment Employees Union,

BTR Bhawan, 13-A,

Rouse Avenue, ND-110002

Versus

State Bank of Hyderabad.

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-12011/66/2012-IR(B-I)) dated

23.01.2013 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the employment of Shri. Sanjay Singh can

be regularized with the State Bank of Hyderabad

w.e.f. 25.03.2011? If yes, what other relief the workman

is entitle to?”

On 05.02.2013 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 08/13 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.

Workman on 22.02.2014 moved an application for

withdrawal of Industrial Dispute. Application of withdrawal

has been moved by his Ld. A/R for the workman. Who

appeared and pressed that the No Dispute Award be

passed in the instant case. None to oppose on this count.

In these circumstances it is a fit case in which no

dispute award may be passed.

Reference is accordingly decided.

No. Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 22/07/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2259-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fcykliqj

jk;iqj {ks=kh; xzkeh.k 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 21@96) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@104@95&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2259.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/96)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya

Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/07/2014.

[No. L-12012/104/95-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5797

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/21/96

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Dharmu Ram Yadav,

S/o Budhram Yadav,

Gram Khati, Tehsil Mahasamund,

Distt. Raipur (MP)

.....Workman

Versus

Chairman,

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Dayalbandh,

Distt. Bilaspur

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of June 2014

As per letter dated 5-1-96 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

104/95-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bilaspur

Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank in relation to their

Khatti Branch in terminating the services of Shri

Dharmu Yadav S/o Shri Budhram Yadav, Messenger

w.e.f. 10-4-94 is justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was

continuously working as messenger from 5-5-88 till

termination of his services on 10-4-94 in IInd party Bank.

That his services were terminated without notice. Workman

submits that he was doing work of cleaning branch office,

filling water, filling vouchers, ledgers etc. supplying tea,

drinking water to the staff members. His services were

terminated without notice. There was no reason for

termination of his services. Termination of his service was

held illegal. Because of termination he and his family

members are left for starvation. On such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/3.

The claim of workman is denied. It is submitted that IInd

party Bank is established as per act of 1976 for Banking

facilities in rural areas. The circular issued by Finance

Department of Govt. of India dated 28-5-81 prohibiting

appointment for regular messengers. Said circular also

provided for engagement of temporary daily wage

employees as per existence. The wages were paid on hourly

basis. That the Ist party workman was temporarily engaged

for 4 hours as per exigencies. Workman was not

continuously working from 1988 to 1994. He had not

completed 240 days continuous service during any of the

calendar year. As workman was not appointed as

messenger, there was no question of his termination.

Workman was engaged on part time basis. On such ground,

IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/3

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim that he

was working from 1988 to 1994. For sometime branch was

transferred to Mahasamund. That IInd party had admitted

before ALC that workman was maintaining passbook,

continuously working for whole day. Workman was also

deputed to head office, Bilaspur at a distance of 200 kms.

It shows that he was working more than 4 hours in a day.

IInd party management filed additional reply at Page

13/1 to 13/10 reiterating its contentions in Written

Statement that workman had not completed 240 days

continuous service. The discontinuation of workman is

covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. Branch

Manager had no authority to appoint subordinate staff.

That in 1988, IInd party appointed 77 daily rated employees

as messenger. Out of them, 31 employees were full time

and 46 were part time employees. The management had

sought sanction of 59 post of part time messengers to be

selected. That employees who had completed 240 days

working in a calendar year were given appointment.

Workman was paid wages for his working days. That

workman had worked only for 74 days during calendar

year preceding the date of his non-engagement. He is not

covered as employee under Section 25 B of I.D.Act. On

such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya

Gramin Bank in relation to their

Khatti Branch in terminating the

services of Shri Dharmu Yadav S/o

Shri Budhram Yadav, Messenger

w.e.f. 10-4-94 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Ist party workman is challenging legality of

termination from service alleging violation of Section 25-F

of I.D.Act. Workman has stated that he was working as

messenger in IInd party Bank in Khatti branch, Bilaspur

till 10-4-94. He was doing work of filling drinking water,

5798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bringing tea, dusting bank premises and other work. He

was working during office hours, his services were

terminated without notice. He was continuously working.

He had worked more than 240 days in every calendar year.

In his cross-examination workman says he was engaged

on daily wages. He was doing cleaning work, fetching

drinking water. Appointment order in writing was not given

to him. After 9-4-94, he was not engaged on work. He was

paid wages under receipts. He received education upto

12th standard. He was engaged in Bank form 5-5-88. He

denies that he had worked only for 75 days in 1988. That it

is not written in his affidavit of evidence that he was

working from 1988 to 9-4-94. He denies that he worked for

74 days from 1-1-84 to 8-8-88. He was paid wages Rs.221/-

per day. He claims ignorance whether Branch Manager

has power to appoint the employees. Management’s

witness Anup Kumar in his affidavit of evidence has stated

that as per circulars issued by Govt. of India, employees

were engaged for cleaning, sweeping work. . Employees

are not appointed against sanctioned post. Thus sweepers

and messengers are appointed calling names from

Employment Exchange etc. The affidavit of evidence of

management’s witness is silent about the number of days

workman was engaged by the Bank. In his cross-

examination Anup Kumar witness of management says he

was working in Khatti branch in 1993-94. He was not

working in 1988. He was unable to tell workman was

working in said branch since 1988. The management’s

witness further says that workman was working as part

time employee on daily wages. He had not brought record

about his working. Original working vouchers were

brought by him. The witness of the management was

unable to tell working hours of workman. He claims

ignorance whether working of workman cleaning of

premises, serving drinking water was admitted before ALC.

From evidence in cross-examination of witness of

management, it is clear that he has no personal knowledge,

he has not brought record about working hours and days

related to the workman. Witness of management has stated

that retrenchment compensation was not paid to the

workman. He was not served with notice.

Management’s witness Shri A.K.Dixit has stated in

his affidavit of evidence that the part time employees were

engaged for cleaning etc. work for 4 hours per day.

Workman had worked 75 days during May 88 to August

88. Details of working days of workman from May 88 to

1994 is furnished. However the witness of management

did not remain present for his cross-examination. His

evidence cannot be considered. Thus the evidence of Ist

party workman is direct evidence of his working whereas

witness of management has no personal knowledge. He

has not produced documents about working of workman.

Question is whether the evidence of workman should be

rejected in reference of evidence of management’s witness.

In my considered view, it should be answered in favour of

workman. Considering evidence of workman, it is proved

that workman was continuously working from 1988 to 1994.

His services are terminated without notice. He is not paid

retrenchment compensation. Therefore termination of his

service is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

workman was continuously working from 1988 to 1994.

His services are terminated without notice. Workman was

not selected following recruitment process. He was

engaged on daily wages. Appointment letter was not given

to him. Considering nature of employment, workman

cannot be reinstated. In my considered view, reasonable

compensation would be appropriate in the matter. For

violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act, termination is illegal.

Considering length of service from 1988 to 1994,

compensation Rs. 1 Lakh would be proper and reasonable.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Bilaspur Raipur

Kshetriya Gramin Bank in relation to their Khatti

Branch in terminating the services of Shri Dharmu

Yadav S/o Shri Budhram Yadav, Messenger w.e.f.

10-4-94 is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 1

Lakh 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 from the date of notification of award. 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] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2260-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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 y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 177@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@07@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@207@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 177/

2000) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5799

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 16/07/2014.

[No. L-12012/207/2000-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

–CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 177/2000

Ref. No. L-12012/207/2000-IR(B-I) dated: 31.10.2000

BETWEEN

The Dy. General Secretary

State Bank of India Staff Association,

C/o State Bank of India,

148, Civil Lines,

Bareilly (U.P.) – 243 001,

(Espousing cause of Shri Dinesh Babu)

AND

The Dy. General Manager

State Bank of India

Zonal Office, 148 Civil Lines

Bareilly (U.P.)

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/207/2000-IR(B-I) dated:

31.10.2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between the Dy. General Secretary,

State Bank of India Staff Association, C/o State Bank of

India, 148, Civil Lines, Bareilly (U.P.) and the Dy. General

Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, 148 Civil Lines,

Bareilly (U.P.) for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA,

BAREILLY IN RELATING TO DENIAL OF

APPOINTMENT TO SHRI DINESH BABU SON OF

SHRI SAHIB SINGH EX-RECORD KEEPER ON

COMPASSIONATE GROUND AS PER THE

CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY HIM IN HIS

REPRESENTATION

FOR

VOLUNTARY

RETIREMENT IS JUST, FAIR AND LEGAL? IF NOT,

WHAT RELIEF HE IS ENTITLED TO AND FROM

WHAT DATE?”

The case of the workman’s association is that one

Shri Sahib Singh, Record Keeper of the State Bank of India,

Badaun Branch a member of the State Bank of India Staff

Association, Bareilly Module, sought conditional

voluntary retirement, on medical ground, with condition

that his son may be appointed in his place. It is submitted

that the bank vide their letter dated 07.10.1996 acceded to

his request and mentioned that he will be treated retired

w.e.f. 13.09.96. It is also stated that regarding appointment

of his son, the bank required recommendations on

prescribed format after obtaining a fresh request from Shri

Sahib Singh in accordance with the provisions of the

Scheme; and accordingly, the representation was moved.

Shri Sahib Singh died during the course of correspondence

with the bank on 27.1.1996; but the bank has not given

compassionate appointment to the son of Shri Sahib Singh

viz. Dinesh Babu. Accordingly, it has been prayed by the

association that the son of deceased employee be given

compassionate appointment in accordance with the

conditional voluntary retirement application of Shri Sahib

Singh.

The management of the State Bank of India has filed

its written statement; whereby it has denied the claim of

the staff association with submission that the claimant,

Dinesh Babu is not a member of the staff association,

therefore, the association has no locus standi to raise the

present industrial dispute. It has been further submitted

that Dinesh Babu was never employed in the Bank,

therefore, there exists no dispute under the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is specifically denied by

the Bank that the voluntary retirement of Shri Sahib Singh

was conditional, and the condition was on the appointment

of I son Dinesh Babu. The bank has pleaded that Shri

Sahib Singh’s application for voluntary retirement was

accepted by the Management on recommendations of the

Medical Board and he was retired w.e.f. 13.09.96. As regards

giving appointment to his son in his place, the competent

authority vide its letter date 17.10.96 directed the Deputy

General Manager, SBI, Zonal Office, Bareilly, to submit his

recommendations on the prescribed form after obtaining

his fresh request from him in accordance with the

provisions of the scheme. It is submitted by the Bank that

the widow of late Sahib Singh does not require any support

from any of her sons as she is getting family pension of

Rs. 5790/- per months and living in her own house and

received more than Rs. 2,00,000/- as terminal benefits.

Thus, there was no pecuniary need for the family left behind

by late Sahib Singh. It is also submitted by the bank that

under scheme for compassionate appointment the

application on prescribed proforma for appointment on

compassionate ground should be ordinarily received

immediately on the retirement of an employee and should

in no case be entertained after 60 days of the date of

retirement of services of an employee. But in the present

5800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

case the claimant, Dinesh Babu did not prefer any

application within the prescribed period of 60 days from

the date of retirement of Shri Sahab Singh i.e. 13.09.96;

and accordingly, the compassionate appointment to his

son, Dinesh Babu was denied by the Bank. Accordingly,

the Bank has prayed that the claim of the staff association

be rejected being devoid of any merit.

The staff association has filed its rejoinder wherein

it has submitted that it espoused the cause of Dinesh

Babu s/o late Shri Sahib Singh after taking a resolution in

the meeting of Association. It is also submitted that the

present dispute has been raised by the Association on

behalf of the claimant against the non-consideration of

representation submitted by Shri Saheb Singh for his

voluntary retirement; hence, it is an industrial dispute

within the terms of industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is

also submitted that application for compassionate

appointment was moved during the life of Shri Sahib Singh

and when the bank required the same in prescribed

proforma, another application in prescribed proforma was

moved by the claimant within 60 days after the date of late

Sahib Singh.

The partied filed documentary evidence in support

of their claim. The workman examined himself whereas the

management examined Shri Surendera Kumar, Manager in

support of their respective stands. Parties availed the

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other

and forwarded oral arguments also.

Heard the authorized representative of the parties

and perused entire evidence on record.

The authorized representative of the staff

association has contended that there is scheme for

compassionate appointment, contained in Chapter No. VII

of Hand Book of Staff Matters. It is contended that on

demise of Shri Sahib Singh who had taken voluntary

retirement on the medical grounds with condition that his

son be appointed in his place, the bank denied

compassionate appointment to his son, Dinesh Babu.

In rebuttal, the authorized representative has

contended that the claim was never employed by the Bank.

The claimant, Dinesh Babu is not a member of State Bank

of India Staff Association, as such, the staff association

has got no locus standi to raise any industrial dispute.

Also, there exist no industrial dispute between the bank

and the claimant. The management has contended that

the claimant was required to apply for compassionate

appointment, on prescribed proforma within 60 days from

the date of retirement of Shri Sahib Singh; but he failed to

do so. It is also argued that the only ground which can

justify compassionate appointment is the penurious

condition of the deceased’s family and offering

employment irrespective of the financial condition of the

family is, legally not permissible. It was contended that

the widow of late Shri Sahib Singh is not finically

dependent upon any one hence there is no need to give

compassionate appointment to any one of his dependent.

10.

I have scanned evidence relied on by the parties in

light of rival submissions.

11.

The Bank has come up with objection that since the

claimant, Dinesh Babu is neither an employee of the Bank

nor a member of the Staff Association therefore, there exists

no industrial dispute between the Bank and the claimant

and also the Association has no locus standi to agitate

the present matter.

Admittedly, the father of the claimant viz. Late Shri

Sahib Singh was the employee of the Bank and was member

of the Staff Association; and on his sudden demise, the

Staff Association has moved a resolution to contest the

case of the claimant regarding compassionate appointment.

The bank while disputing the locus standi of the

Association has not disputed the resolution passed to

extend legal assistance to the family of its ex-member,

therefore, the action initiated by a recognized trade union

consequent to a resolution passed by its members cannot

be held to be invalid in absence of any material proof.

12.

The first part of the schedule of reference carries a

question as to whether the issue of compassionate

appointment can be treated as Industrial Dispute under

I.D. Act, 1947. The section 2 (k) of the Act defines the term

‘industrial dispute’ as under:

“(k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which connected with the

employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person;”

A bare perusal of the above definition makes it clear

that any dispute or difference between the employers and

workmen regarding non-employment is covered with the

term industrial dispute. In the present case the dispute

exists between the staff association regarding non-

employment of the claimant i.e. not giving compassionate

appointment to the claimant whose cause is being

espoused by the staff association. Therefore, in my

opinion the same comes with the purview of ‘industrial

dispute’ within the meaning of industrial dispute under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13.

Now coming to the merits of the case, the

management has taken plea that the voluntary retirement

of the late Shri Sahib Singh was not with the condition

that his son shall be appointed in his place; rather the

competent authority vide its letter date 17.10.96 directed

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5801

the Deputy General Manager, SBI, Zonal Office, Bareilly,

to submit his recommendations on the prescribed form

after obtaining his fresh request from him in accordance

with the provisions of the scheme. It is also the case of

the bank that under scheme for compassionate

appointment the application on prescribed proforma for

appointment on compassionate ground should be

ordinarily received immediately on the retirement of an

employee and should in no case be entertained after 60

days of the date of retirement of services of an employee.

But in the present case the claimant, Dinesh Babu did not

prefer any application within the prescribed period of 60

days from the date of retirement of Shri Sahab Singh i.e.

13.09.96. It is also the case of the management that the

widow of late Sahib Singh does not require any support

from any of her sons as she is getting family pension of

Rs. 5790/- per months and living in her own house and

received more than Rs. 2,00,000/- as terminal benefits.

In rebuttal, the staff association has come up with

the case that the application for voluntary retirement was

conditional one and on acceptance of the application for

voluntary retirement the son of Shri Sahib Singh was

required to get appointed on compassionate grounds. It

is also their case that the pecuniary benefits made available

to the widow of late Shri Sahib Singh were insufficient to

meet the requirements and also that the application

regarding compassionate appointment, in prescribed

proforma was moved within 60 days from the death of

Sahib Singh.

14.

Admittedly, Shri Sahib Singh sought voluntary

retirement from the management of Bank vide his

application dated NIL, paper No. 8/6 on medical grounds

with request to give appointment to his son on his place.

A medical board was constituted and on recommendations

of the medical board, Sahib Singh was permitted to take

voluntary retirement w.e.f. 13.09.96 vide letter dated

17.10.96, paper No. 8/5 wherein the Dy. General Manager

of the Bank was advised as under:

“With reference to your letter No. BRY/RI/40/1183

dated the 20th September 1996, the appropriate

authority has permitted Shri Sahib Singh, Record-

Keeper to retire from the Bank’s services w.e.f.

13.09.1996 i.e. the date on which the Medical Board

declared him unfit for service. However, before

retiring Shri Singh, please ensure that no disciplinary

action is pending/contemplated against him.

The case of the staff association is that the

application for voluntary retirement from the Shri Sahib

Singh was conditional one i.e. with condition to give

appointment to his son in his place. But from perusal of

above letter, relied on by the both the parties, it is crystal

clear that Shri Sahib Singh was permitted to take voluntary

retirement on medical grounds; but regarding

compassionate appointment of his son, it was advised to

made application in prescribed proforma in accordance

with the scheme.

In this regard the management has pleaded that the

claimant did not prefer any application for compassionate

appointment, in prescribed proforma, within 60 days of

the date of retirement of his father, Shri Sahib Singh. In

rebuttal, the association has come up with the pleading

that the claimant requested for compassionate appointment

during life time of Shri Sahib Singh and thereafter within

60 days of his death; but there is no documentary evidence

on record to support this pleading from the association.

15.

The management of the bank declined the

compassionate appointment to the claimant on two

grounds firstly due to non-submission of request in

prescribed proforma within 60 days of the retirement of

Shri Sahib Singh and secondly due to lack of pecuniary

need of the widow of late Shri Sahib Singh. The

management has pleaded that the widow of Sahib Singh is

getting family pension of Rs. 5790/- per months and living

in her own house and received more than Rs. 2,00,000/- as

terminal benefits; and is not required to any assistance

from any one. The staff association has denied the

pleadings of the management and has adduced evidence

of the claimant, Dinesh Babu whose evidence goes

contrary to the pleadings. He has stated that his mother

was ex-Gram Pradhan and had 5-6 Bighas of agricultural

land. He has also stated that School viz. S.S. Memorial

Convent School runs in his house. This goes to show

that sufficient earning come to the widow of Sahib Singh

apart form pension and terminal benefits received by her

which is adequate to cope up with the liabilities upon her

in form of marriage of a son and a daughter. Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of

Haryana & others 1994(4) SCC 138 has held that

compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter

of right. The only ground which can justify the

compassionate appointment is the penurious conditions

of the deceased’s family and offering employment

irrespective of the financial condition of the family is legally

impermissible.

16.

Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of the

case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of

considered opinion that the action of the management of

State Bank of India in not giving compassionate

appointment to Shri Dinesh Babu Son of Shri Sahib Singh

is neither unjust; nor unfair; nor illegal. Hence, Shri Dinesh

Babu is not entitled for any relief. The reference under

adjudication is answered accordingly.

17.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

17th June, 2014.

5802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2261-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj y{eh foykl

cSad 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 psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 79@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@62@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2013)

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

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 01/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/62/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 24th July, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 79/2013

(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 Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Sri M. Ananthakrishnan : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chairman

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.

Administrative Office

Kathaparai

Karur-639006

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

M/s Ajoy Khose, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/62/2013-IR(B-I)

dated 24.07.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Lakshmi

Vilas Bank in discharging the services of Sri

Ananthakrishnan w.e.f. 20.11.1999 is justified? To

what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 79/2013 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these:

The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Staff in the

Respondent Bank in the year 1989. While the petitioner

was working at Seevalaperi Branch in Tirunelveli District,

on 09.12.1997, a lorry receipt and Rs. 67/- were handed

over to him for taking delivery of a parcel containing some

complimentary articles. He went to the parcel office on

09.12.1997 and every date thereafter till 12.12.1997. But he

was informed from the parcel office that the article has not

reached their office. As he could not take delivery of the

parcel, the petitioner returned the money and lorry receipt

to the Branch Manager who was staying in the same lodge

in which the petitioner was staying, on 12.12.1997 the

petitioner could not report for duty from 13.12.1997 since

he felt sick. He received a charge memo dated 24.03.1998

wherein it was alleged that he received Rs. 67/- and Lorry

Receipt on 09.12.1997 but did not take delivery of the parcel

till 12.12.1997 and unauthorizedly absented from duty since

13.12.1997 and consequently, the branch had to take

delivery of the parcel by giving indemnity bond and this

had incurred expenditure of Rs. 22/- in addition to

demurrage charges and that he misappropriated the

money of the bank.

Though the petitioner submitted his explanation,

this was not accepted by the Respondent. An enquiry

was ordered. The enquiry was not conducted in

accordance with the principles of natural justice. The

petitioner was not given fair and reasonable opportunity

to defend his case. His request to summon the concerned

Branch Manager was turned down by the Enquiry Officer.

Further he was not allowed to adduce evidence on his

side. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report finding that

the petitioner is guilty of the charges. Before accepting

the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary

Authority did not call for the views of the petitioner on

the findings of the Enquiry Officer. By order dated

20.11.1999 the petitioner was discharged from the service

of the Respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5803

before the Appellate Authority was dismissed by order

dated 02.02.2000. The petitioner had filed appeal before

the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Tamilnadu

Shops and Establishments Act. The appeal was dismissed

as not maintainable. The petitioner had then filed a Writ

Petition before the High Court seeking to quash the order

in appeal. On legal advice the petitioner withdrew the Writ

Petition on 02.09.2010 with liberty to raise Industrial

Dispute against the dismissal. It is in the above

circumstances, the petitioner was not able to raise the

dispute immediately. The order discharging the petitioner

from service is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. An order may

be passed holding that the order of dismissal is unjust

and also directing the Respondent to reinstate the

petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and other

attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

The petitioner was initially engaged as a Temporary

Sub-Staff and subsequently his appointment was

regularized. Initially he was working at Tirunelveli Branch.

On his request he was transferred to a branch which is

closer to his parental house. During this period he turned

out to be a chronic absentee. So he was posted to

Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore. Even while working

here, he was not regular in attending work. He was then

posted to Seevalaperi branch near Tirunelveli. While

working here, he was staying in a lodge where the Branch

Manager was also staying. The petitioner is known to

have borrowed extensively and in order to avoid his

creditors he used to absent from work. On 09.12.1997, after

ascertaining that the consignment had reached the parcel

office, the petitioner was entrusted with Rs. 67/- and Lorry

Receipt for taking delivery of a parcel. The petitioner did

not take delivery nor did he return the cash obtained from

the Branch. He unauthorizedly absented from duty

from 13.12.1997. On 23.12.1997 the Branch Manager himself

went to the Parcel Office, paid the freight charges, executed

an indemnity bond and cleared the consignment. The

petitioner returned to duty only on 31.12.1997 and he repaid

the sum of Rs. 67/- on 09.08.1998 only. On 24.03.1998, the

petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice for his failure to

clear the consignment and also for retaining Rs. 67/- for

his own use and calling upon him to show cause why

disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. He was

directed to appear for an enquiry. The petitioner was found

guilty of the charges, in the enquiry held. After considering

the written statement given by the petitioner, on 30.11.1999,

the Disciplinary Authority had passed order discharging

the petitioner from service. The petitioner who had filed

Writ Petition before the High Court after dismissal of the

appeal filed before the Tamilnadu Shops and Commercial

Establishments Act did not take any steps to bring the

Writ Petition for hearing for almost 9 years. The dismissal

of the Writ Petition as withdrawn on the basis of the

endorsement made by the petitioner would not amount to

delay on his part being condoned. Even after dismissal of

the Writ Petition the petitioner waited for 2 years to move

the Conciliation Officer. It is not admitted that the petitioner

handed over the Lorry Receipt and the money to the Branch

Manager on 12.12.1997. the enquiry was held in a fair and

proper manner. The Respondent reserves its right to lead

evidence in support of the charges if it is necessary. The

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of MW1 and documents marked as Exts.W1 to Exts.W4

and Exts.M1 to Exts.M38.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in

discharging the petitioner from service is justified?

(ii)

What is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The petitioner has raised the dispute seeking the

relief of reinstatement in service on account of his

having been discharged from service by the Respondent

Bank. The case of the Bank is that the petitioner who was

working as Sub-Staff at Seevalaperi Branch was entrusted

with Rs. 67/- and a Lorry Receipt for taking delivery of a

parcel on 09.12.1997 but he retained them with him until

12.12.1997 without taking delivery, absented himself

unauthorizedly from 13.12.1997 returned to duty only on

31.12.1998 and repaid the amount on 09.08.1998 only. The

Respondent has discharged the petitioner from service

on the basis of the finding of a domestic enquiry conducted

by it.

It is admitted by the petitioner in the Claim Statement

itself that he was entrusted with a Lorry Receipt and an

amount of Rs. 67/- on 09.12.1997. According to him, though

he had been going to the parcel office continuously from

09.12.1997 till 12.12.1997 the parcel had not reached the

office and so he could not take delivery of the article.

According to him he had returned the money and the Lorry

Receipt to the Branch Manager on 12.12.1997 itself.

Ext.M1 is the order dated 03.02.1998 suspending the

petitioner from service. In this order of suspension there

is reference to misappropriation of money by the petitioner

for temporary period. The details of the misconduct

allegedly committed by the petitioner are not shown in the

suspension order. It does not even state what is the amount

that was misappropriated. Ext.M2 is the charge sheet dated

24.03.1998 served on the petitioner. In this it is stated that

the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 67/- alongwith the

Lorry Receipt on 09.12.1997 to take delivery of a parcel but

wantonly had not taken delivery until 12.12.1997 and had

abstained from attending the office since 13.12.1997. It is

further stated that as a result of his wanton act the branch

had to take delivery of the parcel on 23.12.1997 by giving

indemnity bond incurring expenditure of Rs. 22/-. What is

5804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to be understood from the charge sheet is that the charge

against the petitioner is for the act of retaining the amount

of Rs. 67/- with him and misappropriating the same and

also causing loss to the bank by making it give an Indemnity

Bond to parcel office for taking delivery of the article.

Though there is reference to unauthorized absence of the

petitioner since 13.12.1997 in the charge sheet, this does

not seem to be made a charge against the petitioner. From

the Counter Statement also it could be assumed that

absence of the petitioner was not the subject of the charge

sheet. What is stated in the Counter Statement is that

Show Cause Notice was issued to him on 24.03.1998 for

his failure to clear the consignment and also for retaining

the sum of Rs. 67/- for his own use. There is no reference

to unauthorized absence of the petitioner as the subject

of the charge in the Counter Statement. Again, even as

seen from the Counter Statement, the petitioner had

returned to duty on 31.12.1997 and it was much after this,

on 03.02.1998 even the order of suspension was issued on

the petitioner without any reference to unauthorized

absence. Though the Claim Statement refers to absence, it

does not state for which period the petitioner has been

absent. So what one has to assume is that the charge

against the petitioner was only for the retention of Rs. 67/-

and Lorry Receipt and misappropriating the amount and

making the bank give an indemnity bond to the parcel

office.

10.

As could be seen from the Claim Statement the

petitioner has got a contention that the departmental

enquiry against him was not conducted in a fair and proper

manner. He has stated in his Claim Statement that he was

not given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his

case. He has further stated that the Enquiry Officer had

allowed the management to mark documents without

examining the authors of the documents. In answer to

this, the Respondent has stated in the Claim Statement

that the enquiry was done in a fair and proper manner and

that in spite of this contention the Respondent reserves

its right to lead evidence before this Tribunal. It is probably

in accordance with this contention the Respondent has

adduced evidence before this Tribunal through MW1 who

was working as Asstt. Manager in the Human Resources

Department and marked Exts.M24 to Exts.M38 before this

Tribunal. However, the documents marked through this

witness are documents said to be pertaining to the past

conduct of the petitioner. This witness is not one who is

directly involved or has anything to do with the incident

which has resulted in raising the dispute. The proceedings

of enquiry alone is there to adjudicate the charge on the

petitioner.

11.

A perusal of proceedings of enquiry justifies the

contention raised by the petitioner that it was not held in

a proper manner and opportunity was denied to him. It

could be seen from the proceedings dated 01.09.1998 and

05.10.1998 that the management had marked documents

before the Enquiry Officer without examining the concerned

Officer. In fact the management has not examined anybody

on its side. It is merely stated by the Enquiry Officer that

Ext.M1 to Ext.M3 are marked on 01.09.1998 and Ext.M4 to

Ext.M7 are marked on 05.10.1998. There is no way to know

which are the documents marked before the Enquiry

Officer. The documents said to have been marked are not

seen produced before this Tribunal also. The Enquiry

Officer has stated in his finding that the amount of Rs. 67/-

and Lorry Receipt has been received by the petitioner.

There is reference to documents in the enquiry report also

but these are referred to only by Exhibit Numbers. However,

even as admitted by the petitioner he has received the

Lorry Receipt and cash of Rs. 67/-. He has got a case that

he was not able to take delivery of the article since it did

not reach the parcel office. He seems to have given a

written statement to the Respondent. Even this is not

produced. There is reference to one Ext.M6 in the enquiry

report which according to the Enquiry Officer proves that

the petitioner was absent from 13.12.1997. However, this

document also is not available for perusal for this Tribunal.

12.

It can be seen from the enquiry proceedings that the

petitioner has been making hectic effort to summon the

Branch Manager on his own side to prove his case. The

petitioner has even requested the management to direct

the Branch Manager to produce the explanation letter

given by him. The management’s representative has

resisted the move of the petitioner to summon the Manager.

The Enquiry Officer has favoured the Management by

declining the application of the petitioner to summon the

Branch Manager. Rather than summoning the witness the

Enquiry Officer seems to have directed the petitioner to

produce the witness. Since the attempt of the petitioner to

this effect has failed the enquiry has undergone some

adjournments. The evidence of the defense side was closed

by the Enquiry Officer on a day when the petitioner as

well his representative were not present.

13.

The Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

decision in LIC OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. RAM PAL

SINGH BISEN reported in 2010 III LLJ 57 (SC) where it was

held that marking of document as exhibit would not amount

to its proof and there had to be proved in accordance with

law. None of the documents before the Enquiry Officer

were proved in accordance with law. As stated, one does

not even know which are the documents that were marked.

The Counsel for the Respondent has referred to the

decision in STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS.

NARENDER KUMAR PANDEY reported in 2013 2 LLJ 1

where it was held that in an ex-parte enquiry, if the charges

are borne out from the documents kept in the normal course

of business no oral evidence is necessary to prove the

charges. In the present case it is not an ex-parte enquiry.

The petitioner has all along been participating in the

enquiry except on the last date when himself and his

representative were absent. In fact the findings of the

Enquiry Officer is based on the documents which are not

proved so there is no justification at all for the finding.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5805

14.

The Respondent has brought into evidence

Exts.M24 to Exts.M38 to show that the past conduct of

the petitioner was not satisfactory. However, in the enquiry

proceedings there is no reference to the past conduct at

all. MW1 has admitted during his cross-examination that

there is no document to show that Exts.M24 to Exts.M35

were served on the petitioner. There is reference to two

complaints against the petitioner earlier and this seems to

have been brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer

also. However, when the petitioner has taken the stand

that those complaints are to be produced, the Presenting

Officer for the Management has taken a stand that those

are not relevant and need not be produced. In any case

having found that the charge in the enquiry proceedings

is not established, the past conduct of the petitioner is

not of any consequence at all.

15.

The Counsel for the Respondent has vehemently

argued that in any case the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief in view of the delay in initiating the proceedings.

According to the petitioner, he has been vigilantly

prosecuting his case but initially he happened to approach

wrong forums. In fact the petitioner, after dismissal of his

appeal by the Appellate Authority has chosen the wrong

forum under Tamilnadu Shops and Commercial

Establishments Act to file an appeal which was dismissed

as not maintainable. After its dismissal he had filed Writ

Petition before the High Court of Madras in 2001. This has

remained in file until 2010 in which year it was dismissed

as withdrawn which withdrawal according to the petitioner

was on legal advice. The Counsel for the Respondent has

referred to the decision in CHAIRMAN-CUM MANAGING

DIRECTOR, NLC LTD VS. VS RANGANATHA IYER where

it was held that approaching wrong forum is no

justification to condone delay. The counsel has also

referred to the fact that even after dismissal of the Writ

Petition the petitioner has waited for two years before he

raised the dispute. Certainly there is no doubt there were

latches on the part of the petitioner. However, it could be

seen that he did not remain idle after the result of the

enquiry has turned against him. It has been pointed out

by the counsel for the petitioner that merely on account of

the delay on the part of the petitioner, even if there is any,

the reference need not be decided against the petitioner. It

has been pointed out by the counsel that the relief in

favour of the petitioner could be moulded taking the latches

on the part of the petitioner also.

16.

It is apparent that the enquiry was not conducted in

a fair and proper manner. Even assuming that the petitioner

had committed the misconduct of failing to take delivery

of the parcel and retaining the amount and Lorry Receipt

for some time, the misconduct could not be considered as

one which is so grievous as to result in his discharge from

service. The punishment itself is too disproportionate to

the nature of offence committed.

17.

The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

However, taking into account the latches on his part, I am

not inclined to allow any back wages. The period of

absence of the petitioner from service will be taken into

account for continuity of service only.

18.

In view of my discussion above, the Respondent is

directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within one

month.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 24th July, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management :

MW1, Sri K. Avinash

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

22.05.1989 Appointment order issued by the

2nd Party to the 1st Party

Ex.W2

05.06.1989 Joining Report submitted by the 1st

Party

Ex.W3

19.06.2013 Failure Report

Ex.W4

24.07.2013 Reference

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

03.02.1998 Order suspending the petitioner by

the Respondent

Ex.M2

24.03.1998 Charge Sheet

31.07.1998

01.09.1998

14.09.1998

05.10.1998

23.10.1998

Ex.M3

10.11.1998 Proceedings of Enquiry

26.11.1998

10.12.1998

29.12.1998

18.01.1999

29.01.1999

19.02.1999

5806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M4

12.03.1999 Letter from petitioner’s counsel to

Ex.M5

12.03.1999 Reply from EO to petitioner’s

counsel acceding to their request

to adjourn the enquiry

Ex.M6

08.04.1999 Letter from petitioner’s counsel to

EO praying adjournment

Ex.M7

08.04.1999 Proceedings

enquiry

–

adjourning enquiry at petitioner’s

request to 21.04.1999 – (vide

request petition dated 08.04.1999)

Ex.M8

21.04.1999 Proceedings of enquiry – petitioner

only present –defense evidence

closed – parties advised to submit

their written arguments – before

03.05.1999 – both sides noted

Ex.M9

24.12.1997 Letter from Seevalaperi Branch to

Divisional Manager–Madurai

Division – Regarding the petitioner

Ex.M10

20.05.1999 Letter from EO to DA/GM – Karur

enclosing findings dated 20.05.1999

Ex.M11

14.09.1999 Second Show Cause Notice

proposing

punishment

discharging from service and

posting personal hearing on

25.09.1999

Ex.M12

25.09.1999 Proceedings of personal hearing

Ex.M13

25.09.1999 Representation of petitioner filed in

the personal hearing

Ex.M14

20.11.1999 Final order issued to the petitioner

by the Respondent

Ex.M15

06.12.1999 Representation of the petitioner to

the General Manager/Appellate

Authority

Ex.M16

20.12.1999 Notice of personal hearing

Ex.M17

27.12.1999 Minutes of personal hearing before

the Appellate Authority

Ex.M18

27.12.1999 Memorandum of Appeal on behalf

of petitioner by D/R

Ex.M19

02.02.2000 Order of the Appellate Authority

Ex.M20

14.03.2001 Order of the TNSE Act Authority in

TSE Case No. 3 of 2000

Ex.M21

02.09.2010 Order of Hon’ble Madras High

Court in WP No. 19368 of 2001

Ex.M22

25.09.2012 Petition under Sec.2A of ID Act filed

by petitioner before ALC (C),

Chennai

03.10.2012

Ex.M23

25.04.2013 Counter Affidavit of the Bank

before ALC (C)

Ex.M24

26.04.1997 Caution to the petitioner for

frequent absence/leave from Work

Ex.M25

15.07.1997 Memo to petitioner calling for his

explanation for his unauthorized

absence in continuation of leave on

LTC (UAA 24.06.1997 to 26.06.1997)

Ex.M26

20.08.1997 Reminder to petitioner for his reply

to memo dated 15.07.1997

Ex.M27

01.09.1997 Notice to petitioner in respect of

his unauthorized absence for

24.06.1997 to 26.06.1997

Ex.M28

02.11.1991 Caution – against availing leave

frequently and advising the

petitioner to improve his attendance

Ex.M29

26.09.1991 Unauthorized Absence since

07.09.1991 and advising to report

for work within 3 days

Ex.M30

09.07.1992 Again cautioned for unsatisfactory

attendance and advising to show

improvement in attendance

Ex.M31

24.09.1992 Unauthorized Absence since

11.09.1992 – Advised to report

immediately with explanation for

absence

Ex.M32

28.09.1992 Advising petitioner to contact the

doctor referred by the Bank in case

of seeking leave on medical

grounds

Ex.M33

01.12.1992 Letter to petitioner regarding

absence from duty

Ex.M34

29.03.1996 Charge Sheet for unauthorized

absence on various spells between

24.04.1995 and 15.12.1995 (59 days)

Ex.M35

27.03.1997 Awarding punishment of stopping

one increment due to him with

cumulative effect – in reference to

charge sheet dated 29.03.1996

Ex.M36

20.07.2001 Notice from ACL-Dindigul

enclosing copy of 2A petition dated

19.03.2001 of M. Anantha Krishnan

24.07.2001

Ex.M37

10.08.2001 Bank’s reply to ACL – Dindigul

Ex.M38

16.10.2001 Order of ACL closing further

proceedings since the petitioner is

withdrawing his petition to raise

30.10.2001 Dispute before Central Government

Industrial Tribunal

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5807

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2262-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksVd efgUnzk

cSad 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] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 104@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@51@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

dispute between the management of Kotak Mahindra Bank

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 05/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/51/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, KARKARDOOMA

COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 104/2013

Shri Brinda Prasad Shukla,

S/o Shri Ram Adhar Shukla,

Through Checkmate Services Karamchari Sangh (Regd.),

Ajmeri Gate,

Delhi 110 006.

.....Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,

Ground Floor,

Ambadeep Building,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi 110 001

The Senior General Manager,

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.,

58-60, Pankha Road, Vashisht Park,

Sagarpur,

New Delhi 110006

.....Managements

AWARD

M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(in short the

management) appointed a Security Guard on 24.06.2007.

He was deployed at Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (hereinafter

to referred to as the Bank). The management entered into

a contract with Kotak Mahindra Bank for providing

contractual security services. On 02.04.2012, the Security

Guard, alongwith approximately 15 other employees,

resorted to unruly behaviour and brutally assaulted and

abused the Field Officer on duty. On earlier occasion also,

he had assaulted a Field Supervisor in public when he was

caught napping during duty hours. A domestic enquiry

was constituted against him. He was dismissed vide order

dated 07.06.2012 of the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved

by the said, the Security Guard raised a demand on the

bank for reinstatement of his services. When the Bank did

not respond to his demand, he raised an industrial dispute

before the Conciliation Officer. Since the dispute was

contested by the Bank, conciliation proceedings failed.

On consideration of failure report, submitted by the

conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal vide order

No.L-12012/51/2013-IR(B-I), New Delhi, dated 28.06.2013,

with following terms of reference:

“Whether the action of the management of Kotak

Mahindra Bank and Checkmate Srvices Pvt. Ltd. in

terminating the services of Shri Brinda Prasad Shukla

S/o Shri Ram Adhar Shukla is legal and/or justified

and if not what relief the workman is entitled and

what directions are necessary in this respect?”

When reference was received in this Tribunal, then

it was registered at ID No.104 of 2013 and notice to the

claimant/workman was issued to file claim statement along

with documents within 15 days.

Claim statement was filed by the Security Guard,

Shri Brinda Prasad Shukla, pleading that he was employed

as a Security Guard by the Bank on 08.06.2007 at a monthly

salary of Rs.7580.00. He was issued an identity card. He

worked to entire satisfaction of his supervisors and never

gave a chance of complaint. No appointment letter,

attendance card, leave book, bonus, provident fund receipt

etc. was ever issued to him. When he demanded for the

same, the management started pressuring him. The

claimant is an office bearer of Checkmate Services

Shaparkarta Sangh and because of his union activities,

his services were dispensed with on 23.09.2009. He filed a

case before the Labour Court on whose orders, he was

reinstated in service on 23.07.2011. He has been serving

the bank sincerely since then. However, the bank felt

offended by his union activities and his constant requests

for his legal rights and his services were abruptly

terminated on 08.05.2012 illegally, arbitrarily and without

following due process of law. His earned wages for the

period 01.04.2012 to 08.05.2012, leave pay, overtime, bonus

etc. were also not paid. He raised a notice of demand on

27.09.2012 claiming reinstatement in services. The Bank

opted to keep mum. He had put in 240 days service prior

to his termination. He is unemployed from the date of his

termination. Action of the Bank was violative of the

provisions of section 25F and 25H of the Industrial

5808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Disputes Act, 1947. He seeks reinstatement in services of

the Bank with all consequential benefits.

The management Bank opted not to put in its

appearance despite various notices, hence case was

proceeded ex-parte against the Bank on 13.11.2013.

Claim was demurred by the management pleading

that the appropriate Government had not considered the

material facts and made the reference in a mechanical

manner. The claimant was appointed as a Security Guard

on 24.06.2007 and his last drawn wages were Rs.7020.00.

On 02.04.2012 at about 11.20 hours, the claimant alongwith

approximately 15 co-employee supports gathered at the

site of the bank and resorted to riotous behaviour and

brutally assaulted the Field Officer on duty. On an earlier

occasion, he was earlier found sleeping during duty hours

and on being reprimanded, he assaulted the Field Officer

in public. The claimant had not put in 240 days continuous

service. During the short span of probation, services of

the claimant was far from satisfactory. The claimant was

issued a show-cause notice on 09.04.2012, to which no

explanation was tendered. Shri Sudhir Chauhan, Advocate

was appointed as enquiry to look into the truth of

imputation of lapses against the claimant. However,

despite several notices, the claimant opted not to attend

the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer was left with no

other option but to proceed ex-parte against the claimant

and submit his report. On consideration of the report of

the Enquiry Officer and relevant documents, the

Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer. Show-cause notices were issued on

09.04.2012 and 23.05.2012, to which the claimant preferred

to keep mum, hence was rightfully dismissed from service.

Along with the dismissal letter, cheque no.104035 dated

07.06.2012 for Rs.17,582.00 being full and final settlement

was also sent to the claimant. He is not entitled to any

relief, muchless the relief of reinstatement in service. His

claim may be discarded, being devoid of merits, pleads the

management.

