3976 GI/2014

(6801)

dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk-2727 -—dsanzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh

/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk (5) dh mi&/kjk (I) }kjk çnÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, mÙkjk[akM jkT; ljdkj] x`g [k.M&1]

nsgjknwu dh lgefr ls fnukad 9 ebZ] 2014 dh vf/lwpuk la-

1124@XX(1)@ 2014&9(2)@2014 ds rgr Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk]

1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 376&?k] 302 rFkk

201 vkSj cky ;kSu vijk/ laj{k.k vf/fu;e] 2012 (2012 dk

vf/fu;e la- 32) dh /kjk 3 vkSj 4 ds rgr iqfyl LVs'ku ikFkjh]

ftyk gfj}kj] mÙkjk[akM esa iathÑr vijk/ la[;k 11@2014 rFkk

mDr vijk/ksa ds iz;kl] nq"izsj.k] "kM+;U=kksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds

laca/ esa vFkok mijksDr vijk/ ds flyflys esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

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

laiw.kZ mÙkjk[akM jkT; ij djrh gSA

¹iQk- la- 228@34@2014&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2014

S.O.2727 .—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (I) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.

25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Uttarakhand, Home Section-1,

Dehradun vide Notification No. 1124/XX(1)-2014-9(2)/

2014 dated 9th May, 2014, hereby extends powers and

Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttarakhand

for investigation of Case Crime No. 11/2014 under

Sections 376-D, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Protection of Children Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (Act

No. 32 of 2012) registered at Police Station Pathri,

District Haridwar, Uttarakhand and attempts, abetments

and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the

above mentioned offence.

[F. No. 228/34/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 42]

ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 12—vDrwcj 18] 2014] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 20—vkf'ou 26] 1936

No. 42]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 12—OCTOBER 18, 2014, SATURDAY/ASVINA 20—ASVINA 26, 1936

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

6802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks;yk ea=ky;

vkns’k

ubZ fnYyh] 13 vDrwcj]2014

dk-vk- 2728 -&dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½

vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ mDr

vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;kad

dk0 vk0 2268] rkjh[k 29 twu] 2012 ds] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=]

Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 7 tqykbZ] 2012 esa izdkf’kr

dh xbZ Fkh] izdk’ku ij mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa

of.kZr 423-08 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1045-00 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki

okyh Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ vkSj

mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]

vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSa A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS] fd lsaVªy

dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] jk¡ph] >kj[kaM ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~

ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj ’krksZa dk tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeRr vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s]

vuqikyu djus ds fy, jtkean gaS(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼ vtZu vkSj

fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 dh /kkjk 11 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs’k nsrh gS fd 423-08

gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1045-00 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh mijksDr

mDr Hkwfe vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds

lHkh vf/kdkj dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds

ctk,] rkjh[k 7 tqykbZ] 2012 ls fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krksZa

ds v/khu jgrs gq, ljdkjh daiuh eas fufgr gks tk,saxs] vFkkZr %&

¼1½

ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu

;Fkk vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh

eanks dh ckcr fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh(

¼2½

mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa

ds fy, mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds vèkhu ,d

vfèkdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh

vf/kdj.k vkSj ,sls vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds

fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa mixr lHkh O;;]

mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,saxs vkSj blh

izdkj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe ds ml ij ds vf/

kdkjksa ds fy, ;k mlds laca/k esa vihy vkfn tSlh

lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;;

Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd,

tk,axs (

¼3½

ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa

dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh

tks bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ds iwoksZDr vf/kdkjksa

ds laca/k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk

;k muds fo:) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko’;d

gks(

¼4½

ljdkjh daiuh ds ikl dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu

ds fcuk] bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ds iwoksZDr

vf/kdkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh

'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj

¼5½

ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs’kksa vkSj 'krksZa dk] ikyu djsxh

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko’;d gks] mDr

Hkwfe ds fof’k"V {ks=ksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir

fd, tk,aA

[Qk-la- 43015@21@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 13^th October, 2014

S.O. 2728 .—Whereas on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal number S.O. 2268 dated the 29^th June, 2012, published

in the Gazette of India, Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii),

dated the 7^th July, 2012, issued under sub-section (1) of

section 9 of the Coal Bearing areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred

to as the said Act), the land measuring 423.07 hectares

(approximately) or 1045.00 acres (approximately) as all the

rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule

appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to

as the said land) are vested absolutely in the Central

Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section

(1) of section 10 of the said Act.

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied

that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand

(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is

willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the

Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central

Government hereby directs that the above said lands

measuring 423.07 hectares (approximately) or 1045.00 acres

(approximately) and all rights in or over the said lands so

vested shall with effect from the 7^th July, 2012, instead of

continuing to so vest in the Central Government shall vest

in the Government company, subject to the following terms

and conditions, namely:-

(1)

the Government Company shall reimburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect

of compensation, interest, damages, and the like,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6803

as determined under the provisions of the said

Act;

(2)

Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of

the said Act, for the purpose of determining the

amounts payable to the Central Government by

the said Government Company under conditions

(1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with

any such Tribunal and persons appointed to

Assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the said

Government Company and similarly, all

expenditure incurred in respect of all legal

proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection

with the rights, in the said land, so vested, shall

also be borne by the Government Company;

(3)

the Government Company shall indemnify the

Central Government its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection

with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid

rights in the said land so vested;

(4)

the Government company shall have no power

to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands

so vested, to any other person without the prior

approval of the central government; and

(5)

the Government company shall abide by such

directions and conditions as may be given or

imposed by the Central Government for particular

areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/21/2009- PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=kky;

(vkS|ksfxd uhfr ,oa lao/Zu foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2729-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=kky;] vkS|ksfxd uhfr

,oa lao/Zu foHkkx ds fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa ftuds

80 izfr'kr ls vf/d vf/dkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèkd

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS%&

la;qDr eq[; foLiQksVd fu;a=kd dk;kZy;] nf{k.k

vapy] psUubZ

mi eq[; foLiQksVd fu;a=kd dk;kZy;] ,jukdqye

mi eq[; foLiQksVd fu;a=kd dk;kZy;] jk;iqj

mi eq[; foLiQksVd fu;a=kd dk;kZy;] nsgjknwu

mi eq[; foLiQksVd fu;a=kd dk;kZy;] jkaph

mi eq[; foLiQksVd fu;a=kd dk;kZy;] foHkkxh; ijh{k.k

dsUæ] xksaM[kSjh

foLiQksVd fu;a=kd dk;kZy;] iVuk

¹la- bZ&11012@3@2011&fgUnhº

'kqHkzk ¯lg] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion)

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014

S.O. 2729

.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of the

Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central

Government hereby notifies the following offices, under

the administrative control of the Department of Industrial

Policy and promotion, whose more than 80% staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi—

Office of the Joint Chief Controller of

Explosives, Southern Region, Chennai

Office of the Deputy Chief Controller of

Explosives, Ernakulum

Office of the Deputy Chief Controller of

Explosives, Raipur

Office of the Deputy Chief Controller of

Explosives, Dehradun

Office of the Deputy Chief Controller of

Explosives, Ranchi

Office of the Deputy Chief Controller of

Explosives, Departmetal Experimentation Centre,

Gondkhairi

Office of the Controller of Explosives, Patna

[No. E-11012/3/2011-Hindi]

SHUBHRA SINGH, Jt. Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYYkh] 13 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2730-—jk"Vªifr] Jh jkds'k dqekj dks 1-10-2014

(iwokZg~u) ls dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;k/hdj.k&lg&Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds :i esa 4-9-2019 rd

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fu;qDr djrs gSa A

Jh jkds'k dqekj dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;k/hdj.k&lg&Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds in/kjd dh vuqifLFkfr

esa ogka ds ¯yd vf/dkjh gksaxs A

¹la- ,&11016@04@2013&lh,y,l&IIº

,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo

6804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 13th October, 2014

S.O. 2730 .—The President is pleased to appoint

Shri Rakesh Kumar as Presiding Officer of the Central

Government Industrial-cum-labour Court, Lucknow w.e.f.

1.10.2014 (F.N.) for a period up to 4.9.2019 or until further

orders, whichever is earlier. Sh. Rakesh Kumar will be link

officer of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Kanpur in absence of

incumbent there.

[No. A-11016/04/2013-CLS-II]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk-2731-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 uoEcj] 2014 dks

ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh

gS) vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk&76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77]

78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds

micaèk vkU/z izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs]

vFkkZr~ %—

¶vkU/z izns'k jkT; esa usYywj ftys ds fpYydwj eaMy

esa dkfM+osMq jkTLo xkao dh lhek esa vkus okys lHkh

{ks=k¸A

¹la- ,l&38013@66@2014&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014

S.O. 2731 .—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central

Government hereby appoints the 1st November, 2014 as

the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except

Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into

force) and Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of

Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have

already been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of

Andhra Pradesh namely :—

“All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue

Village kadivedu in Chillakur mandal of P.S.R.

Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh.”

[No. S-38013/66/2014-SS- I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2732-—tcfd eSllZ ,y ,.M Vh baiQksVsd fyfeVsM

({ks=kh; dk;kZy;] Fkk.ks esa dksM la[;k ,e,p@Vh,p,u@424&, ds

varxZr) (blds i'pkr~ izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)

(blds i'pkr~ vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) 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 mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa mlds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh bl izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa

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

fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ Ldhe ds :i esa mfYyf[kr)

ds varxZr micaf/r vU; Hkfo"; fufèk ykHkksa dk iQk;nk mBk jgs gSaA

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

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

gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;èkhu mDr izfr"Bku

dks 01&04&1997 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@22@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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6805

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

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

6806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 uke ij fd, x, fuos'k vFkkZr~ izfrHkwfr;ksa] ck.Mksa vkfn

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

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

([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 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2732 .—Whereas M/s. L&T Infotech Limited

[under Code No. MH/THN/424-A 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’

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6807

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 1-4-1997 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/22/2014-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

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.

6808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual

statement of accounts or pass books to every employee

within six months of the close of financial/accounting year

free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be

made available as and when the members want, subject to

nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain

in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the

Trustees when presented to them.

15.

The employer shall make necessary provisions to

enable all the members to be able to see their account

balance from the computer terminals as and when required

by them.

16.

The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file

such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by

the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation within the

specified time limit, failing which it will be deemed as a

default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly

and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the

Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.

17.

The Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the

provident fund as per the directions of the Government

from time to time. Failure to make investments as per

directions of the Government shall make the Board of

Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may

be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner

or his representative.

18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of

Trust. The securities so obtained should be in

dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the

required facility is not available in the areas where

the trust operates the Board of Trustees shall

inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

concerned about the same.

(b) The Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise

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.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6809

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] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2733-—tcfd eSllZ ts-ds- Vk;j ,.M baMLVªht

(foØkar IykaV eSlwj) (dksM la[;k ds,u@,eokbZ,l@9508 ds

varxZr eaxykSj {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 mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh

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

ds varxZr ln`'; Lo:i ds fdlh izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/

esa nh tkus okyh 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) n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèklwpuk rd 01&04&2002 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@66@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;

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

6810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 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%

bYkSDVªkWfud :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

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 IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6811

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

djsxk A

31-

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

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

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

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2733.—Whereas M/s. J. K. Tyre and Industries

(Vikrant Plant Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. [under Code No. KN/

MYS/9508 in Regional Office, Mangalore] (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 01-04-2002 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/66/2014-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

6812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6813

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

P.F. Commissioner concerned directly on receipt of request

from the Regional P.F. 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 P.F. 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 P.F. 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.

6814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk-2734 -—tcfd eSllZ Vhvkj,iQ fyfeVsM ({ks=kh;

dk;kZy;] >kj[k.M ds dksM la[;k ts,p@1302 ds varxZr) (blds

i'pkr~ mDr izfr"Bku ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo";

fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (blds

i'pkr~ vf/fu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) 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 mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa mlds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk

mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa

deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk ;kstuk] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de

vuqdwy ugha gSA

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

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

gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèklwpuk rd 01&07&1980 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@65@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 fdUgha 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6815

?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] ftjds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

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

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

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

6816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 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 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 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2734 .—Whereas M/s. TRF Limited [under

Code No. JH/1302 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

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 01-07-1980 until further

notification.

[No. S-35015/65/2014-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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6817

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.

6818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6819

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] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2735-—tcfd eSllZ jly jsukWYMl ,lksfl,V~l

bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM ¹{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] fnYyh (nf{k.k) ds dksM

la[;k Mh,y@937516 ds varxZrº (blds i'pkr~ mDr izfr"Bku ds

:i esa mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk

vfèkfu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e

ds :i esa mfYyf[kr) 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 mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de vuqdwy

ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk mBk jgs gSa

dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds

laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk

;kstuk] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i esa mfYyf[kr)

ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de vuqdwy ugha

gSA

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

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

gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèklwpuk rd 01&03&2009 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

mica/ksa ds izHkko vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus rd NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@61@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 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

6820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

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

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

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 dk opu Hkh nsxk A ;g mu

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6821

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 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2735.—Whereas M/s. Russel Reynolds

Associates India Pvt. Limited [under Code No. DL/

937516 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 01-03-2009 until

further notification.

[No. S-35015/61/2014-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

6822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(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.

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6823

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

for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer

of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take

6824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2736-—tcfd eSllZ ,y ,.M Vh ,e,pvkbZ

okW;ylZ izk- fyfeVsM ({ks=kh; dk;kZy;] ckaæk ds dksM la[;k

,e,p@202246 ds varxZr) (blds i'pkr~ izfr"Bku ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fufèk vkSj izdh.kZ micaèk vfèkfu;e]

1952 (1952 dk 19) (blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr) 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 mfYyf[kr dh rqyuk esa mlds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, de

vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHkksa dk iQk;nk

mBk jgs gSa dqy feykdj blh izdkj ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa

deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ds varxZr vFkok deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fufèk Ldhe] 1952 (blds i'pkr~ mDr Ldhe ds :i esa

mfYyf[kr) ds varxZr iznku fd, tk jgs ykHkksa dh rqyuk esa de

vuqdwy ugha gSA

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

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

gq,] bl vfèklwpuk ds lkFk layXu 'krks± ds vè;kèkhu mDr izfr"Bku

dks vxyh vfèklwpuk rd 01&12&2008 ls mDr ;kstuk ds lHkh

mica/ksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@99@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 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6825

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] ftuds ikl rFkk ftudh lqj{kk vfHkj{kk

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

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

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 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[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

6826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 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 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2736.—Whereas M/s. L & T MHI Boilers

Pvt. Limited [under Code No. MH/202246 in Regional

Office, Bandra] (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 01-12-2008 until

further notification.

[No. S-35015/99/2014-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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6827

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

depository participants approved by Reserve Bank

6828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 along with the

audited balance sheet should be submitted to this

office by the Auditors directly within six months

after the closing of the financial year from 1st

April to 31st March. The format of the balance

sheet and the information to be furnished in the

report shall be prescribed by the Employees’

Provident fund Organisation and made available

with the RPFC office in electronic format as well as

a signed hard copy.