Workman filed rejoinder on 12.11.2013 wherein he

reaffirmed his allegations against the management Bank.

In order to establish his claim, the claimant entered

the witness box to testify facts. During course of his

cross-examination, parties submitted that there was chance

of settlement. In view of these facts the Tribunal

associated itself in process of settlement. Ultimately an

amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties,

contents of which are detailed in subsequent sections.

Claimant made a statement on oath that he is ready

to settle his grievances with the management in case a

sum of Rs.56,000.00 is paid to him towards full and final

settlement of his claim relating to reinstatement in service,

notice pay, retrenchment compensation, payment of

wages, payment of leave encashment and other statutory

benefits. He announced that on payment of Rs.56,000.00

to him, his claim would stand satisfied. Shri D.K. Samal,

Deputy General Manager(HR) of the management

unfolded that the management is ready to pay a sum of

Rs.56,000.00 to the claimant towards full and final

settlement of his claim, made in the present dispute.

Out of facts detailed by the parties it crystallized

that the management has paid a sum of Rs.56,000.00 to the

claimant on 06.05.2014 towards full and final settlement of

claim of the claimant that on payment of Rs.56,000/- the

claimant feels satisfied and his grievances relating to

reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment

compensation, payment of wages, payment of leave

encashment and other statutory benefits has come to an

end. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : July 22, 2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2263-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj U;w bafM;k

balksjsul dEiuh 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] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 2@2004) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@14@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2004)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of New India Insurance

Company and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/08/2014.

[No. L-17012/14/2003-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 02/2004

Ref. No. L-17012/14/2003-IR(B-I) dated: 14.11.2003

BETWEEN

Shri Devendera Prasad,

S/o Shri Ram Singh

Ex-Nazir, H. No. 611

In front of Post Office New Basti

Bijnore

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5809

AND

The Divisional Manager

New India Insurance Company

38, Navyug Market

Ghaziabad (U.P.) – 201 001

The Regional Manager

The New India Insurance Company,

Regional Office,

Gulab Bhawan (Back Inside),

6, Bahadur Shah Zafar M

New Delhi – 110 002.

AWARD

By order No. L-17012/14/2003-IR(B-I) dated:

14.11.2003, 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 Devendera

Prasad, S/o Shri Ram Singh, Ex-Nazir, H. No. 611, In front

of Post Office, New Basti, Bijnore and the Divisional

Manager, New India Insurance Company, 38, Navyug

Market, Ghaziabad & the Regional Manager, The New

India Insurance Company, Regional Office,, Gulab Bhawan

(Back Inside), 6, Bahadur Shah Zafar M, New Delhi for

adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF NEW INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF

SHRI DEVENDERA PRASAD S/O LATE SHRI SHER

SINGH, PEON-CUM-WATER MAN W.E.F.

25.06.2002 IS JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF

HE IS ENTITLED TO?

The case of the workman, Devendera Prasad, in brief,

is that he worked with the opposite parties from 17.06.1997

to 25.06.2002 on daily wages with intermittent breaks. It is

submitted by the workman that his services have been

terminated by the management w.e.f. 25.06.2002 without

giving any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, in violation

of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. It is alleged

by the workman that he was engaged against permanent

and substantive work which is still exiting. It is also alleged

by the workman that the management availed his services

with different names and terminated his services though

retained other workman viz. Bijender who is junior to him.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his termination

dated 25.06.2002 be set aside and he be reinstated with

consequential benefits.

The management has disputed the claim of the

workman and filed its written statement; wherein it has

stated that the workman’s services were engaged on

contract basis, as and when required on casual/temporary

and intermittent basis and he was disengaged on

completion of contract/accomplishment of work for which

he was engaged. The engagement of the workman was

not against any permanent post nor against any work of

perennial nature; hence there was no termination as such.

It is submitted that no one junior to the workman was

retained in the services of the management and the

provisions of the Section 25 F of the Act do not attract in

the present case. Accordingly, the management has prayed

that the claim of the workman be rejected without any

relief to him being devoid of merit.

The workman has filed its rejoinder whereby he has

stated nothing new apart from reiterating his averments

already made in the statement of claim.

The parties have filed photo copy of documentary

proof in support of their respective claim. The workman

has examined himself whereas the management examined

Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, Divisional Manager in support of

their stands. The parties availed opportunity to cross-

examine the each other’s witnesses apart from availing

opportunity to forward oral arguments.

Heard representatives of the parties and perused

entire evidence on record and gone through respective

pleadings of the parties.

The authorized representative of the workman has

argued that the workman worked with the opposite party

for more than five years since 17.06.1997; but the

management has terminated his services without any notice

or notice pay in lieu thereof, in violation to the provisions

contained in section 25 F of the Act. He has also contended

that the management while terminating the services of the

workman retained other juniors and accordingly, violated

the provisions of Section 25 G & H.

In rebuttal, the authorize representative of the

management has contended that there was no relationship

of employer and employee between the management and

the workman and the workman was neither been appointed

by the management nor was paid for the same at any point

of time. It is argued that the workman was engaged as

casual worker for short durations and was disengaged on

completion of work; hence there is no termination of

services and there was no need of compliance of provisions

of Section 25 F of the Act in the present case.

10.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

arguments forwarded by the learned representatives and

scanned entire evidence available on record in the light of

the aforesaid rival contentions of the parties.

11.

The workman has come up with the case that he had

worked as daily wager with the bank from 17.06.1997 to

25.06.2002; but the management has terminated his services

without following procedure specified under Section 25 F

of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 i.e. without serving

any notice or paying notice pay in lieu thereof. He has

also come up with the case that he worked and received

payments in fictitious names at the instance of the

management and other juniors are still working with the

5810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management. The management has taken the stand that

the services of the workman were availed as casual labour

as and when required and his services came to an end on

the completion of term/work; hence there was no

termination at any point of time. It is also the case of the

management that the onus to prove 240 days working is

on the workman in which he has failed.

12.

The workman in his cross-examination has stated

that he himself prepared the vouchers regarding payment

and made vouchers in other person’s name at the directions

of the management. It was also stated that he had prepared

vouchers in the name of Mahesh, Baburam, Narayan and

Manoj. On the other hand the management witness sated

that no other casual worker apart from workman was

working when he was removed. It was also stated that the

workman worked on day to day basis, intermittently.

13.

In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v.

Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon’ble

Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could

be entitled for the protection of section 25 – F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in

establishing the fact that he had been in employment with

the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It

was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such cases,

the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was

confined only to 12 months preceding the date of

termination to decide the question of the continuous

service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has

observed as under:

“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not

produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary

or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment

or engagement for that year to show that he has

worked with the employer for 240 days to get the

benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant

to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for

240 days in a year preceding his termination.”

In this regard the workman has field voluminous

photo copy of the payment vouches in support of his

working details. In view of the law cited hereinabove, for

resorting shelter of the provisions of the Section 25 of the

Act to the workman, it has to be checked as to whether the

workman worked for 240 days in a year preceding his date

of alleged termination i.e. 25.06.2002. Thus, from the

payment vouchers filed by the parties, the working details

of the workman in the twelve months preceding his

termination i.e. from 26.06.2001 to 25.06.2002 are as under:

Month

Working days

No.

relied on by

the workman

the management

1. June, 2001

Nil

2. July, 2001

Nil

3. August, 2001

Nil

4. September, 2011

Nil

5. October, 2001

Nil

6. November, 2001

Nil

7. December, 2001

Nil

8. January, 2002

Nil

9. February, 2002

Nil

10. March, 2002

Nil

11. April, 2002

Nil

12. May, 2002

Nil

13. June, 2002

Nil

Total

14.

Although the management has admitted the working

details filed by the workman even then if it is taken to be

true for the argument’s sake then it comes out that the

workman had worked only for 41 days in the preceding

twelve months from the alleged date of termination i.e.

25.06.2002. Admittedly no appointment order was issued

and the workman was engaged as daily wager by the

management. In case of casual labour in order to get some

relief the workman has to prove that he has worked

continuously for 240 days uninterruptedly in a year

preceding his termination, as observed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Surenderanagar Panchayat and another

v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC). In the

present case, the initial burden of establishing the fact of

continuous work for 240 days in preceding twelve months

from the date of alleged termination i.e. 25.06.2002; but the

workman has utterly failed to prove that he had worked

for 240 days, as such, he could not discharge the burden.

15.

The workman has also come up with the evidence

that though he worked continuously with the management

but he received payment in other names, which has been

denied by the management. In the event of denial by the

management it was incumbent upon the workman to call

report of some handwriting expert to corroborate his

pleadings that he received payment in some other fictitious

names. Neither he disclosed the names in whose name he

received payment nor has he adduced any such evidence.

Therefore, the pleadings of the workman that he received

payments in some fictitious names could not be relied on.

The workman utterly failed to prove that he was engaged

on a permanent post and continuously worked for 240

days preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination i.e. 25.06.2002 and that any workman was

engaged after his termination and lastly, Brijendera who

was junior to him was retained by the management.

16.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

and law cited hereinabove; I am of the opinion that the

alleged action of the management in terminating the

services of the workman w.e.f. 25.06.2002 was not

unjustified.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5811

17.

Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against

the workman Devendera Prasad he is not entitled to any

relief.

18.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

03rd July, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2264-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 92@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@58@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2014

S.O.

2264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2001)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 11/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/58/2001-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 92/2001

Ref. No. L-12012/58/2001-IR(B-I) dated: 22.05.2001

BETWEEN

The Dy. General Secretary

State Bank of India Staff Asson.

C/o State Bank of India

148, Civil Lines

Bareilly

(Espousing cause of Shri Ajay Agarwal)

AND

The Dy. General Manager

State Bank of India

Regional Office, Region – V

Hotel Shikhar, Mahatma Gandhi Marg

Almora

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/58/2001-IR(B-I) dated:

22.05.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between the Dy. General Secretary,

State Bank of India Staff Asson., C/o State Bank of India,

148, Civil Lines, Bareilly and the Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Regional Office, Region – V, Hotel

Shikhar, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Almora for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ISSUE OF COMPASSIONATE

APPOINTMENT CAN BE TREATED AS

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER I.D. ACT, 1947? IF

YES, WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE

MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA IN

NOT

GIVING

COMPASSIONATE

APPOINTMENT TO SHRI AJAY AGARWAL S/O

DECEASED EMPLOYEE SHRI B.S. AGARWAL

W.E.F. 22.10.98 IS JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT

RELIEF HE IS ENTITLED?”

The case of the workman’s association is that one

Shri B.S. Agarwal, Head Clerk of the State Bank of India,

Champawat, Almora region was a member of the State Bank

of India Staff Association, Bareilly Module, who died on

22.10.1998 and on his death the association passed a

resolution to contest the case of compassionate

appointment of the heir of deceased, Shri B.S. Agarwal. It

is submitted by the association that on demise of Shri B.S.

Agarwal his wife, Smt. Mithlesh Agarwal, moved an

application to give compassionate appointment to her

eldest son Shri Ajai Kumar Agarwal. The bank firstly,

refused the compassionate appointment on the grounds

of overage, and advised her to submit another application

in favour of any other member of family. On making

clarifications, the bank sought certificate of qualification

in respect of Ajay Kumar Agarwal to consider his claim for

compassionate appointment. It is also alleged by the

association that the bank declined the request of Mrs.

Mithlesh Agarwal for compassionate appointment of her

son without giving any cogent reason. It is alleged by the

association that denial of compassionate appointment to

the dependent of deceased employee is violation of

provisions contained in Chapter No. VII of (Volume II) of

Hand Book on Staff Matters. Accordingly, the staff

association has prayed that dependent of deceased Shri

B.S. Agarwal viz. Ajay Agarwal be given compassionate

appointment in terms of Bank’s policy.

The management of the State Bank of India has filed

its written statement; whereby it has denied the claim of

the staff association with submission that the claimant,

Ajay Kumar Awarwal is not a member of the staff

association, therefore, the association has no locus standi

5812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to raise the present industrial dispute. It has further

submitted that Ajay Kumar Agarwal was never employed

in the Bank, therefore, there exists no dispute under the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also

submitted by the bank that the widow of late Shri B.S.

Agarwal, viz. Mrs. Mithlesh Agarwal had not no financial

crisis as compared to the terminal benefits being paid to

her which amounted to Rs. 7,42,299.78. The management

has submitted that the deceased acquired a house with

the financial assistance of the bank and his widow is

fetching about Rs. 5,000/- per month as rental; besides

getting family pension amounting to Rs. 6865/- and interest

of Rs. 7500/- per month on terminal benefits. It is submitted

by the Bank that presently the widow of the deceased is

getting sufficient sum in comparison to her liabilities i.e.

two sons (major) and one daughter (major), therefore, not

entitled for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the association

be rejected being devoid of any merit.

The staff association has filed rejoinder; wherein

apart from reiterating the averments already made in the

statement of claim has not stated nothing new.

The parties filed documentary evidence in support

of their claim. The workman examined himself whereas the

management examined Shri K.K. Sahu, Dy. Manager in

support of their respective stands. Parties availed the

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other

and forwarded oral arguments also.

Heard the authorized representative of the parties

and perused entire evidence on record.

The authorized representative of the staff

association has contended that there is scheme for

compassionate appointment, contained in Chapter No. VII

of Hand Book of Staff Matters and on demise of Shri B.S.

Agarwal his wife, Smt. Mithlesh Kumar Agarwal submitted

an application for appointment of her elder son viz. Ajay

Agarwal on compassionate ground on 24.11.98. It is argued

that the bank, firstly, declined the compassionate

appointment on the ground of being overage and on

submission of clarification by the applicant, the

management again declined to give compassionate

appointment to the applicant without stating any reason.

It is also contended by the representative of the workman

that the terminal benefits received by the workman are not

sufficient to meet the liabilities; hence denial of

compassionate appointment on grounds of sound

financial situation is not just.

In rebuttal, the authorized representative has

contended that the claimant was never employed by the

Bank and is not a member of State Bank of India staff

Association, as such, the staff association has got no

locus standi to raise any industrial dispute. Also, there

exist no industrial dispute between the bank and the

claimant. It is argued by the representative of the bank

that the claimant, Ajay Kumar Agarwal was over age on

the date of submitting application for compassionate

appointment, as the required upper age in the clerical cadre

was 26 years while the age of Ajay Agarwal was 27 years

10 months and 24 days, therefore, he was not entitled for

compassionate appointment. Moreover, it is also

submitted that the widow of Late Shri B.S. Agarwal received

a sum of Rs. 7,4,299.78 towards terminal benefits and is in

receipt of Rs. 6865/- per month as family pension and

Bank’s Welfare Scheme and interest of Rs. 7,500/- per

month on terminal benefits and rental of Rs. 5000/-,

therefore, the financial position of the claimant is sound,

as such, no requirement for compassionate appointment.

10.

I have scanned evidence relied on by the parties in

light of rival submissions.

11.

The Bank has come up with objection that since the

claimant, Ajay Kumar Agarwal is neither an employee of

the Bank nor a member of the Staff Association therefore,

there exists no industrial dispute between the Bank and

the claimant and also the Association has no locus standi

to agitate the present matter.

Admittedly, the father of the claimant viz. Late Shri

B.S. Agarwal was the employee of the Bank and was

member of the Staff Association; and on his sudden

demise, the Staff Association has moved a resolution to

contest the case of the claimant regarding compassionate

appointment. The bank while disputing the locus standi

of the Association has not disputed, the resolution passed

to extend legal assistance to the family of its ex-member,

therefore, the action initiated by a recognized trade union

consequent to a resolution passed by its members cannot

be held to be invalid in absence of any material proof.

12.

The first part of the schedule of reference carries a

question as to whether the issue of compassionate

appointment can be treated as Industrial Dispute under

I.D. Act, 1947. The section 2 (k) of the Act defines the term

‘industrial dispute’ as under:

“(k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which connected with the

employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person;”

A bare perusal of the above definition makes it clear

that any dispute or difference between the employers and

workmen regarding non-employment is covered with the

term industrial dispute. In the present case the dispute

exists between the staff association regarding non-

employment of the claimant i.e. not giving compassionate

appointment to the claimant whose cause is being

espoused by the staff association. Therefore, in my

opinion the same comes with the purview of ‘industrial

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5813

dispute’ within the meaning of industrial dispute under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13.

Now coming to the merits of the case, the

management has taken plea that the claimant was over

age on the date of application; hence not entitled for giving

compassionate appointment. In this regard the enabling

provisions of the scheme for appointment of dependents

of deceased employees on compassionate grounds are as

under:

“7.5 Method of Appointment

(a)

Request of the appointment under the scheme

should be received by the Bank on the prescribed

form as per Annexure – II within one year from the

date of death of the employee. In case the dependent

is a minor or does not possess suitable minimum

qualification, his/her case can be considered within

four years of the death of the employee, to enable

him/her to so qualify in terms of age and/or

qualification, provided that the dependent has made

a request to the Bank within a year of the death of

the employee.

(b)

……….

(c)

The minimum age limit in all classes will be 18 years.

The upper age limit will be as per the practice from

time to time for general candidates i.e. 26 years at

present. Where no dependent of the dependent of

the deceased employee within the prescribed age

limit as available for employment, the Managing

Director or Deputy Managing Director may in their

discretion, relax the upper age limit up to a maximum

of five years. However, in the case of widows of the

deceased employee, there will be no upper age limit.

In the case of dependent of Schedule Caste/Tribe

employees, a relaxation of 5 years in the upper age

limit, will be permissible.”

From perusal of above guidelines, it is apparent that

for seeking compassionate appointment; the beneficiary

ought to make application within one year of the death of

the bank employee. In the present case the employee viz.

Shri B.S. Agarwal died on 22.10.1998 and the application

for compassionate appointment was moved on 24.11.98,

which was well within the time frame.

14.

The conditions regarding upper age limit in the

scheme for compassionate appointment, in case of

dependent other than wife, is 26 years. The association,

in its pleadings has mentioned that the management vide

their letter dated 03.07.1999 refused the compassionate

appointment to Ajay Kumar Agarwal due to overage and

advised to submit another application for appointment on

compassionate ground in favour of any other member of

family. This finds support from the oral evidence of Ajay

Agarwal wherein he has stated that his age on 24.11.98

was 27 years 10 months and 24 days and from the terms

given in scheme for compassionate appointment, the upper

age limit was 26 years. Thus, the management rightly

rejected the application of the Ajay Agarwal for

compassionate appointment being over age; and their

advice to Mrs. Mithlesh Agarwal to move another

application in favour of some other member of the family

was just in view of the terms of scheme of compassionate

appointment. But Smt. Mithlesh Agarwal vide her

application dated 14.07.1999 insisted upon to appoint her

elder son viz, Ajay Agarwal. Mrs. Mithlesh Agarwal in her

application dated 14.07.1999 has mentioned that the upper

age limit is 28 instead of 26; but there is no material on

record to show that the upper age limit is 28. Even from

the documents relied upon by the association, paper No.

2/10 to 1/12, it is evident that the upper age limit was 26.

15.

Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of the

case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of

considered opinion that the issue of compassionate

appointment is an industrial disputes within the terms of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the action of the

management of State Bank of India in not giving

compassionate appointment to Shri Ajay Agarwal S/o

deceased employee Shri B.S. Agarwal is not unjustified.

Accordingly, Shri Ajay Agarwal is not entitled for any

relief. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

16.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

17th June, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2265-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 78@1997)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@89@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/97)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of SECL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/89/1996-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

5814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/78/97

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

The Secretary,

MPKMS(HMS),

Chirimiri Area,

Post Handivadi,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Chirimiri Area of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,

Post West Chirimiri,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of July 2014

As per letter dated 10-3-97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

89/96-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the claim of Shri Prem Sai, Shri Lal Sai,

Shri Rup Sai and Shri Jholbahara, contract workers

engaged as Mali at various places of Chirimiri Area

to be regularized as mazdoors on the roll of General

Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL is legal and

justified? If so, what other reliefs are these workmen

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/7. The case of Ist party workman is that Prem Sai, Koal

Bahara and Lal Sai were employed as permanent Gardner

with IInd party form 1989. They were looking after

maintenance of Garden constituted in Coal Mines at

Bunglow of officers of Chirimiri Area, WCL. Their

attendance were marked day to day. Their working was

supervised and controlled by Mines Manager. Salary was

paid directly from Mines. Thus employer employee

relationship was existing between IInd party and those

employees. That contractor M/s. Balakram was shown their

employer. Under Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition Act, 1970, the employing workers in the mines

through contractor is prohibited. Those maalis raised their

grievance on 28-8-94 for payment of wages as per NCWA.

Thereafter their services were abruptly terminated without

assigning reasons. Though the workman submits that they

have completed more than 190 days service, they are

entitled to be regularized in view of Section 25(B) of I.D.Act.

They raised dispute about illegal termination of services.

The dispute has been referred. Their workman covered

under Section 2(B) of I.D.Act. The maalis are covered in

Category II of Item No. 21 of nomenclature, job description

of coal employees. For engagement of contractor, the

contractor is required a licence for engaging contract

labours. M/s. Balakram was not holding any licence. That

their services are covered by NCWA. They have

completed 5 years unblemished service. They are

terminated without notice. On such ground workman prays

for their reinstatement with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to

5/10. IInd party raised preliminary objection that the

dispute is highly belated. With reference to ratio held in

various cases, it is submitted that the delayed reference is

not tenable. The terms of reference are illegal. Appropriate

Government has gone into disputed questions while

making reference. Management has pleaded before

Conciliation Officer that workmen were not engaged by

the management. It is reiterated that there is no employer

employee relationship. Workmen were not engaged by

IInd party. The reference is not tenable.

Management of SECL, Chirimiri Area never engaged

Ist party workman directly or through contractor.

Employees are covered by recommendation of Central

Wage Board from 15-8-67. The service conditions and wage

structure of the employees are revised from time to time.

The persons temporarily engaged by management have

no right. Under Mines Act, it is mandatory on management

to make statutory record on B Register, attendance register

in Form C, D. a person employed by management used to

have enough proof with him about his employment. IInd

party denied all adverse contentions of workman

reiterating that the workman were not engaged by him.

Employer employee relationship is not in existence. It is

denied that those workmen were working as maali. On

such contentions, IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

Rejoinder is filed by workman at page 9/1 to 9/4

reiterating their contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the claim of Shri Prem

In Negative

Sai, Shri Lal Sai, Shri Rup Sai and

Shri Jholbahara, contract workers

engaged as Mali at various places

of Chirimiri Area to be regularized

as mazdoors on the roll of General

Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Relief prayed

entitled to?”

by workmen

are rejected.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5815

REASONS

Workmen are claiming regularization of their services.

For detailed pleadings in statement of claim, workman failed

to participate in reference. No evidence is adduced by

workman to substantiate their claim. The evidence of

workman is closed on 11-5-2011.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri A.M.

Sen supporting contentions in Written Statement of IInd

party reiterating that workmen were not engaged by IInd

party. The evidence of management’s witness remained

unchallenged. Counsel for Ist party workman declined to

cross-examine management’s witness for want of

instructions. Thus the claim of workman is not supported

by any evidence about their working in IInd party. Evidence

of management witness remained unchallenged. I find no

reason to disbelieve evidence of management’s witness.

As claim of workman is not supported by any evidence, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The claim of Shri Prem Sai, Shri Lal Sai, Shri Rup Sai

and Shri Jholbahara, contract workers engaged as

Mali at various places of Chirimiri Area to be

regularized as mazdoors on the roll of General

Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL is not legal and

proper.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to relief claimed by them.

10.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2266-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 238@1992)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@203@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 238/

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/203/1992-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/238/92

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Assistant Secretary,

RKKMS(INTUC),

PO Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara

.....Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of July 2014

As per letter dated 9-12-92 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

203/92-IR(C-II).The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the General Manager, WCL

Pench Area PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in not

regularizing and appointing S/Shri S.K.Gulzar S/o

Mehtab, Ayub S/o Nayat, Vijai S/o Harchand, Abib

S/o Gulzar and Mohd Tahir S/o Majeed as Canteen

workers keeping in view of their continuous services

rendered from December 1983 till date in the canteen

of Barkui Regional Hospital, WCL, Pench Area PO

Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) and not paying

them the wages according to the NCWA-III is

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

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/11. Case of Ist party workman is that they are

members of RKKMS registered Trade Union for welfare of

labours engaged by IInd party. That IInd party is engaged

in extracting coal. For welfare and for giving medical

treatment to these workers, the management has provided

various hospitals in the WCL, one of such hospital is

Barkui Regional Hospital. That one Yusif Khan was

awarded a contract for running canteen/cafeteria at Barikui

Regional Hospital for the period from 16-12-82 to 15-12-83.

The contract was granted by Chief Medical officer, Pench

Area, Burkui Regional Hospital. The conditions included

supply of the proposed items in the cafeteria. The rates of

the items were fixed by the management of IInd party.

That Ist party workman S/Shri Gulzar, Ayub, Vijay, Abib

and Mohd. Tahir were engaged by Yusuf Khan till the

5816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

period of contract was over. Thereafter all those workmen

were appointed by Chief Medical officer to run canteen in

the hospital. They were assured of absorption in service

of WCL. However they are not absorbed in service of

WCL. That as per provisions in Mines Act and rules framed

thereunder, the statutory application of IInd party provide

and maintain canteens for use of its employees. Workman

were employed in canteen claims to have acquired status

of regular employee. Workman further submits that in entire

area of WCL, canteen services are available for workmen.

Canteen are either maintained by canteen committee or

contractors. The contractors used to change but workers

remained same. The contract period was over on 15-12-83

as per assurance given by Chief Medical officer. They

continued to work at Burkui Regional hospital. That by

usage and customary benefits, canteen facilities has

become the condition of service of employees of

management. That mining rules provide furniture and

equipments and cleanliness, Rule 70 provides prices to be

charged. Workman claimed that as they were working in

Regional Hospital Burkui, they were not given benefit of

regularizing in service. Union has referred to ratio held in

various cases. Workman prays that IInd party not

regularizing their services or absorbing in service is illegal.

He prays for regularisation of employees as per the NCWA

with seniority.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to 4/2.

Claim of Ist party workman is denied. IInd party submits

that reference is illegal. Reference is made in respect of

regularization of canteen workers. The reference is illegal.

It amounts to question of fact. The dispute between parties

was whether employees were directly employed by

management of WCL, whether the canteen was fun by

management of WCL. The reference relating to

regularization is compared to the facts in dispute. The

question regarding relationship of employer employee and

occupation of candidates by Shri Gulzar are involved in

the matter. Contract of canteen was granted. While making

reference, Govt. has exceeded its jurisdiction.

IInd party further submits that the workmen were

appointed following procedure. Shri Gulzar is above 60

years of age. He was ex-employee of IInd party. On his age

of superannuation, he cannot claim regularisation of his

service. The patients and their relatives were provided

food items at reasonable rates as there was no other facility.

Said job was given on contract for one year on trial basis.

CMO of Burkui Hospital had invited tender for running

cafit area in the hospital. The contract was awarded to one

Yusuf Khan being the lowest tenderer. It is further

submitted that even after expiry of contract, Yusuf Khan

did not vacate the possession of the premises. He got

employment in IInd party. He was sponsored through

employment Exchange. All material contentisons of

workman that they acquire status of employee of IInd party

and be regularised is denied. Canteen was not connected

with mining operations. The running of hospital doesnot

come with the prohibited category under Contract Labour

Act. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of

claim.

Workmen/Union filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/3

reiterating their contentions in statement of claim. He

further submits that contract was awarded for the period

16-12-82 to 15-12-83. It is denied that the contractor Yusuf

Khan engaged S/Shri Gulzar Ayub, Vijaya Abib, Mohd

Tahir as canteen workers. They have admitted that the

space was vacated by the contractor. That Yusuf Khan

got employment in the company having been sponsored

through Employment Exchange. Yusuf Khan was still

working. It is denied that claim of workmen is false and

they are trying to enter the services of IInd party through

back door entry. All adverse contentions of management

are denied.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

General Manager, WCL Pench

Area PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara

in not regularizing and appointing

S/Shri S.K.Gulzar S/o Mehtab,

Ayub S/o Nayat, Vijai S/o Harchand,

Abib S/o Gulzar and Mohd Thir

S/o Majeed as Canteen workers

keeping in view of their continuous

services rendered from December

1983 till date in the canteen of

Barkui Regional Hospital, WCL,

Pench Area PO Parasia, Distt.

Chhindwara (MP) and not paying

them the wages according to the

NCWA-III is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Relief prayed

entitled to?”

by workmen

are rejected.

REASONS

Workmen are claiming absorption/ regularisation of

service in WCL. Identical affidavit of evidence are filed by

Shri Gulzar & Sheikh Abid. Both the witnesses of Ist party

have stated that there are 7-8 mines in Pench Area of WCL.

When mines are covered by provisions of Mines Act, the

facility of canteen was provided for the employees. Barkui

Regional hospital was constructed in 1968. About 20,000

of employees were getting benefit of said hospital. 400

workers were working in Regional office, Burkui. Workmen

were initially engaged by contractor Yusuf. After expiry of

period of contract, workmen were appointed by Chief

Medical officer of Burkui Hospital. They were assured of

absorption in the same as WCL. They are paid 500 per

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5817

month whereas they are entitled to get payment as per

NCWA. Even after completion of 10 years service, they

are not regularised. Shri Gulzar in his cross examination

says that he is of 60 years of age. Yusuf Khan is his son

and Sheikh Abid is also my son. Yusuf Khan is in service

of WCL, Sheikh Abid is not in service. That he did not

work in WCL. He was working in hospital canteen. Canteen

was given on contract to Yusuf Khan. Names of General

Manager in WCL were sponsored through Employment

Exchange. He claimed ignorance whether Committee is to

make selection after expiry of contract period, Yusuf was

working in WCL. His name was sponsored through

Employment Exchange. He has retired from WCL. There

are about 200 beds in the hospital. Canteen is at some

distance from hospital. Tender of Yusuf Khan was lowest

therefore contract of canteen was granted to him. In his

further evidence in cross-examination shows the patients

and their dependents were supplied food, milk from

hospital canteen. No documents are produced by workman.

That statutory canteen as provided under Mines Act.

Evidence in cross-examination of Sheikh Abid is on the

point that he did not make any effort for service in WCL.

That he was working in canteen of WCL. Narayan Singh

and Gautam were running the canteen of Burkui hospital.

He was engaged in canteen by Yusuf Khan. The evidence

on record doesnot show that contract was sham and

bogus. There is absolutely no evidence that wages of

workman were paid by WCL. In absence of such evidence,

employee employee relationship between parties cannot

be established.

The evidence of management’s witness Shri Gulam

Hussain is in nature of denial of claim of workman.

Management witness in his cross-examination says there

is provision under Mines Act for providing canteen

facilities. Burkui hospital is not covered under Mines Act.

He was unable to tell whether Burkui hospital was existing

in 1968. Only labours and their relatives get treatment in

Burkui Hospital. Salary of Doctors and Nurses, staff is

paid by WCL. That the food items were provided to

workman at Market value. The rates were fixed accordingly.

Yusuf Khan is not examined as witness. Document Exhibit

M-1 is tender notice issued by Chief Medical Officer, Burkui

Hospital. After expiry of tender period on 15-12-83, how

canteen was managed is not extended from evidence of

workman. In absence of such evidence, the employer

employee relationship between parties is not established.

Therefore workman cannot be said employee of IInd party.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi has

relied on ratio held in

Case of Eagle Fashions versus Secretary Labour

and others reported in 1999-I-LLJ-232. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 10 held the terms should be clearly

spelled out Factum of employment and termination itself

in dispute. Reference cannot be made on presumptions.

There is no application of mind.

In present case, terms of reference relates to

regularization of Ist party workman. The order of reference

is not challenged. The evidence on record is not sufficient

to prove relationship of employer employee between the

parties. The ratio held in the case cannot be applied to the

present case.

In ratio relied in case of Municipal Committee, Tauru

and Harpal Singh and another reported in 1999-I-LLJ-1038.

Their Lordship of Apex Court held evidence tendered in

Court should be based on claim statement. Courts will

have to be alter on this. Inconsistent stand of party in

Court will not bring any result.

As in pleading in Statement of claim, any

inconsistency is not brought in notice, the ratio in above

case cannot be applied to case at hand.

Copy of Award in Case No. R/8/97 is also produced.

The facts of present case are not comparable as initially

workmen were engaged by contractor Yusuf Khan.

Whereas workman in above referred case was employee

of the management of Bank. There was no contract

involved in above said case. Evidence in present case is

not sufficient to establish the employer employee

relationship between parties. Therefore the ratio cannot

be beneficially applied to case at hand.

Ratio held in case of Incharge Officer and another

versus Shankar Shetty reported in 2011(1) MPLJ-11 on

point of awarding compensation to meet ends of justice.

In said case compensation 1 Lakh was awarded.

Ratio held in case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Versus Dan Bahadur Singh and others reported in 2007(6)

Supreme court Cases 207 cannot be applied to present

case at hand as facts are not available. Those cases are

related to regularization, absorption.

10.

Learned counsel for workman relies on ratio held in

case of Case of Parimal Chandra Raha versus LIC of India

reported in 1995-LAB.I.C-3064. Their Lordship dealing with

point when canteen workers become employee of

management held provisions of Factories Act is statutorily

obligatory on the employer to provide and maintain canteen

for the use of his employees, the canteen becomes a part

of the establishment and therefore the workers employed

in such canteen are employees of the management. The

canteen become part of the establishment and the workers

working in the canteen, the employees of the management.

The obligation to provide a canteen has to be distinguished

from the obligation to provide facilities to run canteen.

The canteen run pursuant to the latter obligation, doesnot

become a part of the establishment.”

In present case, there is no evidence on record that

the canteen run on contract was statutory canteen as per

Mines Act. In absence of such evidence, workman cannot

be said employees of IInd party WCL.

5818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In case between M.M.R. Khan versus Union of India

reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 937. Their Lordship

dealing with Railway canteen statutory and recognized

employees held the employees in statutory candidates of

Railway will have to be treated as Railway employees but

not employees in non-statutory non-recognised Unions.

As evidence in present case doesnot show that the

canteen run by management was statutory canteen

established as per Mines Act, the ratio held in above case

cannot be benefitially applied to the case at hand. For

reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point

No.1 in Affirmative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the General Manager, WCL Pench

Area PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in not

regularizing and appointing S/Shri S.K.Gulzar S/o

Mehtab, Ayub S/o Nayat, Vijai S/o Harchand, Abib

S/o Gulzar and Mohd Thir S/o Majeed as Canteen

workers keeping in view of their continuous services

rendered from December 1983 till date in the canteen

of Barkui Regional Hospital, WCL, Pench Area PO

Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) and not paying

them the wages according to the NCWA-III is proper.

(2)

Relief prayed by union is rejected.

12.

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] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2267-—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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 172@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@354@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of FCI and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/354/2000-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/172/2003

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Rammurthi Mishra,

Chairman,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Mazdoor Congress (INTUC),

29, Vijaynagar (Chhapar),

Rampur, Distt. Jabalpur

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Distt. Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Distt. Office, Rite Town,

Jabalpur

Managing Director,

Food Corporation of India

Barakhamba Lane,

New Delhi.

Sr. Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Regional office, Chetak Complex,

Maharanapratap Nagar,

Habibganj, Bhopal (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of July 2014

As per letter dated 22-10-03 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

354/2000-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

^^D;k Je la?k] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe etnwj dkaxzsl ¼b.Vd½

ds }kjk izca/ku Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] ftyk izca/kd }kjk

Jh 'kadjyky ;kno ,ao 15 vU; deZdkjksa ds 18-05-1996

dks vU;= LFkkukarfjr djus ,ao iqu% 21-12-96 dks LFkkukarj.k

j) djus ds chp dh vofèk dk osru etnwjksa dh ekax

U;k;ksfpr gS \ ;fn gka] rks lacaf/kr deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k

dk gdnkj gSa \**

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

page 4/1 to 4/19. Claim of all those 16 workmen pertains to

the wages for the period 18-5-96 to 21-12-96. The order of

their transfer was issued and order of transfer was

cancelled and they were allowed to join duties at Jabalpur

depot. Very exhaustive pleadings are submitted by

workmen that workmen No. 2 to 16 working as mazdoor at

FCI Depot, Raipur, Distt. Jabalpur. They were working in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5819

said depot during 1967 to 1973. Ist party No.1 is office

bearer of INTUC Union. That from 1989 onwards,

appointing handling and transport contractors was

discontinued, mate system was introduced. From

1-11-1990, 69 FCI depots from country were

departmentalized. It is alleged after discussion with rival

Union G.S.Jaina Group, FCI issued transfer order dated

24-11-95 whereby 37 mazdoor from Jabalpur were

transferred at FCI depot. Labours refused to report the

places of transfer. As the dispute pertains to recovery of

wages for period given above, only the facts are briefly

narrated on other incidental matters. Transfer order was

challenged by labours filing Writ Petition 3951/95. It is

submitted that the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to

direct IInd party to departmentalize petitioners in the

services of the corporation and the only the petitioner’s

services become transferable. It is submitted that in mate

system, mazdoors working under mate were paid wages

by mate. The mazdoors were not treated regular employees

of the corporation. Appointment orders were not issued

in favour of the applicants. In Para-15 , argument advanced

by counsel for IInd party is narrated. That settlement

arrived between management and representative of

workers Union with regard to departmentalization of

mazdoor has been recommended to Jabalpur Division. The

petitioners have been departmentalized and most of the

benefits available to the directly recruited employees of

the management are not available to the mate labours.

That Hon’ble High Court dismissed Writ petition No. 3951/

95 on 17-5-96. Workman was served legal notice on 22-5-

96 requesting implementation of order dated 17-5-96. In

above writ petition with respect to commitment made by

IInd party for departmentalization of services of

corporation. Said legal notice granted relief to the workmen

by issue orders of appointment regularizing/

departmentalizing the workmen, issue posting orders in

favour of the applicants as regular employees of FCI, grant

regular pay scale, fixation of pay w.e.f. from date of issue

of notification dated 1-11-90. It is submitted that after orders

passed in 3951/95, the Ist party workmen were not allowed

to enter the premises. That IInd party complied with the

order passed by the High Court.

The Ist party workman filed contempt petition 159/96.

After hearing the contempt petition was disposed off on

10-7-96. Some brething time should have been allowed to

the respondents to comply with order dated 17-5-96. The

contempt petition was fixed on 5-6-96. The contempt

petition was disposed with direction to the respondents

to comply with the order and the commitment before the

Hon’ble High Court. Workman issued legal notice on

17-7-96, 28-7-96. After expiry of one month’s period narrated

by Hon’ble High Court, IInd party did not pass any order

in pursuance of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court.

IInd party issued memo dated 6-8-96 allowing benefits of

direct payment system to the workman from 1-1-1994. It

was deliberately done to circulate the order dated 17-3-96

by Hon’ble High Court. It is further submitted that workmen

were not allowed to discharge their duties. They were made

to stand outside the gate. The workmen were not paid

their salary from 18-5-96. Workman filed contempt petition

246 of 1996. Workman have also narrated about filing MCC

No. 591/96, 589/96 for review of order dated 17-5-96 in WP

No. 3951/95 and 589/96 by order dated 18-10-96. In

contempt petition 264/96 Hon’ble High Court imposed fine

of Rs. 2000 against IInd party. MCC 589/96 was dismissed

with cost of Rs. 2000. Ist party workman served legal notice

on 25-10-96 after judgment in contempt Petition 264/96.

Divisional Bench of High Court took up both petitions

and miscellaneous appeal. The appeals give with proposal

for cancelling transfer order dated 19-10-95. Workman

submitted to formulate uniformity of transfer keeping in

view the principles of last come first go.

IInd party cancelled transfer order on 18-12-96.

Workmen were allowed to resume duties. Repeated round

of litigations and orders passed in those orders are

reiterated by Ist party workman and it is emphasized that

because of transfer order, they were prevented from

attending their duties. Transfer order is quashed. Therefore

they are entitled to wages required for the period 18-5-96

to 21-12-96 from IInd party.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to

7/17. The round of litigation between parties is not

disputed. IInd party submits that workmen are interpreting

the order passed by Hon’ble High Court in Writ petition

No. 3951/95 dated 17-5-96. IInd party management has

also pleaded about the corporation established under act

of 1965. Handling and transport contractors were engaged.

The contractors were engaging their labours. From 1989,

mate system was introduced. Payment was made therefore

mate from 1994 direct payment system are introduced.

However it is emphasized that there was no employer

employee relationship. The filing of contempt petition No.

159/96 and order passed therein. In Petition 246 of 1996,

order passed therein on 18-10-96 are ot disputed. Filing of

miscellaneous application of 1342/95 is not disputed. IInd

party has denied material contentions of workman. When

direct payment system was introduced from 1-1-1994, there

was no employer employee relationship. However Regional

Manager had power to transfer those workers as work

was not available at Jabalpur depot. 37 workers were

transferred working in Gang 1,2,3,9. The counsel for

workman admitted that they were not workers nor members

of service cadre of FCI. There were no contract of service

in view of admission. Writ petition was dismissed on 17-5-96.

It is further submitted that the submissions made by Shri

S.C.Jain counsel for FCI before High Court in Writ petition

No. 3951/95 . The submissions made by Shri Jain were

reviewed by substituting, departmentalization means

workers under direct payment system. That the claim of

workman is beyond scope of the agreement dated 1-11-1994.

5820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workmen have put remedy under Section 15 of P.W.Act.

workmen are not entitled to wages claimed by them on

principle of no work, no pay. IInd party prayed for rejection

of his claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

“Whether the demand of workers

Demand for

Union in FCI(INTUC) for wages

wages for

of Shankarlal and 15 other workers

workmen 2 to

for the period 18-5-96 till 21-12-96

16 is justified.

as transferred and said order was

cancelled is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

In support of their claim, Ist party workman filed

identical affidavit of evidence of Shri Ram Singh,

Radhesham. In their affidavit both of them have narrated

about changing methods for engaging labours at different

types, engaging contract labours, mate system, direct

payment system for handling and transport work. They

have also referred to the submissions made by Shri H.C.Jain

Advocate for IInd party in Application No. 3951/95. Legal

notice was served by workmen praying to issue posting

orders of workman as regular employee of FCI and fixing

their scale. The question of departmentalization or fixation

of pay of those workmen is not the point involved for

decision in present reference. Present reference is related

to limited question whether after transfer order was

cancelled, workmen are entitled to wages for the period of

issuing transfer order till they were allowed on duty. Shri

Ram Singh in his cross-examination says that he was not

among the workers transferred. He is supporting cause of

other workers being office bearer of Union. Radhesham in

his cross-examination says alongwith him, mazdoor Union

were transferred. He was transferred thrice remaining

workers in the gang. He corrected that he was transferred

twice. IInd party he was transferred alongwith gang

members to Mahasamund. They had not joined at places

of their transfer. Therefore during 18-5-96 to 21-12-96. The

course of litigation of orders passed by Hon’ble High Court

in Writ Petition, contempt Petition, Miscellaneous

application are not disputed.