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 IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6829

ubZ fnYYkh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2737-—dsUæh; ljdkj] minku lank; vf/fu;e] 1972 (1972 dk 39) dh /kjk 3 iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkSj

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 363 rkjh[k 4 tuojh] 2006 dk vf/Økar djrs gq,] fuEufyf[kr fofu£n"V

lkj.kh ds LrEHk (2) esa mfYyf[kr vf/dkfj;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds LrEHk (3) esa muds lkeus rRLFkkuh izfof"V;ksa esa fofu£n"V {ks=k ;k

{ks=kkf/dkj ds fy, ,slh LFkkiukvksa ds laca/ esa] ftuds fy, mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2 ds [k.M (d) ds v/hu dsUæh; ljdkj leqfpr

ljdkj gS] fuEu fu;a=kd izkf/dkfj;ksa dks fofu£n"V djrh gS A

lkj.kh

Ø-la-

vf/dkjh

{ks=kkf/dkj

(1)

(2)

(3)

eq[; Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] ubZ fnYyh ds dk;kZy;

laiw.kZ Hkkjr

ds lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsa-)

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] onksnjk vkSj lHkh

xqtjkr jkT; vkSj nknj vkSj ukxj gosyh rFkk neu

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] vgenkckn {ks=k

vkSj nho dsUæh; 'kkflr izns'k

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] t;iqj vkSj lHkh

jktLFkku jkT;

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] vtesj {ks=k

vklulksy {ks=k ds lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsa-)

if'pe caxky jkT; esa cqnZoku] chjHkwe] ckadqjk ,oa

iq#fy;k ds flfoy ftys

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] csykjh vkSj lHkh

dukZVd jkT;

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] caxyw# {ks=k

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] jkmjdsyk vkSj lHkh

vksfM'kk jkT;

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] Hkqous'oj {ks=k

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] iq.ks vkSj okLdks

egkjk"Vª jkT; (ukxiqj] HkaMkjk] vdksyk] chM] vejkorh

rFkk lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] eqacbZ {ks=k

o/kZ] cqy<+k.kk] tyxkao] paæiqj] ukansM+] xMfpjkSyh

ijHkuh] ykrqj] ;oreky] vksLekukckn] ¯gxksyh] xksafM;k

vkSj ok¯'ke ds flfoy ftyksa dks NksM+dj) xksok jkT;

dksydkrk {ks=k ds lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)

if'pe caxky jkT; (cqnZoku] chjHkwe] ckadqjk ,oa iq#fy;k

ds flfoy ftyksa dks NksM+dj) rFkk flfDDe jkT;

,oa vaMeku vkSj fudksckj }hilewg ds dsUæ 'kkflr {ks=k

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] fr#vuariqje vkSj

dsjy jkT;] y{k}hi la?k jkT; {ks=k vkSj iqnqpsjh ds

lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] dksphu {ks=k

ekgs la?k jkT; {ks=k

10-

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] tEew vkSj lHkh

fgekpy izns'k jkT;] gfj;k.kk jkT;] iatkc jkT;] tEew

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] paMhx<+ {ks=k

,oa d'ehj jkT; dsUæ 'kkflr {ks=k paMhx<+

11-

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] jkaph vkSj lHkh

>kj[k.M jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr ftyksa esa /uckn] cksdkjks]

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] /uckn {ks=k

gtkjhckx] dksMjek] jkaph] ygjnxk] xqeyk] fleMsxk]

prjk] iwohZ ¯lgHkwe] if'peh ¯lgHkwe] fxjhMhg]

nsoèkj] ljk;dsyk ([kjluok) vkSj tkerkjk

12-

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] fMc#x<+ vkSj lHkh

vle jkT;] ukxkyS.M jkT;] es?kky; jkT;] f=kiqjk jkT;]

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] xqokgkVh {ks=k

jkT;] ef.kiqj jkT;] fetksje jkT;] vkSj v#.kkpy

izns'k jkT;

6830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13-

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] fo'kk[kkiV~Vue vkSj

vkU/z izns'k jkT;] rsyaxkuk jkT; vkSj iqnqpsjh ds la?k

lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] gSnjkckn {ks=k

jkT; {ks=k esa ;ue {ks=k

14-

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] Hkksiky vkSj lHkh

eè; izns'k jkT;

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] tcyiqj {ks=k

15-

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] y[kuÅ vkSj lHkh

mÙkj izns'k jkT; (lgkjuiqj] fctukSj] esjB]

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] dkuiqj {ks=k

xkft;kckn] cqyan'kgj] eqtÝiQjuxj] cjsyh]

cnka;q] eqjknkckn] T;ksfrck iwQys uxj (vejksgk)]

ihyhHkhr] 'kkgtgkaiqj] jkeiqj] ckxir ,oa

xkSrecq¼ uxj ds flfoy ftyksa dks NksM+dj)

16-

lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] nsgjknwu {ks=k

mÙkjk[k.M jkT; rFkk mÙkj izns'k jkT; ds lgkjuiqj]

fctukSj] esjB] xkft;kckn] cqyan'kgj] eqtÝiQjuxj]

cjsyh] eqjknkckn] T;ksfrck iwQys uxj (vejksgk)]

ihyhHkhr] 'kkgtgkaiqj] cnka;q] jkeiqj] ckxir ,oa

xkSrecq¼ ukxfjd flfoy ftys

17-

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] enqjS vkSj lHkh

rfeyukMq jkT;] rFkk iqnqpsjh la?k jkT; {ks=k (;ue rFkk

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] psUubZ {ks=k

ekgs dks NksM+dj)

18-

lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] ukxiqj {ks=k

egkjk"Vª jkT; ds ukxiqj] HkaMkjk] vdksyk] vejkorh]

o/kZ] cqY/kuk] tyxkao] paæiqj] chM+] xMfpjkSyh]

ukansM+] ijHkuh] ;oreky] vksLekukckn] ykrqj] xksafM;k]

¯gxksyh vkSj ok¯'ke ds flfoy ftys

19-

lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] fnYyh {ks=k

jk"Vªh; jkt/kuh {ks=k fnYyh

20-

lHkh lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] iVuk {ks=k

fcgkj jkT; vkSj >kj[k.M jkT; ds x<+ok] ykrsgkj]

lkgscxat] ikdqj] nqedk] iykew vkSj xksM~Mk ds

flfoy ftys

21-

{ks=kh; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] fcykliqj vkSj lHkh

NÙkhlx<+ jkT;

lgk;d Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] jk;iqj {ks=k

[la- ,l&42012@1@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2737.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) and

in supersession of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour notification number S.O. 363 dated the 4th January, 2006,

the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table specified hereunder to be the

Controlling Authorities for the area or jurisdiction as specified in column (3) of the said Table in relation to all establishments

for which the Central Government is the appropriate Government under clause (a) of Section 2 of the said Act.

TABLE

S.No.

Officers

Jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

(3)

All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central)

Whole of India

in the Office of the Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central), New Delhi

(1)

(2)

(3)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6831

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Gujarat and the Union Territories of Dadra,

Vadodara and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu

(Central) in Ahmedabad region

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Rajasthan

Jaipur and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

(Central) in Ajmer region

All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central)

The Civil Districts of Burdwan, Birbhum, Bankura and

in Asansol region

Purulia in the State of West Bengal

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Karnataka

Bellary and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

(Central) in Bangalore region

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Odisha

Rourkela and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

(Central) in Bhubaneswar region

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Maharashtra (except the Civil Districts of

Pune and Vasco (Goa) and All Assistant Labour

Nagpur, Bhandara, Akola, Beed Amaravati, Wardha,

Commissioners (Central) in Mumbai region

Buldhana, Jalgaon, Chandrapur, Nanded, Gaddchiroli,

Parbhanai, Latur, Yeotmal, Osmanabad, Hingoli, Gondia

and Washim) and the State of Goa

All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central)

The State of West Bengal (except the Civil Districts of

in Kolkata region

Burdwan, Birbhum, Bankura and Purlia), the State of

Sikkim and the Union Territory of Andaman and

Nicobar Islands

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Kerala and Union Territory of

Lakshdweep

Thiruvananthapuram and All Assistant Labour

and Mahe in the Union Territory of Puducherry

Commissioners (Central), Cochin

10.

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab,

Haryana,

Jammu and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of

Chandigarh

(Central) in Chandigarh region

11.

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The following Districts of the State of Jharkhand -

Ranchi and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

Dhanbad, Bokaro, Hazaribagh, Kodarma, Ranchi,

(Central) in Dhanbad region

Lahardaga, Gumla, Simdega, Chatra, East Singhbum,

West Singhbhum, Giridih, Deogarh, Sarai Keala

Charsanwa) and Jamtara

12.