Management’s witness Shri Mrinal Singh also stated

exhaustive facts about different modes of engaging labour.

He denied employer employee relationship. He has also

referred to the orders passed in Writ petition, contempt

petition. The copies of orders are produced on record. In

his cross-examination he says Sr. Regional Manager has

power to transfer those labours. Copy of order in Writ

petition No. 3951/95 produced at Exhibit W-1 refers. Para-6

of the order refers to the submissions made by Shri S.C.Jain

counsel for Respondent No.1 that on the other hand, it is

contented that settlement arrived at between the

management and representative of workers Union with

regard to departmentalization of workers has been

extended to Jabalpur depot and petitioners have been

departmentalized and most of the benefits available to the

directly recruited employees of the management which

are not available to the mate labours have been made

admissible to the workers of Jabalpur depot. In para-8, their

Lordship discussed since the petitioners have been

departmentalised and facilities available to the directly

recruited employees have been extended to the

departmentalized mazdoors as per terms of settlement

between management and workers Union cannot be

allowed to resist their transfer when there is no sufficient

work for them at Jabalpur. With such clarification, the writ

petition was dismissed without cost. Exhibit W-1A is copy

of order passed in contempt Petition 159/96. It was

observed that respondents are directed to honour their

commitment made in Court for departmentalizing the

petitioners of Jabalpur Depot and extend the benefits of

departmentalised mazdoors within a period of one month

as per terms of settlement or the order. Exhibit 7-1(B) is

copy of order passed in contempt petition 264/95. IInd

party was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of

Rs. 2000 Exhibit W-1(C) is copy of order passed in MCC

589/96 dismissing proceeding with cost Rs. 2000. Exhibit

W-2 is copy of legal notice sent by workers. Exhibit W-2A

is copy of legal notice dated 28-7-96 sent by workmen.

Exhibit W-2(b) is also copy of legal notice. Exhibit W-3 is

order of posting dated 6-8-96 in pursuance of order passed

in Writ petition 3951/91. Exhibit W-7 is copy of notification.

W-8 is copy of facts of posting order. Exhibit W-10,11 re

copies of contempt petition and reply to the legal notice.

W-12 is copy of order in Writ petition No. 3708. Identical

set of documents are also filed by IInd party.

Written notes of arguments are submitted by IInd

party. Evidence of parties clearly demonstrate that the

transfer order issued by IInd party was cancelled and the

workmen were allowed to join duty. After receiving transfer

orders till the workmen were allowed to join their duty,

workmen were not allowed to enter depot premises. They

were prevented from discharging duty. The order of transfer

of the workmen No. 2 to 16 is cancelled after the same was

challenged by the workman. For one or the other reason,

the transfer order seems to be implemented and workmen

had not accepted the order of their transfer to other places.

When the order of transfer has been cancelled, the

principles of no work no pay cannot be applied in such

case. Because of the order of transfer which was

subsequently cancelled, the workmen were unable to

attend their duties. It was consequence of the order of

transfer issued by IInd party therefore IInd party is bound

to pay wages of workmen 2 to 16 for the period 18-5-96 to

21-12-96. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.1.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5821

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Demand of workmen is justified with respect to the

workmen 2 to 16.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay wages to workmen 2 to

16 from 18-5-96 to 21-12-96.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum

from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2268-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 149@1998)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@219@1997&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 149/98) of

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/219/1997-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/149/98

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Peerkhan,

Somnath Ward No. 24, Rajura,

Post & Tehsil Rajura,

Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (MS)

......Workman

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

WCL. Sasti Sub Area, PO Sasti,

Tehsil Rajura,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of July, 2014

As per letter dated 22-7-1998 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

219/97/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Sub Area

Manager, M/s. WCL, Sasti, Distt. Chandrapur in not

reinstating a contract worker namely Shri Peer Khan

S/o Shri Kedarkhan Pathan is legal, proper and

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

and from which date? What other directions are

necessary in the matter?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that IInd party No.1

had given a contract of the canteen and plantation in the

building compound at Sasti Open Cast Mines, Sasti, Tehsil

Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur to IInd party No.2 in the year

1993-94.IInd party No.3 was given contract for the same

during the subsequent period. IInd party No.3 is running

the canteen. Workman was engaged by contractor Shri

Madhukar H.Nagrale. He was paid fixed wages Rs.56.50

per day. Workman was given job of canteen boy and

maintenance plantation near the canteen. That about 50

plants were required to be maintained by him. The work of

cleaning, sweeping the canteen as well as cleaning the

utensils etc. was being done by Smt. Madanubai Martu

and Savitribai who were not contractor’s employees.

Workman submits that he was working more than 240 days

from 13-5-93 to 20-7-94. His services were terminated from

21-7-94 by oral order. He was not paid compensation, notice

pay. Therefore termination of his service is illegal. That he

is unemployed after termination of his service. He prays

for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/6.

IInd party denied claim of workman contending that

workman was not engaged by the management of WCL,

Sasti Opencast Mines. There is no employer employee

relationship. There was no question of termination of his

service. The reference is not legal. Workman is not entitled

for reinstatement. IInd party submits that recruitment in

public sector is made following recruitment rules calling

names from Employment Exchange. Committee constituted

for recruitment examines eligibility of candidates.

Successful candidates are selected. It is reiterated that

the workman was not engaged by contractor. Work was

awarded to contractor as welfare facility. Working is not

of permanent nature. The contractor was directed to make

labour payment as per Minimum Wages Act. The wages

were paid by contractor. Work was also supervised by

5822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contractor. Tender notice was issued for signing contract.

Workman not completed 240 days service. On such ground,

IInd party prays for rejection of claim.

Workman filed rejoinder at Pages 10/1 to 10/2

reiterating his contention in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

“Whether the action of the mana-

In Affirmative

gement of Sub Area Manager,

M/s. WCL, Sasti, Distt. Chandra-

pur in not reinstating a contract

worker namely Shri Peer Khan

S/o Shri Kedarkhan Pathan is

legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is not

entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

for non-compliance of Section 25-F. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation. Notice was not given to him.

That he was engaged by contractor IInd party No.2, after

completion of contract he was working with IInd party

No.3 with consent of IInd party No.1.

Affidavit of evidence is filed by workman. It is stated

that he has completed 240 days service. The contractor

Shri Madhukar H.Nagrale had issued a experience

certificate. That workman used to prepare tea and Chiwda

(Namkeen) and run the canteen as well as to look after the

plantation in the canteen area. In his cross-examination

workman says Shri Madhukar H.Nagrale was given

contract of plantation. That Shri Raman Tiwari was running

canteen. Period of contract of Madhukar was from

13-5-93 to 26-12-93 about period of 7 months. Workman

claims ignorance when contract was given to Raman

Tiwari. He further says that Madhukar H.Nagrale had

engaged him in work. He was paying his wages. Shri Sunil

Canteen Manager was giving him instruction of work. Shri

Nagrale continued him on work during his contract period.

Thereafter he continued to work. He further says that

contractor had provided him work. He was working as

labour. After contract period of Shri Madhukar H.Nagrale

ended, he was not provided job. Contractor Shri Madhukar

H.Nagrale is not party to the proceeding. Workman has

not produced any document about working with Shri

Madhukar H.Nagrale. Entire evidence of workman shows

that he was engaged by contractors and working under

contractor. There is no evidence that the workman was

engaged by those contractors with prior approval of WCL.

IInd party filed affidavit of witness Shri Ram Bihari

Mishra, Manager. He denied working of workman as

employee of WCL. Management’s witness says that

management of WCL awarded contract to Shri Madhukar

H.Nagrale for execution of work, maintenance of plants at

Canteen Campus for the year 1993-94. He denies that Shri

Madhukar H.Nagrale was running the canteen. He further

says that the canteen is statutory requirement by WCL

directly. Employees working in canteen are regular

employees as per NCWA. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says he was appointed at Sasti

project in 1992. He worked in August 1998. The original

work order is produced on record marked Exhibit M-1. The

contract period of Shri Madhukar H.Nagrale is shown six

months for maintenance of plants at canteen campus. The

approximate expenditure is shown Rs.10,046. Thus

evidence of management’s witness is corroborated by

document Exhibit M-1. The evidence of Ist party workman

is not supported by any document. In written notes of

argument submitted by learned counsel for workman, it is

emphasized that the contractor engaged workman on

13-5-93. Workman was preparing snacks, tea. Workman

was working till 20-7-94 and he completed more than 240

days. However the document Exhibit M-1 Work Order

shows contract of Shri Madhukar H.Nagrale was only for

six months for maintenance of canteen premises. The

evidence of workman about completing more than 240 days

working is not supported by documents. There is no

evidence about contract given to Shri Madhukar H.Nagrale

was bogus and sham. IInd party No.1 was co-employee.

In absence of such evidence, it is not proved that IInd

party No.1 WCL engaged workman or terminated him from

service. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Workman was not engaged nor terminated by WCL

IInd party No.1. Termination of workman is not in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2269-—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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@141@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5823

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2006)

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

Jaipur 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 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/141/2005-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

vuqcU/k

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

t;iqj lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 72@2006

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vfèkdkjh

jsQjsUl ua- ,y- 22012/141/2005–vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)

fnukad 27/07/2006

Shri Mangilal Medhwal

S/o Shri Daulaji Medhwal,

R/o Gholi Magri, Post-Ghasa, Tehsil-Mawli,

Distt.- Udaipur (Rajasthan)

V/s.

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Udaipur (Rajasthan)

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh lfer fo’uksbZ & izfrfufèk &,d&i{kh;

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh dkUrk izlkn 'kekZ & ,MoksdsV

% iapkV %

fnukad % 27- 06- 2014

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e] 1947 dh

èkkjk 10 mi&èkkjk 1 [k.M+ (?k) ds vUrxZr fnukad 27-07-2006 ds

vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vkèkkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq

lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS%&

“Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Udaipur in terminating the

services of Shri Mangilal Medhwal w.e.f. 3.4.2002

vide their order dated 10-9-2002, is legal and justified ?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

vkosnu fnukafdr 31-1-2007 esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj

laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ Jfed dk dFku gS fd og foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa

gS.Mfyax Jfed] xSax ua- 8 ds in ij fu;qDr gksdj fu;fer deZdkj

Fkk vkSj {k; jksx ls ihfM+r gksus vkSj vLirky ls foxr 6&7 efgus

ls viuk Vh-ch-jksx dk bykt djkus ,oa vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus ds

dkj.k foi{kh ds ;gka M~;wVh ugha ns ik;kA

4-

izkFkhZ us fnukad 24-9-2002 dks M~;wVh ij vuqifLFkr jgus ds

lUnHkZ esa ,d izkFkZuk&i= foi{kh dks fn;k Fkk ftlesa fy[kk Fkk fd foxr

6&7 efguksa ls mldk bZykt Vh-ch-vLirky] cM+h esa pyus ds dkj.k

og viuh M~;wVh esa mifLFkr ugha gks ik jgk gSA bl lEcUèk esa izkFkhZ

ds i{k esa tkjh fpfdRlh; izek.k&i= ,oa dk;Z djus ;ksX; gksus ls

lEcfUèkr LoLFkrk izek.k&i= dh izfr;ka dze’k% izn’kZ 1 o 2 esa i= ds

lkFk layXu gSA

5-

foi{kh }kjk fnukad 14-8-2002 dks izkFkhZ dks dkj.k crkvks

uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ftldk foLr‘r tokc fnukad 28-8-2002

dks izkFkhZ }kjk foi{khx.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;kA uksfVl fnukafdr

14-8-2002 ,oa tokc fnukad 28-8-2002 dh izfr;ka voyksdukFkZ

izn’kZ&3 o izn’kZ&4 izkFkZuk&i= ds lkFk layXu gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks

uksfVl nsus ds iwoZ Hkh izkFkhZ us vius fe=ksa ,oa i= ds ekè;e ls vius

vuqifLFk jgus ds lEcUèk esa voxr djk;k Fkk fd {k; jksx ls ihfM+r

gksus ds dkj.k og vuqifLFkr jg jgk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk foi{khx.k dks Hkstk

x;k i= fnukafdr 14-9-2002 izn’kZ&5 izkFkZuk&i= ds lkFk layXu gSA

vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk gS fd M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k gksrs gq, Hkh fnukad 10-9-2002 ds vkns’k ls foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ

dks lsokeqDr dj fn;kA vkns’k fnukad 10-9-2002 dh izfr izn’kZ&6

voyksdukFkZ izkFkZuk&i= ds lkFk layXu gSA

6-

vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd foi{kh ds vèkhu lsok vofèk ds

nkSjku izkFkhZ dh lsok,a lnSo lUrks"kizn jgh gS vkSj izkFkhZ us rUe;rk

,oa rRijrk ls viuk dke fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ ij dHkh&Hkh dnkpkj ds

vkjksi ugha yxs] vkSj izkFkhZ us iw.kZ dq’kyrk] esgur] yXku ,oa bZekunkjh

ls viuh lsok,a nhA LoLFk gksus vkSj M~;wVh djus esa l{ke gksus ds

mijkUr izkFkhZ us M~;wVh ij j[kus ds fy, foi{kh ls dbZ ckj ekSf[kd

fuosnu fd;k vkSj fnukad 14-1-2003 o 2-7-2003 dks fyf[kr

izkFkZuk&i= Hkh fn;k] ysfdu izkFkhZ dks lsok esa okil ugha fy;k x;kA

izkFkhZ us mDr vkosnuksa esa vuqifLFkr jgus dk dkj.k crk;k Fkk fQj

Hkh mls okil dk;Z ij ugha fy;k x;kA

7-

vkxs izkFkhZ dk dguk gS fd lsok ls eqDr djus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks

dksbZ uksfVl ugha nh xbZ] uksfVl ds cnys dksbZ eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k

vkSj NaVuh eqvkotk Hkh ugha fn;k x;k ftlds ifj.kkeLo:Ik izkFkhZ dh

lsok eqfDr voSèk] 'kwU; ,oa fu"izHkkoh gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ

ls dfu"B vHkh&Hkh dk;Zjr gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks lsok ls fudkyus ds ckn

vU; O;fDr;ksa dks Hkh fu;qfDr nh x;h gS] bl izdkj vkS|ksfxd fookn

vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 25&,Q ,oa 25&th dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA ;g

Hkh dgk x;k gS fd i{kdkjksa ds chp le>kSrk lQy u gksus ds dkj.k

Je ea=ky; }kjk fnukad 27-7-2006 dks fookn iapkV gsrq vkS|ksfxd

U;k;kfèkdj.k dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k ftlds vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ }kjk

izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA U;k;kfèkdj.k dks fu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr

fookn izn’kZ&7 izkFkZuk&i= ds lkFk layXu gSA lsok eqfDr dh frfFk ls

izkFkhZ csjkstxkj gS vr% izkFkZuk gS fd lsok eqfDr dk vkns’k fnukad

10-9-2002 dks fujLr dj izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok eqfDr dh frfFk ls osru

,oa vU; ykHk lfgr lsok esa okil fy;s tkus dh d‘ik dh tk,A

5824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8-

foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls oknksÙkj fnukafdr 1-10-2007 dks

izLrqqr dj foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls izkFkhZ dh izkFkZuk&i= ds izLrj 1] 2]

3] 5] 6] 7] 8] 9] 10] 11] 12] 13] o 14 ds dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k

x;k gSA izLrj 15 ds lEcUèk esa dgk x;k gS ;g {ks=kfèkdkj ls

lEcfUèkr dkuwuh ekeyk gS ftlds tokc dh vko’;drk ugha gSA izLrj

4 ds lEcUèk esa dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 14-8-2002 dks uksfVl

Hkstus dk rF; Lohdkj gS ysfdu ;g dFku vLohdkj gS fd mlus fnukad

28-7-2002 dks tokc izLrqr fd;kA fnukad 14-8-2002 dks uksfVl dk

fnukad 30-8-2002 rd tokc izLrqr djuk Fkk ftldk mlus dksbZ

tokc izLrqr ugha fd;k] blfy;s fnukad 10@11-9-2002 dks b.MLV~h;y

,EIyk;esaV ¼LVasfMax vkWMZj½ ,DV 1946 ds vUrZxr 10-9-2002 ds

vkns’k ls fuxe dh lsok ls izkFkhZ dks c[kkZLr dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk

vius izkFkZuk&i= ds izLrj&4 esa of.kZr tokc dh dksbZ izfrfyfi

mRrjnkrk dks miyCèk ugha djk;h x;hA

9-

vfrfjDr dFku esa foi{khx.k dk dguk gS fd izkFkhZ foi{khx.k

ds fu;kstu esa ugha gS D;ksafd dkj.k crkvks uksfVl nsus ds i’pkr~ tc

mlus tokc ugha fn;k rks fnukad 11-9-2002 dks mls lsok eqDr dj

fn;k x;k vkSj lsok eqfDr dk vkns’k mlds Lo;a ds irs ij Hkstk x;k

rFkk fnukad 3-10-2002 dks LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa Hkh izdk’ku djk;k

x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku xyr gS og gS.Mfyax Jfed ds :Ik

eas fu;kstu esa gS] D;ksafd vc] og fu;fer :Ik ls u deZdkj gS vkSj

u mlds deZdkj gksus dk iz’u gSA

10-

izkFkhZ dh lsok,a fnukad 11-9-2002 dks lekIr dh x;h gS mlls

igys dHkh&Hkh mlus Vh-ch- dh chekjh ds vkèkkj ij u rks vodk’k

izkFkZuk&i= fn;k u fdlh izdkj dk jksx izek.k&i= fn;k vkSj u

vodk’k Lohd‘r djk;k blfy;s izkFkhZ dks {k; jksx gksus dk dFku

vLohdkj gS vkSj {k; jksx gksus dh dgkuh lksp&fopkj ds ckn ¼After

thought½ x<+h x;h gSA

11-

fnukad 24-9-2012 dks izkFkhZ }kjk vuqifLFkr jgus ds lEcUèk

esa foi{kh dks izkFkZuk&i= nsus dk Hkh dFku vLohdkj gS D;ksafd fnukad

11-9-2002 ls igys gh fnukad 11-9-2002 dks mldh lsok,a lekIr

dj nh xbZ blfy;s fnukad 24-9-2002 dks izkFkZuk&i= nsus dk iz’u gh

ugh mBrkA izLrj 3 esa of.kZr izn’kZ&1 o izn’kZ&2 foi{k dks Dyse ds

lkFk ugha miyCèk djk;h x;hA fnukad 14-8-2002

dks foi{k }kjk

izkFkhZ dks uksfVl tkjh djuk Lohdkj gS ysfdu izkFkhZ us mldk tokc

fn;k ;g ckr Lohdkj ugha gS D;ksafd fnukad 14-8-2002 dh uksfVl esa

fnukad 30-8-2002

rd tokc izLrqr djus dk volj Fkk ftls izkFkhZ

us ugha izLrqr fd;k blfy;s fnukad 11-9-2002 ds vkns’k ls izkFkhZ dh

lsok lekIr dj nh x;hA Dyse ds izLrj 4 esa okf.kZr izn’kZ&3 o 4 dh

dksbZ izfrfyfi Dyse ds lkFk mRrjnkrk dks miyCèk ugha djk;h x;hA

izLrj 5 ds dFku dks vLohdkj dj ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{k

}kjk uksfVl nsus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ }kjk {k; jksx ls ihfM+r gksus ds dkj.k

M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds rF; dh dksbZ lwpuk fe=ksa vFkok i= ds

ekè;e ls foi{k dks ugha nh x;h vkSj u gh vodk’k Lohd‘r djkus ds

fy;s dksbZ izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA Dyse ds izLrj 5 esa n’kkZ;h

x;h izn’kZ&5 dh dksbZ izfrfyfi Hkh foi{k dks miyCèk ugha djk;h x;hA

12-

vkxs ;g dFku gS fd fnukad 3-4-2002 ls izkFkhZ fujUrj

vuqifLFkr jgrk jgk gS vkSj fnukad 3-4-2002 ls iwoZ {k; jksx ls

xzflr jgus dk dksbZ izek.k&i= mlds }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ

}kjk gYdk gkbijVsa’ku vkSj ,e-vkj- ds vkèkkj ij 3 ekg rd gYdk

dk;Z djus dh vuqefr gsrq izkFkZuk&i= ,oa esfM+dy cksM+Z dk lVhZfQdsV

izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk mlesa Hkh {k; jksx ls xzflr gksus dk dksbZ mYys[k

ugha FkkA izkFkhZ dks esfMdy cksMZ ds lfVZfQdsV ds vkèkkj ij gS.M+fyax

ds dk;Z ds LFkku ij gYdh M~;wVh nh xbZ FkhA blds ckn 3 ekg iwjk

gksus ij fnukad 10-1-2002 ls iqu% 3 ekg dh vofèk ds fy;s gYdk

dke djus dk izLrko fHktok;k fdUrq mlds ckn mlus vU; dksbZ

esfMdy izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k blfy;s gYds dk;Z djus dh Lohd‘fr

dks foLrkfjr djus ds fy;s dksbZ vkns’k foi{k }kjk ugha gqvkA mDr

fLFkfr ds ckotwn fnukad 3-4-2002 ls izkFkhZ fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds

vuqifLFkr gks x;k vkSj bl izdj.k ds igys Hkh vuqifLFkr gksrk jgk

gSA vuqifLFkr jguk mldh vknr cu x;h FkhA o"kZ 2001 esa izkFkhZ

dsoy 17+6 fnu mifLFkr jgk gS vkSj o"kZ 2001 ls fnukad 3-4-2002

ds chp mlus 321 fnu vodk’k fy;k bl izdkj izkFkhZ dk;Z ij vDlj

vuqifLFkr jgrk Fkk ,oa dk;Z ,oa nkf;Ro dh mlus ges’kk mis{kk dh gSA

izLrj 5 esa of.kZr vfHkys[k dh dksbZ izfr foi{k dks miyCèk ugha djk;h

x;h gSA

13-

izkFkhZ ds ikl M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr

dkj.k ugha Fkk vkSj mlds ikl ;fn dksbZ dkj.k gksrk rks fnukad

14-8-2002 ls 30-8-2002 ds chp ;qfDrlaxr tokc izLrqr dj ldrk

Fkk ysfdu 15 fnu dh uksfVl dh mDr vofèk esa dksbZ tokc izLrqr ugha

fd;k vkSj lsok lekfIr dk vkns’k ikfjr gksus ds ckn eux<+r dgkuh

cuk;hA izkFkhZ dh lsok,a dHkh&Hkh lUrks"kizn ugha jghA og lsok ls

vDlj vuqifLFkr jgrk FkkA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk vLohdkj gS fd mlus

rUe;rk ,oa rRijrk ds lkFk dk;Z fd;k ,oa viuh lsok,a nhA izkFkhZ dh

lsok,a fnukad 11-9-2002 dks lekIr dj nh x;h gS blds ckn izkFkhZ

}kjk fnukad 14-7-2003 vkSj 2-7-2003 dks izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr djus

vkSj ekSf[kd fuosnu djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gS D;ksafd

mldh lsok,a lekIr dh tk pqdh FkhA

14-

izLrj 9 ds fo#) foi{khx.k dk dFku gS fd izLrqr rF;ksa ds

lEcUèk esa tokc fn;k tk pqdk gSA izkFkhZ us dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k

uksfVl ds tokc esa ugha crk;k FkkA izkFkhZ vuqifLFkr jgus dk vknrh

gS vkSj iwjs lsok dky esa vfèkdrj vodk’k] fcuk osru vodk’k ij

jgk gS ,oa vuqifLFkr jgk gS blfy;s foi{kh dk lsok lekfIr dk fu.kZ;

lgh gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd dkuwu dh n‘f"V esa NaVuh dk dksbZ

eqvkotk nsuk vko’;d ugha gS vkSj lsok lekfIr dk fu.kZ; iwjh rjg

fofèk lEer gSA izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 25&,Q ,oa

25&th dk ykHk ikus dk gdnkj ugha gS vkSj foi{k }kjk bu nksuksa dk

dksbZ mYya?ku ugha gqvk gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd èkkjk 25&,Q ds

ekeys esa fofèk dh fLFkfr Li"V gS fd èkkjk 25&,Q dk ikyu ;fn ugha

gqvk gS rks dsoy ,d ekg dk eqvkotk fn;k tk ldrk gSA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k gS fd izkFkhZ csjkstxkj ugha gS rFkk viuk O;olk; djrk gS vr%

izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk&i= [kpkZ lfgr [kkjht fd;k tk,A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5825

15-

izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 3-1-2007 dks Dyse izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj

foi{khx.k }kjk fnukad 1-10-2007 dks oknksRrj izLrqr fd;k x;kA

16-

i=koyh fnukad 4-1-2010 dks izR;qRrj ¼fjTok;UM+j½ ds fy;s

fu;r fd x;hA fnukad 16-7-2010 dks izkFkhZ i{k }kjk ;g dgk x;k

gS fd mudks izR;qRrj ¼fjTok;UM+j½ ugha izLrqr djuk gS vr% i=koyh

izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds fy;s fnukad 7-9-210 dks fu;r fd x;hA fnukad

7-9-2010 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgk vkSj vxyh frfFk 9-11-2010

dks oknh i{k vuqifLFkr jgkA bl izdkj nksuksa frfFk;ksa dks izkFkhZ dksbZ

lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;kA fnukad 9-11-2010 dks izkFkhZ ds fo#)

,d&i{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns’k rRdkyhu fo}ku ihBklhu vfèkdkjh

}kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k vkSj foi{kh ds ,d&i{kh; lk{; ds fy;s fnukad

27-12-2010 frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 27-12-2010 dks Jh

t;ukjk;.k flag vk<+k] lgk;d Js.kh izFke] Jfed iz’kklu 'kk[kk

Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] ftyk dk;kZy;&mn;iqj dk 'kiFk&i= foi{khx.k

dh rjQ ls lk{; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 15-2-2011 ds fy;s

i=koyh rRdkyhu ihBklhu vfèkdkjh }kjk ,di{kh; cgl ds fy;s

fu;r dh x;hA

17-

fnukad 15-2-11 vkSj mlds ckn dh vkxkeh frfFk;ksa 7-3-2011]

4-4-2011] 30-5-2011 vkSj fnuakd 19-7-2011 dks yxkrkj ;kph i{k

vuqifLFkr jgk rFkk ,di{kh; cgl Hkh lEiUu ugha gqbZA vxyh frfFk

30-8-2011 dks izkFkhZ i{k us fnukad 9-11-2010 ds ,di{kh; vkns’k dks

fujLr djus dh vkosnu izLrqr dh tks fnukad 11-10-2011 dks iqu%

oknh dh vuqifLFkr esa oknh dh rjQ ls mDr vkosnu ij cy u fn;s

tkus ds dkj.k rRdkyhu fo}ku ihBklhu vfèkdkjh }kjk fujLr dh

x;h vkSj i=koyh fnukad 12-12-2011 dks foi{k dh ,di{kh; lk{;

ds fy;s fu;r dh x;hA

18-

fnukad 2+9-2-2012 dks iqu% izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls fnukad

9-11-2010 ls ,d&i{kh; vkns’k dks fujLr djus dh nwljh vkosnu

izLrqr dh x;h tks fnukad 16-4-2012 dks Lohdkj gqbZ vkSj izkFkhZ dks

vxyh frfFk fnukad 4-6-2012 dks lk{; izLrqr djus ds fy;s volj

iznku fd;k x;kA fnukad 16-4-2012 dks foi{kh dh vuqifLFkr ds

dkj.k muds fo#) ,d&i{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns’k Hkh fd;k x;kA

fnukad 4-6-2012 dks izkFkhZ i{k }kjk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k

vr% lk{; dh vxyh frfFk 30-7-2012 dks fu;r dh x;hA fnukad

30-7-2012 dks izkFkhZ i{k iqu% vuqifLFkr gks x;k vkSj mudh rjQ ls

dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;kA fnukad 30-7-2012 dks foi{k }kjk

muds fo#) fnukad 16-4-2012 ,d&i{kh; vkns’k dks fujLr djus ds

vkosnu izLrqr gqbZ tks Lohdkj dh x;hA izkFkhZ i{k ds fo:) fnukad

30-7-2012 dks vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k iqu% ,d&i{kh; dk;Zokgh djus

dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk ,d&i{kh; lk{; igys ls

i=koyh ij fnukad 27-12-2010 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk blfy;s

i=koyh foi{kh dh cgl ds fy;s fnukad 15-10-2012 dks fu;r dh

x;hA fnukad 15-10-2012 dks iqu% izkFkhZ i{k vuqifLFkr jgk vkSj foi{k

mifLFkr jgk] ihBklhu vfèkdkjh vodk’k ij jgs] vr% fnukad

20-12-2012 dks i=koyh ,d&i{kh; cgl ds fy;s fu;r dh x;hA

fnukad 20-12-2012 ihBklhu vfèkdkjh vodk’k ij jgs] izkFkhZ i{k

vuqifLFkr vkSj foi{kh mifLFkr jgk vr% i=koyh fnukad 11-2-2013

dks ,d&i{kh; cgl ds fy;s fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 11-2-2013 dks

i=koyh fnukad 21-3-2013 ds fy;s cgl ds fy;s fu;r dh x;h vkSj

cgl lquus dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gqbZA fnukad 11-2-2013 dh dk;Zokgh

lEiUu gks tkus ds ckn ;kph i{k mifLFkr gqvk vkSj ;kph i{k dh

rjQ ls muds fo#) ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 30-7-2012 dks fujLr djus

dh vkosnu izLrqr gqbZA vxyh frfFk 21-3-2013 dks izkFkhZ ds fo#)

ikfjr ,d&i{kh; vkns’k fnukad 30-7-2012 fujLr dh x;h vkSj

i=koyh fnukad 18-4-2013 ds fy;s rRdkyhu ihBklhu vfèkdkjh }kjk

cgl gsrq fu;r dh x;hA fnuakd 18-4-2013 dks izkFkhZ ds izfrfufèk }kjk

;g dgk x;k fd izkFkhZ dh lsokfuo‘fRr dh frfFk lekIr gks pqdh gS] ,slh

fLFkfr esa foi{k }kjk lsokfuo‘fRr dk ykHk izkFkhZ dks nsus dks lger gks

rks izkFkhZ lSVyesUV ds fy;s rS;kj gSA

fnukad 18-4-2013 ds vkns’k fuEuor~ gS%&

^^nksuksa i{k ds izfrfufèkx.k mifLFkr gSA

izkFkhZ izfrfufèk dk dguk gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok fuo‘fRr dh frfFk

fudy pqdh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn vizkFkhZ i{k lsok fuo‘fRr ds

ykHk izkFkhZ dks nsus dks lger gks rks og bl izdj.k esa

Settlement ds fy, rS;kj gSA nksukas i{k us vkilh lgefr

ls Settlement gsrq ,d volj nsus ds fy, fuosnu fd;k

vr% i=koyh mDr dk;Z gsrq fnukad 15-5-13 dks is’k gksA **

19-

fnukad 15-5-2013 dks fo}ku ihBklhu vfèkdkjh vodk’k ij

Fks vkSj vxyh frfFk fnukad 5-8-2013 dks U;k;kfèkdj.k fjDr gks x;k

D;kasfd fnukad 5-8-2013 ls iwoZ fo}ku ihBklhu vfèkdkjh lsokfuo‘r

gks x;sA u;s ihBklhu vfèkdkjh us fnukad 10-10-2013 dks dk;ZHkkj

xzg.k fd;kA fnukad 14-10-2013] 22-11-2013 vkSj 17-12-2013 dks

mHk;i{k us ifjfuèkkZj.k (Settlement) izLrqr djus ds fy;s le;

pkgk ftls izR;sd frfFk ij Lohdkj fd;k x;k vkSj vxyh frfFk fnukad

7-1-14 dks foi{kh }kjk 45134 #Ik;s dk fMek.M&Mªk¶V izLrqr fd;k

x;k] tks foi{kh }kjk vfUre ifjfuèkkZj.k ds :Ik esa iznku dh tkus okyh

èkujkf’k crk;h x;h ftls ;kph ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk us lfojksèk ;g

dgdj Lohdkj fd;k fd vxyh rkjh[k dks os ;fn dksbZ èkujkf’k cdk;k

gksxh rks mldk fooj.k izLrqr djsaxsA blds ckn eqdnesa dh lekfIr gksxhA

U;k;kfèkdj.k }kjk fnukad 28-1-2014 vxyh frfFk fu;r dj funsZf’kr

fd;k x;k fd dksbZ vkSj cdk;k gks rks vxyh frfFk dks fooj.k izLrqr

fd;k tk, vU;Fkk dk;Zokgh lekIr gksxhA

20-

fnukad 28-1-2014 dks izkFkhZ i{k vuqifLFkr jgk ;|fi ihBklhu

vfèkdkjh vodk’k ij FksA foi{k mifLFkr FkkA vxyh frfFk fnukad

13-2-2014 dks Hkh ;kph i{k vuqifLFkr jgk vkSj foi{k ds fo}ku

vfèkoDrk mifLFkr FksA U;k;fgr esa U;k;kfèkdj.k }kjk dk;Zokgh eqYroh

dj vfUre ifjfuèkkZj.k gsrq fnukad 04-03-2014 frfFk fu;r dh x;hA

fnukad 4-3-2014 dks mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfufèk mifLFkr gq;sA ;kph

ds fo}ku izfrfufèk dks U;k;kfèkdj.k }kjk mDr funsZf’kr fd;k x;k fd

fnukad 7-1-2014 ds vkns’k ds vuqikyu esa fdlh cdk;k dk fooj.k

mudh rjQ ls ugha izLrqr gSA mudh ek¡x ij iqu% mUgas ,d volj

iznku fd;k x;k fd dksbZ cdk;k gks rks mldk fooj.k fnukad 19-3-2014

5826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

rd izLrqr djsaA fnukad 19-3-2014 dks ;kph i{k iqu% vuqifLFkr gks

x;k rFkk foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfufèk mifLFkr FksA vxyh frfFk;ksa fnukad

26-3-2014 vkSj 18-4-2014 dks ;kph i{k vuqifLFkr Fkk foi{k ds

fo}ku izfrfufèk mifLFkr FksA U;k;fgr esa oknh i{k dks volj iznku

djrs gq, fnukad 15-5-2014 dks vkxkeh vkns’kkFkZ frfFk fu;r dh x;hA

fnukad 15-5-2014 dks Hkh ;kph i{k vuqifLFkr jgk rFkk dksbZ fooj.k

;k vfHkfuèkkZj.k izLrqr u djus ds dkj.k ;kph ds fo:) iqu% ,di{kh;

dk;Zokgh dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 26-5-2014 dks

i=koyh foi{kh ds ,di{kh; cgl ds fy, fu;r dh x;hA vxyh

frfFk;ksa fnuakd 26-5-2014] 18-6-2014 vkSj 23-6-2014 dks mHk;i{k

vuqifLFkr jgs] vr% fnukad 27-6-2014 dks iqu% frfFk foi{kh dh

,di{kh; cgl ds fy, fu;r dh x;hA

21-

fnukad 27-6-2014 dks Hkh dksbZ i{k mifLFkr ugha vk;k vkSj

i{kdkjksa dh mnklhurk dks n‘f"Vxr j[k vkxs dh dk;Zokgh lekIr dh

x;h ,oa i=koyh ij miyCèk lk{; ds vkèkkj ij iapkV ikfjr fd;k

tk jgk gSA izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls izys[kh; lk{; esa ;kfpdk ds lkFk layXud

,d yxk;r lkr fofHkUu izys[kksa dh QksVksizfr;k¡ gSa ftudk fooj.k Dyse

ds fooj.k esa vafdr gSA

22-

D;k QwM dkWiksZjs’ku vkWQ bf.M;k] mn;iqj ds izcUèku }kjk

muds vkns’k fnukad 10-9-2002 }kjk fnukad 3-4-2002 ls izkFkhZ dh

lsok;sa lekIr djuk fofèkd ,oa U;k;ksfpr gS \ ;fn ugha] rks ;kph fdl

vuqrks"k dk gdnkj gS \ mDr fookn ls lEcfUèkr rF;ksa dks fl) djus

dk izkjfEHkd Hkkj ;kph ij gSA izkFkhZ i{k }kjk bl lEcUèk esa U;k;ky;

esa mifLFkr gksdj u dksbZ lk{; esa 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS u

viuh izfrijh{kk djk;h x;h gSA

23-

i=koyh ds lafLFkr gksus ls ysdj vc rd dh mDr fLFkfr ls

;g Li"V gS fd ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls ekeys ds fuLrkj.kkFkZ iwjh

mnklhurk jgh gS vkSj og Lo;a mifLFkr Hkh ugha jgrk jgk gSA i=koyh

esa ;kph ds fo:) fnukad 09-11-2010 dk ikjhr vkns’k mldh

mnklhurk ds dkj.k yxHkx Ms<+ lky ckn fnukad 16-4-2012 dks

fujLr gqvk gS fQj Hkh mldh rjQ ls lk{; dk volj fn;s tkus ds

ckotwn dksbZ lk{; ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa ugha izLrqr gSA

24-

Je ea=ky; ds funsZ’k (Reference) dk xq.kkoxq.k ds vkèkkj

ij U;k;fu.kZ;u djus gsrq visf{kr lk{; i=koyh ij miyCèk ugha gSA

,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fookn ds xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k esa

:fp ugha gSA foi{k }kjk izLrqr lk{; ds voyksdu ls izkFkhZ ds i{k

esa fdlh vuqdwy fu"d"kZ dh fLFkfr ugha curh gSA mDr rF; ,oa

ifjfLFkfr esa eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gw¡ fd ;kph bl rF; dks fl) djus

esa vlQy gS fd QwM dkWikZsjs’ku vkWQ bf.M;k ds izcUèku }kjk fnukad

10-9-2002 ds vkns’k }kjk fnukad 3-4-2002 ls izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa lekIr

djuk fofèk fo:) rFkk vuqfpr gSA ;kph rn~uqlkj fdlh vuqrks"k dks

ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq fopkjkèkhu funsZ’k dk mRrj

rn~uqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

25-

iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèkfu;e

1947 dh èkkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk,A

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vfèkdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2270-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ-vkbZ-,e-

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[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@79@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2270.—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,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Indian Institute of

Management and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-42012/79/2004-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 15/2005

Ref. No. L-42012/79/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 31.03.2005

BETWEEN :

Sh. Rakesh S/o Sh. Kesan

Village- Mubarakpur

Dist. Lucknow

AND

The Director

Indian Institute of Management

Prabandh Nagar, Off. Sitapur Road,

Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/79/2004-IR(CM-II) dated

31.03.2005, 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 Sh. Rakesh S/o

Sh. Kesan, Mubarakpur, Dist. Lucknow and the Director,

Indian Institute of Management, Prabandh Nagar, Off.

Sitapur Road, Lucknow for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5827

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA PRABANDHAN BHARTIYA PRABANDH

SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW KE DWARA SHRI

RAKESH PURTA SHRI SRI KESAN CASUAL

MALLI KO DINANK 08.08.1993 KO NAUKARI

SEY NIKLA JANA NAYOCHIT TATHA

NAYASANGTAH HAI? YADI NAHI TO

KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH KO PANE KA

ADHIKARI HA?

The case of the workman, Shri Rakesh, in brief, is

that he was appointed as casual Mali and had worked

continuously without any break with the employers till

08.08.1993. He was getting Rs.1550/- per month as salary

at the time of termination of his services. A first information

report was lodged on 08.08.1993 under Section 147/148/

307/189/332/324 in Madiyaon police station, Lucknow and

workman was taken into judicial custody and due to the

aforesaid first information report the employers stopped

to take work from the workman. It is also stated that due to

the aforesaid first information report a criminal case was

registered and a trail was commenced in the Court of

Additional Session Judge, Court No.5 and after conducting

necessary proceedings the workman was acquitted by

Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5, Lucknow. After

acquittal the workman approached the employers and

requested to reinstate in service at the earliest and he was

directed by the employers to come for duty after finalization

of the criminal case. The workman stated that employers

stopped to take the work from the workman without any

reason so it amounts to termination of the services of the

workman. The workman alleged management violate the

provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.1947. The

workman prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to

declare that the termination of the services of the workman

is neither legal nor justified and he is entitled to get

reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits

including cost and expenses.

The management filed written statement stating

therein that workman was in judicial custody being

involved in a criminal case. As such there is no question

of termination. The management alleged that workman has

abandoned the work on account of being involved in a

criminal case and not a termination of service by the

management the allegation of illegal termination of services

and violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the I.D.

Act.1947 is false and misconceived. The management

stated that after a gap of ten years, suddenly the workman

has moved an application claiming illegal termination of

his services by the IIM, Lucknow. The workman making

vague and false allegations without any supporting

evidence. The workman has no case and cannot claim any

relief after a gap of ten years since abandoning work. The

management stated that the claim being raised by the

workman being misconceived without evidence, against

law and being untenable, devoid of merits, is liable to be

rejected with costs.

The workman filed rejoinder and reiterated as stated

in claim statement.

The workman was cross examined. In his cross-

examination, the workman stated that he was appointed in

1993 on salary of Rs.1750/- On 08.08.1993 the workman

involved in a criminal case and was sent to the judicial

custody. After registration of the case a trail was

commenced in the Court of Additional Session Judge,

Court No.5; and after conducting necessary proceedings

the workman was acquitted by Additional Session Judge,

Court No.5, Lucknow. After acquittal the workman

approached the employers and requested to reinstate him

in the service as earlier; but the management did not allow

him to join the duties and was directed by the employers

to come for duty after finalization of the criminal case.

The management of the IIM, Lucknow examined Shri

P.K. Rai, Administrative who stated that the workman was

involved in a criminal case and he himself stopped coming

to work since 16.08.1993. It was further stated that no oral/

written orders were passed by the IIM, Lucknow for

termination of the services of the workman. The workman

himself stopped from coming to the work. His allegations

regarding illegal termination of services and violation of

the provisions of the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act.1947 are

false and misconceived and deserve to be rejected. It was

also stated that the workman in fact worked upto 16.08.93

and then stopped coming to the work, being involved in a

criminal case; and as such; it is wrong to say that employers

stopped taking work from him without any reason. After a

gap of ten years’ the workman moved an application

claiming illegal termination of his services by the IIM,

Lucknow, making false allegations without supportive

evidence. Shri P.K. Rai, Administrative Officer, IIM,

Lucknow also cross-examined.

The management contended that 16.08.93 was the

last day when the workman came to IIM, he has failed to

lead any evidence about his whereabouts between 16.8.93

to 05.03.2003, the date when turned back after ten years.

The workman stated in his cross-examination that he

worked up to 16.8.93 and did not come thereafter. The

workman also stated in his cross-examination that he never

sent any representation between 16.8.93 to 05.03.2003; and

workman was not able to prove that he had sent any

representation to IIM, Lucknow for reinstatement between

16.8.93 to 05.03.2003.

The management of the IIM, Lucknow has taken

plea that there is no question of termination of his services

by the employers and the allegation of illegal termination

of services and violation of the provisions of I.D.Act.1947

are false and misconceived.