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura,

Dibrugarh and All Assistant Labour

Manipur, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh

Commissioners (Central) in Guwahati region

13.

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Telengana and

Vishakhapatnam and All Assistant Labour

the area of Yanam in the Union Territory of

Puducherry

Commissioners (Central) in Hyderabad region

14.

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bhopal and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

(Central) in Jabalpur region

(1)

(2)

(3)

6832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15.

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow

The State of Uttar Pradesh (except the Civil Districts of

and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

Saharanpur, Bijnore, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahar,

(Central) in Kanpur region

Muzaffarnagar, Bareilly, Badaun, Moradabad, Jyotiba

Phule Nagar (Amroha), Pilibhit, Shahajahanpur, Rampur,

Baghpat and Gautam Budh Nagar

16.

All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central)

The State of Uttarakhand and the Civil Districts of

in Dehradun region

Saharanpur, Bijnore, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahar,

Muzaffarnagar, Bareilly, Moradabad, Jyotiba Phule

Nagar (Amroha), Pilibhit, Shahajahanpur, Badaun,

Rampur, Baghpat and Gautam Budh Nagar in the State

of Uttar Pradesh

17.

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madurai

The State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of

and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

Puducherry (except Yanam and Mahe)

(Central) in Chennai region

18.

All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central),

The Civil Districts of Nagpur, Bhandara, Akola,

Nagpur region

Amaravati, Wardha Buldhana, Jalgaon, Chandrapur,

Beed, Gaddchiroli, Nanded, Parbhani, Yeotmal,

Osmanabad, Latur, Gondia, Washim, Hingoli in the State

of Maharashtra

19.

All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central),

National Capital Territory of Delhi

Delhi region

20.

All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central)

The State of Bihar and the Civil Districts of Garhwa,

in Patna region

Latehar, Sahibganj, Pakur, Dumka, Palamu and Godda

in the State of Jharkhand

21.

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bilaspur

The State of Chhattisgarh.

and All Assistant Labour Commissioners

(Central) in Raipur region

[No. S-42012/1/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYYkh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2738 -—dsUæh; ljdkj] minku lank; vf/fu;e] 1972 (1972 dk 39) dh /kjk 7 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 362 rkjh[k 4 tuojh] 2006 dk vf/Økar djrs gq,] fuEufyf[kr

fofu£n"V lkj.kh ds LrEHk (2) esa mfYyf[kr vf/dkfj;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds LrEHk (3) esa muds lkeus rRLFkku izfof"V;ksa esa ;Fkk&fofu£n"V

{ks=k ;k {ks=kkfèkdkj ds fy, ,slh LFkkiukvksa ds laca/ esa] ftuds fy, mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 2 ds [k.M (d) ds v/hu dsUæh; ljdkj

leqfpr ljdkj gS] fuEu vihyh; izkf/dkfj;ksa dks fofu£n"V djrh gS A

lkj.kh

Ø-la-

vf/dkjh

{ks=kkf/dkj

(1)

(2)

(3)

eq[;ky;] eq[; Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)] ubZ fnYyh

laiw.kZ Hkkjr

ds dk;kZy; ds lHkh mi eq[; Jek;qDr (dsUæh;)

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] vgenkckn

xqtjkr jkT; vkSj nknj vkSj ukxj gosyh rFkk neu vkSj

nho dsUæh; 'kkflr izns'k

(1)

(2)

(3)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6833

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] vtesj

jktLFkku jkT;

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] vklulksy

if'pe caxky jkT; esa cqnZoku] chjHkwe] ckadqjk ,oa iq#fy;k

ds flfoy ftys

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] caxyw#

dukZVd jkT;

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] Hkqous'oj

vksfM'kk jkT;

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] eqacbZ

egkjk"Vª jkT; (ukxiqj] HkaMkjk] vdksyk] chM] vejkorh

o/kZ] cqY<+k.kk] tyxkao] paæiqj] ukansM+] xMfpjkSyh

ijHkuh] ykrqj] ;oreky] vksLekukckn] ¯gxksyh] xksafM;k

vkSj ok¯'ke ds flfoy ftyksa dks NksM+dj)

xksok jkT;

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] dksydkrk

if'pe caxky jkT; (cqnZoku] chjHkwe] ckadqjk ,oa iq#fy;k

ds flfoy ftyksa dks NksM+dj) rFkk flfDde

jkT; ,oa vaMeku vkSj fudksckj }hilewg ds dsUæ 'kkflr

{ks=k

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] dksphu

dsjy jkT;] y{k}hi la?k jkT; {ks=k vkSj iqnqpsjh ds

ekgs la?k jkT; {ks=k

10-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] paMhx<+

fgekpy izns'k jkT;] gfj;k.kk jkT;] iatkc jkT;]

tEew ,oa d'ehj jkT; dsUæ 'kkflr {ks=k paMhx<+

11-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] /uckn

>kj[k.M jkT; fuEufyf[kr ftyksa esa /uckn] cksdkjks]

gtkjhckx] dksMjek] jkaph] ygjnxk] xqeyk] fleMsxk]

prjk] iwohZ ¯lgHkwe] if'peh ¯lgHkwe] fxjhMhg] nsoèkj]

ljk;dsyk ([kjluok) vkSj tkerkjk

12-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] xqokgkVh

vle jkT;] ukxkyS.M jkT;] es?kky; jkT;] f=kiqjk

jkT;] ef.kiqj jkT;] fetksje jkT;] vkSj v#.kkpy

izns'k jkT;

13-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] gSnjkckn

vkU/z izns'k jkT;] rsyaxkuk jkT; vkSj iqnqpsjh ds la?k

jkT; {ks=k esa ;ue {ks=k

14-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] tcyiqj

eè; izns'k jkT;

15-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] dkuiqj

mÙkj izns'k jkT; (lgkjuiqj] fctukSj] esjB] xkft;kckn]

cqyan'kgj] eqtÝiQjuxj] cjsyh] cnka;q] eqjknkckn] T;ksfrck

iwQys uxj (vejksgk)] ihyhHkhr] 'kkgtgkaiqj] jkeiqj]

ckxir ,oa xkSrecq¼ uxj ds flfoy

ftyksa dks NksM+dj)

16-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] nsgjknwu

mÙkjk[k.M jkT; rFkk mÙkj izns'k jkT; ds lgkjuiqj]

fctukSj] esjB] xkft;kckn] cqyan'kgj] eqtÝiQjuxj] cjsyh]

eqjknkckn] T;ksfrck iwQys uxj (vejksgk)] ihyhHkhr]

'kkgtgkaiqj] cnka;q] jkeiqj] ckxir ,oa xkSrecq¼ uxj

ukxfjd flfoy ftys

(1)

(2)

(3)

6834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] psUubZ

rfeyukMq jkT;] rFkk iqnqpsjh la?k jkT; {ks=k (;ue rFkk

ekgs dks NksM+dj)

18-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] ukxiqj

egkjk"Vª jkT; ds ukxiqj] HkaMkjk] vdksyk] vejkorh]

o/kZ] cqY/kuk] tyxkao] paæiqj] chM+] xMfpjkSyh]

ukansM] ijHkuh] ;oreky] vksLekukckn] ykrqj] xksafM;k]

¯gxksyh vkSj ok¯'ke ds flfoy ftys

19-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] ubZ fnYyh

jk"Vªh; jkt/kuh {ks=k fnYyh

20-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] iVuk

fcgkj jkT; vkSj >kj[k.M jkT; ds x<+ok] ykrsgkj]

lkgscxat] ikdqj] nqedk] iykew vkSj xksM~Mk ds flfoy

ftys

21-

mi eq[; Je vk;qDr (dsUæh;)] jk;iqj

NÙkhlx<+ jkT;

[la- ,l&42012@1@2014&,l,l&II]

lqHkk"k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2738 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) and in supersession of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour notification number S.O.

362 dated the 4th January, 2006, the Central Government hereby specifies the officers mentioned in column (2) of the

Table specified hereunder to be the Appellate Authority for the area or jurisdiction as specified in column (3) of the said

Table in relation to all establishments for which the Central Government is the appropriate Government under clause (a)

of Section 2 of the said Act.

TABLE

S.No.

Officers

Jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

(3)

All Deputy Chief Labour Commissioners (Central)

Whole of India

in the Head Quarters, Office of the Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), New Delhi

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Gujarat and the Union Territories of Dadra,

Ahmedabad

Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Rajasthan

Ajmer

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The Civil Districts of Burdwan, Birbhum, Bankura and

Asansol

Purulia in the State of West Bengal

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Karnataka

Bangalore

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Odisha

Bhubaneswar

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Maharashtra (except the Civil Districts of

Mumbai

Nagpur, Bhandara, Akola, Beed, Amaravati, Wardha,

Buldhana, Jalgaon, Chandrapur, Nanded, Gaddchiroli,

Parbhanai, Latur, Yeotmal, Osmanabad, Hingoli, Gondia

and Washim) and the State of Goa

(1)

(2)

(3)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6835

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of West Bengal (except the Civil Districts of

Kolkata

Burdwan, Birbhum Bankura and Purlia in the State of

West Bengal), State of Sikkim and the Union Territory of

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Kerala and Union Territory of Lakshdweep

Cochin

and Mahe in the Union Territory of Puducherry

10.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu

Chandigarh

and Kashmir and Union Territory of Chandigarh

11.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The following Districts of the State of Jharkhand -

Dhanbad

Dhanbad, Bokaro, Hazaribagh, Kodarma, Ranchi,

Lahardaga, Gumla, Simdega, Chatra, East Singhbum,

West Singhbhum, Giridih, Deogarh, Sarai Keala

(Charsanwa) and Jamtara

12.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura,

Guwahati

Manipur, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh

13.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Telengana and

Hyderabad

Yanam of Union Territory of Puducherry

14.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Jabalpur

15.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Uttar Pradesh [except the Civil Districts of

Kanpur

Saharanpur, Bijnore, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahar,

Muzaffarnagar, Bareilly Badaun, Moradabad, Jyotiba

Phule Nagar (Amroha), Pilibhit, Shahajahanpur, Rampur,

Baghpat and Gautam Budh Nagar]

16.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Uttarakhand and the Civil Districts of

Dehradun

Saharanpur, Bijnore, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahar,

Muzaffar Nagar, Bareilly, Moradabad, Jyotiba Phule

Nagar (Amroha), Pilibhit, Shahajahanpur, Badaun,

Rampur, Baghpat and Gautam Budh Nagar in the State

of Uttar Pradesh

17.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of

Chennai

puducherry (except Yanam and Mahe)

18.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The Civil Districts of Nagpur, Bhandara, Akola,

Nagpur

Amaravati, Wardha Buldhana, Jalgaon, Chandrapur,

Beed, Gaddchiroli, Nanded, Parbhani, Yeotmal,

Osmanabad, Latur, Gondia, Washim, Hingoli and in the

State of Maharashtra

19.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

National Capital Territory of Delhi

New Delhi

20.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Bihar and the Civil Districts of Garhwa,

Patna

Latehar, Sahibganj, Pakur, Dumka, Palamu and Godda

in the State of Jharkhand

21.

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

The State of Chhattisgarh.

Raipur

[No. S-42012/1/2014-SS-II]

SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.

(1)

(2)

(3)

6836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYYkh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2739-—tcfd eSllZ ,y ,.M Vh gkbZMªks dkcZu

bathfu;¯jx fyfeVsM (dksM la[;k ,e,p@Vh,p,u@206169 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

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 mDr vfèkfu;e vFkok deZpkjh

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

ds varxZr ln`'k; Lo:i ds fdlh vU; izfr"Bku esa deZpkfj;ksa ds

laca/ esa nh tkus okyh vU; Hkfo"; fufèk izlqfoèkkvksa dk Hkh ykHk

mBk jgs gSaA

vr%] vc] dsUæh; 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;èkhu mDr

izfr"Bku dks 01&04&2002 ls vxyh vfèklwpuk rd mDr ;kstuk

ds lHkh micaèkksa ds izHkko ls NwV iznku djrh gS A

[la- ,l&35015@73@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 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6837

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

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

6838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2739.—Whereas M/s. L&T Hydrocarbon

Engineering Limited [under Code No. MH/THN/206169

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 01-04-2013 until

further notification.

[No. S-35015/73/2014-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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6839

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.

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

6840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2740-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj daVªksysjsV vkWiQ

DokfyVh vLlqjsUl 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- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@9@04) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@45@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6841

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014

S.O. 2740 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. Case

No. CGIT/LC/R/9/04) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Controllerate of Quality Assurance, Jabalpur and their

workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.10.2014.

[No. L-14011/45/2000-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/9/04

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE

General Secretary,

Workers Union C.I.W,

C/o Shri S. Banerjee,

310/3, New Colony,

Jabalpur

...Workman/Union

Versus

Controller,

Controllerate of Quality Assurance,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22^nd day of September, 2014

As per letter dated 3-2-2004 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

14011/45/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“Whether the claim of the Workers Union CIW,

Jabalpur that the seniority of Shri Jharilal

Chakravarty, Draftsman Grade III has not been

fixed correctly by the management of Controller of

Quality Assurance (W), Jabalpur and that he has

been denied promotion to Draftsman Grade II

ignoring his seniority is factually correct? If so,

what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Union on behalf of workman Jharilal

Chakravarty submitted statement of claim at page 5/1 to

5/3. Case of Union is that workman Jharilal is working

on post of Draftsman Grade III in office of management

of IInd party. The name of above workman is shown at

Sl. No. 26 in Seniority List. Names of Shri S.

Bhattacharya and Pradeep K. Das are shown at Sl. No.

24, 25. Ist party workman was given seniority on 1-7-90

as draftsman Grade III. Shri S.Bhattacharjee and Pradeep

Das were given seniority from 2-8-90 and 24-10-90

respectively. As such both of them are junior to him. The

next promotion from Draftsman Grade-III is Draftsman

Grade-II. The promotion is on basis of seniority cum

merit. Since workman was placed incorrectly in seniority

list below his juniors, his juniors were promoted.

It is submitted that series of representations about

his grievance by workman were not responded. The

seniority list was not corrected. On such ground, workman

prays for directions to promote him on post of Draftsman

Grade II from the date his juniors were promoted.

IInd party filed Short Written Statement at Page 9/1.

It is submitted that during pendency of the case the

seniority roll of Draftsman has been revised. That

seniority of workman is fixed above Shri P.K.Das. It is

further submitted that the seniority roll reflects the

anamoly has been corrected in Revised seniority list. That

dispute raised has become infructuous and deserves to be

dismissed.

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

Seniority List is

management of Whether

revised and workman

the claim of the Workers

is promoted

Union CIW, Jabalpur that

considering his

the seniority of Shri Jharilal

seniority, therefore

Chakravarty, Draftsman

dispute ceized to

Grade III has not been fixed

exist.

correctly by the management

of Controller of Quality

Assurance (W), Jabalpur

and that he has been denied

promotion to Draftsman

Grade II ignoring his

seniority is factually correct?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

claimed by him as

claim is already

satisfied.

REASONS

Case of Ist party workman is that seniority list was

not correctly maintained. His juniors were shown above

him. His juniors were promoted. IInd party submits that

seniority list is revised and anamoly has been corrected.

6842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering

his contentions in statement of claim. That Mr.

Bhattacharya and Pradeep Das junior to him were shown

above in the seniority list and they were promoted. His

representations were not considered. In his cross-

examination, workman says his seniority list dated 1-7-90

is revised. He is shown senior to Pradeep Kumar. Again

workman says that said seniority list was not

implemented. In his further cross-examination, workman

says that in revised seniority list, Pradeep Kumar was

shown at Sl. No. 31 and his name was shown at Sl. No. 61.

he admits that he is promoted to Draftsman Grade-II. He

is given promotion from the date of his promotion of his

juniors. Thus evidence in cross-examination of workman

shows that seniority list is revised and he is given

promotion from the date his juniors are promoted.