5828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

The management has also relied on Dr. Lakhte

Mustaffa Kazmi vs State of U.P. (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1351

wherein Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has considered

the entire law relating to abandonment of service and its

consequence and has chronologically summarized the

entire law on this point through various judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. A bare perusal of the various

judgments from para 22 to 29 shows that where there is

abandonment of employment there is no question of any

interference.

11.

I have scanned the rival pleading so the parties and

entire evidence available on record.

12.

The case of the workman is that he was appointed in

August 1989 and worked continuously till 08.08.1993.

When the employer stopped taking work from him on

account of being taken into judicial custody in a criminal

case as a result of FIR lodged u/s 147/148/307/184/332 and

324 of IPC in Police Station - Madiyaon, Distt. Lucknow.

Due to the aforesaid FIR trial was commenced before V

Additional Distt of Sessions Judge which concluded only

on 05.03.2003. When the order of acquittal was passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the workman, in

the aforesaid criminal case, he approached the employers

and requested them to reinstate him but no heed was paid

towards his request. Besides, it was also pleaded that

there is utter violation of the provision of Section 25 F of

Industrial Disputes Act.1947 as he has not been given

any notice nor notice pay in lieu thereof nor he was paid

any retrenchment compensation in accordance with law.

13.

Contrary to this, the management has specifically

denied that it stopped taking work from the workman due

to FIR. In fact the opposite party management had no

information of FIR or about the commencement of any

trial against the workman. It was specifically pleaded that

it was not a case of termination of services by the

management but in fact it was a case of abandonment of

service on account of the workman being involved in a

criminal case hence there is no question of illegal

termination of services and violation of Section 25F of the

I.D. Act, 1947.

14.

The reference before this tribunal for adjudication

whether the termination of the workman is legal and

justified?

15.

Admittedly, the workman was involved in the

criminal case and was in judicial custody since 08.08.1993

for 15 days; and was acquitted on 05.03.2003 by the Vth

Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow of the charges u/s

147/148/307/184/332 and 324 of IPC in Police Station –

Madiyaon, Distt. Lucknow. It is also in the record that he

has been released on bail after 15 days.

16.

The workman in the examination in chief has

specifically stated that on 08.08.1993 he went to jail and

the trial continued upto 2003 (It is also admitted by him

(Maine koi suchana apne supervisor aur IIM ko nahi bheji).

17.

It is the case of workman that he approached to the

employer only after 05.03.2003 i.e. after 10 years. When he

was released on bail he did not report for work at IIM. It is

his own admission that after the acquittal i.e. 05.03.3003,

he approached to the employers and requested for

reinstatement. In this way the workman remained absent

from duty, as per his own statement, since 08.08.1993 to

05.03.2003 continuously for a period about 10 years

without giving any information. During this period he did

not move any representation, nor even tried to join the

duties or to inform the management. Hence, it is very

strange that even after being released on bail, the workman

did not go to the duty. In the case of Ammapet Handloom

Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd.

v. Kadalaimuthu2000 85 FLR 807 SC Hon;ble Apex Court

has observed that it is not incumbent on the employer to

wait indefinitely for the employee to turn up. The society

is under no obligation to wait indefinitely.

In another case of Dr. Lakhte Mustaffa Kazmi vs

State of U.P. (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1351 it was observed that

when absence is for a very long period it may amount to

voluntary abandonment of service and in that eventuality,

the bond of service come to an end automatically without

requiring any order to be passed by the employer.

Also, in Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Agra 2005 ALJ 732, Hon’ble Allahabad High

Court has held that since the petitioner himself abandoned

his services and had never been terminated, as such there

was no retrenchment or termination of the services of the

petitioner; and as such, he is not entitled to the benefits of

Section 25F I.D. Act.1947. Admittedly, the workman was

working on daily wages; and as such, he had no right to

the post and since he himself abandoned employment

being imprisoned, his employment came to an end.

18.

In the instant case the workman even after release

on bail has not reported to duties and continuously

remained absent from work for a long period of 10 years.

As per his own statement he remained absent since

08.08.1993 or 16.08.1993, the last date of work till 05.03.2003.

The workman has not reported on duties nor moved any

representation nor even gave any information to the

employer. There is nothing on the record to show that he

even informed to the management or even reported on

duty and he was obstructed by the management from

joining the duties. Ten years’ absence was not explained

anywhere. It was not the case of the workman that during

this period of 10 years he went to duties and he was not

allowed to work by the management. It was the duty of

the workman to inform the management about his

involvement in the criminal case and report on duty after

the release on bail; but admittedly it was not done by the

workman. He only went to duties after laps of 10 years.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5829

19.

It is the case of the workman that he was illegally

terminated on 08.08.1993. It is his burden to prove that he

has not voluntary abandon the services as is alleged by

the management but the workman failed to discharge its

burden. In M/s Jeewan Lal (1929) Ltd. Calcutta vs Its

workmen 1961 SC 1567 the Apex court held as under;

“If an employee continues to be absent from duty

without obtaining leave and in an unauthorized

manner for such a long period of time the inference

may reasonably drawn from such absence that by

his absence he has abandoned service, there would

be class of cases where long unauthorized absence

may reasonable give rise to an inference that such

service intended to be abandoned by the employer.”

20.

As such, I find no merit in the case of the workman

that he had been terminated by the management; rather

the contention of the management seems to be correct

that the workman himself abandoned his service.

Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case

and case laws narrated hereinabove; I come to the

conclusion that the there was no termination of services

of the workman on 08.08.1993 by the management; and

accordingly, the workman, Rakesh is not entitled for any

relief.

21.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

LUCKNOW

21st July, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2271-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 63@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@354@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/2005) of

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

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Ballarpur Area of M/s.

Western Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/354/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/63/2005

Date:10.07.2014.

Party No. 1 : The Chief General Manager,

Ballarpur Area of

M/s. Western Coalfields Limited,

Post- Ballarpur, Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2 : The General Secretary,

National Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,

PO: Ballarpur,

Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated : 10th July, 2014)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Ballarpur Area of M/s. Western Coalfields

Limited and their workman, Shri U.P.Verma, for adjudication,

as per letter No.L-22012/354/2004-IR (CM-II)

dated18.07.2005, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management in relation

to Ballarpur Area of WCL in rejecting the demand of

Shri U.P. Verma, Magazine Incharge ¾ pits, Ballarpur

Sub Area for medical examination by the Appellate

Medical Board vide letter No. WCL/IR/MSD/U/80/

359 dated 09/10.05.2002 of Dy. CPM(IR), WCL is

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

concerned workman entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri U.P.Verma,

(‘the workman” in short), filed the statement of claim and

the management of WCL, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed

their written statement.

In the statement of claim the workman had pleaded

that the action of the party No.1 in rejecting his demand

for medical examination by the Appellate Medical Board

was against the provisions of NCWA VI OR/and VII and

therefore was illegal and arbitrary.

The party No.1 in the written statement, denying all

the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim has

pleaded inter alia that the workman had been examined by

its Medical Board and he had been found to be fit for duty

and there was no merit in the case for review and the

workman not to be entitled to any relief.

It is to be mentioned here that during the pendency

of the reference i.e. on 10.07.2014, the learned advocate

5830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for the workman filed an application for disposal of the

reference on the ground that the same has already become

infructuous due to the death of the workman. After due

consideration, the application filed by the learned advocate

for the workman was allowed and the reference was fixed

for passing of award.

Perused the record. The reference has been made

by the Central Government for adjudication of the legality

or other wise of the refusal of the party No.1 for medical

examination of the workman by the Appellate Medical

Board. Due to the death of the workman as intimated by

the learned advocate for the workman, the reference has

become infructuous. The right to sue also does not survive

to the legal heirs of the deceased workman. Hence it is

ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman, on the ground of the same has

become infructuous.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2272-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@117@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2008)

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

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Western Coalfields Limited,

HLOC of Western Coalfields Limited and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/117/2007-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/17/2008

Date : 22.07.2014.

Party No.1 (a)

: The Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Chandrapur Area,

Post & Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

(b)

: The Sub Area Manager,

HLOC of Western Coalfields Limited,

Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2

: The Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Ballarpur Branch,

Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Ballarpur,

Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated : 22nd July, 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 Western Coalfields Limited and their

workmen, Shri K.B.Rathod and five others, for adjudication,

as per letter No.L-22012/117/2007-IR (CM-II) dated

03.06.2008, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

WCL in not giving the designation of Asstt. Foreman

(Mech.) in grade ‘C’ to Shri K.B.Rathod and 5 others

(list enclosed) as per the implementation instruction

No.32 of NCWA-VI is legal and justified? To what

relief is the workmen entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union Rashtriya Colliery

Mazdoor Congress, ( “the union” In short) filed the

statement of claim on behalf of the six workmen, namely,

Shri K.B.Rathod, Shri P.G.Rajukar, Shri M.M.Satare,

Shri Bandu P.Jawale, Shri Ramesh B.Ajane and Shri Waman

T. Talmale, (‘the workmen” in short), and the management

of Western Coalfields Limited (“Party No. 1” in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the workmen as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a registered

Trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and party

no.1 is a government company and is a “state” within

Article 12 of the Constitution of India and under the

approval of Ministry of Coal, Central Government

constituted a 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 NCWA in the

entire Coal Industry and for maintaining uniformity and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5831

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 WCL and seven NCWAs have been

signed so far, which are known as NCWAs-I, II, III, IV, V,

VI, and VII dated 11.08.1974, 11.08.1979, 27.07.1989,

19.01.1996, 23.12.2000 and 15.07.2005 respectively having

operational period 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, 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1996, 01.07.1996 to 30.06.2001

and 01.07.2001 to 30.06.2006 respectively.

The further case of the workmen as presented by

the union is that the workmen are holders of SSC and ITI

certificates and they were appointed by Party No.1, by

following the due procedure of recruitment and they put

in loyal and unblemished service and hence, they were

given regular promotion/placement in higher categories,

first as per the “Training-cum-Placement Scheme” and

then, as per the Cadre scheme evolved by the JBCCI from

time to time and all of them have the educational and

technical qualification required for their promotion to T &

S Grade ‘C’, ’B’, ‘A ’and above.

It is further pleaded by the union on behalf of the

workmen that in the meeting of the Standardization

Committee of JBCCI-VI held on 27.07.2001 and 28.08.2001

at CIL (HQ), Kolkata, the issue of career growth of ITI

personnel was discussed and decided and according to

the decision of the Standardization Committee,

“Implementation Instruction No. 32 – National Coal Wage

Agreement-VI” regarding “Career Growth of ITI

Personnel” dated 22.01.2002 was issued by the Member

Secretary of JBCCI and according to the said

Implementation Instruction No. 32, “The existing ITI

personnel, who have completed three years in existing

grade on 03.12.1999 will be notionally placed in next higher

category/grade w.e.f. 01.01.2000 but the financial benefit

will accrue w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and this will be personal to

them as one time arrangement and ITI personnel who have

completed three years as on 31.12.2000 in the existing

category/grade will be placed in next higher grade w.e.f.

01.01.2001 and this will be personal to them as one time

arrangement” and though the workmen, M. Satare and

P.G. Rajurkar vide Office Order No. 551 dated 30.05.2002 of

Personnel Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast sub

area and the rest four workmen, namely, K.B. Rathod, Bandu

P. Jawale, Ramesh B. Ajane and Waman T. Talmale vide

order dated 1803 dated 9/13.06.2002 of Suptd. of Mines/

Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery no.3 were given the

benefit in accordance with the aforesaid implementation

instruction, the party No.1 by the aforesaid orders

misinterpreted the instruction unilaterally, without the

approval of the Member Secretary of JBCCI-VI and issued

the said orders in contradiction of the instructions, as in

the said orders, it was mentioned that, “The placement

will not make any difference in their present designation

and nature of duties and the word “ITI” shall continue till

their normal promotion as the case of service linked

upgradation (SLU)” and as such, the said orders are illegal,

arbitrary and against the spirit of the implementation

instruction no.32 and the workmen approached the party

no.1 repeatedly and also submitted letter dated 03.11.2003

and it (union) also approached the party no.1 at different

levels, but the genuine grievance of the workman was not

considered and their designations, as per the their

placement and nature of jobs were not changed and they

were debarred from promotion to higher scale to which

they were eligible as per cadre scheme and it is clear from

the orders issued by the authorities of other coal companies

as per the implementation instruction No. 32 that the orders

passed by party no.1 were illegal and liable to be quashed

and set aside and as per the implementation instruction

no. 32, the designation of workmen, Shri M. Satare should

have been “Asstt Foreman/Chargeman, T & S grade ‘C’”

w.e.f. 01.01.2000, the designation of workman, namely, Shri

P.G. Rajukar, Shri K.B. Rathod, and Shri Bandu P. Jawale

should have been “Asstt. Foreman (Mech.) T & S Grade

“C” w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and designation of workmen, Shri

Ramesh B. Ajane and Shri Waman T. Talmule should have

been “Fitter Cat-VI” w.e.f. 01.01.2001.

Prayer has been made by the union to answer the

reference in the affirmative and to direct the party no.1 to

change the designation and jobs of the workmen as per

their placement in the higher grade and to omit the ITI

designation and to give them the consequential benefits

of further promotion.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that when any policy matter arising out of the

decisions of the JBCCI Crops up, the same has to be

decided by referring the same to the Standardization

Committee of JBCCI and such provision has been made in

JBCCI-I to VII and the present union was not a participant

in the JBCCI and by picking up some stray cases, it is

trying to create disturbance in the matter which has already

been settled, merely for political reason than anything

else as it would be evident from the fact that following the

JBCCI decision and clarification issued by it, a good

number of employees have been allowed up-gradation and

there is no protest/grievance either by the concerned

employees or any of the major unions and the intention of

the union is only to vex and harass its management.

Party No. 1 has further pleaded that even otherwise

also, a perusal of the relevant implement instruction of

JBCCI reveals that the benefit to be granted to the

concerned employees is only up-gradation and notional

pay fixation and there is no directive for granting of

promotion and the consequent pay fixation in the higher

post and if the demand of the union is accepted and

5832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

designation of the higher post is granted, the same will

amount to their automatic promotion and though not spell

out specifically, the benefit granted by the JBCCI is in the

nature of service linked up-gradation, under which, only

the pay is upgraded without the benefit of pay fixation, as

is done in the case of promotion and moreover, the

employees, who are upgraded have to perform the duty in

their original post and they are not given responsibilities

and job performance linked with the upgraded post and

for up-gradation, no DPC is required to be held nor the

criteria of seniority, merit and competency of the

employees, availability of sanctioned post etc. are applied

and the JBCCI’s decision clearly mentions that such

benefit is one time and personal to them and the union has

totally misconceived the provision of the JBCCI’s

implementation instruction No.32 and it is trying to obtain

unmerited gain.

It is also pleaded by party No.1 that workmen,

Shri K.B. Rathod and Shri Bandu P. Jawale were in fitter

category VI and they were upgraded to grade ‘C’ vide

office order dated 09/13.06.2002 and workmen, Shri Ramesh

B. Ajare and Shri Waman T. Tamale were in category V and

they were placed in category VI vide office order dated

09/13.06.2002 and workmen, Shri P.G. Rajukar and Shri M.N.

Satare were in fitter category VI and they were upgraded

to grade ‘C’ post vide office order dated 30.09.2002 as per

I.I. No.32 and workman, Shri P.G. Rajukar and Shri M.N.

Satare were in category V and they could not have been

placed in grade ‘C’ by jumping category VI post and there

was no change in the service condition of the workmen as

laid down by JBCCI and any decision taken by any other

coal company is not acceptable to it (WCL) and the

reference is untenable and is liable to be rejected.

In the rejoinder, it is pleaded by the union on behalf

of the workmen that party no.1 in the written statement

has raised frivolous and baseless objections, with a view

to exhaust the workmen and to prejudice the Tribunal and

practice of raising preliminary objection to the reference is

disapproved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in number of

decisions and a settlement within the meaning of sub-

section (3) of section 18 of the Act is binding on both the

parties and continues to remain in force, unless the same

is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement

and the workmen are entitled for the benefits of

Implementation Instruction No. 32.

At this stage, I think it apropos to mention that after

filing of the written statement by party no.1, on 17.04.2011,

the workman, Shri K.B. Rathod and the party no.1 filed a

joint petition for passing of a compromise award, on the

ground of their entering into a settlement and to have

signed in Form-H. The settlement in Form-H duly signed

by the parties and witnesses was also filed and in view of

the said settlement, the application was allowed and case

of workman, Shri K.B. Rathod was disposed of in terms of

the settlement. In view of the order dated 17.04.2011, the

case of workman, Shri K.B. Rathod is disposed of in terms

of the settlement entered into between him and the party

no.1.

Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,

the union has examined one witness, namely, Lomesh

Maroti Khartad to prove its case. No oral evidence has

been adduced by party no.1. However, party no.1 has

relied on documentary evidence in support of its stand.

The evidence of the witness examined by the union

is on affidavit and he has reiterated the facts mentioned in

the statement of claim. However, it is to be mentioned that

in view of the stands taken by the parties and the

documentary evidence produced by them, there is no need

to consider the oral evidence of the witness to decide the

reference.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the union that implementation

instruction 32 was issued for career growth of ITI

personnel and the said instruction was addressed to

Chairman-cum-Managing Directors of all subsidiaries

including WCL, who were signatories to NCW-VI and

there is specific provision in NCWA that in case of any

doubt or difficulty in interpretation of implementation, the

same shall be referred to and settled by the JBCCI or

committee constituted by JBCCI and Implementation

Instruction no. 32 is regading career growth of ITI personnel

and party No.1 has deprived the workmen from their

legitimate claim and the settlement is binding on the parties

and party no.1 is a “State” under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India and the party no.1 is bound to give

the benefits of Implementation Instruction no. 32 to the

workmen. In support of such contention, reliance has

been placed by the learned advocate for the union on the

decision reported in 2007 (115) FLR-427 (Mohan Mahto

Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd.)

It is to be mentioned here that on the date fixed for

argument, neither the party no.1 nor their advocate

attended the case and no argument was made on behalf of

the party no.1.

On perusal of the materials on record including the

pleadings of the parties, it is found that implementation

instruction no. 32 as per the National Coal Wage

Agreement-VI dated 22.01.2002 was issued by the

Member-Secretary, JBCCI-VI in regard to career growth of

ITI personnel. The union as well as party no.1 has filed

the copy of the said Implementation Instruction no. 32

separately which have been marked as Ext. W-II and Ext.

M-I respectively. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Implementation

Instruction no. 32 read as follows:-

(2)

Existing ITI Personnel who have completed three

years in the existing grade as on 31.12.1999 will be

notionally placed in next higher category/grade w.e.f.

01.01.2000 but the financial benefit will accrue w.e.f.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5833

01.01.2001 and this will be personal to them as one

time arrangement.

(3)

ITI Personnel who have completed three years as

on 31.12.2000 in the existing category/grade will be

placed in next higher grade w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and this

will be personal to them as one time arrangement.

It is also found from the pleadings of the parties and

the documents, Exts. M-II and M-III,(document filed by

the management) and Exts. W-III and W-IV (the documents

filed by the union) that party no.1 as per Implementation

Instruction no. 32, placed the workman, Shri M.N. Satare,

who was in Electrical Category-VI in T & S grade “C”

w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with financial benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and

Workman, Shri P.G. Rajurkar, who was in fitter category-VI,

in T & S Grade “C” w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with financial benefit

w.e.f. 01.01.2001, vide order dated 30.05.2002 and placed

workman, Shri K.B. Rathod, who was in fitter category VI,

in grade “C” w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with financial benefit w.e.f.

01.01.2001, workman, Shri Bandu P. Jawale, who was in

Turner Category-VI, in grade “C” w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with

financial benefit w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and workmen,

Shri Ramesh B. Ajane and Shri Waman T. Talmale, who

were in fitter category V, in category VI w.e.f. 01.01.2001

with financial benefit from 01.01.2001, as per order dated

9/13.06.2002. However, in both the aforesaid orders, it

was mentioned by party no.1 that, “the employees so

placed in higher category will carry their own designation

and will continue to do the existing job and word “ITI”

shall continue till their promotion, as the case of “SLU.”

Party No.1 has produced the document, the letter dated

30.03.2002/02.04.2002 issued by the General Manager (I.R.)

of WCL to all the CGMS/GMS of WCL Areas, in which it

was directed that on placement, existing ITI certificate

holders will carry their own designation/ category/grade

and when such employees get regular promotion, the word

‘ITI’ will be omitted and will carry their designation as per

normal promotional channel and existing ITI personnel

who are placed in higher category/grade will be governed

as per their original designation for promotion in higher

grade under relevant cadre scheme and this scheme will

only be applicable to those existing ITI certificate holders/

employees who are presently deployed/working in their

cadre designation.

From the pleadings of the party No.1, it is found that

its plea is that the benefit granted by the JBCCI is in the

nature of service linked up-gradation under which only

the pay is to be upgraded without the benefit of pay fixation

as is done in the case of promotion. However, on perusal

of I.I.No.32, it is found that the interpretation made by the

party No.1in regard to the spirit of the said instructions is

not at all correct. It is to be mentioned that the subject

matter of II No.32 is regarding “Career Growth of ITI

Personnel” and not of giving financial benefits to the ITI

holders and Implementation Instruction no. 32 has nothing

to do with “service linked up-gradation,” as claimed by

the party No.1. The instructions given in II No.32 clearly

indicate that the existing ITI holders are to be placed in

the higher cadre/grade without following the normal course

of promotion and to fix their pay in the higher cadre/grade

from the date, as mentioned in the same.

Applying the principles as enunciated in the decision

cited by the learned advocate for the union to the case in

hand, it is found that the direction given in letter dated

30.03.2002/02.04.2002 by the General Manager (IR) of WCL

is not statutory.

From the materials on record, it is found that the

order of party No.1 that the order of placement will not

make any difference in the present designation of the

workmen, namely,Shri P.G.Rajurkar, Shri M.N.Satare,Shri

Bandu P. Jawale, Shri Ramesh B. Ajane and Shri Waman T.

Talmale and the nature of their duties and the word ‘ITI’

shall continue till their normal promotion as the case of

SLU is not correct. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in favour of the workmen.

The case of the workman, Shri K.B.Rathod is

disposed of in terms of the compromise petition and

settlement in Form No. H filed by the said workman and

the party No.1. The compromise petition and settlement in

Form No.H are made part of the award.

Workman, Shri M.N.Satare is entitled for placement

as Asst. Foreman/Chargeman,T & S Grade ‘C’ w.e.f.

01.01.2000 with financial benefits from 01.01.2001, workman

Shri P.G.Rajurkar is entitled for placement as Asst. Foreman

(Mech) T & S Grade ‘C’ w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and financial

benefits from 01.01.2001, workman Shri Bandu P. Jawale is

entitled for placement as Asst. Foreman (Mech) T & S

Grade ‘C’ w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with financial benefits from

01.01.2001 and workmen, Shri Ramesh B. Ajane and

Shri Waman T. Talamule are entitled for placement as fitter

category VI w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with financial benefits from

01.01.2001. The five workmen as named above are also

entitled for the designation in accordance to their

respective placement.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/17 of 2008

Between

: Employers in relation to the Management of

Chief General Manager Chandrapur Area/

Sub-Area Manager Hindustan Lalpeth OC

Sub-Area—WC Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

5834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

JOINT PETlTION FOR COMPROMISE AWARD

In the above mentioned Industrial Dispute Pending

before the Hon’ble Tribunal for Adjudication the parties

to the above dispute jointly submit that, they have arrived

at a mutual settlement in Form-H’. Copies of the same are

being enclosed.

In view of the amicable settlement arrived between

the parties, they jointly pray that a consent award may

kindly be passed accordingly.

-Sd- illegible

K.B. Rathod

Area Personnel Manager

Fitter (Mech.)

Chandrapur Area

Grade-C (ITI), BOC

WCL

Place :

Date : 26.4.2011

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

Form ‘H’

(SEE RULE -58)

NAME OF PARTIES

1. Representing Employer :

1. Shri S.T. Ghosh

Area Personnel Manager

WCL Chandrapur Area

2. Shri M.V. R. Reddy

Sr. Manager (Per)

[IR/Legal]

WCL, Chandrapur Area

2. Representing Workman :

1. Shri K.B.Rathod,

Fitter (Mech.) Grade C

(ITI) Workman,

Bathadi OC Mine

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

Shri K.B.Rathod Fitter (Mech.) Cat.VI filed the case

before the ALC(C), Chandrapur under case No. ALCH-54/

(05)/2005.

Shri Rathod was placed in T&S Grade-C(lTI) as per

office order No. WCL/CHA/HLUGSA/HLC-3/M/SOM/Per/

1803, dated 09/13.06.2002 w.e.f. 01.01.2001. The said

placement was done as per I.I. No. 32 issued by member

Secretary CIL Shri Rathod had challenged the said office

order which was issued by the then Supdt. of Mines/

Manager HLC-3 mine. He had demanded that he should

be considered as Asst. Foreman T&S Grade-C . The above

issue was raised by the workman concern through

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress union at that time.

The above issue has not been settled before the

ALC(C), Chandrapur and it has been referred to Ministry

of labour after FOC.

Regarding promotion of Rathod was examined in

the DPC of 2010-11 at Bhatadi OC Mine. Now the workman

has submitted one written application that “he is ready to

withdraw the case from CGIT” and to this effect he is

willing to enter in to a settlement Form - H in this matter for

getting his promotion to the post of Asst. Foreman (Mech.)

Grade-C.

This point was raised by the workman concerned at

area level meeting and discussed the point at length and

decided the case on the guidelines of WCL, HQ.

Now the Area Management has agreed to promote

him to the post of Asst Foreman (Mech.) Grade-C after

entering this settlement and promotion order will be issued

with prospective effect with no benefit of the past.

Moreover this matter was fully and finally settled on the

following terms of settlement.

Terms of Settlement

The workman concern has agreed to withdraw the

said case unconditionally from the CGIT.

It is agreed to promote him to the post of Asst.

Foreman (Mech.) T&S Grade-C with prospective

effect.

The workman has entered in to a settlement in Form-

‘H’ to this effect.

When the workman does not comply the above

terms, then management has the right to withdraw

the promotion order without assigning any reason.

This settlement resolves the issue fully and finally.

It is also agreed that copies of this settlement will be

submitted to the concerned authorities.

Both the parties have agreed for the above terms of

settlement.

Shri S. T. Ghosh

Shri M.V. Rami Reddy

Area Personnel Manager

Sr. Manager (Per)

Chandrapur Area

[IR/Legal]

Chandrapur Area

Shri K. B. Rathod

Fitter (Mech.) Grade C (ITI)

Workman, BOC

Place : Chandrapur

Date : 26.3.2011

Witnesses of Management

Witnesses of Workmen

(1)

-Sd- illegible

(1) (S. Vishwa Karma)

(2)

-Sd- illegible

(2)

(W. T. Shende)

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2273-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- 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;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 90@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@111@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5835

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2000)

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

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of ECL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/111/2000-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra,Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 90 OF 2000

PARTIES : The management of Dhemomain Pits

Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Mitan Rana

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management

Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) :

Mr. M. Mukherjee Ld.

Advocate

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated – 21.07.14

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

111/2000-IR(C-II) dated 12.09.2000/15.09.2000 has been

pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the

Dhemomain Pits Colliery in dismissing Sri Mitan

Rana from services and also denying reinstatement

thereof is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

111/2000-IR(C-II) dated 12.09.2000/15.09.2000 of the above

said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 90 of 2000 was registered on 27.09.2000 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the registered post 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 and a list of witnesses in support

of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, I find that my

predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of

this Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because

workman/union was neither appearing nor taking any step

since long. It seems that the workman has now no more

interest to proceed with the case further. As such the case

is closed and accordingly an order of “No Dispute” award

is hereby passed.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as “No

Dispute” existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2274-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- 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;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2002) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@304@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/2002) of

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

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Girmint Colliery, M/s.

ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/304/2001-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 22 OF 2002

PARTIES : The management of Girmint (R) Colliery of

M/s. ECL

Vs.

Smt. Sugia Devi

5836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management

: Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman): Sri. S.K. Pandey, General

Secretary of CMC (HMS)

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated – 21.07.14

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

304/2001-IR(C-II) dated 01.08.2002 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the

Girmint (R) Colliery in not regularising Smt. Sugia

Devi as Ayah / Medical Ayah is fair and justified? If

not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled

and from what date?”

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

304/2001-IR(C-II) dated 01.08.2002 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

22 of 2002 was registered on 13.08.2002 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post 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 and

a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, I find that my

predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then P.O.) of

this Tribunal had reserved for award in this case because

Sri S.K. Pandey, representative of the workman submitted

that the workman was not traced out and no instruction

had been received from her. The workman is also neither

appearing nor taking any step since long. As such the

case is closed and accordingly an order of “No Dispute”

award is hereby passed.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as “No

Dispute” existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful

information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2275-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u- 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@33@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2007)

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

Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Jhingurdha Project

of NCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/33/2006-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/2007

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Meghnath Sahu,

S/o Late Devraj Sahu,

At Vill. Medhauli,

PO Morwa,

Sidhi (MP)

.... Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Jhingurdha Project of NCL,

PO Jhingurdha,

Sidhi (MP)

.... Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 4th day of July, 2014)

As per letter dated 28-2-07 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/

33/2006-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

NCL in not correcting the date of birth of Shri

Meghnath Sahu as 14-5-95 instead of 27-5-1940 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the ex-

workman entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5837

2/2 to 2/8. Case of Ist party workman is that after receiving

order dated 7-12-99 from Personal Manager about his

superannuation from 26-5-00, Writ Petition No. 3119 was

filed by him in High Court. Hon’ble High Court directed

him to approach Labour court within 90 days. After raising

dispute before ALC, the dispute has been referred for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

Workman submits that he was appointed as labour

on 14-5-63 at age of 18 years. He worked with devotion.

His submissions were appreciated by IInd party issuing

letter dated 6-10-99. That he was promoted to the post of

Fitter Grade-III, II, I time to time. According to workman

when he was initially appointed as labour, he was of

18 years of age. However his date of birth was wrongly

corrected as 27-5-40. The correction of his date of birth

was made without issuing notice to him. He claims

ignorance about the object of his examination by Medical

Board. The correction of his date of birth is illegal. He

submitted representations dated 22-3-99, 2-4-99. He had

submitted horoscope along with his representations. That

as per entry in horoscope, his date of birth was recorded

correctly. That his elder brother Jaimal Sahu was elder by

5 years. In Voter List, age of workman was shown as 53 &

age of Jaimal Sahu was shown as 58 years. That Jaimal

sahu was working in other section was having 2-3 years

time for retirement. Workman was retired assuming his

date of birth was 27-5-1940. That applicant is prematurely

retired. On such contentions, workman prays to quash

communication dated 7-12-99 and direct IInd party not to

retire him arbitrarily. Workman also prays for monetary

benefits from 27-5-00 to 26-5-05.

IInd party filed Written Statement at pages 6/1 to

6/9. IInd party submits that workman has retired on 26-5-00.

The dispute is raised after lapse of time is not tenable.

That as per provisions of Mines Act, the registers were

maintained. Form B register was maintained. The date of

birth of workman was recorded as per the entries

maintained in register of employment in the mine prior to

nationalization. That the service excerpts of workman were

circulated as per Instruction No. 37. The workman has not

placed any objection about his date of birth. The

Instruction No. 76 provides that Matriculation Certificate

or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by recognized

Universities has proof of date of birth. The circular issued

by Mining Sirdar is binding or similar other certificate

issued by Manager are considered as valid proof of date

of birth. He submitted that horoscope cannot be accepted

as proof of date of birth of workman. That date of birth

was correctly recorded as 27-5-40. At fag end of his career,

workman prayed for correction of his date of birth.

Document submitted by workman could not be accepted.

The workman was referred by Medical Board. As per

recommendation of Medical Board, his date of birth is

recorded that there is no error in recording date of birth of

workman. IInd party reiterates that date of birth of workman

was correctly recorded. The claim of workman be rejected.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

“Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of M/S NCL in not correcting

the date of birth of Shri Meghnath

Sahu as 14-5-95 instead of 27-5-1940

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Relief prayed

entitled to?”

by workman is

rejected.

REASONS

Workman is claiming that his correct date of birth is

14-5-45 as recorded in horoscope. His date of birth was

wrongly corrected as 27-5-40. That he was prematurely

retired on 26-5-2000. He prays for appropriate order

including monetary benefits. Relief prayed by workman is

denied by IInd party reiterating that his date of birth was

correctly recorded in Form B register. Workman has failed

to participate in reference proceeding. He has not adduced

any evidence. His evidence is closed on 11-10-2012.

Documents produced by workman are admitted and

marked Exhibit W-1 to W-6. Admitted documents are Exhibit

W-1 appreciating service of workman W-2 is information

submitted by workman in prescribed form for retiral

benefits, his date of birth is shown as 27-5-1940. Exhibit

W-3 is representation submitted by workman. W-4 is reply

given by management rejecting his claim. W-5 is

communication dated 7-12-99 informing workman about

his superannuation on completion of age of 60 years.

W-6 is letter given by Personal Manager rejecting his

claim for correction of date of birth. Management filed

affidavit of evidence of Shri Kripal Singh supporting

contentions raised in Written Statement filed by IInd party.

Witness has proved documents Exhibit M-1 to M-5. In

service book of workman Exhibit M-5 details of workman

are recorded, date of retirement is shown 27-5-00. Date of

joining is shown 14-5-63. Date of birth is recorded 27-5-40.

Workman failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim.

On the other hand, management has produced documents

to substantiate his contentions about correct date of birth

of workman. For want of evidence by workman, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of M/S NCL in not

correcting the date of birth of Shri Meghnath Sahu

as 14-5-95 instead of 27-5-1940 is legal and proper.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

5838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2276-—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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@2009)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22011@83@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2009)

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

Jabalpur 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 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22011/83/2008-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/54/09

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Shri Babu Khan, Hmal,

FCI Sioni Deptt.

PO Sioni,

Distt. Sioni (MP),

Jabalpur

... Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Asha Vikas Kendra, 2722,

Church Compound,

Napier Town,

Jabalpur

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of July, 2014

As per letter dated 6-4-09 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22011/

83/2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of Shri Babu Khan and 20

others ( as per list enclosed) for their regularization

with the management of FCI is legal and justified?

To what reliefs are the claimants entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workmen failed to submit statement

of claim. Ist party workman proceeded ex parte on

28-11-2011.

IInd party filed ex parte Written Statement. IInd party

submits that Babu Khan and 20 other labourers were

labours of contractor Agrawal. There was no relationship

of employer - employee between Ist party workman and

IInd party FCI. Ist party were never engaged by IInd party.

Workmen are not covered under Section 2(s) of I.D.Act.

Incidentally IInd party has pleaded that FCI Corporation

is established as per Act of 1964. Handling and Transport

contractors were engaged by IInd party till 1989. Thereafter

mate system was introduced. Under contract system, the

labour charges were paid to contractor for the work

performed. At present workmen are not working with FCI,

they are not entitled to any relief.

IInd party filed affidavit of witness Shri Vijay Kumar

supporting contentions in written statement filed by IInd

party that workmen are not engaged by IInd party. They

are labours engaged by contractor. Employee employer

relationship doesnot exist. It is submitted that workmen

are not entitled to any relief.

Ist party workman has not filed statement of claim.

IInd party had denied employer employee relationship in

written Statement as well as in affidavit of evidence. I find

no reason to disbelieve unchallenged evidence of

management’s witness and uncontroverted pleadings in

Written Statement. Therefore reference deserves to be

answered in favour of the management.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

The demand of Shri Babu Khan and 20 others (as

per list enclosed) for their regularization with the

management of FCI is not justified.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2277-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 86@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@9@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5839

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O.

2277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2007)

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of WCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/9/2007-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/86/07

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Dy.General Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

Regional office, Chandametta,

PO Chandametta,

Chhindwra

... Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Chhindwara

... Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 10th day of July, 2014)

As per letter dated 7-9-07 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

22012/9/2007-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of WCL in

not correcting their records in respect of date of

birth of Late Shri Gondal in accordance with their

order No. WCL/Pench/PE/Dy.CME/ ADC/84/878

dated 12-10-84 is legal and justified? If not, whether

the demand of the Union for providing employment

to Shri Ajay Kumar Markam, dependent of Late Shri

Gondal is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is

the dependent of Late Shri Gondal entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim. Case

of Ist party workman is that Shri Gondal, S/o Kudalsi was

working as Timber Mistry in Rawanwara Khas Colliery.

He was member of INTUC Union. His date of birth was

wrongly recorded. After death of workman, his son Ajay

Markam submitted application for appointment on

compassionate basis. That Late Gondal S/o Kudalsi was

appointed as Timber Mistry in May, 1973 in Rawanwara

Khas Colliery. The services of employees of WCL are

governed by NCWA. Mine was nationalized in 1973. The

proprietor of the Mines destroyed record. Management

was recording date of birth at their wills. It resulted in

unrest among labours. Instruction No.39 was issued by

management as per Bipartite settlement in the matter of

correction of date of birth. Instruction No. 76 was issued

by management in 1976. That Rawanwara Khas Colliery as

per Instruction No. 39 of WCL Nagpur had recorded date

of birth of employees. Notice was displayed on notice

board on 28-9-81 inviting objection if the date of birth was

not correctly recorded. That names of 31 employees

including Late Bondal were in the list. Decision was taken

to refer the matter of age determination to the Committee.

Date of birth of late Bondal was wrongly recorded by Age

Determination Committee. The age of Late Bondal was

shown 35 years on 11-9-09/ however illegally he was retired

on 1-9-03, 6 years before the date of superannuation.

Despite of request and representations, the date of birth

of late Bondal was not corrected. Representations were

submitted on 29-11-03, 8-3-04 by Union. Shri Ajay Markam

S/o Late Bondal has reiterated that date of birth of late

Bondal was wrongly recorded. Bondal died leaving his

widow, 3 sons and a daughter. All of his sons and

daughters are unemployed. That they are entitled to retiral

benefits after death of Late Bondal. Shri Ajay Markam

appointed on compassionate ground as dependent of Late

Bondal. Accordingly prayers are made in his Statement of

Claim.

IInd party management filed Written Statement

denying claim of the dependent of workman Ajay Markam.

IInd party submits that dispute is raised by Union for

correction of date of birth of Bondal. As per letter dated

12-10-84, employment is also prayed for Ajay Markam S/o

Late Bondal. Correction of his date of birth is requested

after lapse of 25 years from 12-10-84. That Bondal had

died. He never disputed his date of birth. The dispute is

referred after inordinate delay. It is not tenable. IInd party

has referred to provisions of Section 10 of I.D. Act. On

11-9-84, workman claimed his age was 35 years, his date of

birth was recorded as 11-9-49. Ist party has not produced

any document about date of birth of Bondal. IInd party

has referred to ratio held in various cases by Apex Court

and High Court. It is reiterated that Union raised dispute

first time after 2 years after retirement of workman. Such

dispute is not tenable. As per Mines Act, Form B is required

to be maintained. The date of birth of late Bondal was

correctly recorded in Form B. Union had raised issue of

correction of date of birth and Instruction Nos. 37, 76 were

issued. As per said Instruction No. 76, the circular of

matriculation, Hsc.,University Board etc. are treated as

correct evidence of date of birth. The correction of date of

birth is required to be determined by Medical Board in

5840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

those matters. Such cases are not to be reopened unless

they vary from it. As per date of birth of Bondal recorded

1-9-43, he was retired in the year 2003. All other adverse

contentions are denied. IInd party prayed for rejection of

claim of workman.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of WCL in not correcting their

records in respect of date of birth of

Late Shri Gondal in accordance with

their order No. WCL/Pench/PE/

Dy.CME/ ADC/ 84/ 878 dated 12-10-84

is legal and justified?

(ii) Whether the demand of the Union for

In Negative

providing employment to Shri Ajay

Kumar Markam, dependent of Late

Shri Gondal is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to relief

claimed by

him.

REASONS

Present dispute is raised by Union after 2 years of

death of Late Bondal. Statement of claim is filed by Ajay

Markam S/o Late Bondal. Ajay Markam filed affidavit of

his evidence covering his contentions in statement of

claim. His father was appointed in Rawanwara Khas Colliery

of Pench Area. After nationalization of coal mines in 1973,

the proprietor of the mines destroy record. That the date

of birth of his father was not correctly recorded. Age of

his father was shown as 35 years as on 11-09-84. His father

could have retired on 11-9-09, he was prematurely retired.

He prays for his correction of date of birth as per Bipartite

Settlement. In his cross-examination, Ajay Markam says

he has no other document except which are produced on

record. He is graduate. After looking to the appointment

letter of his father, he has written para-3 of his affidavit.

Para5,6 of his affidavit were not written after looking to

any document. Para-7 to 10 of his affidavit are written after

going through the records he had obtained. He had seen

name list in file of his father.

Management’s witness Y.Seshidhar covered

contentions of management in Written Statement that the

workman himself declared his age as 38 year on 1-9-91.

Form B was properly maintained, date of birth of Late

Bondal was 1-9-1943 and initial appointment was recorded

as 17-12-73. Late Bondal was retired on 31-8-03 after

attaining age of superannuation. Shri Bondal died on

31-3-05 after 18 months of his retirement. He has not raised

any dispute.

Management’s witness in his cross-examination

says he was working at Rawanwara Mine from 2011. He

seen documents relating to service of workman. He was

unable to tell whether Annexure W-5 was issued by the

Officer. He claimed ignorance about signature on Exhibit

W-5 & W-6 and denied its contents. He also denied

contents of Exhibit W-5, W-6 request for correction of his

date of birth. The documents produced on record Exhibit

M-1 is copy of Instruction No. 37, M-2 is copy of

Instruction No.76. said document clearly spells that service

records Committee held several meetings and the record

notes of discussions were finally placed before the JBCCI-

IV at the 9th meeting which were approved with certain

modification. In Exhibit M-7, date of birth of workman is

recorded as 1-9-43. In Exhibit M-6 age of workman Gondal

is recorded as 38 years as on 1-9-81. His date of

appointment is shown 1-5-73. Exhibit M-5 is notice of

retirement dated 30-7-03. Late Gondal has not submitted

any representation even after receiving notice. Exhibit M-

5 is original of retirement notice and M-6 is original of

Exhibit M-4. The service record of Bondal is produced at

Exhibit M-7. His date of birth is shown as 1-9-43. Evidence

of Shri Ajay Markam is silent that his father had raised any

dispute about date of birth after receiving retirement notice.

The dispute is raised by Union after 2 years of his death.

Shri Ajay Markam has produced documents Exhibit W-1 is

copy of order of reference, W-2 is notice dated 18-9-81.

The employees were requested to confirm date of birth

recorded against their names within 90 days. Exhibit W-3

is copy of retirement notice dated 1-3-03 to Late Bondal.

Exhibit W-4 is application dated 9-3-03 submitted to

Personal Manager concluding that his age was 35 years

on 11-9-85. Exhibit W-5 is notice of retirement issued to

Late Bondal. Exhibit W-6 is copy of application submitted

by late Bondal objecting his retirement as 31-8-03.Ist party

workman has not produced document about date of birth

of Late Bondal either of school or certificate from Board.

Therefore his claim cannot be accepted. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- Demand of Union for appointment of

Shri Ajay Markam, dependent of Late Bondal is co-related

to date of birth of Bondal. In view of my finding in Point

No.1, workman has failed to establish correct date of birth,

claim for appointment of Shri Ajay Markam on

compassionate ground cannot be accepted. Therefore I

record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of WCL in not

correcting their records in respect of date of birth of

Late Shri Gondal in accordance with their order

No. WCL/Pench/PE/DyCME/ ADC/ 84/ 878 dated

12-10-84 is proper.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5841

(2)

The demand of the Union for providing employment

to Shri Ajay Kumar Markam, dependent of Late Shri

Gondal is not legal.

(3)

Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2278-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u- 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 184@1990)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@313@1989&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2014

S.O. 2278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 184/

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of NCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-22012/313/1989-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/184/90

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Post Jhingurda Colliery,

Distt. Sidhi.

.....Workman/Union

Versus

Northern Coalfields Limited,

Singrauli,

Distt Sidhi

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 17th day of July, 2014)

As per letter dated 18-9-90 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-22012/313/89-IR(Coal-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Singrauli

Area of NCL I changing the working hours of

ministerial staff of Jayant Project, Jhingurda Project

and Gorbi Project from 6 ½ hours per day on working

days except Saturday alongwith 16 paid holidays to

8 hours per day alongwith 8 paid holidays is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim

thrice. It is case of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh

Union. That notice of change under Section 9-A of I.D.Act

about change of working hours of ministerial staff from

6 ½ hours to 8 hours and paid holidays from 16 to 8 days

was given by management of NCL. The Union made

representation to Director of personnel of NCL, Singrauli

on 12-7-88 protesting the proposed change. In the

conciliation proceeding before ALC, Shahdol, stay was

granted to maintain status quo about working hours of

Ministerial staff of Jhingurda, Jayant and Gorbi Project.

That the ministerial staff of those colliery were working 6 ½

hours a day since past 18 years opening of the mine. The

working of ministerial staff of company headquarters at

Singrauli is 6 ½ hours a day. Failure report was submitted

by ALC, Shahdol. However the appropriate Government

refused to make reference. Union filed petition No. 1550/

90. Hon’ble High Court directed Government to make

reference immediately.

Union submits that as per NCWA-III Para 12.4.1 only

standardization Committee can look into the matters of

working hours, leave etc. That offices at Jhingurda, Gorbi

and Jayant are functioning since many years with 6 ½

hours a day. There is no justification for change of working

hours to 8 hours per day. Union submits that the working

6½ hours is applicable to them. That Ministerial staff and

administrative staff are exempted from observation in

Chapter VI of Mines Act. In view of notification of

Government of India, S.O.No. 3699 dated 22-11-65. Item 10

in the schedule provides persons employed in welfare

services including pithead baths, canteens and crèches,

issuing of food staff in hospitals and dispensaries in sanity

or conservancy work etc. The provisions of exemption

contained in Section 28,29,33,38,44,45,46 and sub section

(1) and (4) of Section 48 ministerial staff has been working

6 ½ hours a day and getting 16 paid holidays. Change is

arbitrary. Union prays for rejection of change. Statement

of claim submitted by Vice President of Coal Fields Labour

Union, Jhingurda Colliery is on the similar lines. That NCL

management unilaterally decided to change working hours

and paid holidays issuing orders. Union filed case against

management before ALC, Shahdol. After direction by

Hon’ble High Court, the reference was made. NCWA –III

5842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

provides existing certain benefits not covered or altered

by the agreement. That management of coal company is

on record will not resort to unilateral interpretation of the

agreement. It shall be duty of the standardization

committee to examine different descriptions, disparities in

service conditions etc. That the proposed change being

policy matter, only JBCCI can take any decision about

change of working conditions. NCL management cannot

change working conditions of its employees in their

headquarter at Singrauli which is closely associated with

the projects. That the Ministerial staff and administrative

staff working in office are exempted from operations of

provisions of Chapter VI of the provisions of Mines Act

in view of notification issued by Govt. of India S.O.No.

3699 dated 22-11-1963. It is submitted that proposed change

is not legal.

National Colliery Workers Federation submitted

separate statement of claim on similar lines. That since

Jayant Project, Jhingurda Project, Gorbi Coal Mines come

in existence the working hours of ministerial staff in these

mines have been 6 ½ hours per day. That in turn made it

36 hours in a week. All the members of Ministerial staff

have been getting 16 paid holidays in a calendar year.

These mines were working since 14 years and 17 years

respectively. It is submitted that the JBCCI has accepted

existing practice in those mines of 6 ½ working hours per

day and 16 paid holidays in a calendar year. Management

issued notice of change on 30-6-88 under section 9-A of

the Act. The change of working hours of Ministerial staff

for 6 ½ days and paid holidays of 16 days is illegal,

unreasonable. It is alleged that the change is arbitrary. It is

reiterated that working hours in all those mines were 6 ½

hours per day and paid holidays were 16 in a year. The

change is alleged to be detrimental to the interest of the

workers. Such change should not be allowed.

Management filed Written Statement at page 24/1 to

24/9. It is submitted that the coal mines were owned by

Private owner. The mines were nationalized in 1973. The

title and interest of owners are transferred. Ownership

and control of mines are vested with State for common

good. The administration of coal mines has been vested

to different companies including IInd party NCL. It is

subsidiary company of Coal India Ltd. That Government

constitute a central wage board for coal industry. The Wage

Board after examining cases of both parties submitted

recommendations for fixing service conditions of

employees and wages. The service conditions of

employees industry is covered by Wage Board

Recommendation. The Wage scale have been fixed taking

into consideration 8 hours working a day and not 6 ½

hours a day. More than 7 lakh employees are working in

Coal industry in various states. NCDC was a public sector

company. The Govt. collieries were followed the Central

Govt. pay scale and working patter which resulted in

following Central Govt. pattern of working hours and

holidays. Due to some misunderstanding or ignorance in

some collieries of NCDC, wrong working hours of clerical

staff are shown 6 ½ hours a day. It was subsequently

stopped after nationalization but some companies taken

over by NCDC, the service conditions of employees were

protected in Agreement. That thousands of workmen were

working 8 hours per day having 8 paid holidays. Those

employees were protesting against illegal benefits given

to selected workers. It was necessary to have common

working hours in service conditions, pay scales in the

industry. It is reiterated that the provisions of Mines Act

provides working hours not more than 48 hours in a week,

not more than 9 hours in a day, not to continuously work

more than 5 hours. Similar provisions are reproduced in

Written Statement of management. It is submitted that

employee is duty bound to work 8 hours as per conditions

of service. The ministerial staff attached to those three

projects were working only for 6 ½ hours per day enjoying

16 paid holidays. Double rate of overtime wages were

paid to them. Only 22 staff posted in those 3 projects were

enjoying better facilities about working hours and holidays.

It was required to be nationalized therefore notice of change

under Section 9-A was given. It is submitted that change

is not illegal. It is consistent with provisions of Mines

Act, NCWA Agreements. It is submitted that there are 4

claimants namely RCMS, CLU, BKMS(BMS) and MPCWF.

All claimants not filed their statements. The management

summarized its stand that notifications of mandatory

provisions under Section 9A of I.D.Act as it doesnot

amount to change in service conditions. If demand of

Union is admitted, lack of employees will come up with a

similar demand and it may be difficult to resist such a

claim. This will create total unrest in the Industry.

It is further submitted that employees covered under

Wage Board Agreement have been given benefits under

NCWA-I to IV of LTC, LLTC, free supply of fuel and

electricity, special leave of six months to those who suffer

from TB, Cancer, Leprosy etc. Union raised point that

without making change in working hours, the matter would

have been protected because they are working under the

Govt. Rules. The point arises under NCWA-I to IV only

matter regarding 8 hours working in the standardization

committee doesnot arise. The Ministerial staff was

appointed prior to 1967 i.e. CPC staff and their service

conditions have been protected because they are working

under the Government. The employees who are appointed

after 1967 accepted service conditions under Wage Board

NCWA-I to IV. The question of discussing matter regarding

8 hours working is not required. On all such contentions,

IInd party prays that award be passed in its favour.

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:-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5843

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Affirmative

ment of Singrauli Area of NCL I

changing the working hours of

ministerial staff of Jayant Project,

Jhingurda Project and Gorbi Project

from 6 ½ hours per day on working

days except Saturday alongwith 16

paid holidays to 8 hours per day

alongwith 8 paid holidays is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

Both parties have submitted written notes of

argument. I have carefully gone through it. The parties are

supporting their contentions in statement of claim and

Written statement filed by IInd party. In notes of argument

submitted by IInd party, ratio in various cases have been

reproduced. Before dealing with oral evidence, it would

be appropriate to look into the documents produced on

record. Ist party Union produced documents Exhibit W-1

to W-46. By document Exhibit W-1, Govt. refused to make

reference for the reasons that in other projects, workmen

worked for 8 hours and get 8 paid holidays. In order to

bring uniformity, working hours of these project issuing

notice under Section 9-A of I.D.Act, the action of

management appears in consonance with the provisions

of Mines Act. Exhibit W-2 is intimation given by Union

Secretary about their intention to challenge the notice of

change relating to working hours and paid holidays. Exhibit

W-3 is copy of order passed in miscellaneous petition

1550/90 by Hon’ble High Court directing Union of India to

make reference within 2 months. Exhibit W-4 is office order

dated 27-6-90 about change of working hours 8 hours per

day and paid holidays 8 per year. Exhibit W-5,6 is also

copy of office order about change of working hours. Exhibit

W-7 is letter given by General Manager (Personnel) to

General Manager to respected mines about change of

working hours and deduction of salary. Exhibit W-8 is

copy of order passed by Hon’ble High Court declining to

grant him interim relief observing that the interim relief

would be sought from Industrial Court. Exhibit W-9 , 10, 11

are office orders about the holidays and working hours.

Exhibit W-12 to 20 are office order about holidays on

different festivals and working hours. Exhibit W-21 to 30

are office orders about the national holidays and restricted

holidays. Exhibit W-31 to 35 & 37 are office orders about

working hours. Exhibit W-36 is letter by Desk Officer

refusing to make reference. Reasons are given on reverse

side already discussed above. Letter Exhibit W-38 is issued

by General Manager (Personnel) to the General Manager

of respective mines. Exhibit W-39, 40 are copy of letter

given by ALC relating to failure report. Exhibit W-41 is

copy of Joint Committee Report for coal Industry. Said

report relates to minimum wages, Railway fair, leave and

festival. To be precise, said report provides leave will

continue to be governed by the Mines Act, Existing paid

festival holidays will continue as at present. Existing

benefits and facilities not covered or altered by the

Agreement shall continue as hitherto. Report is silent

about working hours per day or paid holidays in a year.

Exhibit W-43 is copy of Chapter XI. It provides existing

benefits and facilities is not covered or altered by this

agreement shall continue as hitherto. The details are given

of basic pay to different categories of employees. Exhibit

W-44, 45 is copy of Chapter XI repeat of Exhibit W-43.

Both Union have claimed that by issuing notification in

1963, the Ministerial staff was exempted from provisions

of Mines Act. Such notifications or circular issued by

Government of India is not produced. The notification

produced on record appears relating to the award passed

under Industrial Development Regulation Act, 1951. It has

no bearing to the controversy between parties. Copies of

NCWA-II, III are found on record but point of working

hours of Ministerial staff and paid holidays to them is not

considered in those documents.

IInd party has produced documents Exhibit M-1 copy

of proceeding dated 3-6-88, in said meeting question of

change of working hours and paid holidays was not

considered. In Exhibit M-2 in minutes of meetings dated

2-9-88 para-3, the Advisory Committee considered the

point of change of working hours from 6 ½ hours to 8

hours observing that notice of change under Section 9-A

was issued by the management. Exhibit M-3 is notice of

change in Form B. Exhibit M-4 is also a notice of change

shown in Annexure working hours 8 per day and paid

holidays 8. A formal notice of change is produced at Exhibit

M-5. Exhibit M-6 is failure report submitted by ALC. Exhibit

M-7 is letter of Desk Officer refusing to make reference.

Reasons are given on reverse side already discussed

above. Exhibit M-8 is letter given by General Manager

Shri A.K.Singh that matter was discussed with D(P) with

RCMS, SKMS and BKKMS Unions at corporate level. It

also discussed matters with General Managers etc. The

ministerial staff who were appointed before 15-8-67 pre-

wage board entrance their working hours will remain 6 ½

and paid holidays-8. Exhibit M-9 is copy of office order

dated 28-6-90 about change of working hours as per notice

under Section 9-A of I.D.Act. Exhibit M-10 is also office

order of the same day. Document M-11 is office order dated

27-6-90 about change of working hours. Exhibit M-12 is

copy of order passed by Hon’ble High Court in

Miscellaneous petition 1550. Exhibit M-13 is copy of award

passed by CGIT, Dhanbad in the matter of change of leave

from 18 to 7. Certainly said award is not binding on

undersigned. The documents Exhibit M-14 to M-42 are

undertaking given by the employees working as per change

in working hours under protest. Exhibit M-43, 44, 45 are

5844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

also undertaking given by workman subject to rights till

decision of the reference.

10.

All the documents discussed above donot pertain

to exemption to the ministerial staff granted from

provisions of Mines Act. Ist party examined only witness

Shri Baburam Operator in Beena Project. His evidence is

on the line that working hours in Jhingurda, Gorbi mines

were 6 ½ hours per day. The staff working in those projects

was transferable from one project to other project. That he

was member of Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry.

That previously wage Board Recommendations,

standardization Committee were submitted. If any

discrepancies is found in any project of Coal India, the

matters are submitted before the Committee and the

Committee used to take decision. The point of change of

working hours was never submitted before the Committee.

Above witness in his cross-examination says he joined

service in Bina Project in 1976 in ministerial staff. Working

hours of ministerial staff was 8 hours per day. 8 hours

working were in all the projects except Headquarter, Jayant

Jhingurda and Gorbi Project. Working hours of mining

staff in those project was 8 hours. Evidence of above

witness for Union has not stated any justification

continuing working hours of ministerial staff 6 ½ hours

per day. On the other hand, his evidence shows in all

other projects, working hours were 8 hours per day. If

working hours of mining staff were 8 hours per day, why

ministerial staff should have 6 ½ days per days the

justification is not given by witness.

11.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of

Shri S.D. Singh. Management’s witness had supported

contentions of IInd party that working hours of clerical

staff were 6 ½ hours. To bring uniformity, notice of change

introduced was issued on 18-7-88 bringing in uniform

working hours of 8 hours per day. The present change

was merely a correction of omission in giving lesser

working hours to a few people. 8 hours working is

applicable to all project under Coal India. The Headquarter

of Coal India in various headquarters are having policy of

6 ½ hours working. Said policy is not applicable to mines/

project of coal mines. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says there are various collieries at

Singrauli with different names. In meeting as per Exhibit

M-2 representatives of Trade Union participated. The

working hours at Headquarter is 6 ½ hours, 16 paid

holidays and 2 Restricted Holidays.

12.

It is denied that working hour are changed. He

explained that they have changed working hours of

collieries also. Witness has given distance from

headquarter to each mines as 16 kms., 8 to 10 kms. and

4 kms. respectively. That clerks doing typing work billing

work, accounts work has 8 hours working. He claims

ignorance whether the store was opened on holidays

Vasant Panchami. He denies that at Jhingurda, Jayant and

Gorbi Project, 6 ½ hours or 8 hours per day is applicable.

The pleadings and evidence on record clearly shows that

working hours of ministerial staff in those three mines was

6 ½ hours and working hours of other staff is 8 hours per

day. The notice of change is given to have uniformity with

whole over working in the mines which cannot be said

discriminatory.

13.

Counsel for management IInd party relies on ratio

held in

Case of M/s. Saxby and Farmer India Ltd. Versus

their workmen reported in AIR 1975 SC-534. Their Lordship

held it is generally accepted that there are too many public

holidays in our country. When the need for industrial

production is urgent and paramount, it may be advisable

to reduce the number of such holidays in industrial

concerns. It cannot be disputed that a necessary step in

the direction of increasing the country’s productivity is

the reduction of number of holidays.

Further reliance is placed in ratio held in case of

Associated cement Staff Union versus Associated Cement

Company reported in AIR 1964-SC-914. Their Lordship

dealing with change of working hours. The hours of work

found reasonable in 1950. Change in 1961 on relevant

considerations held justified. Principles of res-judicata not

applicable.

In above cited case, working hours were 34 in a

week were increased to 36 hours in a week in 1961. Though

facts are little different, principles laid down equally covers

the present case.

14.

The provisions of Mines Act are also brought to my

notice by learned counsel Shri A.K.Shashi for IInd party.

Section 13 of Mines act clearly provides working hours

not exceeding 48 hours per week and 9 hours a day.

Continuous working not more than 5 hours per day. The

change is proposed by issuing notice, therefore cannot

be said illegal, discriminatory. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Singrauli Area of

NCL I changing the working hours of ministerial

staff of Jayant Project, Jhingurda Project and Gorbi

Project from 6 ½ hours per day on working days

except Saturday alongwith 16 paid holidays to 8

hours per day alongwith 8 paid holidays is proper

and legal.

(2)

Employees represented by Union are not entitled to

any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5845

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2279-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos 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

p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 727@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@138@1997&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 727/

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

II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Northern Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/08/2014

[No. L-41012/138/1997-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.727/2005

Registered on 1.9.2005

The Branch Secretary,

Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union,

C/o Sh. D.R. Sharma,

H. No. 551, Sector 41 A,

Chandigarh.

.....Petitioner

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Northern Railway,

Ferozepur Cantt.

.....Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Sh. R.P. Rana Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.

AWARD

(Passed on 12-6-2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-41012/

138/1997-IR(B-I) Dated 27.11.2001, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of the

Northern Railway in not giving seniority to Sh. K.K.

Kapoor w.e.f. 1.1.83 is justified? If not, what relief

the workman concerned is entitled and from what

date?”

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief are that

workman joined the respondent management on 17.4.1963

(FN). He was given promotion from time to time. He was

promoted as officiating Head Clerk in the pay scale of

Rs.425-700/- w.e.f. 1.1.1983. He was transferred along with

the post to the Personnel Branch of the respondent vide

order dated 27.5.1985. When the cadre was restructured,

the workman was regularized as Head Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1984.

Now according to the workman, his services were to

be regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1983 when he was promoted on ad

hoc basis; whereas according to the management the said

period cannot be taken into consideration. It is also the

case of the workman that the persons junior to him were

promoted as Head Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1983.

Parties led their evidence.

In support of his case, workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand, management examined Sh. Rajesh

Kumar who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken

by the management and further pleaded that as per Para

302 of the Railway Establishment Manual, ad hoc service

is not countable for fixation of seniority.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana, counsel for workman

and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.

It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel

for the management that the services of the workman are

not to be regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1983 when he was promoted

on ad hoc basis and he was given due promotion w.e.f.

1.1.1984 as per the relevant rules, and as such, there is no

merit in the claim of the workman.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

It is not disputed that the workman was promoted

as officiating Head Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.83 purely as local

arrangement against an existing vacancy. Later on, he

was transferred to another branch i.e. Personnel Branch

of the Railways. It is again not disputed that his services

as Head Clerk were regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1984. Now the

only dispute is whether the service rendered by him on

ad hoc basis is to be considered for reckoning his seniority

i.e. regularization of service. This matter came up for

decision before the Hon’ble High Court in Union of India

Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and

5846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

another in 2005(4) RSJ 433, wherein it was observed in

para 7 and 8 of the judgment as follow:-

(7)

In the case of T. Vijayan (supra), the Supreme Court

considered Rule 216-A which deals with ad hoc

promotion against selection and non-selection

posts. The aforesaid rule provides as under:-

“216-A Ad hoc promotion against selection and non-

selection posts.

(i)

Ad hoc promotions should be avoided as far as

possible both in selection and non-selection posts,

and where they are found inescapable and have to

be made in the exigency of service, they should be

resorted to only sparingly and only for a short

duration of 3 to 4 months. The ad hoc promotion

should be ordered only from amongst senior-most

suitable staff. As a rule a junior should not be

promoted ignoring his senior.

(8)

After considering the aforesaid Rule, it has been

clearly held by the Supreme Court that ad hoc

promotion is permissible pending regular selection.

Once ad hoc promotion is found to be permissible

under the rules, it has to be held that the

respondents who had been promoted on ad hoc

basis in the exercise of service pending regular

selection, are entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service

for reckoning their seniority and fixation of pay etc.

Thus, as per rules of the Railway Establishment

Manual ad hoc promotion is permissible and when it is so,

the workman is entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service for

reckoning his seniority and fixation of pay etc. Therefore

the action of the management in not giving seniority to

the workman w.e.f. 1.1.83 is not justified.

In result, the reference is accepted holding that the

action of the management in not giving seniority to the

workman w.e.f. 1.1.1983 is not justified and the workman is

entitled to seniority and pay fixation etc. from the said

date. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of

the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent

to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2280-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fj”koZ cSad

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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@38@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2004)

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 Reserve Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 13/08/2014

[No. L-12011/38/2003-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO 32 OF 2004

PARTIES

: The General Secretary,

Reserve Bank Workers’ Organisation

Patna-6/E,Rajendra Nagar,Patna

Vs.

Regional Director,

Reserve Bank of India,

South Gandhi

Maidan, Bihar, Patna

Ministry’s Order No.L-12011/38/2003-IR(B-I) dt.26.02.2004

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. O.P. Bihari, Representative

workman/Union

of the workmen

On behalf of the

Mr. A. K. M. Mustaque

Management

Management Representative

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dhanbad, Dated the 9th June, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

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

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-12011/38/2003-IR (B-I) dt.26.02.2004.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Reserve

Bank of India in not allowing of the scheme of

financial compensation as per the central circular

No.DCM (NPD)/851/9.39/01-02 being extended also

to the class III & IV employees of the Vault Sections

explaining that increase in work load of note

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5847

examining section does not proportionally increase

the work load of the Vault Section correct, legal and

fair? If not, to that relief the workmen in the Vault

Sections are entitled to?.”

On receipt of the Order No. L-12011/38/2003-IR (B-I)

dt.26.02.2004 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. 32-2004 of was registered on 23.03..2004 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

Union and the O.P./Management through their

Representatives and the Joint Legal Adviser appeared in,

and contested the case, respectively.

The case of the Reserve Bank Workers’ Organization

for the class III and IV employees of the Reserved Bank of

India is that the instant Organization is a registered one

which is affiliated to the Indian Labour Organization, the

National Organization of Bank Workers and All India

Reserve Bank Workers Organisation. Performance of work

is done by the Reserve Bank, Patna through two Sections

(i) Banking/General Section and (2) Issue section. The Cash

section is under the Issue Section. Counting of currency

Notes and examination of the different notes deposited

by different business Banks, the Government departments

such as Railway, Postal, and Communication are effected

in different subsection of Note examination. The work in

the Note Examination sub-sections accomplishes in two

shifts- one before and other after the lunch. The definite

determined quota in the both shifts for counting and

examination of the currency Notes of different

denomination is as such: 4000 for Rs.1000/, 500/- each,

Rs.4, 400, 4,600 and 5,300 for Rs.100/-, Rs.50/- and Rs.20/-

respectively. The Bank had introduced the Scheme

(Financial Compensatory Scheme) for maximum money for

maximum work in respect of the workers (Class III and IV)

and the Officer working in the Cash Section w.e.f.

01.07.2002.The scheme carried on in different phases till

December 2002.Under the scheme the Bank got work done

by the employees/officers 50% more by giving them per

capita Employees/Officers per day Rs.150/- and Rs.100/-.

Further alleged that the scheme was enforced equally

for all the employees and the Officers posted in the Notes

Examination Sections. Whether they had direct relation

with their work of the Note Examination or not was never

cared for .e.g. the Section Officer Grade ‘B’, the Group

Supervisor Grade ‘A’. The Table Assistant and the Guard

others. Namely the amount was paid to those who were

effected by the direct impact of the increase in discharge

of their duties. The currency Notes in Chest by the

commercial Banks are sent to Reserve Bank for counting

and examining it. The Currency Notes in the Chest are

depositing in the Chest Vault of the Reserve Bank of India

and after the end of work in the different Note Examination

Sections, the notes which are not to be reissued or which

have been defaced are deposited in the defaced Notes

Vault. The increase in the quota following the enforcement

of more work more money scheme in the different Note

Examination Sections has practically affected, the defaced

Note Vault and Chest Note Vault, because the workmen

from these Vault were engaged in the Note Examination

Section for the work, and after the end of the work, it was

deposited as per the Table of the Defaced Vaults noted in

para 5 of the written statement of the workmen for the year

January to Nov., 2002.The engaged Employee and the

Officers at these places have been deprived of the benefits

of the scheme. Whereas due to the increased work in the

Examination Section, it had been to perform more work

proportionately at those places which is evident from the

aforesaid table. This is quite unjust and illegal. The Bank

has been discriminating.Mr.Narmedeshwar Pandey, the

Note & Coin Examiner,Gr.II who is the member of the Union,

was posted as the Asstt. in the defaced Vaulet.He had

requested the Management as per his letter dt. 08.07.2002

for the benefits of the Scheme, but due to unresponse of

the Management, the Sponsoring Union has raised the

Industrial dispute for the reliefs of the benefits under the

said scheme.

The Sponsoring Organization in its rejoinder has

categorically denied the allegations of O.P./Management,

and alleged that if no quota system was applicable to the

officers deployed in the Note Examination Section or in

the vault or in general why they were given compensation

under increased quota system. Paper work load in vault

Section is directly proportional to the quantum of works

carried out in the Coin/Note Examination Section as evident

from the workman load doubled during July, 2002 to Sept.,

2002.Class III Employees deployed in vault had to write

distribution of Notes in CD-58 Register according to face

value of each bag and the two slips mentioning details

inside each bag. When compensation was given for

increased work in Note Examination Section, why it should

not be given for the increased work in the vault. So the

action of the Management in denying the benefits of the

Scheme in respect of the Employees of vault Sections is

unfair labour practice, discrimination and illegal. So

workmen concerned of the vault are entitled to benefits of

the Scheme.

Whereas categorically denying the allegations of

the Sponsoring Organisation,the O.P./Management has

alleged in their statement that the Reserve Bank of India is

a body corporate constituted under Sec. 3 of Reserve Bank

5848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of India Act,1934 specially meant for regulating the issue

of Bank Notes, keeping of reserves for monetary stability

in the Country and generally for the operation of currency

and credit system of the country to it advantage. The

Service conditions of the staff employed by the Bank are

governed by Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation 1948

and the instructions issued by the Bank time to time.

Besides Class-III & IV, workmen are also governed by the

Awards, settlements/agreements entered into between the

Bank and Representative Union time to time. The present

Organization is not a recognized Union, so the Bank is

under no obligation to negotiate with any Union other

than All India Reserve Bank Employees’ Association, of

which majority of the Class- III employees of the Bank

have the membership.

The Bank is under the obligation to issue Bank Notes

and not to issue the torn, defaced or soiled aunt notes

under Secs. 22 and 27 of the Act respectively so as to

maintain the quality of the Notes in circulation. The Bank

serves the public with eliminating the torn, defaced,

excessively soiled notes from circulation, and with

introducing of fresh notes into circulation to the needy

public.The Bank under the statutory provision has right

to organize or reorganize its functions. In order to

effectively discharge its duties under the law, the Bank on

consensus of the recognized Union has adopted and

introduced the Clean Note Policy scheme as per the

Circular dt.9.6.2002 (Annexure- A) as special monetary

incentive to the staff of the Coin Note Examination Section

for carrying out additional work apart from their allotted

duties, as there had been a huge accumulation of soiled

notes in vaults due to a lower rate of its destruction as

contrasted with a huge accumulation of notes in circulation

in the country. The process of elimination of soiled notes

from circulation involves a detailed examination and

verification of each note in particular at Coin Note

Examination Section of the Bank.Wheres the job of class

III employees posted in Vault is limited only to the passing

of a Book entry in the vault Register and preparation of

vouchers. They have no task of counting the notes or

application of skill and knowledge in examining the notes

as the staff of Note Examination Section have. Additional

benefit was given for additional quota of job which was in

excess of the regular work. The output of the class III

employees in the Note Examination Section is quota based.

They are also entitled for overtime if they work beyond

the normal working hours. The NE (Note Examination)

employees have to complete the examination of notes as

per the quota allotted to them as per the consensus arrived

at between the Management and the recognized

Association Union. The instant unrecognized Union at

Patna is quite aware of it. It is a step to achieve harmony

and peace in the emergent situation arising out of large

circulation of notes which result in an urgent need to

examine the much higher quantum of soiled and reissuable

notes. Merely an increase in the work of the Examination

Section amounts to no extra entries in the vault books, so

the demand of the unrecognized Union for the vault section

employees any extra payment for their work is unjustified.

Besides, there is no quota of minimum of 400 bundles to

be handled per day by each Mazdoor in the Chest Note

Vault.Further alleged that the financial incentive for

discharging additional work is purely a temporary measure

and need based arrangements of disposal of accumulated

notes.Thus, there is no violation of any law. The industrial

dispute being individual beyond the matters of its

Schedules 2 & 3 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is

unmaintainable.

The O.P./Management in their rejoinder has

specifically denied.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In the instant reference, WWI Narmadeshwar

Pandey,the Special Assistant at Reserve Bank of

India,Patna,WW2 Girish Deo Kumar working as

Asstt.Treasure on behalf of the Union concerned, and

MWI Jerome Minz, the Asstt. Manager, R.B.I., (Cash

Depart), Patna for the O.P./Management have been

respectively examined.

The argument of the Learned Union Representative

for the Vault Sections Employees of the R.B.I. as per his

written notes of it is that the Bank paid all the Class III and

IV employees of the Note Examination Sections the

incentive amount of Rs.150/- and Rs.100/- for performance

of their more than 50% work per day; the increase workload

of the Note Examination Sections directly affects the chest

Note Vault and the defaced Note Vault following the deposit

of the increased Notes after the end of the work of the

Note Examinations Section comes about in the defaced

Note Vault; for the reasons, the Authorities and the workers

posted in both the vaults have to over work, but the

incentive amount is not paid to them which is

discriminatory. For instance Sri Narmadeshwar Pandey,

the Coin-Note Supervisor Class II,who was the Asstt.

posted in the defaced Note Vault as a member of the Union

has also claimed for the incentive amount, but due to not

any proceeding of the Bank, the Industrial Dispute has

been raised for the reference, and lastly in view of the

evidences of the witnesses of the Union in comparison

with that of the Management, the claim of Mr.Pandey for

incentive amount for his work in Defaced Note Vault is

justified, besides for the relief of the cost of the reference

in favour of the Organization.

Just contrary to it the contention Mr. A.K.M.

Mustaque,the Joint Legal Advisor, the Legal Cell as

Representative for Management of Reserve Bank of India,

Patna is that the present Union admittedly being

unrecognized by the Bank as no locus standi to raise the

Industrial Dispute which is not an Industrial one under

Sec 2K of the I.D. Act,1947, rather it is an individual dispute

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5849

for one workman - Narmadeshwar Pandey,who has

admitted in his cross-examination the execution of any

agreement taking place time to time between the

Managements and Recognized Associations biding on

both the sides. At this point, I am of the view that the right

worker who is a member of unregistered Trade Union as

also to a worker who is not a member of any Trade Union

at all whether registered or unregistered as held in the

case of Ramkapil Singh Vs .L.C.,Patna,reported in 1963(1)

Vol.L.J.65. So the reference is not unsustainable.

Further it has been submitted on behalf of the O.P./

Management that as per the fair admission of the workman

Narmdeshwar Pandey (WWI) there is no quota for the

employees posted in the defaced Note Vault and his duty

was to prepare slips for each bag containing defaced Notes

and also to make entry in the Register whereas the duty of

Class IV Staff is to keep any defaced Note in the bags in

the defaced Note Vault where 32 to 35 slips are daily

prepared on an average, but the workman has no duty to

handle the defaced Notes during the working hours from

10.15 a.m. to 5.13. p.m.;though there is a provision of

overtime in the defced Note Vault he never enjoyed it.Sri

Grish Dev Kumar, working as a Asstt.Treasurer (WW2)

narrating the working system of the Note Examination

Section distinct from that of the defaced Note Vault Section

of the Management, has also admitted that in the former

Section each staff, namely, Dy. Treasurer, Asstt. Treasurer,

Table Asstt.Punching Supervisor Class -IV staff ,Peon and

the Durban have got their specific roles; and during his

posting as the Coin & Note Examinationer Gr.II at the

relevant time, the staff of the said Section were counting

the Notes 50% more than their work and the persons in

that Section including the staff, the officers and class IV

staff were getting extra payments. The evidence of Shri

Jerome Minz (MWI) for the Management, stands

corroborated by the aforesaid admission of both the

witnesses for the workman, disclosing that the process of

Note Examination in Vaults, the examination of features of

each currency notes, and due to its lengthy process, there

is a huge accumulation of soiled currency Notes, so the

bank adopted a clean Note policy at the relevant time to

reduce the accumulation of soiled currency Notes by

introducing afresh currency notes in circulation. Hence,

the steps were taken by the Bank to increase the quota

work of Coin Note Examination Section by giving financial

benefit to them as per the agreement between the

Management and the RBI Employees Association, the

recognized one of Class III employee of the Bank; on the

other hand, maintaining of Register, preparation of voucher

that of assigned to the employees concerned of defaced

in Note Vault Section of the management where they get

overtime for additional work. As such, the claim of the

Defaced Note Vault Section employees for financial

compensation like those of the Note-coin Examination

Section Employees is not justified.

On perusal and consideration of evidences of both

the parties, I find that the case of Class III & IV Employees

of the Vault Section of the Management does not fall within

the category of nature of their job as per undisputed

circular as reported in the Schedule which prima facie is

applicable to the officers and the staff of the Coin & Note

Examination section of the Management.

In result, it is hereby responded and accordingly

awarded in the term of the reference that action of

management of Reserve Bank of India in not allowing of

the scheme of financial compensation as per the central

circular no DCM(NPD)/851/9.39/01-02 which is not being

extended also to the class III &IV employees of the Vault

Sections explaining that increase in work load of note

examining section does not proportionally increase the

work load of the Vault Sections is quite correct, legal and

fair.Hence the workmen in the vault section of the

Management are not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2281-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 62@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@07@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2010)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/07/2010-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/62 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF STATE BANK OF INDIA

5850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Assistant General Manager

State Bank of India, Mumbai Zonal Office

Region V

Madhuli Building, 1st floor

Shivsagar Estate

Dr. Annie Besant Road

Worli, Mumbai 400 019

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Gautam Kashiram Bagave

Sraddha Rahivasi Sangh

Opp. Building No.94, Vikhroli

Kannamwar Nagar-2

Vikhroli (E) Mumbai

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mr. M. G. Nadkarni, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. G.R. Naik, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 27th June, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-12012/07/2010-IR (B-I),

dated 08.11.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Vikhroli (E) Branch in terminating the

services of Shri Gautam Kashiram Bhagave is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second

party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-7.

According to him he was employee of the first party and

working as a Sweeper from 1998 till 15/12/2008. He had

worked at Vikhroli Branch continuously and had completed

240 days in every calendar year. He was appointed by the

management after complying with the requirement therefor

and was appointed on regular basis on permanent post.

They used to pay him salary by obtaining his signature

on wage register and on vouchers. However his name

was not shown on muster roll. Though there was

sufficient work available with the first party, the

management illegally terminated his services w.e.f. 16/12/

2008. Neither they issued him show cause notice nor

complied with Section 25 F or 25-G of the Industrial

Disputes Act. As the services of workman were terminated

illegally, he raised industrial dispute before ALC (C). As

conciliation failed, as per the report to that effect, the

Central Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal.

The workman therefore prays that the management be

directed to reinstate the second party in the service with

full back wages w.e.f. 16/12/2008 and also pray for cost of

the reference.

The first party management resisted the claim vide

its Written Statement at Ex-8. According to them, the

second party is neither workman as defined under Section

2 (s) of the I.D. Act nor he is their employee. According to

them initially the workman was appointed by local

implementation committee as Canteen Boy. He was very

irregular in attending his duties. He used to remain absent

unauthorisedly and he also used to be missing from duty.

He was engaged for cleaning the Vikhroli Branch Office. It

was purely on temporary and casual basis. He was paid

Rs.50/- per day. They denied all allegations made in the

statement of claim. They denied that he was appointed by

following recruitment process. According to them, the

workman was not appointed by following the recruitment

process prescribed for the appointment of the Bank

employees. They denied that the workman worked

continuously for 240 days every year. They denied that

the management has violated the provisions of Section 25

F and 25 G of the I.D. Act. As the workman is not their

employee, question of violation of these provisions does

not arise. They denied that the services of workman were

terminated illegally by the Bank Authority in violation of

the provisions of I.D. Act. According to them the reference

is not maintainable and the workman is not entitled to any

relief. Therefore they pray that the reference be dismissed

with cost.

Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr.

Issues

Findings

no.

Whether the second party is

Yes

workman as defined under

Section 2 (s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act and whether there

exist master servant relationship

between the Bank and the workman?

If yes, whether the termination of

services of the workman is legal

and justified?

If not, what relief the workman is

As per order

entitled to?

below

What order?

As per order

below

REASONS

Issue No.1 :-

In this case, it is pleaded by the first party Bank that

initially the second party workman was appointed as a

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5851

Canteen Boy. As canteen in the branch is not a statutory

canteen, the workman is not employee of the Bank. In

support of his argument the ld. adv. for the first party

resorted to the Apex Court ruling in State Bank of India V/s.

SBI Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle) & Ors.

(2000) 5 SCC 531 wherein the Hon’ble Court observed

that;

“Employees of non-statutory canteen are not

employees of principal employer.”

In this respect the ld. adv. for the second party

submitted that, the workman was not canteen employee.

Neither he had worked as a Canteen Boy. Therefore the

above ruling cited in that behalf is not applicable to the

set of facts of the present case. The ld. adv. pointed out

that specific suggestion to that effect was denied by the

workman in his cross examination at Ex.12. The ld. adv. for

the second party has submitted that the first party Bank

has not denied that the workman was working as a Sweeper

and he used to clean the bank premises at Vikhroli Branch.

He has further pointed out that he was working as Sweeper

since 1998 till 16/12/2008. According to the second party

he was appointed after following the recruitment process

and appointment letter was also issued to him. He was

called for interview and was also sent for medical

examination. In this respect the ld. adv. for the first party

pointed out that the workman has not produced either the

copy of paper in which advertisement was published or

the letter of appointment or letter of call for interview etc.

Therefore he submitted that the version of second party

is not supported by any documentary evidence. He further

pointed out that the burden is on the workman to prove

the fact he alleges. In support of his argument, the ld. adv.

resorted to the Delhi High Court ruling in Automobile

Association Upper India V/s. P.O. Labour Court II and

Anr. 2006 III LLJ 929 wherein the Hon’ble Court observed

that;

“…. the workman had to establish the case set up

by him before the Industrial Adjudicator by evidence,

oral and documentary.”

In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the

workman that his appointment letter, letter of call and all

other documents were destroyed in the heavy rain and

flood of the year 2005. Therefore he could not produce

any document. In this respect I would like to point out

that it is the case of the workman himself that the

management used to pay him by obtaining his signature

on pay register and on vouchers and his name was not

reflected on the muster roll. It indicates that he was not

appointed by following the recruitment process.

Furthermore he could have obtained the copy of issue of

the newspaper wherein the advertisement inviting

applications was published. There is also no letter of

termination placed on record. Furthermore the second

party has not even given his monthly pay and allowances

either in pleadings or in his affidavit. On the other hand

from the documents with list Ex-10 it is clear that he was

paid Rs. 50 per day. A person appointed by following

recruitment procedure can never be engaged as a daily

wager. Looking into these facts and circumstances on

record it appears that he was working as a daily wager and

was not appointed by following the procedure prescribed

for recruitment of the staff.

In this respect it is the case of the workman that he

worked continuously from 1998 till the date of his

termination i.e. 16/12/2008. It is also specifically pleaded

and contended in the affidavit that he had worked 240

days in each year. Therefore he is entitled to the protection

under Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. In this respect ld. adv.

for the first party submitted that, the burden is on the

workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in a calendar year, which workman failed to

prove. In support of his argument the ld. adv. resorted to

the following Apex Court rulings:

(1)

Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat & Anr. V/s. Jethabhai

Pithambar Bhai (2005) 8 SCC 450, wherein the Apex

Court on the point observed that;

“The burden of proof lies on the workman to show

that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the

preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment

and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart

from examining himself to prove the factum of being

in employment of the employer.”

The same view is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in

(2)

Range Forest Officer V/s. S.T. Hadimani 2002 LAB.

I.C. 987 (SC),

(3)

Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat & Anr V/s. Dayabhai

Amarsingh 2005 8 SCC 750,

(4)

G.M. , B.S.N.L. & Ors. V/s. Mahesh Chand 2008 II

LLJ 633.

In this respect the ld. adv. for the second party

pointed out that the fact is not disputed that the second

party workman was engaged by the management and he

was working as a Sweeper. It is pointed out that it was not

specifically denied in the cross examination of the workman

at Ex. 12 that he was working with the Bank since 1998. In

this respect the ld. adv. for the second party further pointed

out that the witness of the management Mr. Vijay Chirutkar

stated in his cross at Ex. 16 that he does not know whether

the workman was working since 1998. He further states

that he does not know whether he was recruited in 1998.

As this witness says on oath that he does not know

whether the workman is working since 1998, his further

denied that workman had worked continuously for 10 years

and he worked for more than 240 days every year is

5852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

unacceptable. The management has disputed that

workman was working as Sweeper. According to them

initially he was engaged as a Canteen Boy and

subsequently engaged on casual and daily basis for

cleaning the office of the Bank at Vikhroli. The workman

has produced on record xerox copies of receipts of payment

he worked in the year 2005-2006 and the payment receipts

for working continuously from 30/10/2008 to 10/11/2008.

They are filed with list Ex-10. According to him the earlier

pay vouchers were destroyed and some were lost. From

the pleadings and evidence on record it is revealed that

the version of the workman is corroborated by these

vouchers with list Ex-10. Whereas the version of the

management appears skin saving. In the circumstances

and specially from the replies given by management

witness in cross examination, I come to the conclusion

that, the workman was working since 1998 and has worked

more than 240 days in each calendar year.

10.

In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the

management that though workman has completed 240 days

he was a daily wager and therefore cannot claim any

protection as he was not ‘workman’ within the meaning of

Section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act. In support of his argument

the ld. adv. resorted to Single Judge ruling of Bombay

High Court in Narayan S/o. Girjuba Gadhekar V/s. Chairman,

Silod Taluka Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. & ANR 2007

(2) Mh. L.J. 655 wherein the Hon’ble Court in para 11 of

the judgement observed that;

“… the employment of the petitioner was purely

temporary and seasonal. He cannot be regarded as

a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act.”

11.