Management’s witness Shri R.N.Rawat filed

affidavit supporting contentions of workman that old

seniority roll was revised. In his cross-examination, he

denies that Shri S. Bhattacharya and Pradeep Kumar Das

are junior to workman. The denial of the management’s

witness is inconsistent with the contentions raised in

Written Statement and therefore needs to be ignored. The

evidence discussed above shows that seniority list has

been revised and grievance of workman in the matter of

promotion has been exceeded. Thereby the dispute ceized

to exist. Accordingly, I record my finding in Point No.1.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The seniority list of Draftsman Grade III is revised

and workman is given promotion from the date of

promotion of his juniors. The dispute ceized to exist.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk-2741 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe 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;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 9@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@103@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014

S.O. 2741 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 9/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in

the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 08.10.2014.

[No. L-40012/103/2010-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 9 of 2011

Reference No. L-40012/103/2010-IR(DU)

dated 05.05.2011

Shri Iqbal Singh son of Shri Sukhdev

Singh, resident of Golewala Patti

Malooka, Tehsil & District Faridkot

C/o BSNL Casual and Contract

Workers Union, Punjab HO Trade

Union Council, Kamal Cinema,

Malerkotla Sangrur

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom,

Bharat Sanchar Limited, Ferozepur

The CGM, Telephone,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Sector-34, Chandigarh

The D.E.M,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Faridkot

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Workman

None

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar advocate.

AWARD

Passed On:-1.10.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-40012/103/2010/IR(DU)dated

05.05.2011 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the demand of Shri Iqbal Singh son of

Shri Sukhdev Singh from the management of

General Manager, BSNL, Ferozepur/CGM

Telephone,BSNL, Sector-34, Chandigarh/DEM

BSNL, Faridkot for reinstatement in service w.e.f.

25.3.2010 is legal and justified? What benefits the

workman is entitled for and what directions are

necessary in the matter?”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6843

Case repeated called. Despite repeated

opportunities, none appeared for the workman. The case

was fixed for filing of affidavit in evidence by the

workman. Despite last opportunity and several

opportunities thereafter, neither workman appeared nor

any affidavit in evidence has been filed. Representatives

of the respondents are present. It appears that the

workman is not interested to pursue the present reference.

In view of the above the present reference is disposed off

and answered against the workman as no evidence has

been produced on behalf of the workman.

Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh

1.10.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2742 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr

vFkZ ewolZ 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh@,uthih@23@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@07@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014

S.O. 2742 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. Case

No. CGIT/NGP/23/2011) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur now as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Bharat Earth Movers Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

08.10.2014.

[No. L-14011/07/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/23/2011

Date: 23.09.2014

Party No.1 (a)

The Regional Manager,

Bharat Earth Movers Limited,

Cement Road, Nagpur

(b)

The Assistant Manager,

Bharat Earth Movers Limited,

Cement Road, Nagpur

(c)

The Director,

Bharat Earth Movers Limited,

23/1, Chowtha Main, S R Nagar,

Bangalore-560027

Party No. 2

Shri Roopchand,

S/o Shri Ramaasare Grawkar,

R/o House No. 32, Near water

Tank, Pandharabadi,

Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 23^rd September, 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 Bharat Earth Movers Limited and

their workman, Shri Roopchand, for adjudication, as per

letter No.L-14011/07/2011-IR (DU) dated 03.10.2011,

with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Earth Movers Limited, Nagpur, in terminating the

services of Shri Roopchand from February, 2006 is

legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri

Roopchand,(‘the workman” in short), filed the statement

of claim and the management of Bharat Earth Movers

Limited , (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written

statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that party no.1 is a public limited

company and he was employed as a sweeper by the party

No.1 in 1990 and continued to work as such to the

satisfaction of party no.1 till the date of his termination

in February, 2006 and at the time of his appointment, it

was explained to him that he was to take care of all the

cleaning works in the office of the party no.1 and party

no.1 issued a certificate in support of his good work and

he was being entrusted extra work apart from the assigned

work and he used to do all the works as directed by the

party no.1 and he was also being asked to clean the

personal houses of the officers and as such, he asked the

party no.1 to give a list of works to be performed by him

6844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and accordingly, a list was prepared and his signature

was taken in token of his acceptance of the same and on

13.10.2005, one of the officers of the office of the Assistant

Manager asked him to visit the bungalow of the Regional

Manager and as per the direction, he visited the bungalow

of the Regional Manager and being asked by the wife of

the Regional Manager, he cleaned the premises of the

bungalow and while leaving the bungalow, he was asked

to clean the premises daily and though the said work was

not included in the works assigned to him, he was

compelled to do the same under the threat of termination

of his services in case of his refusal and he was left with

no choice then to do the said extra work without any

extra payment being made to him and he was exploited,

victimized and made victim of unfair labour practice.

It is further pleaded by the workman that the post

of sweeper was a permanent post and one Hadke was

working as the permanent sweeper and the said Hadke

was promoted and after his promotion, Hadke left the

job and the post of sweeper fell vacant in or around 1997

and since then, the post was never filled in and he being

the next person due to be appointed in the said post, he

ought to have been given permanent appointment in the

said post, but party no.1 failed to do so, inspite of the fact

that he had completed 240 days of continuous service

and time and again, he had requested for the same and

party no.1 indulged in unfair labour practice by depriving

him of his claim for permanent appointment to the post

of sweeper since 1990 or at least since 1997, when the

post of sweeper fell vacant and his initial appointment

was with an assurance of appointing him in permanent

post and though the work was continuously and

throughout the year available, the party no.1 illegally

continued him as a temporary employee for almost

16 years, which was illegal and against the principles of

natural justice and soon after receipt of the notice of the

case filed by him before the labour court, Nagpur, the

party no.1 terminated his service orally in February, 2006

and he was instructed orally not to attend the office,

without assigning any reason or compliance of the legal

provisions and without service of any notice as required

under section 25-F of the Act.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages and to direct

the party no.1 to appoint him on the permanent post.

The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that it is a Government owned Public Limited

company and the reference is not maintainable as there

was no employer and employee relationship between it

and the workman was engaged on daily wages basis for

2-3 hours for sweeping of the office premises on a private

contract and the workman was neither selected nor

appointed by it at any point of time, as per the Rules and

Regulations required for appointment of regular

employees of the Central Government and the workman

has challenged the alleged termination dated 14.11.2005,

almost after a gap of six years and as such, the reference

is not maintainable on the ground of delay and latches

and the statement of claim filed under section 10 of the

Act is totally misconceived, as there is no such procedure

or provision in the Act to file the complaint under the

said section of the Act and therefore, the same is liable to

be dismissed.

It is further pleaded by party no.1 that the workman,

who was engaged on private contract, abandoned the

service himself for the reason best known to him and at

the time of the engagement of the workman, he was

explained the works to be performed by him and he was

directed to complete the entire work of sweeping before

9.00 AM, daily, since the opening hours of its office is

9 AM and the certificate was issued by the then Assistant

Manager, Shri V.G. Nair in his personal capacity on

demand by the workman and cleaning of the houses of

the officers was the part of the contract and the workman

was not entrusted with extra work and he was not

subjected to any compulsion and the duty chart dated

29.08.2005 was signed by one of its officers and not by

the appointing authority of the company and the said

contract was accepted by the workman on 30.08.2005

and the contract amount was paid to the workman on

voucher as per the agreement and there was no continuous

employment of the workman from 1990 to February, 2006

and he was not working continuously with it from 1990

to February, 2006 and perusal of the application dated

30.06.1990, placed by the workman on record in support

of his claim of working from 1990, it can be found that

the date, “30.06.1990” is in a different ink than the ink

used for writing the application and such fact shows that

the date was subsequently inserted to show the back dated

contract of the workman with it and in the complaint no.