In the case at hand the workman is not a seasonal

labourer as in the above referred case. Furthermore I would

also like to point out that work of cleaning the Bank is

perennial type of work. It cannot be called seasonal.

Thus the ratio laid down in the above ruling is not attracted

to the set of facts of the present case. In the case at hand

the workman was working with the first party Bank at its

Vikhroli Branch since 1998 continuously. Neither he was

employed through any contractor nor was working for

any other person. He worked upto 2008. In the

circumstances I hold that the second party is ‘workman’

as defined under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and I also

hold that he was employee of the first party and there

exists employee – employer relationship between them.

Accordingly I decide issue no.1 in the affirmative.

Issue no. 2 & 3 : -

12.

As the second party workman was employee of the

first party and he had worked continuously for more than

240 days in a calendar year he was entitled to the protection

under Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. Therefore I hold that

his termination cannot be said just and legal. In this respect

the ld adv. for the second party submitted that as the

services of second party workman was terminated illegally

he should be reinstated in the service. In this respect ld.

adv. for the first party submitted that, as second party

workman was not appointed by following recruitment

process, therefore his services cannot be regularised and

he cannot be reinstated. In support of his argument the

ld. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Indian Drugs and

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V/s. Workmen, Indian Drugs and

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2007 I LLJ 580 SC wherein the Hon’ble

Court in para 34 of the judgement observed that;

“Unless the appointments are made by following

the rules such appointees do not have any right to

claim permanent absorption in the establishment.”

13.

The ld. adv. also resorted to another Apex Court

ruling in M.P. Housing Board & Anr. V/s. Manoj Srivastava

2006 AIR SCW 1235 wherein the Hon’ble Court observed

that;

“It is now well settled when a post is not sanctioned,

normally, direction for reinstatement should not be

issued. Even if some posts were available, it is for

the Board or the market committee to fill up the same

in terms of existing rules.”

14.

The same principle was reiterated by Apex Court

in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V/s. Yogesh Chandra

Dubey & Ors. 2007 I CLR 137 wherein on the point of

regularisation of services of such employees Hon’ble Court

observed that;

“Regularisation is not a mode of appointment. If

any recruitment is made by way of regularisation,

the same would mean a back door appointment

which does not have any legal sanction.”

15.

In the light of these rulings it is clear that neither the

workman can be reinstated in the service nor his services

can be regularised.

16.

In this respect the ld. adv. for the first party

submitted that at the most for violation of Section 25-F of

the I.D. Act, only compensation in lieu of reinstatement

can be granted. In support of his argument the ld. adv.

resorted to Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in Nepal

S/o Sh. Khichhu Ram Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court

III, Faridabad & Anr. 2011 II LLJ 80 wherein Hon’ble Court

observed that;

“Termination of workman’s service was in violation

of Section 25 F of I.D. Act but he was entitled only

to compensation in lieu of reinstatement.”

17.

The ld. adv. also cited the Apex Court ruling in

Mahboob Deepak V/s. Nagar Panchayat, Gajrula & Anr

2008 I LLJ 855 (SC) wherein the services of daily wager

were terminated illegally. In that respect the Hon’ble Court

observed that;

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5853

“It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of

this court that in a situation of this nature instead

and in place of directing reinstatement with full back

wages, the workman should be granted adequate

monetary compensation.”

18.

The ld. adv. also resorted to another Apex Court

ruling in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. V/s Man Singh 2011

III CLR 902 wherein the Hon’ble Court in respect of illegal

retrenchment, observed that;

“In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact

the respondents workmen were engaged as daily

wagers and they had merely worked for more than

240 days, in our considered view the relief of

reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and

instead, monetary compensation would meet the end

of justice.”

19.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the

case, it is clear that the service of workman was terminated

in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Therefore in the

light of above rulings instead of reinstatement with back

wages, I think it proper to award adequate compensation

to the workman. In this respect I would like to take in to

account that the workman had worked for about 10 long

years as a daily wager for a very meagre amount. In the

circumstances while fixing the amount of compensation, I

think it proper to award an amount of Rs.1,50,000 to the

workman. Accordingly I partly allow the reference and

proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i)

Reference is partly allowed with no order as to cost.

(ii)

The first party is directed to pay to the second party

workman compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000.

Date: 27.06.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2282-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj /uy{eh cSad

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

psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@35@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2012)

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

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Dhanalakshmi Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 13/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/35/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 9th July, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 42/2012

[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 Dhanalakshmi Bank and M/s

Teamlease Services (P) Ltd. and their workman]

BETWEEN

Smt. R. Ramaprabha

: 1st Party/

Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

: 2nd Party/

Dhanalakshmi Bank,

1st Respondent

Zonal Office,

Om Shakthi Towers, 163,

Anna Salai, Chennai-600002

The Sr. Vice Presiding

: 2nd Party/

(Regulatory),

2nd Respondent

M/s Teamlease Services (P) Ltd. ,

No. 81, Vukan Towers,

Thirumalai Pillai Road,

T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

: M/s. K.M. Ramesh, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/ : M/s. S. Namasivayam, S. Rajkumar,

1st Management

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/ : Set Ex-parte

2nd Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/35/2012-IR (B-I)

dated 18.07.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

5854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. and their Contractor

M/s. Teamlease Services Private Limited in

terminating the service of Smt. R. Ramaprabha,

Marketing Executive, w.e.f. 31.01.2010 by the Bank

and w.e.f. 19.07.2011 by the Contractor, is legal and

justified? To what relief Smt. Ramaprabha is entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 42/2012 and issued notice to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel

and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

After the Counter Statement was filed, the petitioner has

filed rejoinder.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner was appointed as Marketing

Executive by the First Respondent by order dated

13.07.2007 on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 8,000.

Though the appointment was on contract for one year,

the petitioner continued in service till 31.01.2010, the date

of termination of the service. The petitioner had to report

for work at 0900 AM and had to work till 0600 PM. The

First Respondent had been doing service by business

arrangement with Mutual Funds, private financial

institutions and private insurance companies. After

reporting for duty at 0900 AM, the petitioner had to go out

for canvassing for Savings Bank Accounts, Current

Accounts, etc. After returning to the office she had to do

the job of helping the customers in their business

transactions with the Bank. The petitioner had been

discharging her duties diligently. On 31.01.2010, the Branch

Manager of the First Respondent told her that her services

were being terminated since the marketing work was to

be outsourced. She was also told that she would be

given employment in the same category by the Second

Respondent. She was assured that she would be absorbed

in a suitable position in the bank’s service when

recruitment is made. Believing these words, the petitioner

accepted employment with the Second Respondent. While

the petitioner was waiting for absorption in the First

Respondent Bank, she was served with an order by the

Second Respondent terminating her service. She was

informed that her service was terminated as per the inputs

received from the First Respondent. The petitioner had

sent several letters to the First Respondent requesting for

reinstatement but she has not received any reply. The

petitioner had raised the dispute in these circumstances.

The action of the First Respondent in terminating the

service of the petitioner through the Second Respondent

is illegal and unjust. The petitioner had not committed any

misconduct as alleged by the Second Respondent. The

petitioner had worked only for the First Respondent. The

so-called arrangement by the Second Respondent was

sham and nominal. The work of the petitioner was

supervised only by the officials of the First Respondent

Bank. An order may be passed holding that the action of

the First Respondent in terminating her service with effect

from 31.01.2010 and by the Second Respondent from

19.07.2011 is illegal and not justified and also directing the

First Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with

continuity of service, back wages and other attendant

benefits.

The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The dispute is not maintainable as against the First

Respondent as there is no privity of contract between the

petitioner and the First Respondent. She is not a workman

as defined under Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis as

Marketing Executive by the First Respondent by letter

dated 13.07.2007. Her duty included canvassing the clients

for opening Saving Bank Accounts, Current Accounts,

Deposit Accounts, etc. She was appointed on contract

basis for a period of one year only. Her service

automatically ceased on completion of period of contract.

However, she was orally permitted to continue to work till

January, 2010. The First Respondent decided to outsource

the marketing work to the Second Respondent.

Consequently, the petitioner was left without any work

under First Respondent and she was recommended to the

Second Respondent on humanitarian grounds. The

Second Respondent had appointed the petitioner in their

service by letter dated 01.02.2010. Her salary and other

statutory benefits were given by the Second Respondent

from February, 2010. During her tenure with the second

respondent the petitioner had opened current account and

savings account without necessary payment for opening

account but with photocopies of altered cheque leaves of

other banks and without presenting the cheques at the

bank. The allegations made by the petitioner against the

First Respondent in her Claim Statement are all denied.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the First

Respondent.

Though the Second Respondent has remained

absent at the subsequent stage of proceedings, he has

filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner was appointed as Marketing

Executive with the Second Respondent on 01.02.2010 for

a period of one year. As per the terms and conditions of

appointment, she was liable to be terminated for any

performance inconsistent with the contractual obligations

and the contract which are detrimental to the interests of

the client of the employer. As per the appointment letter

any dispute between the petitioner and the Second

Respondent is to be referred to Arbitrator. So the dispute

is not maintainable before this forum. It is incorrect to

state that the appointment given to the petitioner was in

continuation of the work rendered with the First

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5855

Respondent. The experience of the petitioner with the First

Respondent was counted for her appointment by the

Second Respondent. On 01.01.2009 the Second

Respondent had entered into an agreement with the First

Respondent to provide service with a specific term that all

the persons employed by the Second Respondent for

rendering service to the First Respondent shall be their

employees solely liable and responsible for the payments

of their salaries and other statutory benefits. The petitioner

indulged in opening Current Accounts and Savings Bank

Account using bogus cheques by forging signature. The

fraud was exposed by the First Respondent and the First

Respondent requested the Second Respondent to

terminate the petitioner. So the petitioner was terminated

from service by termination letter dated 19.07.2011 because

of her misconduct. The petitioner was given adequate

opportunity to explain her cause before ordering

termination. The contention of the petitioner that no Show

Cause Notice was given before the order of termination is

without basis. As per the terms of the appointment letter

issued by the Second Respondent he had power to

terminate the petitioner without any notice or enquiry.

The petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in the service

of the First Respondent.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the

allegations made in the Counter Statement of First and

Second Respondents and also reiterating her case in the

Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of petitioner examined as WW1, evidence of MW1 and

also documents marked as ext.W1 to Ext.W14 and Ext.M1

to Ext.M6.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondents in

terminating the service of the petitioner is legal and

justified?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The points

The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The

petitioner had been appointed by the First Respondent as

Marketing Executive by order dated 13.07.2007 which is

marked as Ext.W1, for a consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000.

Though as per Ext.W1, the period of appointment is one

year the petitioner continued to be in the employment of

First Respondent till 31.01.2010. After this also, she

continued to do the work of Marketing Executive itself for

the First Respondent though it was as if she was engaged

through the Second Respondent, a contractual agency

until 19.07.2011 on which date she was served with an

order of termination by the Second Respondent.

According to the petitioner, this later arrangement was in

between the first and second respondents but it did not

affect the nature of the work or her service conditions in

any manner. The petitioner has alleged that she was

terminated from service by the Second Respondent without

any notice or enquiry and without any justification. She

has stated in her Claim Statement that all along the First

Respondent was of the stand that she will be regularized

in service and that employment through the Second

Respondent was only to make things legal. On the other

hand it has been contended by the First Respondent that

after termination of the petitioner on 31.01.2010 there was

no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner

and the First Respondent. The stand of the First

Respondent is that it has no liability to reinstate the

petitioner since she was not under the employment of

First Respondent at the time of termination.

10.

The First Respondent has raised a technical

contention in its counter statement that in any case the

petitioner is not a “workman” coming under the definition

of Section-2(s) of the ID Act as she had been employed as

Marketing Executive and therefore she is not entitled to

raise the dispute under the ID Act. Before going into the

merits of the case this contention of the First Respondent

is to be considered.

11.

The above contention raised by the First

Respondent seems to be on the ground that the name of

the post of the petitioner is Marketing Executive which is

to be assumed to be a position which is managerial or

supervisory in nature. It is the well established position of

law that mere nomenclature of the post is not sufficient to

determine whether a person comes under the definition of

workman under the Section-2(s) of the ID Act or not. What

exactly was the nature of the work of the petitioner? Ext.W1,

the order of appointment gives the name of the job as

Marketing Executive. It does not state what exactly is the

nature of the job. The petitioner has stated in her Claim

Statement as well as in the affidavit filed by her that she

had to report for work in the branch of First Respondent at

T. Nagar at 0900 AM and then to go out for canvassing for

opening Savings Bank Accounts, Current Account and

Deposit Accounts in T. Nagar and other surrounding areas.

She has further stated that after returning to the office she

had to do the job of helping the customers in their business

transactions with the Bank. It is seen from the evidence

given by MW1 also that the petitioner was doing the work

of canvassing deposits for the First Respondent Ext.W2

would show that the petitioner was honored for her

excellent performance in canvassing business for T. Nagar

Branch.

12.

Though it is contended in the counter statement of

the First Respondent that the petitioner would not come

under the definition of workman, it has not taken any effort

to prove that the petitioner was working in a managerial or

supervisory capacity. The counsel for the petitioner has

referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in

5856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

N. KUMARESAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR

COURT AND ANOTHER reported in 2001 2 LLJ 369 where

it was held that it is the duty of the management to

establish that the employee performed duties that were

supervisory in nature. The Apex Court has held in the

decision in ARKAL GOVIND RAJ RAO VS. CIBA GIEGY

OF INDIA LTD, BOMBAY reported in AIR 1985 SC 985

that in deciding whether a person is a workman the Court

must find out what are the primary and basic duties of the

concerned and if he is incidentally asked to do some other

work which may not necessarily be in tune with the basic

duties, his additional duties cannot change the character

and status of the person concerned. In fact in the present

case there is no case for the Respondent that the petitioner

has been doing any job which is managerial or supervisory

in nature.

13.

The petitioner though conferred with the position

of Marketing Executive which looks like an impressive

one, it could be seen that except in the nomenclature it is

not impressive at all. She was employed for a

consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000/- a month. After reporting

at the office at 0900 AM she is to go out to rope in persons

to be made customers of the Bank. She had to wander

around in search of persons who are willing to become

customers of the bank. In the words of the First

Respondent itself, as seen from Ext.W2 the petitioner has

rendered excellent performance in canvassing business

for the branch. She has canvassed around 600 CASA

Accounts and has done Metlife business for Rs. 15.00

lakhs. There is nothing managerial or supervisory in such

work so definitely the petitioner will come under the

definition of workman under Section-2(s) of ID Act.

14.

There is a case for the Respondents that the

petitioner has been terminated from service on account

of her misconduct. It is stated in the Counter Statement

of both Respondents that she had opened accounts in

the name of a particular individual by forging her signature

and issued bogus cheques. There is no case for the

Respondents that any enquiry has been conducted before

terminating the service of the petitioner for misconduct.

Though it is stated in the Counter Statement of the Second

Respondent that notice has been given to the petitioner

regarding his misconduct and she has been given

opportunity to explain her side, no such notice is seen

produced. Before this Court itself the Respondents have

not made any effective attempt to prove that any

misconduct has been committed by the petitioner. MW1

who is a Chief Manager of the First Respondent Bank

examined on its behalf has no personal knowledge of the

facts of the case. She had no occasion to be the Manager

of the Bank in which the petitioner has been working. She

has stated that she is giving evidence on the basis of

records only. There is nothing to show what exactly was

the misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner. No

acceptable evidence is adduced regarding this. Ext.M2 to

Ext.M6 are just some internal correspondence of the First

Respondent which are not proved at all. So there is

absolutely no basis to show that the petitioner had

committed any misconduct.

15.

It could be seen from the evidence that though at

the time of termination the petitioner was projected as an

employee of the Second Respondent, actually she was

continuing the same job she was earlier doing for the First

Respondent i.e. canvassing of accounts for the First

Respondent. Though her initial appointment was for a

period of one year as per Ext.W1, even as admitted by the

First Respondent she continued in the employment of the

First Respondent even after expiry of this period one year.

She continued in the same position until 31.01.2010. After

this, she was treated as an employee of the Second

Respondent though in effect she was not. This is evident

from the version of the petitioner and even the admission

made by MW1 during her cross-examination. MW1 has

admitted that after 31.10.2010 also the petitioner was

reporting to T. Nagar branch but according to her as an

outsourced employee and was discharging the very same

work. She continued to canvass deposits for the First

Respondent after this also.

16.

The documents also would reveal the case of the

petitioner that it was by way of an arrangement only that

she was shown as an employee of the Second Respondent.

In fact the documents would reveal that the petitioner was

made to believe that she would be given opportunity to

participate in the examination for absorption in the bank.

It is revealed from Ext.W2 which is written by the Chief

Manager in the form of congratulatory message to the

petitioner that her application for the post of Junior Officer

will be considered favorably and she will be permitted to

write the examination for the same. It was after all this an

appointment letter was given to her by the Second

Respondent on 01.02.2010 which is marked Ext.W3.

Consequent to receiving this, the General Secretary of the

Union of the petitioner has written a letter to the General

Manager of the First Respondent. In answer to this an

assurance is seen given stating that the transfer to M/s

Teamlease, the Second Respondent is done for the purpose

of statutory compliance only. MW1 has stated that the

work of Marketing Executive still exists. Even from the

manner in which the petitioner was terminated from service

by the Second Respondent it could be seen that the Second

Respondent was only a namesake and that the First

Respondent was actually running the show. Ext.W9 the

letter written by the Second Respondent to the petitioner

shows that it was as instructed by the First Respondent

that the petitioner has been terminated. There is no case

for the Second Respondent that it was a registered

contractor and was competent to supply persons on

contract basis. All these would show that it was the First

Respondent itself who had continued to engage the

petitioner though under the guise of doing it through the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5857

Second Respondent. Even otherwise, even at the time of

termination dated 31.01.2010 if any the First Respondent

had not complied with the provisions of the Act.

Apparently, from 13.07.2007 the petitioner had been

working with the First Respondent continuously. In spite

of this, she was not given any notice of termination. On

the other hand, she was shown to be under the

employment of the Second Respondent and allowed to

continue in the service of the First Respondent. In the

circumstances it is only proper that the petitioner is

reinstated in the service of the First Respondent. However,

considering the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow

any back wages.

Accordingly an award is passed as follows:

The First Respondent shall reinstate the petitioner

in service within a month.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 9th July, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/

: WW1, Smt. R. Ramaprabha

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/ : MW1, Sri G. Bhanumurthy

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

13.07.2007

Copy of Appointment letter issued

to the petitioner by the 1st

Respondent with enclosures

Ex.W2

04.04.2009

Copy of e-mail from 1st

Respondent to the petitioner

Ex.W3

01.02.2010

Copy of appointment letter issued

to the petitioner by the 2nd

Respondent

Ex.W4

xxxx

Copy of letter from Petitioner to

the 1st Respondent

Ex.W5

10.07.2010

Copy of letter from Petitioner to

the 1st Respondent

Ex.W6

09.07.2011

Copy of letter from Petitioner to

the 1st Respondent with copy to

2nd Respondent

Ex.W7

13.07.2011

Copy of e-mail from Petitioner to

the 1st Respondent

Ex.W8

13.07.2011

Copy of e-mail from Petitioner to

the 1st Respondent

Ex.W9

19.07.2011

Copy of letter from 2nd

Respondent to the Petitioner

Ex.W10

20.07.2010

Copy of letter from Petitioner to

the 1st Respondent

Ex.W11

23.08.2011

Copy of letter from Petitioner to

the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W12

23.08.2011

Copy of e-mail from Petitioner to

the 2nd Respondent

Ex.W13

05.09.2011

Copy of Petition u/s 2-A of the ID

Act filed by the petitioner before

the Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central), Chennai

Ex.W14

05.12.2011

Copy of reply filed by the

Petitioner before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (Central), Chennai

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Power of Attorney

Ex.M2

13.07.2007

Copy of the Appointment Letter

to the Petitioner

Ex.M3

05.07.2011

Copy of the mail sent by the

internal

auditor

1st

Respondent to the Credit Head

and Vigilance Head of the 1st

Respondent

Ex.M4

06.07.2011

Copy of the mail sent by the

internal

auditor

1st

Respondent to the Vigilance Head

of the 1st Respondent

Ex.M5

08.07.2011

Copy of the mail sent by the

internal

auditor

1st

Respondent to the Vigilance Head

of the 1st Respondent

Ex.M6

18.07.2011

Copy of the mail sent by the Credit

Head of 1st Respondent to the HR

Head of the 1st Respondent

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2283-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

bankSj 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@06) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@200@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

5858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 18/06) of

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

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of State Bank of Indore, Head

Office and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/200/2005-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/18/06

Presiding Officer : SHRI R. B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,

9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain (MP)

....Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager (Operations),

State Bank of Indore,

Merged as State Bank of India

Local Head Office,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of July 2014

As per letter dated 23-5-06 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

200/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager (O), State Bank of Indore in removing Shri

Anandilal Vaastri from his service w.e.f. 10-1-04 is

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

for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was engaged as

permanent peon on 14-10-06 by Branch Manager Lateri on

wages Rs.60/- per day. He was continuously working with

devotion. He was paid wages deducting wages for Sunday

and declared holidays. Workman further submits that his

services were discontinued from 10-1-04. Though he

completed 240 days continuous service, he was not paid

retrenchment compensation, termination notice was not

issued to him. His services were not issued to him. His

services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F,G,H

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

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to

5/11. Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party that

workman had not completed 240 days continuous service

preceding his termination. The reference is not tenable.

The reference is vague. There is no employer employee

relationship. Any recruitment process was not followed

while engaging workman. That Shri Ram Nagwanshi is a

dismissed employee and Secretary of Dainik Vetan Bhogi

Bank Employees Association. He was dismissed from

service of the Bank on 5-12-2001. He is not competent to

represent the workman. IInd party reiterates that it has

service regulations for recruitment of Class III, IV

employees framed by the Govt. of India. The

appointments of sub-staff, peon, daftary are made adopting

recruitment process issuing publication in newspapers.

Names of candidates are sponsored through Employment

Exchange. Such procedure was not followed while

engaging workman. By raising dispute workman wants

back door entry. Workman was engaged as casual worker

for 2-3 hours per day for cleaning work. Amount agreed

was paid to him. Workman has not completed 240 days

service preceding his termination. Engaging services for

few hours of casual employee doesnot give any right to

the workman. The discontinuation of workman is covered

under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act. The documents

produced by workman pertains to payments made to

various parties and not to the workman above,. Workman

is committed to enter in employment in Bank through back

door entry. IInd party referred to ratio held in various cases

by Supreme Court, High Court. It is submitted that

workman is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by

him.

Workman filed rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/2 reiterating

his contentions in statement of claim.

Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the action of the manage-

In Negative

ment of General Manager (O), State

Bank of Indore in removing Shri

Anandilal Vaastri from his service

w.e.f. 10-1-04 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

As per

entitled to?”

final order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his services

for violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D. Act claiming that

he completed more than 240 days continuous service

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5859

preceding his termination from 11-1-04. Workman filed

affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in

statement of claim. Since 14-10-02, he was working more

than 240 days. His services were discontinued from

10-1-04 without notice. Retrenchment compensation was

not paid to him. However workman has not made available

for his cross-examination, his evidence was closed on

24-12-2010. As such his evidence cannot be considered in

support of his claim. However the documents are produced

on record Exhibit W-1(1 to 37) shows payment of wages to

the workman. Those documents shows payment of wages

made on different dates to the workman. Document Exhibit

W-2 is copy of register of daily payments. He payments

made to workman on different dates shows that wages for

more than 222 days were paid to the workman. Section

25(B) of I.D.Act provides continuous service for one year,

Sundays and paid holidays are required to be counted by

considering continuous service. If 52 Sundays are counted,

working days of workman comes more than 240 days. The

services of workman was terminated without notice.

Management’s witness Shri Ashok Kumar Vyas in

his cross-examination was unable to tell working days of

workman. He was also unable to tell whether retrenchment

compensation, termination notice was given to the

workman. Management’s witness in his cross-examination

admits that workman had filed proceeding for recovery of

bonus. He has admitted payment vouchers W-1(1 to 37).

That workman was not appointed from regular post.

Workman was working one hour morning, one hour

evening. The attendance register is not produced by

workman. His evidence is not supported by any document.

On the other hand, though workman has not entered in

witness box, W-1, W-2 shows his working days. As stated

above, the working days of workman are more than 240

days if Sunday is included. Therefore termination of service

of workman is not legal and proper. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding on Point No.1,

termination of service of workman is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act, question arises whether workman is

entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Workman was

engaged as casual employee. Recruitment process was

not followed. His name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. Therefore relief of reinstatement

in the matter would not be proper.

Union Representative Shri Ram Nagwanshi relies

on ratio held in case of

Samishta Dube versus City Board, Etawah and

another reported in 1999(81) FLR-746 has no direct bearing

to facts of present case as the evidence on record shows

that workman completed 240 days service.

Shri Ram Nagwanshi also relies on ratio held in case

of Regional Manager, SBI versus Rakesh kumar Tewari

reported in 2006(108)FLR 733. Their Lordship of the Apex

Court held Section 25-H proceeds on assumption that

retrenchment has been validly made. Statutory obligation

is casted on employer to give opportunity of retrenched

employee.

Though workman has filed affidavit of evidence he

has not entered in witness box for cross-examination, his

evidence cannot be considered. The ratio held in the above

cited case cannot be beneficially applied.

In case of Jaipur Development Authority versus

Ramsahai and another reported in 2007(1) Supreme Court

Cases (L&S) 518, their Lordship dealing with Section 25-G,

H of I.D.Act held requirement of continuous work in terms

of Section 25 B of I.D.Act is not requirement under Section

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

Workman was hardly working for about 16 months.

Considering short tenure of his working and violation of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act in discontinuing his service,

compensation Rs. 25,000/- would be appropriate relief.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of General Manager

(O), State Bank of Indore in removing Shri Anandilal

Vaastri from his service w.e.f. 10-1-04 is legal and

proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.25,000/-

to the workman within 30 days from the date of

publication of award.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within

30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of

default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from

the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2284-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e ,l y{eh

foykl cSad fy 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 psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@109@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2013)

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

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

5860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

between the management of M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 14/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/109/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 22nd July, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 59/2013

[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 Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and their

workman]

BETWEEN :

Sri R. Thiruvengadam

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Management

: 2nd Party/Respondent

M/s Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.

Administrative Office

Karur-639006

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

: Sri J. Muthukumaran, Advocate

Petitioner

For the 1st Party/

: M/s T.R. Sathiyamohan,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/109/2012-IR(B-I)

dated 16.05.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. imposing termination of

service on Sri R. Thiruvengadam is justified or not?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID No. 59/2013 and issued notices to

both sides. Both sides have appeared through their

Counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are as

below:

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent

Bank as Sub-Staff in the year 1981. He had passed ESLC

Examination at that time. He passed 10th Standard in 1993.

He did his BA Degree Course through Correspondence

Course from Annamalai University. On the basis of the

degree obtained, the petitioner was promoted as Clerk.

While the petitioner was serving in Muthur Branch of the

Respondent Bank as Clerk, he was issued with a

Suspension Order stating that he has submitted bogus

degree certificate alongwith mark sheets and has defrauded

the bank. Simultaneously, a charge sheet was also issued

to him by the Disciplinary Authority on the same

allegation. After enquiry the Enquiry Officer found the

petitioner guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority

imposed punishment of removal from service on the

petitioner on the basis of the report of enquiry. The appeal

filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed.

The dispute is raised on account of this. The petitioner

has not committed the misconduct alleged. Even assuming

that the charge against the petitioner has been proved,

the option of the bank was to revert the petitioner as Sub-

Staff to which post he was originally appointed. An order

may be passed holding that the action of the Respondent

in terminating the petitioner is unjustified and directing

the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with

full back wages, continuity of service and other benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

Sometime prior to 1998 the Respondent had agreed

to introduce two channels of promotion from Sub-Staff to

Clerk, one general channel of seniority-cum-merit and

another, graduates automatic eligibility for promotion. The

petitioner who had joined the service of the bank in 1989

applied for promotion to Clerk representing that he had

obtained a BA Degree. Based on this representation he

was promoted as Clerk in the year 1998. In the year 2000

the Bank received information that some of the promotees

as Clerks had produced false degree certificates. The bank

wrote to the concerned universities and it came into light

that some of the Sub-Staff including the petitioner who

were promoted had produced false degree certificates. The

Registrar of Annamalai University, Chidambaram had

informed the Respondent that the provisional certificate

and two mark lists produced by the petitioner for the

purpose of promotion are fake and fraudulent. A charge

sheet was issued to the petitioner charging him for

misconduct of having produced false certificate. On

conduct of domestic enquiry the Enquiry Officer has

reported that the charge against the petitioner is proved.

The punishment of dismissal from service was imposed

on the petitioner. The petitioner had produced false

certificate for getting automatic promotion even though

he was aware that he had not attended the examination.

The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5861

The evidence in the case consists of documents

marked as Exts.W1 to Exts.W20 and Exts.M1 to Exts.M16.

No oral evidence was adduced on either side.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the management in imposing

the punishment of termination from service on the

petitioner is justified?

(ii)

What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

The petitioner who had joined the service of the

Respondent Bank in 1989 is alleged to have obtained

promotion to the post of Clerk on the basis of a bogus

provisional certificate and mark sheets produced by him.

The Respondent Bank who has subsequently found out

that the certificate and mark sheets are bogus had initiated

disciplinary action against him and terminated him from

service on the basis of the report of domestic enquiry

conducted by it. The Enquiry Officer had found that the

certificate and mark sheets are bogus.

The initial question to be considered is whether the

petitioner had produced bogus certificate and mark sheets

before the Respondent Bank for obtaining automatic

promotion. Ex.W4 is the copy of the provisional certificate

that has been produced by the petitioner before the

Respondent. Ext.M6 and Ext.M7 are the copies of mark

list of 1st and 2nd year respectively, produced by the

petitioner. In both these marks lists the petitioner is shown

to have passed in all the subjects. Ex.M5 is the mark list of

3rd year in which he has passed in all the subjects.

The Management has initiated action by sending

letter to the Annamalai University from which the

petitioner has claimed to have obtained degree. Ext.M2 is

the letter given by the University in answer to the letter by

the Bank. The Controller of Examinations has informed in

this letter that the petitioner has failed in all the subjects

for his 1st and 2nd year examinations. In Ext.M9, another

letter written by the University, the Respondent was

informed that the provisional certificate in the name of the

petitioner with Register No. 96J15T00091 is a fraudulent

one and that the University has not issued any such

certificate. The University has also sent a specimen of the

provisional certificate issued by it and this is marked as

Ext.M10. A comparison of Ext.M8 produced by the

petitioner and Ext.M10 the specimen would show that both

certificates are entirely different in nature.

10.

The Controller of Examinations of Annamalai

University has been examined as MW1 in the enquiry

proceedings. He has examined the provisional certificate

produced by the petitioner as the one issued from the

University and has stated that it was not issued from the

University and it is not a genuine one. The specimen copy

of the certificate was also marked through him in the

enquiry proceedings. The mark lists of 1st and 2nd year

produced by the petitioner in the bank were also put to

the witness and he has stated that those are not genuine.

He has stated that genuine mark lists are Exts.M3 to

Exts.M5. As seen from Exts.M5 the petitioner has obtained

minimum pass mark for all subjects in the 3rd year

examination. However, he has failed in all subjects for the

1st year examination. For the 2nd year examination, as

seen from Ext.M4, he has attended only four examinations

out of six. He was absent for two examinations. The form

and appearance of genuine mark lists are different from

the mark lists produced by the petitioner.

11.

MW2 examined in the enquiry proceedings is an

Officer of HRD Department of the Bank. He has stated

about the mode of promotion and the manner in which

promotion was given. He has stated that the petitioner

has written to the Management claiming that he has

obtained the additional qualification of degree. He had

also written to the Bank claiming cash incentive of

Rs. 5,000 given to those who obtained degree. The letters

were marked through this witness. He has stated that on

the basis of the documents of qualification submitted by

the petitioner he was given promotion.

12.

The petitioner has himself given evidence in the

enquiry proceedings. According to him all the mark sheets

for his examination were received from the University by

Registered Post, so also the provisional certificate.

13.

From the evidence given by MW1, the Controller of

Examinations in the enquiry proceedings there can be no

doubt that the certificate and two out of three mark lists

produced by the petitioner are bogus. He has passed in all

subjects only in 3rd year examination. So there was no

question of a provisional degree certificate having a degree

been issued to him by the University. So his case that he

has obtained the documents by Regd. Post from the

University certainly could not be true. The genuine mark

list were produced before the enquiring authority. A

provisional certificate could not have been issued on the

basis of this.

14.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that in

any case the petitioner could not be said to have produced

false mark list and certificate deliberately for the purpose

of promotion. The Counsel for the petitioner has referred

to the decision in SEKAR VS. REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL reported in 2008 3 CTC

23 where it was held in a similar case that there was no

finding as to whether petitioner knowingly submitted false

mark sheet. The Hon”ble High Court observed that the

case regarding this is pending before the Criminal Court.

On the basis of this, the High Court has modified the order

of termination to one of reversal to the original post, subject

to result of the Criminal Case. In the present case, there is

no criminal case pending. It is clear from the facts of the

5862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

case that production of bogus mark lists and certificates

was a deliberated act on the part of the petitioner. He must

have been very much aware that he has not attended two

of the 2nd year examinations and for this very reason he

must also have been aware that a provisional degree

certificate could not be issued to him. So his action of

submitting the qualification documents before the bank is

a deliberate one itself.

15.

In the decision SEKAR VS DIRECTOR OF

MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHENNAI reported in 2009 4

CTC 158 it has been held that bogus certificate produced

has no bearing since the petitioner even otherwise

possessed the qualification for the post of Barber. This is

not the case here. If not for the bogus certificate, the

petitioner was not qualified to be promoted as Clerk.

16.

In the decision VENKATRAMAN VS. THE

GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE

TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHER CASES

decided on 18.07.2011 (unreported) wherein a similar issue

regarding bogus certificates were under consideration, the

Madras High Court has observed that the action has been

initiated after several years. It was also found that the

employer has failed to produce any material through which

they came to know that the employee had produced bogus

certificates. It was further observed that the unexplained

inaction on the part of the employer had allowed the

employee to continue in service for 6 years, by the time

the action had been initiated. The Court also observed

that there was no case for the employer that the workmen

who were Drivers had produced bogus Driving License

and do not possess the requisite experience for Driving.

The High Court has further stated that though the Court

is not justifying the alleged action of the employees in

producing the bogus certificates, the illegal way in which

things were dealt with by the employers and that too with

inordinate and unexplained delay has made them come to

the decision of setting aside the impugned order. It is

accordingly the Writ Appeals were allowed. In the present

case there was neither delay on the part of the Respondent

nor was there any impropriety or illegality in the enquiry

held, nor is it a case where the petitioner could have been

promoted to the post even without the bogus certificates

in question.

17.

Lastly, the petitioner’s counsel has also referred to

the decision in GUNASEKARAN VS. DIRECTOR OF

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, CHENNAI decided on 26.07.2013

in Writ Petition No. 14217 of 2007 (unreported). It was a

case where a bogus SSLC examination Certificate was

produced. The case of the petitioner was that he had

appeared for the examination through a Tutorial Centre,

that the Centre had informed him that he has passed SSLC

and had also handed over the certificate to him informing

him that it was obtained from the Director of Government

Examination. It was found that there is no evidence to the

effect that the petitioner had created the false certificate

or had produced the certificate knowing fully well that it

was a fake certificate. It was on the basis of this finding

the punishment of dismissal from service was set aside

and the concerned employee was reverted to his previous

post. As already stated, the petitioner who had absented

himself for two examinations was very much aware that he

is not eligible for a provisional certificate in respect of a

degree which he could not have passed for want of

attending some of the examinations. The misconduct

committed by the petitioner is not something pardonable.

That is why the respondent has imposed the punishment

of dismissal from service.

18.

In spite of the gravity of misconduct committed by

the petitioner I do not want to efface all the years of service

that he has acquired. Even on going through the counter

statement I find that the punishment originally proposed

was discharge from service with superannuation benefits.

However, subsequently, the punishment of dismissal seems

to have been awarded. I think the petitioner will be properly

punished even by discharge from service with

superannuation benefits. Accordingly, the punishment is

modified to one of discharge from service with

superannuation benefits.

18.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 22nd July, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management :

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

22.05.1989

Appointment order of the petitioner

Ex.W2

14.05.1991

ESLC Certificate

Ex.W3

1/1993

SSLC Certificate

Ex.W4

31.10.1997

U.G. Provisional Certificate

Ex.W5

01.04.1998

Proceedings of the Respondent

Ex.W6

26.02.2001

Show Cause Notice

Ex.W7

27.04.2001

Explanation

Ex.W8

03.10.2001

Charge Sheet

Ex.W9

01.04.2002

Representation

Ex.W10 03.07.2002

Proceeding of the Respondent

Ex.W11 01.11.2003

Defence Written Arguments

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5863

Ex.W12 03.01.2004

Proceeding of the Respondent

(Findings)

Ex.W13 08.01.2004

Order of Punishment

Ex.W14 24.01.2004

Final Order

Ex.W15 18.06.2004

Appeal

Ex.W16 26.08.2004

Proceeding of the Respondent

Ex.W17 20.09.2004

Representation

Ex.W18 08.11.2004

Appeal rejection order

Ex.W19 29.01.2005

Affidavit in WP No. 3834/2005

Ex.W20 11.03.2010

Order in WP No. 3834/2005

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

03.10.2001

Charge Sheet filed by the

Respondent

Ex.M2

23.08.2001

Exhibit M-1 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic Enquiry

Ex.M3

21.10.1995

Exhibit M-2 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic enquiry

Ex.M4

25.10.1996

Exhibit M-3 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic enquiry

Ex.M5

16.10.1997

Exhibit M-4 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic Enquiry

Ex.M6

16.10.1997

Exhibit M-5 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic enquiry

Ex.M7

16.10.1997

Exhibit M-6 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic enquiry

Ex.M8

31.10.1997

Exhibit M-7 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic enquiry

Ex.M9

12.02.2001

Exhibit M-8 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic enquiry

Ex.M10 10.03.2000

Exhibit M-9 filed by the Respondent

in the domestic enquiry

Ex.M11 -

Proceedings of the domestic

enquiry

Ex.M12 01.01.2004

Findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex.M13 24.01.2004

Proceedings of the Disciplinary

Authority issued to the petitioner

Ex.M14 08.11.2004

Proceedings of the Appellate

Authority

Ex.M15 23.11.2011

Petition filed by the petitioner

before the Conciliation Officer

Ex.M16 14.02.2012

Counter filed by the Respondent

before the Conciliation Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2285-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 79@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@94@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O. 2285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2013)

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

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/08/2014.

[No. L-12011/94/2013-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/79/2013

Date : 21.07.2014.

Party No. 1 : The Asstt. General Manager,

Administrative Office,

State Bank of India, Region –I,

S.V. Patel Marg, Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2 : The Asstt. General Secretary,

State Bank Karmchari Sena,

C/o State Bank of India,

O & A Department,

Zonal Office, Kingsway, Nagpur,

Nagpur-440001

AWARD

(Dated: 21st July, 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 State Bank of India, Region-I and their

workman Shri S.N.Raut, for adjudication, as per letter No.

L-12011/94/2013-IR (B-I) dated 27.01.2014, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Region-I, Nagpur in denying claim of

5864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

conveyance allowance of Shri S.N. Raut, Senior

Assistant for travelling from 12.11.2009 to

30.11.2009,30.10.2010 & 08.12.2010 for attending the

jobs entrusted by the higher authorities is just fair

& legal ? To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?”

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 11.04.2014.

In spite of sufficient service of notice on the

petitioner, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. No

statement of claim was also filed on 11.04.2014. However,

in the interest of natural justice, the reference was

adjourned to 10.06.2014 and then to 21.07.2014 for filing of

the statement of claim. Inspite of such adjournments, the

petitioner neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim.

So, on 21.07.2014, the reference was closed and posted for

passing of the 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] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2286-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cM+ksnk jktLFkku

{ks=kh; xzkeh.k 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] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

23@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@08@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@11@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2014)

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

Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriye

Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/08/2014.

[No. L-12011/11/2014-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 23/2014

Reference No. L-12011/11/2014-IR(B-I)

dated : 19.3.2014

The Secretary

Rajasthan Gramin Bank Officers

Organization, 59, Patel Colony,

S.P.Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

V/s

The Chairman

Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriye Gramin Bank

Head Office, City Plaza, Vaishali Nagar,

Ajmer.

AWARD

27.6.2014

The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of sub-sections 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

**D;k izca/ku cM+ksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] iz/kku

dk;kZy; vtesj ds }kjk deZdkj vkj-,e-JhokLro ds

osru LohÑfr ,oa forj.k vf/kdkj dks cSad izca/ku ds }kjk

fcuk fdlh oS/k dkj.k ds fnukad 18&10&2013 ls okil

fy;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS \ ;fn ugha] rks

deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**

Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,

registered notices were sent to both the parties & case

was fixed for 20.6.2014 for filing statement of claim. Both

the parties have been served. Applicant side has received

the registered notice sent by tribunal on 25.4.2014.

Acknowledgement of registered notice from both the

parties has been received back & the same is available on

the record. None appeared on 20.6.2014 from either side.

The tribunal on its own motion adjourned the case in

interest of justice furnishing opportunity to the applicant

for filing statement of claim on 26.6.2014. On 26.6.2014

also applicant neither appeared nor any statement of claim

was filed on his behalf. None was present from the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5865

opposite party also. In above circumstances, no material

could be brought on record by the applicant for

adjudication of the reference order under consideration

on merits. It is pertinent to note that under the direction of

the Ministry dated 19.3.2014 also applicant failed to file

statement of claim on his own motion after receipt of

reference order although applicant’s place of residence as

given in residence is situated at Jaipur where tribunal is

existing. Notices were sent by tribunal for filing statement

of claim only when applicant suo-moto failed to file

statement of claim as per direction of the Ministry. In above

circumstance, further proceeding in the case was closed

& step for passing “No Claim Award” was taken by tribunal.

It appears that the applicant is not willing to contest the

case further, therefore, “No Claim Award” is passed in this

matter. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2287-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p Mh ,iQ lh

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] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@2012) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@60@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2012)

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

Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of HDFC Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/60/2012-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 87/2012

Reference No.L-12012/60/2012-IR(B-I) dated : 15.10.2012

Shri Mahendra Kumar

S/o Shri K. C. Gupta

R/o Hazari Ka Mohalla

Alwar.

V/s

The Branch manager

HDFC Bank Ltd.

Bhagat Singh Circle Branch

Alwar.

The managing Director

HDFC Bank Ltd.

HDFC Bank House, 2nd Floor,

Senapati Bhawan, Lower Parel,

Mumbai- 400013.

PRESENT :

For the Applicant

: Sh. Suresh Kashyap,

Advocate.

For the Non-applicants : Ex-parte.

AWARD

17.6.2014

The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of HDFC

Bank Ltd. In terminating the services of Shri

Mahendra Kumar w.e.f. 24.11.2010, is legal &

justified? To what relief Shri Mahendra Kumar Gupta

is entitled?”

According to Statement of Claim the allegation of

the applicant workman Sh. Mahendra Kumar in brief is

that on 1.10.2008 he was appointed in the establishment

of the respondent on the post of Sales Executive. It has

been further alleged that his designation was ‘Sales

Executive’ but he was working as a workman. His duty

was purely manual to open the account of customers &

make entries in the record & maintain the record. The above

mentioned work was carried out by the workman employing

his own hands. He was working like a clerk thus he is a

workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During his employment he

neither enjoyed the power of managerial capacity nor he

was involved in decision making independently. He was

only designated as Sales Executive but assigned the duties

of a clerk.

The nature of the duties of the applicant was

permanent & was available continuously for all the days.

The work was of regular nature which cannot be allowed

to be performed through a contractor or on contract basis

but the respondent appointed the applicant for fixed terms

to deprive him the capacity of a regular employee & enjoy

the consequential benefits existing with the post. Thus,

the manner of respondent in appointing the applicant is

nothing but an unfair labour practice which is impermissible

under the Industrial Disputes Act.

5866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The services of the applicant was terminated by the

respondent vide order dated 24.11.2010 w.e.f. close of the

office hours on 24.11.2010. The termination letter although

contained the mention of clause 11 of the terms of service

contract between applicant & the respondent which was

for a period of two years but much time of service was still

left to expire.

Prior to issue of termination letter respondent has

not given any show cause for termination of service hence

there is violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes

Act. After termination of the applicant new person has

been appointed because the character of the work is of

continuing nature. The work of the applicant was

thoroughly satisfactory & there was no complain against

with regard to his work & his record of service is very neat

& clean. The applicant had completed more than 240 days

service therefore, his services could not have been

terminated without reason or payment of one month’s

wage or notice u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The termination of the applicant is illegal &

unjustified. There is also violation of section 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act because there has been

new appointment in place of applicant.

After termination of service applicant raised

industrial dispute whereupon conciliation proceedings

took place but due to adamant attitude of the respondent

settlement did not take place & reference was made before

the tribunal for adjudication. Termination of applicant’s

service is in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G, 25-H & Rule

77 & 78 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is liable

to be set aside & applicant is entitled to be reinstated with

all consequential benefits. Applicant is unemployed since

the termination & has no source of income.

Notice were sent to opposite party & on 22.3.2013.

Sh. Yatish Agrawal, Area Manager were personally present

who has signed in the margin of the order-sheet dated

22.3.2013. According to order sheet dated 22.3.2013 he

sought time for filing vakalatnama therefore, it was ordered

by my learned predecessor that after filing of vakalatnama

copy of the statement of claim may be furnished to the

respondent. On 22.3.2013 next date 20.5.2013 was fixed for

filing vakalatnama by respondent but on 20.5.2013 the

opposite party did not appear & next date 22.7.2013 was

fixed. On 22.7.2013 & subsequent date 16.9.2013 both the

parties were absent hence next date 28.11.2013 was fixed.

On 28.11.2013 applicant was present & opposite party was

absent hence order was passed to proceed ex-parte against

the opposite party & case was fixed on 4.2.2013 for

recording ex-parte evidence of applicant. On 4.2.2013

Presiding Officer of this tribunal was absent hence

29.4.2014 was fixed for evidence. On 29.4.2014

documentary & affidavit in evidence was filed by applicant

which was taken on record & case was fixed for ex-parte

argument on 21.5.2013.

Applicant Sh. Mahendra Kumar has filed his affidavit

in evidence in support of his statement of claim. Along

with his affidavit he has filed following documentary

evidence which is part of affidavit:-

Ex-W-1- report of Regional Labour Commissioner (C),

Jaipur regarding failure of conciliation proceedings.

ii.

Ex-W-2- Fixed term contract dated 29.9.2002 between

applicant Sh. Mahendra Kumar Gupta &

management of HDFC Bank & fixed term contract

dated 1.10.2008 between applicant Sh. Mahendra

Kumar Gupta & management of HDFC Bank.

iii.

Ex-W-3- Application dated 9.5.2012 by applicant

Sh. Mahendra Kumar to Conciliation Officer for

initiation of conciliation proceedings.

iv.

Ex-W-4- Reply of management of HDFC Bank against

application of the applicant submitted before

Conciliation Officer.

Ex-W-5- Replication by applicant Sh. Mahendra

Kumar against Ex-W-4 reply of management.

vi.

Ex-W-6- Termination letter dated 24.11.2010 wherein

services of the applicant has been termination w.e.f.

24.11.2010.

Heard the ex-parte argument of the learned counsel

for the applicant & perused the record carefully.

10.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the

applicant that his services has been terminated by the

management without following the procedure prescribed

u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act & in violation of

Sections 25-G & 25-H & Rule 77 & 78 of the Industrial

Disputes Act hence he is entitled to be reinstated with all

consequential benefits. It has also been argued that

applicant was appointed on the post of Sales Executive

but in fact he was ‘Sales Executive’ only by name but he

worked in the respondent’s establishment as a workman

& never worked in managerial capacity hence he is a

‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

11.

In view of above argument it is necessary first to

consider whether the applicant is a workman as defined in

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Applicant was

admittedly appointed on the post of “Contract Sales

Executive” which means that his engagement as Sales

Executive was contractual & the first engagement was

from 1.10.2008 for two years & subsequent engagement

was from 1.10.2010 for a period of two years according to

Ex-W-2. The work which applicant was to performed with

the bank according to terms of contract has been given in

para 2 of the contract which reads as under:-

“2. During the engagement you shall devote the

whole of your time, attention and ability to the

business and affairs of the Bank and will use your

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5867

best endeavours to promote its interests. You shall

not during your employment hereunder, be

concerned or interested directly or indirectly in any

way in any business competing with or similar to

the business of the Bank and shall not have any

interest in any business other than that of the Bank

or accept remuneration in any other employment or

service whatsoever except that you may hold shares

or securities in any company which is quoted on a

recognised Stock Exchange or dealt in publicly and

in private family companies including the holding of

nominal directorship in such companies (subject to

compliance with the Personal Account Dealing

Section of the Ethical Standards and Compliance

Manual) and except also that you may be allowed to

accept remuneration and fees for the teaching and

lecturing work done outside office hours.”

12.

Further para 6 of contract dated 1.8.2008 reveals the

part of duties which the applicant had to perform as

mentioned below:-

“6. You will not during your engagement or

thereafter except in the proper course of your duties,

disclose any information concerning any of the

business or affairs of the Bank. Its subsidiaries or

its associated companies or of any of its customers

which may come to your Knowledge during the

course of your engagement or otherwise howsoever

and you will use your best endeavours to prevent

any such disclosure.”

Para 14 of the contact further provides that policies

and terms of services as applicable to applicant were to be

made available to him after joining but no such document

has been filed which provides further terms and conditions

of service.

13.

Content of para 2 & 6 clearly indicate that the

applicant was under an obligation to work & promote the

business of the bank to the best of his professional ability

& guard the information related to affair of the bank which

comes to his knowledge during course of the conduct of

the business of the bank & whose disclosure may be

detrimental to the business affair of the bank. In the para 1

of the affidavit it has been alleged by the applicant that

his work was like the work of a clerk & he was performing

the function of making entry into register & computer,

opening the account of the customers including

maintenance of the records of the account & he was not

assigned any managerial power. He could neither serve

any charge sheet nor appoint anyone or recommend for

the leave to someone. His entire work was manual & he

was assigned the post of Sales Executive with intention to

keep him away from enjoying the benefit of a workman. He

has also said that he is a workman within the meaning of

section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In para 1 of the

statement of claim he has said, “ 1. That the applicant was

appointed on 1.10.2008 in respondent establishment on

the post of Sales Executive but in fact he was only sales

executive by name but he worked in the respondent

establishment as a workman. His duty was purely manually

he had to open the accounts of customers by his own

hands and makes entries in the record and maintain the

record and he had to work by his own hands and his duty

work was like an employees as clerk so the applicant is

workman under 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Further,

applicant wants to state that he has not enjoyed with the

powers of managerial capacity nor he was in position to

take any decision independently so his designation as

Sales Executive only by name but duties assigned to him

were like a clerk.”

14.

From the above statements set out in statement of

claim & affidavit clearly reveal that an attempt has been

made by the applicant to bring himself within the definition

of ‘workman’ as provided u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. Here, it is important to take notice of the reply Ex-W-

4 furnished by opposite party before the Conciliation

Officer about the work assigned to applicant wherein it

has been alleged in para 2 that according to terms of

contract he was engaged as Contract Sales Executive &

was responsible for promotion of work & was expected to

perform his duties as per contract. He was functioning as

authorised person & representative from bank side to deal

with account opening of customer. It shall appear from the

above said statement by the management that the

management has admitted that he was assigned to deal

with the account opening of the customers. It cannot be

said that the function of the opening of the account of

customers is not a responsible function of the business

executive or the function of opening of the account of the

bank is the job of a workman. Dealing with opening of

account in bank is one of the most important business of

bank. This function in small branches are done by Branch

Manager himself and in major branches separate post of

managers have been created in the name of different types

of accounts e.g. Manager, saving account etc.

15.

Para 3 of the contract dated 29.9.2010 indicates that

as per terms of the contract the applicant was entitled to

receive a salary of Rs.11500 per month & conveyance

allowance of Rs.2650/-. Beside this he was also entitled to

be paid incentives based on his performance as per

applicable policy of the bank. There is no provision for

such incentives to a clerk in the bank.

16.

Para 2(s)(i) to (iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act

provides provision about the persons who are not a

‘workman’ & the relevant para IV is as under:-

“(iv). Who, being employed in a supervisory

capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten thousand

rupees) per mensem or exercises, either by the nature

of the duties attached to the office or by reason of

the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature.”

5868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

From the above definition & salary of the applicant,

the post & nature of duties he is performing, it is clear &

unambiguous that the case of the applicant is unfit to be

covered within the definition of a ‘workman’ as provided

u/s 2(s) of the Act.

18.

As far as the condition requisite for termination of

the services of the applicant is concerned it has been

alleged & argued that section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act has not been complied. From the termination

letter it appears that termination has been made as per

provision of clause 11 of the contract of service between

the applicant & the HDFC Bank. The termination letter

reads as under:-

HDFC Bank Limited

Human Resources Division

HDFC Bank House, 2nd Floor,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013

Tel.: 66521000

Fax: 24904016.

Strictly Private and Confidential

November 24, 2010

Mahendra Gupta

Emp. Code : CM14160

Bhagat Singh Circle

Termination Letter

Dear Mahendra,

Your Contractual services are terminated with effect

from close of office hours on November, 24,2010.

As per Clause 11 of your contract letter dated

October 1, 2008 you will be paid 30 days salary in lieu of

notice due to you.

Regards,

For HDFC Bank Ltd.

(Signature illegible)

Anuj Mathur

Senior Vice President- Human Resources

Although, no one has appeared & filed any W.S. to

contest the statement of claim by opposite party but It is

pertinent to note that letter of termination does not contain

any reason but representation by management Ex-w-4

before the Conciliation Officer indicates that during the

tenure of applicant it was reported that he had opened

multiple account of his family members to mop-up the

numbers which is against the laid down norms of the bank.

It has been further alleged that such action amounts to

violation of laid down KYC norms beside tarnishing the

image & credibility of the bank in the eyes of the customers.

19.

Clause 11 of the contract letter provides as

mentioned below:-

“11. This contract may be terminated by either party

giving to the other not less than one month’s and

not more than thirty day’s prior written notice to

that effect expiring at any time after the

commencement of your service hereunder or by the

Bank paying you one month’s basic salary in lieu of

notice (wherein before or after such notice of

termination is given by you). The Bank shall be

entitled, whether such notice of termination is given

by you or the Bank to require you to proceed on

leave at the time of receiving or giving such notice

of termination or at any time thereafter. The unavailed

leave may be adjusted against the notice period at

the discretion of the management. The Bank shall

also be entitled to terminate your services forthwith

by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice.”

The above content of para 11 of the contract of

service indicates that there is an agreement between the

applicant & the employer for forthwith termination of

service by paying one month’s salary as noted in the

termination letter hence it cannot be said that procedure

was not followed before termination.

20.

As far as application of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act is concerned it has been held in 2006 Supreme

Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat,

Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh, Respondent, by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgement,

“…………. To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the

workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that

there exists relationship of employer and employee; that

he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the

Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an

industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have

put in not less than one year of continuous service as

defined by Section 25-B under the employer. These

conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is

missing the provisions of Section 25-F will not be attracted.

To get relief from the court the workman has to establish

that he has right to continue in service and that his service

has been terminated without complying with the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three

conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a

valid retrenchment, namely:-

(i)

one month’s clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has

been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of

such notice;

(ii)

Payment of retrenchment compensation which shall

be equivalent to 15 days’ average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof, in excess of six months;

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5869

(iii)

A notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.”

21.

The above said position clearly indicates that as the

applicant has failed in his claim to be a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act

hence, provision of section 25-F is not attracted. It is also

important to mention that to prove the continuous service

of 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of

termination except the affidavit applicant has not filed any

record of attendance or payment of salary to make an

assessment on this point. He has also not produced in

evidence any fellow worker in support of this contention.

From the above fact & circumstances, it is clear that benefit

of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be

extended in the case of applicant.

22.

As far as the violation of section 25-G & 25-H is

concerned the applicant has alleged in para 6 of the

statement of claim that new person has been engaged in

violation of section 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes

Act but he has not given any detail of the person who has

been employed after his termination. Similarly, no evidence

has been laid about the violation of principle of ‘last come

first go’ in the matter of retrenchment. Statement of claim

also lacks detail on this point.

23.

In view of above discussions, the applicant has

failed to prove that action of the management in terminating

the services was in violation of section 25-F , 25-G & 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it is held that

action of the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. in terminating

the services of Sh. Mahendra Kumar w.e.f. 24.11.2010 is

not illegal & unjustified. Resultantly, the workman is not

entitled to any relief. The reference under adjudication is

answered accordingly.

24.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2288-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u 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; pSUubZ ds iapkV (27@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@63@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2013)

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

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Indian Bank, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/08/2014.

[No. L-12011/63/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Friday, the 18th July, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 27/2013

(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 Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

The Deputy General Secretary

: 1st Party/

Indian Bank Employees Union

Petitioner Union

No. 6, Moore Street, Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

AND

The General Manager

: 2nd Party/

Indian Bank, Zonal Office

Respondent

359, Dr. Nanjappa Road

Coimbatore-641018

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

: Sri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran,

Petitioner Union

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocate

Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/63/2012-IR (B-II)

dated 11.02.2013 referred the Industrial Dispute between

the above referred parties for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian

Bank, Zonal Office, Coimbatore regarding imposition

of the punishment of “Be brought down to a lower

stage in the scale of pay one stage upon S/Sri A.

Muthukrishnan, Sr. No. 54406, N. Soundaramuthu,

Sr. No. 54435, N.M. Subramanian, Sr. No. 27391, A.

Panneer Selvaraj, Sr. No. 54022, C.A. Prakash Babu,

Sr. No. 54459 and V.E. Annamalai, Sr. No. 55382,

Clerks, Tiruppur Branch, is legal and justified? What

relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”

5870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 27/2013 and sent notices to both

sides. The petitioner has entered appearance through

Authorized Representative and Respondent through

counsel and filed their claim and counter statement

respectively. After the counter statement was filed, the

petitioner has filed rejoinder.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the

petitioner in brief are these :

The petitioner has raised the dispute regarding the

action taken by the Respondent awarding punishment of

bringing down the pay by one stage on 6 employees named

in the schedule of reference working in Tiruppur branch

of the bank. All these employees were discharging their

duties faithfully, sincerely and efficiently. While they are

at Tiruppur branch, certain frauds were perpetrated by the

Jewel Appraiser of the Branch who managed to avail

jewel loans by pledging spurious jewels in the names

of various customers. After this fact was detected, the

employees in question were issued with Charge Sheets

alleging that they had debited withdrawal slip / cheque

and issued token for cash withdrawal even though the

borrowers had not come to the branch in person and

without verifying the identity of the presenter of the

instrument and they had made cash payment without

verifying the identity of the recipients. On enquiry the

Enquiry Officer filed report finding the employees guilty

and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment

of bringing down the pay by one stage on the employees.

The Tiruppur branch is one with much work pressure.

The branch administration had reposed much confidence

on the Jewel Appraiser and he was given a free hand. The

staff also in good faith believed the Appraiser and carried

out certain actions in trust and belief. Even though the

administration has brought out guidelines and procedures

to be meticulously carried out this will involve

considerable time. The deviation from the procedure on

the part of the staff is because of the special circumstances

in the branch administration. The action of the Respondent

in imposing the punishment is illegal and unjustified and

also a case of victimization, discrimination and unfair labour

practice. An order may be passed holding that the

punishment is illegal and unjustified and directing the

Respondent to alter the punishment suitably.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

When the Inspection Team carried out inspection at

Tiruppur branch from 31.05.2010, it was noticed that out

of the 474 packets of pledged jewels, 21 contained spurious

jewels. The jewels were appraised by the Jewel Appraiser,

Damodaran. It was observed that the challans were in the

handwriting of Damodaran and signatures in the challans

were found forged. It was noticed that the proceeds of the

jewel loans have been credited to the SB A/c of the

borrowers and withdrawn through the signed withdrawal

slip obtained in blank and later filled up by the Appraiser

in his own handwriting. In some cases, the withdrawal

slips have been filled up by the Appraiser and the

signatures of the borrowers have been forged. Cash

payments have been made by the Cashiers without

verifying the identity of the payees. So disciplinary action

has been taken against the concerned 6 Clerks who were

working in Cash Section of Tiruppur branch during the

relevant period. An enquiry was conducted separately

against the 6 employees and they were found guilty of the

charges. After issuing show cause notice proposing

punishment, their pay was lowered by one stage. The case

would not justify exercise of power under Section-11A of

the Industrial Disputes Act. The findings are not perverse.

So there is no scope to interfere with the punishment.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the

allegations made in the Counter Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of documents

marked as Exts.W1 to Ext.W117 and Exts.M1 to Ext.M18.

No oral evidence was adduced on either side.

The point for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the management in imposing

the punishment of bringing down the pay to a lower

stage by one stage upon the employees named in

the schedule of reference is legal and justified?

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioners are

entitled?

The Points

The pay of the concerned employees was brought

down to a lower stage in the scale of pay by one stage on

account of the alleged lapses and negligence on their part

while disbursing jewel loans to certain borrowers. The

inspection team of the Respondent who conducted the

inspection had found that 21 packets of pledged jewels

contained spurious jewels. The Appraiser of Tiruppur

branch in which the incident had happened as found

responsible for the fraud. The Respondent had found that

the incident occurred because of the lapses on the part of

the concerned employees. They had disbursed cash by

withdrawal slip or cheque as the case may be without

verifying the identity of the presenter and even without

the borrowers coming to the branch in person.

There is no case in the Claim Statement that the

employees have not committed the lapses alleged against

them. On the other hand, by way of justification of their

lapsers, it is stated in the Claim Statement that there was

pressure of work at the branch and it would not have been

possible to carry out the guidelines and procedures

meticulously. It is further stated that the employees had

believed the Appraiser and carried out certain action in

trust and belief.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5871

10.

The initial contention that has been raised by the

counsel for the Respondent is that it is not a case where

Section-11A of the Industrial Disputes Act could be

invoked and therefore this Tribunal is not competent to

consider the validity of the action taken by the Respondent

in the absence of any perversity or victimization. Under

Section-11A of the Industrial Disputes Act the Tribunal is

competent to set aside the order of the employer only if it

is a case of discharge or dismissal. The counsel for the

Respondent has referred to the decision in CASHEW

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. LABOUR

COURT, KOLLAM reported in 1999 1 KLJ 406 and 2011 1

LLJ 529 in this respect. While considering the case of

reversion of an employee the Kerala High Court has held

in the decision referred to earlier that if enquiry is fair and

proper and in the absence of any allegations of victimization

or unfair labour practice the Labour Court has no power to

interfere with the punishment imposed. The Court has held

that though Section-11A of the ID Act gives ample power

to the Tribunal to re-appraise the evidence adduced in

enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the

employer in imposing punishment, this applies only in the

case of dismissal or discharge of a workman. This is the

dictum laid down by the High Court, Madras in the Bank

of India case referred to above also.

11.

Definitely the case on hand will not come under

Section-11A of the ID Act, it being not a case of dismissal

or discharge of the employee. So this Tribunal is not

competent to appraise the evidence in the enquiry

proceedings.

12.

In case Section-11A is not applicable what is the

procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal? Is the Tribunal

competent to interfere with the punishment imposed on

the employees in question? The matter is to be considered

as if the Section-11A is not in the statute book at all. The

position in such circumstances has been laid down by the

Apex Court in the decision in INDIAN IRON AND STEEL

COMPANY LTD. VS. THE WORKMEN AND OTHERS

reported in AIR 1958 SC 130 and has been reiterated in the

decision by WORKMEN OF M/S FIRESTONE TYRE AND

RUBBER COMPANY OF INDIA (P) LTD. VS.

MANAGEMENT AND OTHERS reported in 1973 1 SCC

813. In the later decision the Apex Court has reiterated the

position that when a proper enquiry has been held by an

employer and the finding of misconduct is a plausible

conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said

enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment

over the decisions of the employer as an appellate body.

The interference with the decision will be justified only

when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or

the management is guilty of victimization, unfair labour

practice or acting malafidely.

13.

In the present case, it is not much disputed by the

employees concerned that there were latches on their part.

So there is no doubt that the finding of the Enquiry Officer

is the only plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence

in the enquiry and not a perverse one. So in the normal

course, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment

over the decision of the Respondent.

14.

The next question to be considered is whether the

Respondent is guilty of victimization, unfair labour practice

or has acted in a malafide manner. In the Claim Statement,

there is a contention that the management has resorted to

victimization, unfair labour practice and has been behaving

in a discriminatory manner. However, when the facts of

the case are taken into account, there is no room for any

such contention at all. Though there is a plea in the Claim

Statement, effort has not been made to establish that there

was victimization, discrimination or unfair labour practice.

In view of the apparent latches on the part of the

employees, the Respondent has imposed the punishment

of bringing down the pay to a lower stage in the scale of

pay by one stage. This by itself is not victimization but

only the consequence of the latches on the part of the

concerned employees. This cannot be treated as

discrimination or unfair labour practice.

15.

It is also relevant to refer to the decisions in ROYAL

PRINTING WORKS VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

MADRAS reported in 1959 2 MLJ 619 which was taken

note of by the Apex Court. In the decision in DAVALSAB

VS. NORTHWEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT

CORPORATION reported in 2013 10 SCC 185. In the

Madras decision it has been held that carelessness can be

often been productive of more harm than deliberate

wickedness or malevolence. It has also been held that

misplaced sympathy can be of great evil and carelessness

and indifference to duty are not the high roads to individual

or national prosperity. The above observation has been

emphasized by the Supreme Court in DAVALSAB case.

16.

It is the carelessness of the concerned employees

that resulted in the Respondent giving several loans on

the basis of spurious jewels. This could have been avoided

if they were careful. This Court does not have the power

to interfere with the punishment imposed by the

Management in the absence of any victimization or unfair

labour practice.

17.

The concerned employees are not entitled to any

relief. The reference is answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 18th July, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

5872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

03.02.2011

Charge Sheet issued to Sri VE

Annamalai, Sr. No. 55382

Ex.W2

03.02.2011

Charge Sheet issued to Sri A.

Muthukrishnan, Sr. No. 54406

Ex.W3

03.02.2011

Charge Sheet issued to Sri A.

Panneer Selvaraj, Sr. No. 54022

Ex.W4

03.02.2011

Charge Sheet issued to Sri CA

Prakash Babu, Sr. No. 54459

Ex.W5

03.02.2011

Charge Sheet issued to Sri N.

Soundaramuthu, Sr. No. 54435

Ex.W6

03.02.2011

Charge Sheet issued to Sri N.M.

Subramanian, Sr. No. 27391

Ex.W7

18.02.2011

Reply by Sri VE Annamalai

Ex.W8

18.02.2011

Reply by Sri A. Muthukrishnan

Ex.W9

18.02.2011

Reply by Sri A. Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W10

18.02.2011

Reply by CA Prakash Babu

Ex.W11

18.02.2011

Reply by Sri N. Soundaramuthu

Ex.W12

18.02.2011

Reply by N.M. Subramanian

Ex.W13

05.05.2011

Proceedings of the Departmental

Enquiry held against Sri VE

Annamalai

Ex.W14

05.05.2011

Proceedings of the Departmental

Enquiry held against Sri A.

Muthukrishnan

Ex.W15

05.05.2011

Proceedings of the Departmental

Enquiry held against Sri CA

Prakash Babu

Ex.W16

05.05.2011

Proceedings of the Departmental

Enquiry held against Sri A.

Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W17

05.05.2011

Proceedings of the Departmental

Enquiry held against Sri N.

Soundaramuthu

Ex.W18

05.05.2011

Proceedings of the Departmental

Enquiry held against Sri N.M.

Subramanian

Ex.W19

05.05.2011

List of Management Exhibits and

Management Witnesses in the

enquiry held against Sri VE

Annamalai

Ex.W20

05.05.2011

List of Management Exhibits and

Management Witnesses in the

enquiry held against Sri A.

Muthukrishnan

Ex.W21

05.05.2011

List of Management Exhibits and

Management Witnesses in the

enquiry held against Sri A.

Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W22

05.05.2011

List of Management Exhibits and

Management Witnesses in the

enquiry held against Sri CA

Prakash Babu

Ex.W23

05.05.2011

List of Management Exhibits and

Management Witnesses in the

enquiry held against Sri N.

Soundaramuthu

Ex.W24

05.05.2011

List of Management Exhibits and

Management Witnesses in the

enquiry held against Sri N.M.

Subramanian

Ex.W25

26.05.2011

Letter from the enquiring

authority enclosing the written

brief submitted by the Presenting

Officer

Ex.W26

23.05.2011

Written arguments of the

Presenting Officer pertaining to

Sri VE Annamalai

Ex.W27

23.05.2011

Written arguments of the

Presenting Officer pertaining to

Sri A. Muthukrishnan

Ex.W28

23.05.2011

Written arguments of the

Presenting Officer pertaining to

Sri A. Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W29

23.05.2011

Written arguments of the

Presenting Officer pertaining to

Sri CA Prakash Babu

Ex.W30

23.05.2011

Written arguments of the

Presenting Officer pertaining to

Sri N. Soundaramuthu

Ex.W31

23.05.2011

Written arguments of the

Presenting Officer pertaining to

Sri N.M. Subramanian

Ex.W32

24.06.2011

Covering letter by the Defence

Representative enclosing the

summing up

Ex.W33

24.06.2011

Summing up pertaining to Sri VE

Annamalai

Ex.W34

24.06.2011

Summing up pertaining to Sri A.

Muthukrishnan

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5873

Ex.W35

24.06.2011

Summing up pertaining to Sri A.

Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W36

24.06.2011

Summing up pertaining to Sri CA

Prakash Babu

Ex.W37

24.06.2011

Summing up pertaining to Sri N.

Soundaramuthu

Ex.W38

24.06.2011

Summing up pertaining to Sri N.M.

Subramanian

Ex.W39

11.08.2011

Letter by the Disciplinary

Authority enclosing the Enquiry

Officer’s findings dated 08.07.2011

pertaining to Sri VE Annamalai

Ex.W40

11.08.2011

Letter by the Disciplinary

Authority enclosing the Enquiry

Officer’s findings dated 08.07.2011

pertaining

Sri

Muthukrishnan

Ex.W41

11.08.2011

Letter by the Disciplinary

Authority enclosing the Enquiry

Officer’s findings dated 08.07.2011

pertaining to Sri A. Paneer Selvaraj

Ex.W42

11.08.2011

Letter by the Disciplinary

Authority enclosing the Enquiry

Officer’s findings dated 08.07.2011

pertaining to Sri CA Prakash Babu

Ex.W43

11.08.2011

Letter by the Disciplinary

Authority enclosing the Enquiry

Officer’s findings dated 08.07.2011

pertaining

Sri

Soundaramuthu

Ex.W44

11.08.2011

Letter by the Disciplinary

Authority enclosing the Enquiry

Officer’s findings dated 08.07.2011

pertaining

Sri

N.M.

Subramanian

Ex.W45

25.08.2011

Reply by Sri A. Muthukrishnan

to the Enquiry Officer’s findings

Ex.W46

25.08.2011

Reply by Sri A. Panneer Selvaraj

to the Enquiry Officer’s findings

Ex.W47

25.08.2011

Reply by Sri CA Prakash Babu to

the Enquiry Officer’s findings

Ex.W48

25.08.2011

Reply by Sri N. Soundaramuthu

to the Enquiry Officer’s findings

Ex.W49

25.08.2011

Reply by Sri N.M. Subramanian

to the Enquiry Officer’s findings

Ex.W50

25.08.2011

Reply by Sri A. Muthukrishnan

to the Enquiry Officer’s findings

Ex.W51

08.09.2011

Second Show Cause by the

Disciplinary Authority to Sri A.

Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W52

08.09.2011

Second Show Cause by the

Disciplinary Authority to Sri CA

Prakash Babu

Ex.W53

08.09.2011

Second Show Cause by the

Disciplinary Authority to Sri N .

Soundaramuthu

Ex.W54

08.09.2011

Second Show Cause by the

Disciplinary Authority to Sri N.M.

Subramanian

Ex.W55

20.09.2011

Reply to Second Show Cause by

Sri A. Muthukrishnan

Ex.W56

20.09.2011

Reply to Second Show Cause by

the Disciplinary Authority to Sri

A. Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W57

15.09.2011

Reply to Second Show Cause by

the Disciplinary Authority to Sri

CA Prakash Babu

Ex.W58

15.09.2011

Reply to Second Show Cause by

the Disciplinary Authority to Sri

N. Soundaramuthu

Ex.W59

15.09.2011

Reply to Second Show Cause by

the Disciplinary Authority to Sri

N.M. Subramanian

Ex.W60

22.09.2011

Proceedings of personal hearing

of Sri A. Muthukrishnan

Ex.W61

22.09.2011

Proceedings of personal hearing

of Sri A. Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W62

22.09.2011

Proceedings of personal hearing

of Sri CA Prakash Babu

Ex.W63

22.09.2011

Proceedings of personal hearing

of Sri N. Soundaramuthu

Ex.W64

22.09.2011

Proceedings of personal hearing

of Sri NM Subramanian

Ex.W65

28.09.2011

Orders of the Disciplinary

Authority

imposing

the

punishment of “Be brought down

to lower stage in the scale of pay

by one stage” on Sri A.

Muthukrishnan

Ex.W66

28.09.2011

Orders of the Disciplinary

Authority

imposing

the

punishment of “Be brought down

to lower stage in the scale of pay

by one stage” on Sri A. Panneer

Selvaraj

Ex.W67

28.09.2011

Orders of the Disciplinary

Authority

imposing

the

punishment of “Be brought down

to lower stage in the scale of pay

by one stage” on Sri CA Prakash

Babu

5874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W68

28.09.2011

Orders of the Disciplinary

Authority

imposing

the

punishment of “Be brought down

to lower stage in the scale of pay

by one stage” on Sri N.

Soundaramuthu

Ex.W69

28.09.2011

Orders of the Disciplinary

Authority

imposing

the

punishment of “Be brought down

to lower stage in the scale of pay

by one stage” on Sri NM

Subramanian

Ex.W70

02.11.2011

Appeal submitted by Sri CA

Prakash Babu to the Appellate

Authority

Ex.W71

02.11.2011

Appeal submitted by Sri A.

Panneer Selvaraj to the Appellate

Authority

Ex.W72

30.12.2011

Orders of the Appellate Authority

to Sri A. Muthukrishnan

Ex.W73

29.12.2011

Orders of the Appellate Authority

to Sri A. Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W74

29.12.2011

Orders of the Appellate Authority

to Sri CA Prakash Babu

Ex.W75

29.12.2011

Orders of the Appellate Authority

to Sri N. Soundaramuthu

Ex.W76

29.12.2011

Orders of the Appellate Authority

to Sri NM Subramanian

Ex.W77

18.02.2012

Letter from the Indian Bank

Employees Union to the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner, Madurai

raising the dispute

Ex.W78

02.05.2012

Reply submitted by the bank’s

administration

Ex.W79

04.05.2012

Rejoinder submitted by the Union

Ex.W80

06.06.2012

Reply to the rejoinder by the

Bank’s administration

Ex.W81

29.06.2010

Investigation Report in respect of

the Jewel Loan fraud submitted

by Sri N. Ravi, Vigilance Officer

Ex.W82

29.06.2010

Letter submitted by V. Tamilkodi

Ex.W83

29.06.2010

Letter submitted by V. Santhamani

Ex.W84

23.06.2010

Interrogation statement obtained

from R. Santhakumar

Ex.W85

22.06.2010

Interrogation statement obtained

from K. Senthil Kumar

Ex.W86

22.06.2010

Interrogation statement obtained

from K. Marimuthu

Ex.W87

22.06.2010

Interrogation statement obtained

from VE Annamalai

Ex.W88

22.06.2010

Interrogation statement obtained

from SS Rajan

Ex.W89

22.06.2010

Interrogation statement obtained

from A. Panneer Selvaraj

Ex.W90

09.06.2010

Letter from S. Damodaran, Jewel

Appraiser, Tiruppur Branch

Ex.W91

09.06.2010

Interrogation statement obtained

from S. Damodaran, Jewel

Appraiser, Tiruppur Branch

Ex.W92

12.06.2009

Loan Application of R. Santhosh

Kumar

Ex.W93

12.06.2009

Loan Application of V. Santhamani

Ex.W94

12.06.2009

Loan Application of V. Tamilkodi

Ex.W95

12.06.2009

Loan Application of V. Santhamani

Ex.W96

12.06.2009

Loan Application of V. Tamilkodi

Ex.W97

12.06.2009

Loan Application of R. Santhosh

Kumar

Ex.W98

12.06.2009

Loan Application of K. Senthil

Kumar

Ex.W99

12.06.2009

Loan Application of V. Santhamani

Ex.W100 12.06.2009

Loan Application of V. Tamilkodi

Ex.W101 12.06.2009

Loan Application of P. Suresh

Ex.W102 12.06.2009

Loan Application of K. Senthil

Kumar

Ex.W103 12.06.2009

Loan Application of K. Senthil

Kumar

Ex.W104 12.06.2009

Loan Application of P. Suresh

Ex.W105 12.06.2009

Loan Application of V. Santhamani

Ex.W106 12.06.2009

Loan Application of P. Suresh

Ex.W107 12.06.2009

Loan Application of P. Suresh

Ex.W108 12.06.2009

Loan Application of K. Marimuthu

Ex.W109 12.09.2009

Loan Application of R. Santhosh

Kumar

Ex.W110 23.09.2009

Loan Application of K. Marimuthu

Ex.W111 22.10.2009

Loan Application of K. Marimuthu

Ex.W112 12.11.2009

Loan Application of K. Senthil

Kumar

Ex.W113 18.11.2009

Loan Application of V. Santhamani

Ex.W114 24.11.2009

Loan Application of K. Senthil

Kumar

Ex.W115 29.01.2010

Loan Application of V. Santhamani

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5875

Ex.W116 18.02.2010

Loan Application of K. Senthil

Kumar

Ex.W117 19.03.2004

Letter from Syndicate Bank,

Industrial Relation Division, Head

Office, Manipal

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

10.06.2010

Investigation report of M.

Pothiraj, Sr. Manager and Mr. V.

Ayyaswamy, Manager

Ex.M2

16.07.2010

Show Cause Memo issued to VE

Annamalai

Ex.M3

06.08.2010

Reply to VE Annamalai to Show

Cause Memo

Ex.M4

16.07.2010

Show Cause Memo to A.

Muthukrishnan

Ex.M5

06.08.2010

Reply of A. Muthukrishnan to

Show Cause Memo

Ex.M6

16.07.20.10

Show Cause Memo to A. Panneer

Selvaraj

Ex.M7

06.08.2010

Reply of A. Panneer Selvaraj to

Show Cause Memo

Ex.M8

16.07.2010

Show Cause Memo to CA Prakash

Babu

Ex.M9

06.08.2010

Reply to CA Prakash Babu to the

Memo

Ex.M10

16.07.2010

Show Cause Memo to N.

Soundaramuthu

Ex.M11

11.08.2010

Reply of N. Soundaramuthu to

Show Cause Memo

Ex.M12

16.07.2010

Show Cause Memo to N.M.

Subramanian

Ex.M13

06.08.2010

Reply of N.M. Subramanian to the

Show Cause Memo

Ex.M14

25.08.2011

Reply by VE Annamalai to the

Enquiry Officer’s findings

Ex.M15

08.09.2011

Second Show Cause Notice by

D.A. to VE Annamalai

Ex.M16

20.09.2011

Reply to Show Cause Notice by

VE Annamalai

Ex.M17

22.09.2011

Proceedings of the personal

hearing dated 22.09.2011 of VE

Annamalai

before

the

Disciplinary Authority

Ex.M18

28.09.2011

Order of Disciplinary Authority

imposing punishment to VE

Annamalai, “be brought down to

lower stage in the scale of pay by

one stage”.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2289-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] bykgkckn 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;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 74@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@71@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2004)

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

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Allahbad Bank, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/71/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 74/2004

Ref. No. L-12012/71/2004-IR (B-II) dated: 19.07.2004

BETWEEN :

Shri Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Jag Mohan Agarwal

Preet Vihar Colony Behind Shanker Flour Mill

Dhushalpur Road, Majholi Distt.

Moradabad (U.P.)

AND

The Regional Manager

Allahabd Bank

Regional Office, Huley Garden, Jangi Road

Mirzapur (UP) –

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/71/2004-IR (B-II) dated:

19.07.2004 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 Praveen Kumar

S/o Sh. Jag Mohan Agarwal, Preet Vihar Colony Behind

Shanker Flour Mill, Dhushalpur Road, Majholi Distt.,

Moradabad and the Regional Manager, Allahabd Bank,

Regional Office, Huley Garden, Jangi Road, Mirzapur (UP)

for adjudication.

5876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER

THE

ACTION

THE

MANAGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD BANK IN

IMPOSING A PENALTY OF REMOVAL FROM

BANK’S SERVICE W.E.F. 16.12.2002 UPON SHRI

PRAVEEN KUMAR IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?

IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF HE IS ENTITLED TO?”

It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Praveen Kumar was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier at

Chapki Branch of the Bank when he was placed under

suspension vide order dated 09.10.2000 and subsequently,

was issued a major penalty charge sheet dated 31.03.2001

for alleged gross misconduct regarding embezzlement. Shri

K.R. Sinha was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted

his enquiry report on 04.04.2002 before the disciplinary

authority with finding that the charges leveled against the

workman were found to be proved. The Disciplinary

Authority, on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer,

issued a Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2002 to the

workman and proposed the punishment of ‘Removal from

the service of the Bank with superannuation benefits’ and

after granting an opportunity for personal hearing inflicted

the said punishment vide his order dated 16.12.2002. The

aggrieved workman preferred an appeal, which was rejected

by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.06.2003.

It has been alleged by the workman that there was

flagrant denial of natural justice to the workman in course

of the enquiry, in as much as he was not provided certain

documents, requested by him during the course of enquiry

which cause prejudice to him; therefore, the domestic

enquiry is liable to be vitiated and the action of Allahabad

Bank in dismissing the workman from the service of the

Bank vide order dated 16.12.2002 be declared unjust, unfair

and illegal and the workman be reinstated with full back

wages and other consequential benefits.

The management of the Bank in its written statement

has denied the allegations of the workman’s union and

has defended its domestic proceedings with submission

that the workman had been afforded all reasonable

opportunity given under rules; and the principles of natural

justice were fully complied with; hence, there is no anomaly

with it; and accordingly, has prayed that domestic enquiry

proceedings conducted by it may be upheld and the action

of the Bank vide order dated 16.12.2002 be declared just,

fair and legal without any benefit to the workman

concerned.

After completion of the pleadings of the parties,

following preliminary issues were framed in the presence

of the parties vide order dated 12.04.2005:

(i)

Whether suspension order charge sheet,

appointment of enquiry officer and order of

punishment was issued by the incompetent officer;

(ii)

Whether the domestic enquiry held against the

concerned workman was not fair and proper as

alleged by the worker in his pleadings.

The parties were called upon to adduce their

evidence on preliminary issues. The parties filed

documents in support of their respective case and

adduced oral evidence. The workman examined himself;

whereas the management examined Shri K.K. Sinha, the

Enquiry Officers in support of their case. The parties

availed opportunity to cross-examine each other’s

witnesses. Both the parties forwarded oral arguments on

preliminary issues.

After hearing the parties’ authorized representatives

of the parties and going through entire material available

on record, following orders were passed on preliminary

issues vide order dated 21.02.2007:

“On careful consideration of entire evidence, I come

to the conclusion that suspension order, charge

sheet, appointment of enquiry officer, order of

punishment is issued by the Competent Disciplinary

Authority. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in

favour of the management.

………………………….....……………………………

………..............................……………

In the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that

the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles

of natural justice. Non supply of investigation report

does not result in miss-carriage of justice.

Both the preliminary issues are accordingly decided

against the worker.

Fixed 22nd March, 2007 for evidence of the parties.

Worker is directed to file affidavit of its witnesses

on the date fixed after delivering the copies thereof

to the management opposite party.”

After the above order was passed, the opposite party

filed an application, C-57 for modification of order dated

21.02.2007; wherein the management cited case laws i.e.

the workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company

vs. Management 1973 Lab I.C. 851 (SC), K.S.R.T.C.,

Bangalore vs. Jhon D’Souza 1995 Lab I.C. 119 (Karn.) and

Bank of Baroda vs. G. Sriram & another 2003 Lab I.C. 2077

(Andhra) wherein it was stated to be held that when Labour

Court/Tribunal on preliminary issues regarding fairness

of domestic enquiry comes to conclusion that such enquiry

was fairly held, its jurisdiction is narrowed down and no

further evidence needs be required regarding merits of the

charges and the Labour Court/Tribunal would have no

jurisdiction to record further evidence. Such procedure is

to be adopted when domestic enquiry is vitiated.

On above application of the management, the order

dated 21.02.2007 was rectified vide order dated 30.10.2007,

which reads as under:

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5877

“In the circumstances from the laws cited by the

opposite party I have no other alternate then to

modify my order 21.2.07 and I modify it as follows:

FOR “Fixed 22.3.07 2007 for evidence of the parties.

Worker is directed to file affidavit of its

witnesses on the date fixed after delivering

the copies thereof to the management

opposite party.”

READ “Fixed 22.3.07 for hearing of the parties under

section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947. Worker is

directed to argue on the quantum of

punishment.”