311/2005 filed by the workman before the Labour Court,

Nagpur, the workman had mentioned his age as 33 years

as on 14.11.2005 and if the workman was aged about

33 years on 14.11.2005, then he must be aged about

15-16 years in 1990 and no government company would

appoint a person aged about 15-16 years old in

contravention of service rules and therefore, the entire

submissions of the workman are false, fabricated and

concocted.

The further case of party no.1 is that Shri Hadke

was never appointed as a sweeper and as such, there was

no question of lying of any permanent vacant post of

sweeper since 1997 and the workman did not work for

more than 240 days in each calendar year and he has no

right to claim permanency and there is no sanctioned

post of sweeper to reinstate the workman and the

workman was never given any assurance of permanency

and there is no question of its adopting any unfair labour

practice and provisions of section 25-F of the Act are not

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6845

applicable to personal contract of sweeping and the entire

complaint is vague and there is no specific date of

termination and no blanket direction of reinstatement can

be granted without specifying the date of termination and

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

It is to be mentioned that no rejoinder was filed by

the workman, even though, he was given sufficient

opportunities for the same.

Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,

both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their

respective claims.

The workman has examined himself as a witness

in support of his case.

One Shri Vikas Chandra Kureel has been examined

as a witness on behalf of the party no.1.

The workman in his examination-in-chief, which

is on affidavit has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

statement of claim. In his cross-examination, the

workman has admitted that the office hours of party no.1

were from 8.45 AM to 5.00AM and his working hours

were from 6.00 AM to 2.00 PM and no written order of

appointment was issued in his favour by party no.1 and

payment of wages being made to him on vouchers and

he had not signed the salary register maintained for

making payment of salary to the permanent employees

of party no.1. The workman has denied the suggestions

that he was engaged by party no.1 on contract basis and

party no.1 terminated his contract, when his services were

not required and his contract was terminated in 2005, so

he approached the Labour Court, Nagpur for redress and

in 2010, he withdrew the complaint case filed before the

Labour Court.

The evidence of the witness for party no.1 on

affidavit is in the same line that has been taken in the

written statement by party no.1. In his cross-examination,

the witness for the party no.1 has stated that the workman

was engaged by the management as a sweeper and he

was engaged as such in the year 1990 at first and Hadke

was a permanent helper-cum-chowkidar in the office of

Nagpur.

In the written notes of argument, the learned

advocate for the workman submitted that the workman

was appointed as a sweeper by party no.1 in the year

1990 and he worked with party no.1 continuously till

February, 2006 and the workman had completed 240 days

of work in every year and though the appointment of the

workman was against a vacant permanent post of sweeper,

which is lying vacant since 1997, the party no.1 did not

make the workman permanent, by adopting unfair labour

practice and terminated his services in February, 2006

orally, without compliance of the mandatory provisions

of Section 25-F of the Act, after the approach of the

workman the labour court, Nagpur for redress and the

termination of the workman is illegal and the workman

is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity

and full back wages.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 in the written notes of argument that

the workman had earlier filed ULPA complaint no. 311/

2005 in the 2^nd Labour Court, Nagpur and persuaded till

final hearing and ultimately, he withdrew the same vide

application dated 08.01.2010 and thereafter, he filed this

proceedings directly before this Tribunal and no

conciliation proceedings were initiated by the workman

as required under the Act and no reference was made

and as such, this complaint filed by the workman is not

maintainable.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that the complaint filed by the workman

is hopelessly time-barred and as there was no application

for condonation of delay, the same on that count is not

maintainable.

The advocate for the management also submitted

that in the statement of claim, no allegation has been

made by the workman that party no.1 is an industry and

he is a workman as defined under section 2 (j) and 2 (s)

of the Act respectively and in absence of such averments

and in absence of any evidence in respect of the same,

the proceeding is not maintainable and the workman was

engaged by Shri V.G. Nair, the Assistant Manager by

personal contract for sweeping the office premises and

the said contract was abandoned by the workman himself

for reasons best known to him and there was no employer

and employee relationship between the parties and the

workman has given distorted version about his alleged

termination and in ULPA complaint no. 311/2005, the

workman had mentioned that he was orally terminated

in October, 2005 and if actually, he was terminated in

February, 2006 as claimed by him in this proceedings,

then there was no reason for him to file ULPA complaint

no. 311/2005 and the entire case of the workman is false

and untenable and liable to be rejected and the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

10.

So far the first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party no.1 regarding non-maintainability

of the proceedings due to filing of the statement of claim

directly without initiation of any conciliation proceedings

is concerned, in fairness of the matter, the same is required

to be mentioned and rejected. It is clear from the letter

of reference issued by the Central Government for

adjudication of the industrial dispute to this Tribunal that

on submission of the failure report of conciliation by the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur, the

reference was made. The workman also in paragraph 15

of his statement of claim has categorically mentioned that;

“the Hon’ble Labour Court was pleaded to allow the

complainant to with draw the complaint for filing it before

the proper authority which was received by the Assistant

6846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Labour Commissioner (Central), Seminary Hills on

10.03.2010". There is no denial of such pleadings by the

party no. 1 in the written statement. The materials on

record clearly show that a conciliation proceedings was

initiated before the competent authority by the workman

and on failure of the conciliation, the reference was made

by the Government. Hence, there is no force in the

contention raised in this regard by the learned advocate

for the party no.1.

11.

The second contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party no.1 is that the reference suffers

from delay and latches and the same has been made as

an afterthought. Elaborating the said contention, it was

submitted that the workman filed ULPA complaint no.

311/2005 in the Labour Court, Nagpur and persuaded

the same till final hearing and ultimately withdrew the

same by filing the application dated 08.01.2010 and the

statement of claim in this reference was filed on

30.11.2011 and there was more than 1 ½ years of delay

in filing the case and the delay has not been explained

and no application for condonation of delay has been filed

and as such, the reference is not maintainable.

At this juncture, I think it apposite to mention that

it is settled beyond doubt in a string of decisions by the

Hon’ble Apex Court that the provisions of the limitation

Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act

and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the

workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of

delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved

as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not

as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the

Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground

to delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown

to be existing the Tribunal, Labour Court or Board,

dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief

by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the

date he raised the demand regarding his illegal

retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The court may

also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of

the back wages instead of full back wages.

Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned

above, now, the present case is to be considered. In this

case, though the party no.1 has taken the plea of delay,

there is no pleading that due to the delay, any prejudice

was caused to it or that due to the delay, material evidence

relevant to the adjudication is being lost and rendered

unavailable.

Moreover, from the materials on record, it is found

that apprehending termination from service and claiming

appointment on the permanent post, the workman filed,

ULPA complaint no. 311/2005 and persuaded the same

in good faith and he withdrew the same by filing an

application dated 08.01.2010 and after such withdrawal,

he initiated the conciliation proceeding before the ALC

(C), Nagpur and the ALC (C), Nagpur submitted the

failure report to the Central Government vide his letter

no. ALCN/8/ (32)/2010-ID dated 07.03.201 and

thereafter, Central Government referred the dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide letter dated

03.10.2011. So, there is no delay in making the reference

and there is no force in the contention raised by the

learned advocate for the party no.1 in that regard.

12.

The next contention raised by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 is that the workman has not made any

pleading in the statement of claim that he is a workman

and party no.1 is an industry as per the definition of

“workman” and “industry” given in section 2(s) and 2

(j) of the Act and in absence of such pleading and evidence

on record, the reference is not maintainable.

Admittedly, the workman has not made such

pleading in the statement of claim. It is well settled that

pleadings before the Tribunal have not be read strictly.

It is to be mentioned here that party no.1 has also not

made any pleadings in the written statement that it is not

an industry and the workman is not a “workman” as

defined under section 2(s) of the Act. In absence of such

pleadings by the party no.1 in the written statement, the

contention raised by the learned advocate for the party

no.1 cannot be considered.

13.