Admittedly, this Tribunal vide its order dated

21.02.2007 disposed of both the preliminary issues in favour

of the management and thereafter fixed next date for

workman’s evidence; and on objection from the

management vide application C-57, the order dated

21.02.2007 was rectified, in view of law laid down by

Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts in workmen of M/s

Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company vs. Management 1973

Lab I.C. 851 (SC), K.S.R.T.C., Bangalore vs. Jhon D’Souza

1995 Lab I.C. 119 (Karn.) and Bank of Baroda vs. G. Sriram

& another 2003 Lab I.C. 2077 (Andhra). The predecessor

in the office rectifying the order dated 21.02.2007 by ‘fixing

the date for evidence’ of the parties vide order dated

30.10.2007 corrected the error committed by it in the

procedure and fixed the next date ‘for argument on

quantum of punishment’.

10.

Thereafter, the case remained pending due to

cropping up of petty issues by the workman for seven

years and finally the parties forwarded their oral argument

on the point of quantum of punishment under Section

11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

11.

Heard, parties and perused entire material available

on record.

12.

It has been contended by the authorized

representative of the workman that the order of this

Tribunal on preliminary issues is wrong as he had been

denied the opportunity of proper defence during the course

of domestic inquiry, by non-supply of documents and

interference of Disciplinary Authority in the inquiry. It

was also argued that the charge sheet is vague and has

contended that in the preliminary inquiry someone else

was found responsible for misconduct; but the workman

has been penalized by the punishment order after

conducting an unfair domestic inquiry.

13.

Per contra, it was argued for management that the

Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the

evidence relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it

cannot alter the order or punishment. It was submitted

that the scope of invoking the powers given under Section

11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the

condition that the Court should interfere with the order of

punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to

the misconduct committed or it is excessively harsh and

shocking to the consciousness. It has further been argued

that in the instant case the workman was given charge

sheet for committing misconduct of “doing acts prejudicial

to the interest of the bank’ i.e. embezzlement of the Bank’s

money; and was penalized with the punishment of removal

with benefits of superannuation, after conducting a

thorough inquiry and this Tribunal vide its order dated

21.02.2007 has found that “suspension order, charge sheet,

appointment of enquiry officer, order of punishment is

issued by the Competent Disciplinary Authority; and the

domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and the workman was afforded

all reasonable opportunity to defend himself”; hence there

is no scope for this Tribunal to interfere with the quantum

of punishment order as the same is well proportionate

order, as the workman was punished for proved gross

misconduct i.e. embezzlement. It has been submitted that

the embezzlement of Bank’s money speaks ill of the

honesty and integrity of the workman concerned. This is

definitely an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.

Such employees cannot be kept on the rolls of the Bank.

It has relied on Bank of India vs Vishwa Mohan (1998) Lab

IC 2514.

The bank management has further submitted that

the Bank being a financial institution dealing with the

public money and the employees of the Bank are required

to exhibit utmost honesty and integrity in day to day

transaction/functioning. The act of dishonesty or fraud

or misappropriation or embezzlement constitute

misconduct of serious nature warranting penalty of

removal/dismissal. As the charges leveled against the

workman were of serious/grave in nature, which were duly

proved in the inquiry, therefore, the action of the

management is justified. It has been argued by the bank

that the aforesaid act of the workman has shaken the

confidence of the bank in him and he is not fit to be kept in

the services of the Bank, therefore deserves no interference

into the quantum of punishment by this Tribunal. It has

relied on Municipal Committee, Bandugarh vs. Kishan

Baha and others 1996 Lab IC 1050.

14.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival contentions of the authorized representatives of the

parties and perused case laws relied on by them.

15.

In the instant case the workman was charge sheeted

with the allegation of ‘gross misconduct of embezzlement

of Rs. 1,36,800 vide section 19.5 of first Bipartite Settlement;

and during domestic inquiry, it has come out that the

workman embezzled an amount of Rs. 1,36,800. The

domestic inquiry and its findings were upheld by this

Tribunal vide order dated 21.02.2007, holding that the

suspension order, charge sheet, appointment of enquiry

officer, order of punishment is issued by the Competent

5878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Disciplinary Authority; and the domestic inquiry was

conducted in accordance with the principles of natural

justice; and the workman was afforded all reasonable

opportunity to defend himself. Hence, after decision on

the preliminary issues in the favour of the management,

the workman has pleaded that the punishment imposed

upon him is disproportionate and this Tribunal should

interfere into it within the provisions provided under

Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

16.

Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of

India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope

of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as

under:

“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the

power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some

other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority

shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,

it would appropriately mould the relief, either

directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the

litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,

imposed appropriate punishment with cogent

reasons in support thereof.”

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed that:

“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by

a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by

the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate

cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that

the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly

disproportionate, after examining all the relevant

factors including the nature of charges proved

against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier,

the nature of duties assigned having due regard to

their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an

discipline required to be maintained, and the

department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works.”

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4

SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long line of

cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative

action under English law summarized the legal position in

the following words:

“11. The common thread running through in all

these decisions is that the court should not interfere

with the administrators’ decision unless it was

illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or

was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the

sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral

standards. In view of what has been stated in

Wednesbury case the court would not go into the

correctness of the choice made by the administrator

open to him and the court should not substitute its

decision to that of the administrator. The scope of

judicial review islimited to the deficiency in decision-

making process and not the decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate

authority shocks the conscience of the court/

tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further,

to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare

cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording

cogent reasons in support thereof.”

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC

257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position

as follows:

“8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the

matter of imposition of penalty as a result of

disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court

can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the

same to be shockingly disproportionate to the

charges found to be proved.”

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak

(2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:

“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority or the appellate authority unless shocking

to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected

to judicial review.

17.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory

of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2

SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that :

“The legal position is fairly well settled that while

exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the

discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard

to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material

procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of

discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is

dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties

assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty,

if any, and the discipline required to be maintained

in the department or establishment he works.

Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not

substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

18.

In the instant case the workman, was working as

Clerk-cum-Cashier in Chapki branch of the bank and he

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5879

closed the cash balance on 05.10.2000 with cash shortage

of Rs. 1,36,800. The bank was closed for 03 days i.e. from

06.10.2000 to 08.10.2000 due to Dushehara Festival/Durga

Pooja; and on opening the branch on 09.10.2000, the

closing cash balance of 05.10.2000 was checked in

presence of the workman. On physical verification/

checking the cash balance was found to be short by

Rs. 1,36,800. The management through evidence proved

before the domestic inquiry that the workman embezzled

above amount and the domestic inquiry conducted by the

management was upheld by this Tribunal vide its order

dated 21.02.2007. The workman has not preferred any

appeal against the preliminary order dated 21.02.2007,

making the order final and binding on the parties.

The Bank management has argued that the

embezzlement of the Bank’s money speaks ill of the honesty

and integrity of the workman concerned. This is definitely

an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, which leads

to loss of faith in the workman. In Air India Corporation

Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has

been observed that:

“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the

employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is

affirmed, the order of punishment must be

considered to be immune from challenge, for the

reason that discharging the office of trust and

confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case

of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be

directed.”

In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory

Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645 Hon’ble

Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to

find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of

confidence in the employee, observing that:

“(i) the workman is holding the position of trust and

confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, be

commits act which results in forfeiting the same;

and (iii) to continue him in service/establishment

would be embarrassing the inconvenient to the

employee, or would be detrimental to the discipline

or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence

cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the

management. Objective facts which would lead to a

definite inference of apprehension in the mind of

the management, regarding trust worthiness or

reliability of the employee, must be alleged and

proved.”

In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi

and others AIR 2005 SC 3272, repelled the contention that

even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer

does not suffer any financial loss, he can be removed from

service in a case of loss of confidence. Further in A.P.

SRTC v. Raghuda Shiva Sankar Prasad AIR 2007 SC 152

Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in case of theft, the

quantum of theft is not import and what is important is the

loss of confidence of employer in employee.

19.

Thus, the Bank being a financial institution dealing

with the public money, the employees of the Bank are

required to exhibit utmost honesty and integrity in day to

day transaction/functioning. The act of dishonesty or

fraud or misappropriation or embezzlement lowers down

the reputation of Bank in public. The public loose their

confidence in Bank, which affects Bank’s business and

finally the national economy.

20.

Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases

(L&S) 721 has observed that:

“7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act

as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led

in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground

that another view is possible on the material on

record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly

held and the findings are based on evidence, the

question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable

nature of the evidence will not be grounds for

interfering with the findings in departmental

enquiries. Therefore the courts will not interfere

with findings of fact recorded in departmental

inquiries, except where such findings are based on

no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The

test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal

acting reasonably could have arrived at such

conclusion or findings, on the material on record.

The courts will however interfere with the findings

in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice

or statutory regulations have been violated or if the

order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide

or based on extraneous considerations.”

21.

In the instant case the charge of embezzlement of

the Bank’s money was found to be proved and principles

of natural justice were properly observed while conducting

the departmental inquiry; and also the findings of the

Inquiry Officer were not found to be perverse. Therefore,

under the facts and the circumstances and considering

the laws, there is no justification in interfering with the

order of punishment imposed upon the workman by the

Disciplinary Authority for proved gross misconduct of

‘embezzlement’. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled

for any relief.

22.

Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

Lucknow

08th July, 2014.

5880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2290-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot; 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;-II, p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (246@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@69@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014

S.O.

2290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 246/2012)

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

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

11/08/2014.

[No. L-12012/69/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 246/2012

Registered on 4.9.2012

Sh. Ravi Kumar,

S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh,

H. No. 113, Sector 29A,

Chandigarh.

...Petitioner

Versus

Dy. General Manager,

Vijaya Bank, Regional Office,

Sector 9C, Chandigarh.

...Respondents

Case No. I.D. No. 213/2011

Registered on 25.8.2011

Sh. Ravi Kumar,

S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh,

Ex-Peon-cum-Sweeper,

Vijaya Bank, Zirakpur,

R/o House No.113, Sector 29A,

Chandigarh.

...Petitioner

Versus

Vijaya Bank through its

Dy. General Manager,

Regional Office, Sector 9C,

Chandigarh.

Vijaya Bank, Zirakpur

(Punjab).

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Raj Kaushik Adv.

For the Management

Sh. K. P. S. Dhillon Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 2.6.2014

This order will dispose of Reference No. 246 of 2012

and 213 of 2011.

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

69/2011-IR(B-II)) Dated 31.8.2012, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Vijaya

Bank Regional Office, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Ravi Kumar, S/o Sh. Mahipal w.e.f.

5.2.11 is legal and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

The workman submitted statement of claim pleading

that he was appointed as Peon-cum-Sweeper by the

respondent bank where he joined on temporary basis and

he worked with the management till 5.2.2011 when his

services were terminated. That he has completed 240 days

of service and the management terminated his services in

violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. That

his termination being illegal, he be reinstated in service.

Respondent management filed written statement

pleading that workman was engaged temporarily on

account of increase in the work on daily wages and he

worked only for 53 days. He was not appointed on any

post. That the bank was not required to follows the

provisions of the Act.

A similar reference was also presented by the

workman in this Court which was numbered as Reference

No. 213/2011 and both the references were ordered to be

consolidated vide order dated 29.4.2013 passed in

reference No. 213/2011.

The workman did not lead any evidence and made a

statement on 13.5.2014 in order to withdraw the reference.

None appeared person from the side of the workman and

management on 19.5.2014 when the case was fixed for

hearing and on that count workman and the management

were proceeded against ex parte.

Since the workman did not lead any evidence in

support of his case, it cannot be said that his services

were terminated illegally and he is not entitled to any relief

and both the references stands dismissed. Let hard and

soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5881

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2291-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkj- D;w- ,l-

,aM dsvksfyu daiuh] eaxygkV 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;&2] /uckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 5@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@37@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014

S.O.

2291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of RQS & Kaoline Company, Mangalhat

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 5/8/2014.

[No. L-29011/37/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

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. 22 OF 2013

PARTIES

: The Gen.Secretary,

Mangalhat Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajmahal, H.O. Pakur,

Vs.

The General. Manager

RQS & Kaoline Co, Mangalhat,

Rajmahal, Sahebganj.

Ministry’s Order No. L-29011/37/2012-IR(M) dt.11.1.2013.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. B. B. Pandey, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Small Industry

Dated, Dhanbad, the 09th July, 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-29011/37/2012-IR(M) dt.11.1.2013.

SCHEDULE

(i)

“Whether the union should first submit notice for

termination of settlement before raising the demand

afresh?.”

(ii)

And whether the demand to continue the medical

allowance and extra leave wages etc since the

discontinuation of the same as per settlement dated

15.03.2010 is justified.’’

Neither the Union Representative for the Manglahat

Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,Rajmahal,Pakur appeared nor any

written statement filed on behalf of any workman nor any

documents in spite of giving him the last chance for it

after three Regd. Notices.Mr.B.B.Pandey,Ld.Advocate for

the O.P./Management is present.

Perused the case record. It appears that it has been

all along pending for filing a written statement along the

documents on behalf of any workman since its registration

on 21.1.2013; since then three registered notices dt. 2.4.13,

01.10.13 and 06.03.14 were issued to the General Secretary

of the aforesaid Sangh on his address noted in the

reference itself. The present reference as per its schedule

relates to two issues, firstly for submitting notice by the

Union for termination of settlement, and secondly as to

the demand to continue the medical allowances and extra

leave wages since the discontinuation of the same as per

settlement dt. 15.03.2010 without any reference of any

workman. So the reference itself is quite vague. Hence it is

undeterminable for the reason of uncertain schedule.

Therefore, it is closed as No Industrial Dispute existent or

made out as per the schedule to the reference. Accordingly

an order of “No Industrial Dispute made out” is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2292-—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;&2] /uckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 5@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@54@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

5882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014

S.O.

2292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad 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 5/8/2014.

[No. L-30011/54/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

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. 31 OF 2013

PARTIES

: The Secretary,

Shramik Vikash Parishad,

PO : Barauni Refinery Township,

E-1/86, Begusarai.

Vs.

The Executive Director,

IOCL, Barauni Oil Refinery,

Dist : Begusarai

Order No. L-30011/54/2012-IR(M) dt.01.02.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

: None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

: Mr. K. N. Gupta, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Petrolium & Gas

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th July, 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-30011/54/2012-IR (M) dt.01.02.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd.Barauni Oil Refinery by not

signing the settlement on the movement of worker

to Grade IX and payment of perks and allowances

under Cafeteria approach was justified or not ? What

relief he workmen are entitled to?

Neither any Representative for the Shramik Vikash

Parishad,Barauni,Begusarai,appeared nor any written

statement with any documents filed on his behalf or any

workman.Mr.K N.Gupta, Ld.Advocate for the O.P./

Management is present.

On perusal of the case record of the Reference, I

find that the instant Reference as under its schedule refers

to an issue over the action of the O.P./Management in

denying to sign the settlement on the payment of the worker

to Grade IX and payment of perks and allowances under

Cafeteria approach but it does not refer to the name of any

worker or the workmen. So it appears to be an issue of

universal nature .Yet on behalf of the O.P./Management.

Mr. N. K. Das, the G.M./H.R for the O.P./Management as

per his petition dt. 24.04.2014 has submitted that both the

aforesaid issues namely (a) movement of workman from

Grade VIII to IX on 31st Dec., 2013 and (b) payment of

perks and allowances under Cafeteria approach on

30.09.2013 as per Bipartite Settlement and subsequently

the Tripartite were finally settled before the RLC(C),Patna,

respectively, and they have been implemented.

Consequnetnly, the benefits under the above settlements

have already been passed on to the employees. Under

such circumstances “No Industrial Dispute” now

exists.Hence, the case is disposed of by closing it as “No

Industrial Dispute existing”. Accordingly, an order of “No

Industrial Dispute” existent is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2293-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksydkrk iksVZ

VªLV 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

18@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@08@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&32011@2@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014

S.O.

2293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2002)

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 Kolkata Port Trust and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

5/8/2014.

[No. L-32011/2/2002-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5883

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 18 of 2002

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Kolkata Port Trust

AND

Their workmen

Present : JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

: Mr. M. K. Das,

Management

Industrial Relations Officer

On behalf of the

: None

Workmen

State : West Bengal

Industry : Port & Dock

Dated : 4th August, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-32011/2/2002-IR(M) dated 01.08.2002

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 not paying R.T. Allowance to the

workmen i.e. Shri S. Sharma and Shri Bimal Das

attending work at Berhampur side at par with the

Junior Laboratory assistant-cum-Hydraulic Observer

Shri Parthasarathi Moulick is justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

When the case is taken up today for hearing, none

appears on behalf of the union/workmen though the

management is represented by its representative. It appears

from the record that none appeared on behalf of the union

inspite of service of notice. Considering the above facts

and circumstances and the conduct of the union it may

reasonably be presumed that the union/workman is not

interested to proceed with the instant reference case further.

Considering the above facts and circumstances,

instant reference is disposed of by passing a “No Dispute

Award”.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 4th August, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2294-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lruk LVsku ,aM

ykbe daiuh 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 15] 16] 17] 18] 19] 20] 44] 45] 46] 72] 73 vkSj

74@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@08@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012/10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

47, 48, 49/2008&vkbZvkj (,e)]

la- ,y&29012/72, 73, 74/2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014

S.O.

2294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. Nos. 15, 16,

17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 45, 46, 72, 73 & 74 /2008) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Satna Stone Lime Company Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

5/8/2014.

[No. L-29012/10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 47, 48, 49 /2008-IR(M),

No. L-29012/72, 73, 74 /2007-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/15,16,17,18,19,20,44,45,46,72,73& 74/08

Shri Ram Saroj Kushwaha,

General Secretary,

AITUC Distt. Parishad,

AITUC Office, Sidharth Nagar,

Post Birla Vikas,

Distt. Satna (MP)

.....Workman/Union

Versus

The Managing Director,

Satna Stone Lime Co. Ltd.,

6, Middle Road, Hasting,

Kolkatta

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 11th day of July, 2014)

(a)The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-29012(10)/2008-IR(M) dated 4-3-2008

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal:-

5884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Lalji Garj S/o Shri

Srimanan Narayan Garg and bonus and retrenchment

compensation for the period 1999 to 2001 is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

(b) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-29012(11)/2008-IR(M)

dated 4-3-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 17-8-

2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Durjan S/o Shri

Munna Dhobi and bonus and retrenchment

compensation for the period 1999 to 2001 is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

vide its Notification No.L-29012(12)/2008-IR(M)

dated 4-3-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 17-8-

2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Chunna Teli S/o

Shri Ramdas Teli and bonus and retrenchment

compensation for the period 1999 to 2001 is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

(d) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-29012(13)/2008-IR(M)

dated 4-3-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 17-8-

2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Dulria Chamaarin

W/o Shri Tijola Chamaar and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

(e) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-29012(14)/2008-IR(M)

dated 4-3-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Jainarayan Garg

S/o Shri Sriman Narayan Garg and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

(f) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-29012(15)/2008-IR(M) dated

4-3-2008 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Smt.Sundi Kori W/o

Shri Kaushal Kori and bonus and retrenchment

compensation for the period 1999 to 2001 is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

(g) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-29012(72)/2007-IR(M)

dated 25-2-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Achhelal

Kushwaha S/o Shri Kallu Kushwaha and bonus

and retrenchment compensation for the period 1999

to 2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

(h) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-29012(73)/2007-IR(M)

dated 25-2-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5885

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Faguna Chamaar

S/o Shri Akali Chamaar and bonus and retrenchment

compensation for the period 1999 to 2001 is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

(i) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-29012(74)/2007-IR(M) dated

25-2-2008 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Raghunathdin

Singh S/o Shri Ramsahay and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

(j) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-29012(47)/2008-IR(M) dated 10-

6-2008 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Smt Booti Kolin W/o

Shri Amir Kaul and bonus and retrenchment

compensation for the period 1999 to 2001 is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

(k)The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-29012(48)/2008-IR(M) dated

10-6-2008 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Smt. Ramsakhi Kauri

W/o Shri Manmohan Kauri and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

(l) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-29012(49)/2008-IR(M) dated

10-6-2008 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Manmohal Kauri

S/o Shri Chhotte Lal Kauri and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

All the twelve reference cases are taken up together

as all are on a common subject matter and are

interconnected with each other.

Repeatedly notices are issued to parties since 2008.

Both parties failed to cause their appearance and

participate in reference proceeding. It appears that parties

lost interest in dispute under reference. They failed to

participate in the reference proceeding. Therefore award

is passed as under:-

“For non-participation of parties in reference

proceedings, the dispute could not be adjudicated.”

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2295-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;jiksVZ

vFkkZfjVh 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 8@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 5@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@12@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014

S.O.

2295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 5/8/2014.

[No. L-12011/12/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

5886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 30th July, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 8/2014

(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 Airport Authority of India and their

workman).

BETWEEN

Sri V.R. Kannan

1st Party/

Petitioner

AND

The Airport Director

2nd Party/

Airport Authority of India

Respondent

International Airport Division

Chennai Airport

Chennai-600027

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

: Sri P. Rahunathan, Advocate

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s A.J. Jawad & Y. Shoukath,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/12/2013-IR (M)

dated 06.02.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of Airports

Authority of India, Chennai regarding termination

of the service of the petitioner, Sri V.R. Kannan w.e.f.

02.02.2001 without following the provisions of

Section-25(F) of the ID Act is justified or not? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID 8/2014 and issued notices

to both sides. Both parties entered appearance through

their counsel and filed their claim and counter statement

respectively.

The Respondent has raised a contention that the

matter has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court

and is not maintainable before this Tribunal.

The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 2022/2001

before the High Court seeking regularization in the

respondent establishment. On the basis of the judgment

of Supreme Court dated 06.12.1996. The High Court has

held:

“This Court is not in a position to accept the

contention that the petitioner has been continuously

working with the First Respondent for 9 years till

1997. There is no material whatsoever to support

the factual issue that the petitioner was working as

contract labour on the crucial date i.e. 06.12.1996,

the date of judgment of the Supreme Court and he

was in the employment of the First Respondent as

on 11.05.1994”.

The Writ Petition was dismissed for the above

reason.

The issue having been decided by the High Court

already the petitioner is not entitled to raise the issue

again. Therefore the reference is closed. An award is passed

accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: None

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2296-—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;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12]

13] 14] 15@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

5@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@3] 4] 1] 2@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014

S.O.

2296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12, 13,

14, 15/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5887

to the management of ONGC Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

5/8/2014.

[No. L-30012/3, 4, 1, 2/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Friday, the 18th July, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 12, 13, 14 & 15/2013

(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 ONGC Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri V. Ramesh

1st Party/

Petitioners

Sri N. Soundarajan & 2 Others

Sri P. Aingarane & 2 Others

Sri B. Mahendran & 10 Others

AND

The Asset Manager & Executive Director : 2nd Party/

ONGC Ltd., Cauvery Asset

Respondent

Karaikal-609004

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/

: M/s Row & Reddy, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/

: M/s P. Arulmudi &

Respondent

G. Balasubramanian, Advocate

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide the order of references referred detailed

below referred the IDs mentioned above to the Industrial

Tribunal, Madras for adjudication. The IDs were numbered

as ID 12, 13, 14 & 15 of 2013 respectively. In all the IDs the

parties have entered appearance through the counsel and

filed claim and counter statement respectively.

The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference

in the above IDs are as under:

ID 12/2013

“Whether the demand of the workman Sri V. Ramesh

for regular absorption in the ONGC on the grade

they are employed at present is legal and justified?

What relief the said workman are entitled?”

ID 13/2013

“Whether the demand of the workmen S/Sri N.

Soundarajan, R. Varadharajan and A. Nagarajan for

regular absorption in the ONGC on the grade pay

are employed at present is legal and justified? What

relief the said workman are entitled?”

ID 14/2013

“Whether the demand of the workmen S/Sri P.

Aingarane, G. Mahalingam and M. Muralitharan for

regular absorption in the ONGC on the grade they

are employed at present is legal and justified? What

relief the said workman are entitled?”

The averments in the in the Claim Statement in ID

12/2013 are as below:

I.D. No.

Reference No.

Name of the

Appearance

No.

& Date

I Party S/Sri

II Party

for Workman

for Respondent

12/2013

L-30012/3/2013-IR (M)

V. Ramesh

The Asstt. Manager,

M/s Row

M/s P. Arulmudi &

dated 30.01.2013

& Executive Director

& Reddy,

G. Balasubramanian

ONGC Ltd. Cauvery

Advocates

Asset Karaikal-609004

13/2013

L-30012/4/2013-IR (M)

N. Soundarajan The Asstt. Manager,

M/s Row

M/s P. Arulmudi &

dated 30.01.2013

R. Varatharajan

& Executive Director

& Reddy,

G. Balasubramanian

A. Nagarajan

ONGC Ltd. Cauvery

Advocates

Asset Karaikal-609004

14/2013

L-30012/1/2013-IR (M)

P. Aingarane

The Asstt. Manager,

M/s Row

M/s P. Arulmudi &

dated 30.01.2013

& 2 Others

& Executive Director

& Reddy,

G. Balasubramanian

ONGC Ltd. Cauvery

Advocates

Asset Karaikal-609004

15/2013

L-30012/2/2013-IR (M)

B. Mahendran

The Asstt. Manager,

M/s Row

M/s P. Arulmudi &

dated 30.01.2013

& 10 Others

& Executive Director

& Reddy,

G. Balasubramanian

ONGC Ltd. Cauvery

Advocates

Asset Karaikal-609004

5888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent

as Junior Assistant Technician (Electrical). He has been

working in the service and maintenance of Diesel Generator

Set and other related electrical items at Kovilkallapal for

ONGC Ltd. Cauvery Project, from 1995. Though initially

he was working through various Contractors, later a

Society was formed on the suggestion of the Respondent.

This was done to avoid Third Party Contractors taking

away a share of the profit. Though the petitioner was not

treated as direct employee, the petitioner is fully qualified

for being absorbed as Junior Assistant Technician

(Electrical). He has got diploma in Electrical and Electronics

Engineering with “C” license. He has undergone

Apprenticeship Training under the Tamil Nadu Electricity

Board. The petitioner has been continuously working with

the Respondent from the year 1995. However, these facts

were not taken into consideration by the Respondent and

the Respondent has refused to absorb the petitioner in

the service. The Respondent has taken fresh hands from

outside without considering the request of the petitioner

for absorption. The Central Government has prohibited

engagement of Contract Labour under Section-10 of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The

petitioner has filed Writ Petition before the High Court of

Madras seeking an order for absorption as regular

employee with the Respondent. The Writ Petition

alongwith other similar petitions were disposed of with a

direction to the Central Government to refer the issue to

the Tribunal. The High Court has also directed the

Respondent to consider the petitioner for future vacancies.

Though the petitioner has applied for vacancies for which

applications were called for, he was not called for interview.

Though the petitioner has put in 18 years of service he is

getting a monthly salary of just Rs. 6,237/- only. At the

same time a regular sanitary cleaner in ONGC is getting

Rs. 30,000/- per month. The petitioner having worked for

several years with the Respondent it will not be fair to

deny him regularization. An order may be passed

directing the Respondent to absorb the petitioner in the

regular service of the Respondent with back wages,

continuity of service, increments and other attendant

benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The Respondent has never engaged the petitioner

directly as Junior Assistant Technician. There is no

employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and

the Respondent the petitioner is a contractual worker and

had worked under different Contractors. The

appointments in ONGC are made as per its recruitment

and promotion policy. The Respondent has not engaged

any person on contract basis for jobs falling under

prohibited categories. The petitioner should have made

application for selection as directed by the High Court.

Recruitment advertisement was published in all national

dailies and also displayed in notice board of ONGC

premises. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioners in ID 13/2013, 14/2013 and 15/2013

also have filed Claim Statements claiming that they are

entitled to be absorbed in the regular service of the

Respondent. The petitioners in ID 13/2013 are said to have

been working in maintenance of cementing services work,

drilling in ONGC Cauvery Project from 1991. According to

them from 1998 they were working through a registered

society viz. Oilfield and Coalmen Employees Society in

which persons similar to them are members. They claim

that they are having the necessary qualification and are

entitled to be absorbed in the service of the Respondent,

they having been working for the Respondent for several

years. The three petitioners in ID 14/21013 are said to

have joined the service of the Respondent as Junior

Assistant Technician (Production). They are also members

of Oilfield and Coalmen Employees Society. A Society said

to have been formed on the suggestion of the Respondent.

They have also claimed that they have sufficient

qualification and are entitled to be absorbed in the service

of the Respondent. The 11 petitioners in ID 15/2013 have

joined the service of the Respondent as Driver and Helper

and is said to have been working at the Base Office of

ONGC for Cauvery Project from 1991. They are members

of the Oilfield and Coalmen Employees Society. They have

also claimed absorption in the regular service of the

Respondent. In these IDs also the Respondent has filed

Counter Statement contending that there is no employer-

employee relationship with it and the petitioners, the

petitioners having been employed through Contractors.

It is further stated that the work done by any of the workers

will not fall under the prohibited categories of employment

under CLRA Act.

The issue to be considered in all the matters being

one and the same. All the IDs were tried together. Evidence

is recorded in ID 12/2013.

On the side of the petitioner, WWs 1 and 2 were

examined and Exts.W1 to Ext.W30 were marked. On the

side of the Respondent MW1 was examined and Exts.M1

to Ext.M5 were marked.

Points for consideration in the IDs are:

(i)

Whether the petitioners are entitled to absorption

in the regular service of the Respondent in the grade

in which they are now employed?

(ii)

What is the relief to which each of the petitioners

are entitled?

The Points

The petitioners are even now working with the

Respondent under different grades such Junior Assistant

Technician, Drivers, etc. According to their own case, they

are not direct employees of the Respondent. Initially, they

were being employed through different Contractors.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5889

According to them, it was as suggested by the Respondent

itself a Society as formed with all the contract employees

as members. On formation of the Society, the Respondent

is said to have been employing them through the Society

as a contractual agency. It is the case of the petitioners

that they have been working for the Respondent for several

years and for this reason they are entitled to be absorbed

in the regular service of the Respondent. According to

them they are all having qualification to be absorbed in

the regular service of the Respondent. The Respondent

has not specifically denied the case that the petitioners

have been working for them for several years continuously.

According to them, they were working under different

contractors and so there was never employer-employee

relationship between them. It is further stated by the

Respondent that it has not employed any persons on

contract in the categories in which there is prohibition for

employing on contract. Thus according to the

Respondents, they have not violated any law in accepting

the service of the petitioners through contractual agencies.

It is further contended by the Respondent that recruitment

to the regular service of the Respondent could be in

accordance with the recruitment rules only and therefore

absorption of the petitioners in the service of the

Respondent is not possible.

10.

Two of the petitioners have given evidence as WW1

and WW2. They have only reiterated their case in their

respective petitions, in the affidavit filed by them in lieu of

Chief Examination. Much reference to the documents

produced on behalf of the petitioners also is not required

in the background of the facts of the case.

11.

The counsel for the Respondent has referred to Uma

Devi’s case wherein the Apex Court has laid down that

recruitment to the sanctioned post can be only in

accordance with the recruitment rules and other accepted

mode of appointment. Any other mode of appointment

would in effect would be a backdoor entry, the Apex Court

has stated, it is pointed out. Even while accepting the

dictum on recruitment laid down by the Supreme Court,

the case on behalf of the petitioners is that they are entitled

to be absorbed in the service of the Respondent. The

petitioners have referred to a few judgments of the Supreme

Court and that of Madras High Court also in support of

their argument.

12.

Initially, reference has been made to the long

recognized decision of the Apex Court rendered through

Justice Krishna Iyer in Hussain Bhai Vs. Alath Factory

Thozhilali Union and Others where it has been held that

the work done by the workman having been an integral

part of the industry concerned, the raw material having

been supplied by the Management, the factory premises

being owned by the Management, the equipment used for

the work belonging to the Management and the finished

product having been taken by the Management for its

own trade, the workmen concerned are the workman of

the concerned employer. Though the above basic concept

regarding employer-employee relationship broadly stated

by Justice Krishna Iyer still holds good, this concept has

undergone lot of interpretations and thereby lot of change

as observed in the subsequent judgments rendered by

the Apex Court. The question to be considered is whether

the petitioners are still entitled to be absorbed in the service

of the Respondent on the basis of the changed concept.

Are the decisions relied upon by the petitioners helpful to

them in this respect? One decision referred to on behalf of

the petitioners is CATERING CLEANERS OF SOUTHERN

RAILWAY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

reported in 1987 1 SCC 700. The workers in the above case

were catering cleaners working in the catering

establishments in various railway junctions. The Apex

Court has found that the work done by them satisfies

the conditions of Section-10(2) of CLRA Act. The Apex

Court has directed the Central Government to take

appropriate action under Section-10 of CLRA Act in the

matter of prohibiting the employment of Contract Labour

in the work of cleaning and catering establishments and

pantry cars in the Southern Railway. The Apex Court also

asked the Railway to abolish the Contract Labour

System and regularize the service of the concerned

workmen on its own motion. In the present case, there is

no case for the petitioners that the work done by them is

one that satisfies the conditions of Section-10(2) of CLRA

Act. It is asserted by the Respondent that it had not

employed any persons on contract basis under the

prohibited categories. The Respondent has also produced

two prohibitory notifications, Ext.M1 and Ext.M2 issued

by the Central Government stating which categories of

jobs are prohibited under the Act. So the above decision

is not of any help to the petitioners since they are not

coming under the prohibited categories of employments.

13.

Another decision referred to on behalf of the

petitioners is SHANKAR MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS

VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 1990

(Supp) SCC 668. It was a case where the work of loading

and unloading of bricks were brought in the prohibited

category under Section-10 of Contract Labour (Regulation

and Abolition) Act. The Apex Court has found that there

was no justification for excluding the job from the purview

of the notification and directed that those workmen who

were doing the job and were retrenched are to be put back

into service. The question whether a contractual employee

is entitled to regularization was not considered in the above

case.

14.

The decision in MISHRA DATU NIGAM AND

OTHERS VS VENKATAIAH AND OTHERS reported in

2003 7 SCC 488 is another decision referred to on behalf of

the petitioners. However, this is also not applicable to the

facts of the present case. In the above case the Apex Court

has held that where a canteen was being maintained in

5890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

discharge of a statutory obligation and yet availed the

services of a Contractor the workman would be the

employee of the principal employer.

15.

In the decision RAM SINGH AND OTHERS VS.

UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS AND

OTHER CASES reported in 2004 1 LLN 511 it has been

held that whether a particular relationship between

employer and employee is genuine or a camouflage through

the mode of contract is essentially a question of fact to be

determined on the basis of features of relationship, the

written terms of employment and the actual nature of

employment and has to be raised and proved before an

Industrial Adjudicator. It was further held that without

ascertaining through the industrial forum, factual aspects

of inter-se relationship between the parties, the relief of

regularization in service cannot be granted. In the present

case, it is not pleaded that the contract by which the

petitioners are working for the Respondent is not a genuine

one and is only a camouflage. The petitioners did not

raise any dispute regarding the nature of relationship

between the petitioners and the Respondent.

16.

The counsel for the petitioner has also referred to

the decision in RADHAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS VS.

REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

AND OTHERS, MADRAS BENCH reported in 2007 4 MLJ

650. However, in this matter the consideration was

regarding regularization of workmen who were directly

employed by the Management. Same is the case in the

decision in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

LTD. VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

AND OTHERS reported in 2008 4 CTC 819. In the above

case it was established in evidence that the concerned

workers were directly employed by the employer and that

the Contract is sham and nominal. So the facts of the above

case are also not in parimateria with the facts of the present

case.

17.

In the decision in MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD

TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS.

CASTERIBE RAJYA PARIVAHAN KARAMCHARI

SANGHATANA reported in 2009 8 SCC 556, the Apex Court

was considering a particular provision in the Maharashtra

Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practices Act, the Apex Court has held that the

dictum laid down in Uma Devi’s case (2006 4 SSC 1) does

not denude industrial and labour courts of the statutory

power under Section-30 read with Section-32 of the said

Maharashtra Act. In the absence of such a provision in

the ID Act the dictum cannot be applied here.

18.

In the decision in BHILWARA DUGDH UTPADAK

SAHAKARI LTD. VS.VINOD KUMAR SHARMA reported

in CDJ 2011 SC 832, the Trial Court has found that the

workmen were employees of the appellant and not

employees of the Contractor. This finding was upheld by

the Apex Court and thereby the regularization of the

workers also. Thus it could be seen that the facts of

the cases relied upon by the counsel by the petitioner are

different. So the dictum laid down in those case could not

be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

19.

The petitioners herein were admittedly working for

the Respondent through Contractors. Even in the Claim

Statement it is stated that at the beginning they were

working through various Contractor and subsequently a

society was formed on the suggestion of the Respondent

to avoid third party contractors taking away a share of the

profit. It is again stated in the Claim Statement itself that

this forming of Society deny them the benefit of being

treated as direct employees. Thus the petitioners have

accepted the fact they were working through Contractors

and not directly under the Respondent. There is no plea

that they were directly employed. And no attempt has

been made to let in any evidence to this effect also.

Even now they continued to work for the Respondent on

contract. The Respondent has produced Ext.M1 and

Ext.M2, the notifications prohibiting employment of

contract labour for certain types of jobs in its

establishment. The work done by the petitioners will not

come under these prohibited categories. So the

Respondent was acting within the provisions of CLRA

Act in employing the petitioners on contract basis. So the

petitioners are not entitled to regularization as claimed by

them.

20.

Even though the petitioners were working through

Contractors, the fact remains that they were working for

the Respondent for a long time though under different

Contractors. They were working in the same position with

the Respondent for years together. They were working for

a much lesser amount than the regular employees. It was

considering this aspect the Hon’ble High Court has

directed in the common order in the different Writ Petitions

filed by the petitioners that if any vacancies occur in the

future in the Respondent institution the petitioners in

whose favour there is prohibitory order and who are

otherwise eligible shall be considered and preferences shall

be given to them by relaxing age and other qualifications.

The petitioners have stated in their Claim Statement that

they filed applications to the Respondent when

notifications of vacancies was issued by the Respondent.

It is admitted by MW1 also that they have applied for the

post of Junior Assistant. According to MW1, the result of

the petitioners are withheld. MW1 has even admitted

during his cross-examination that the Respondent has

written a letter to the Contractor on 24.02.2014 stating that

if the workers are to get fair wages, they have to withdraw

cases against the Respondent. Thus it could be seen that

merely because the petitioner have raised the dispute, the

Respondent has been taking a vindictive attitude. The

petitioners who were working for the Respondent for years

and years must definitely be competent enough to hold

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 23] 2014@Hkkæ 1] 1936

5891

the position in which they are working. It is for the

Respondent to consider their applications giving relaxation

in age, etc. as directed by the High Court and take a

decision in the applications. The Respondent will certainly

be benefited by doing so, the petitioners being now

experienced and have become experts in their job.

21.

In the result the Respondent is directed to take

decision in the applications filed by them for permanent

placement with the Respondent within a month and inform

them of the result. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 18th July, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined :

For the 1st Party/

: WW1, Sri P. Aingarane

Petitioner

WW2, Sri V. Ramesh

For the 2nd Party/

: MW1, Sri N. Marimuthu

Management

Documents Marked :

On the side of the petitioner

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

02.06.1995

Registration Certificate of Oil and

Field and Coal Mines Employees

Society

Ex.W2

10.11.1997

Bonafide Certificate issued by the

Respondent

Ex.W3

09.03.1999

Circular

issued

the

Respondent

Ex.W4

22.12.2003

Deployment order issued to

petitioners

Ex.W5

19.01.2005

Agreement

between

the

Respondent and the Oil and Field

and Coal Mines Employees

Society

Ex.W6

12.04.2007

Movement order issued by

Respondent

Ex.W7

10.03.2008

Agreement

between

the

Respondent and the Oil and Field

and Coal Mines Employees

Society

Ex.W8

27.01.2012

Experience Certificate issued to

petitioners

Ex.W9

Bio-Data of Petitioners

Ex.W10

Model Wage Register

Ex.W11

09.05.2013

Application of petitioners for the

post of Junior Assistant accepted

by the Respondent

Ex.W12

11.02.2014

Oil and Field and Coal Mine

Employees Society Members List

Ex.W13

Certificates of V. Ramesh

Ex.W14

Certificates of P. Aingarane

Ex.W15

Certificates of G. Mahalingam

Ex.W16

Certificates of S. Muralidharan

Ex.W17

Certificates of B. Mahendran

Ex.W18

Certificates of V. Sundharam

Ex.W19

Certificates of R. Ramesh

Ex.W20

Certificates of P. Murugan

Ex.W21

Certificates of C. Ramanujam

Ex.W22

Certificates of L. Saravanan

Ex.W23

Certificates of R. Suresh

Ex.W24

Certificates of M. Shanmugam

Ex.W25

Certificates of R. Ravichandran

Ex.W26

Certificates of U. Raja

Ex.W27

Bio-Data and Certificates of N.

Soundararasu

Ex.W28

Bio-Data and Certificates of A.

Nagarajan

Ex.W29

Bio-Data and Certificates of R.

Varatharajan

Ex.W30

Certificates of P. Saminathan

On the side of the Management

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

08.12.1976

Prohibitory notification issued by

the

Central

Government

(Annexure R-II)

Ex.M2

08.09.1994

Probibitory notification issued by

the

Central

Government

(Annexure R-2)

Ex.M3

09.12.2010

Common order in WP No. 17408,

17552, 19126, 19127 and 20614 of

1999 (Annexure R-3)

Ex.M4

ONGC’s Recruitment and

Promotion Policy (MRPR-80)

(Annexure R-4)

Ex.M5

April 2013

Adv. No. 2/2013 (Annexure R-5)

5892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 23, 2014/BHADRA 1, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 vxLr] 2014

dk-vk- 2297-—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;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 118@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 5@08@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@79@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2014

S.O.

2297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 118/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Delhi 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 5/8/2014.

[No. L-30011/79/2004-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

PRESENT : SHRI HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA

ID No. 118/05

Sh. Mahipal & 14 Others

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-30011/79/2004-IR(M)) dated

13.10.2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the industrial dispute raised by Delhi

Multi-Storeyed Building Employees Congress

against the management of IOCL , SCOPE Complex,

Case No. 2 Lodhi Road, New Delhi over regularization

of service of 15 workmen (as per list attached)

justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled?”

On 20.03.2006 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 118/05 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 workmen/claimants Sh.Mahipal &

14 others filed claim statement on 13.03.06 but against

claim statement management not filed written statement.

Right of filing of written statement of management

has been closed by this tribunal on 01.08.2013 and

13.09.2013 was fixed for Ex-parte evidence of workmen but

workmen/claimant’s have not produced their ex-parte

evidence on 13.09.2013, 30.12.13, 18.02.13, 28.04.14,

09.06.2014. So, this tribunal on 09.06.2014 passed an order

for passing no dispute award on 27.06.2014.

In these circumstances I am of considered view that

this is a fit case for passing no dispute award in want of

evidence of workmen/claimant’s. Although several

opportunities have been afforded to workmen/claimant’s

to adduce their evidence in this oldest ID.No. 118/05.

Reference is accordingly decided.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 27/06/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, 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.