It is necessary to mention here that in the argument,

some untrue submissions were made by the learned

advocate for party no.1 that the workman is not sure of

the date of his termination, as in ULPA Complaint No.

311/2005, it was claimed by him that he was orally

terminated in October, 2005, but in this case, he has

claimed that he was terminated in February, 2006 and in

ULP complaint No. 311/2005, the workman had

mentioned his age to be 33 years, so he was 15 to

16 years in 1990, so there was no question of his

appointment by party no.1, which is a Government owned

Public Limited Company. On perusal of the complaint

No. 311/2005filed by the workman, Ext. M-I, it is found

that in the said complaint, the workman had no where

pleaded that he was terminated from services orally by

party no.1 in October, 2005. Rather, the prayer of the

workman in the said case was to direct the party no.1 not

to terminate his service.

It is found from the record that if in 2005, the age

of the workman was 33 years, when the case ULPA

complaint no. 311/2005 was filed, in 1990, he was already

18 years old and not 15 to 16 years as claimed by party

no.1. Moreover, the witness for party no.1 in his cross-

examination has categorically admitted that the workman

was engaged in 1990 at first. Hence, the submissions

made by the learned advocate for the party no.1 in that

regard have no force.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6847

14. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties,

both oral and documentary and taking into consideration

the submissions made by the learned advocates for the

parties, it is found that the workman was never appointed

by party No.1 against any permanent post, but he was

engaged to sweep and clean the office premises on daily

wages basis in the year 1990. The workman has claimed

that he had completed 240 days of work in every year

before his oral termination from service by party No.1 in

February, 2006. The claim of the workman of completing

240 days of work in every year has been denied by the

party No.1.

It is well settled that service for 240 days in a period

of 12 calendars months is equal not only to service for a

year, but is to be deemed continuous service even if

interrupted. Therefore, though S.25-F speaks of

continuous service for not less than one year under the

employer, both conditions are fulfilled, if the workman

has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12

calendar months.

It is also well settled that before a workman can

complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with

Section 25-F of the Act, he has to show that he has been

in continuous service for not less than one year under

that employer who has retrenched him from service.

In the present case, in order to prove that he worked

continuously from 1990 to February, 2006 and completed

more than 240 days in every year, the workman has

examined himself as a witness and has filed his evidence

on affidavit. The workman has also produced the

documents, Exts. W-I to W-V.

It is to be mentioned here that though it is the case

of the party No.1 that the workman was engaged on

contact basis and the contract amount was paid to him

on voucher as per the agreement, not a single document

including the vouchers in question has been produced by

the party No.1. The witness for the party No.1 in his

cross-examination has stated that the workman was

engaged by the management as a sweeper and he was

engaged in the year 1990 for the first time.

It will not be out of place to mention here that

though party no.1 has mentioned in the written statement

that the workman was engaged on contract basis, it has

not mentioned as to for how many days, the workman

was engaged during the 12 calendar months preceding

the alleged date of termination or the total days of his

engagement. No document has also been filed by party

No.1 in regard to the engagement of the workman.

In his evidence on affidavit, the workman has stated

that he completed 240 days of work in every year. The

said assertion of the workman has not at all been

challenged in his cross- examination. Even no suggestion

was given to him of his not completing of 240 days of

work in the preceding year of the date of his termination.

Besides his own evidence, the workman has filed

the documents, Exts. W-I to W-III, in support of his claim.

Ext. W-I is the certificate granted by the Assistant

Manager (P&A) of party No.1 on 27.03.2001. In Ext.

W-I, it has been mentioned that the workman was working

as a sweeper. Ext. W-II is a chart prepared by Party No.1

on 30.08.2005 in regard to the works to be performed by

the workman. In Ext.-II, it was also been mentioned that

the weekly of the workman was changed from Sunday to

Monday. Ext.W-III was a written direction to the

workman to go to the house of the R.M. on 13.10.2005.

The above documents show that the workman was

working continuously with party No.1 prior to his

termination.

It is found from the evidence on record that the

workman has been able to show that he had worked for

240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date

of the termination, i.e. before February, 2006. It is also

admitted that before termination of the services of the

workman, the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of

the Act were not complied with. So, the termination of

the services of the workman is held to be illegal.

15.

Now, the question remains for consideration is as

to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled.

As per the submission of the learned advocate for

the workman, the workman is entitled for reinstatement

in service with continuity and full back wages.

On the other hand, the learned advocate for the party

no.1 has submitted that the workman is not entitled for

reinstatement or for any other relief.

16.

At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about

the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported

in (2013) 5 SCC-136 (Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan

Development Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh) in respect

of grant of relief in cases of such nature. The Hon’ble

Apex Court in the said decision have been pleased to

take into consideration a large number of decisions

delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court earlier, including

the decisions reported in 2011 II CLR-461 (Devinder

Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sonaur, (2010) 3 SCC-192

(Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing

Corporation) and (2010) 9 SCC-126 (Incharge Officer

Vs. Shankar Setty.)

The Hon’ble Apex Court have been pleased to hold

that:-

“In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh

do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of

wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow.

This court found in those cases that judicial

discretion exercised by the labour court was

disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption

that the initial employment of the employee was

6848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful

termination of a daily wager, who had worked for

a short period, this court in long line of cases has

held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said

to be proper relief and rather award of compensation

in such cases would be in consonance with the

demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial

discretion, the labour court has to keep in view all

relevant factors, including the mode and manner

of appointment, nature of appointment, length of

service, the ground on which the dispute before

grant of relief in an industrial dispute.”

In the light of the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above, now, the present

case in hand is to be considered. In this case, it is admitted

that the workman was engaged as a daily wager in 1990.

It is also found that he continued as such till February,

2006, when he was terminated from services by party

No.1. In a case such as the present one, it appears that

the relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead

monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of

the case, in my considered opinion, the compensation of

Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One lac only) in lieu of

reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Bharat Earth

Movers Limited, Nagpur, in terminating the services of

Shri Roopchand from February, 2006 is illegal and

unjustified. The workman is entitled for monetary

compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) in

lieu of reinstatement. He is not entitled for any other

relief. The party No.1 is directed to pay the monetary

compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the workman,

Shri Roopchand within 30 days of the publication of the

award in the official gazette, failing which, the amount

will carry interest at the rate of 08% per annum from the

due date of such payment till the date of actual payment

of the said amount.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2743-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh ds

vk;qDr uxj fuxe ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 165@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@40@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014

S.O. 2743 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 165/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the

Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation of Delhi and their

workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.10.2014.

[No. L-42012/40/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR.R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.No. 165/2012

The General Secretary,

Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624, Sultanpuri,

Delhi

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi - 110006

...Management

AWARD

Shri Ramesh Chand, was initially engaged as daily

wager Mali by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short

the Corporation). He was later on regularized as Mali

with effect from 01.04.1978. He raised a demand for grant

of pay in pay scale meant for the post of Choudhary, from

the date of his appointment. His claim was rejected by

the Corporation on the count that neither he was having

requisite qualification nor passed the trade test for

promotion as Choudhary. He approached the Nagar

Nigam Karamchari Sangh (in short the union) for

redressal of his grievances. The union raised a dispute

before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation

contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into

a failure. On consideration of failure report, so submitted

by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No. L-42012/40/2012-IR(DU), New Delhi dated

09.11.2012, with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in denying the new

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6849

pay scale of ‘Chaudhary’ to the workman

Shri Ramesh Chand, S/o Late Shri Shankar Singh,

Mali, with effect from the date of appointment i.e.

01.01.1987 till date of retirement, i.e. 31.07.2007

is justified or not? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to and from which date?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions, so given, Shri Ramesh Chand

opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

Notice was sent to Shri Ramesh Chand by registered

post on 03.12.2012, calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on or before 02.01.2013.

This notice was sent to him through the union, at P-2/

624, Sultanpuri, Delhi, the address provided by the

appropriate Government in order of reference. Neither

the claimant nor the union responded to the notice, so

sent.

Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to his by

registered post on 02.01.2013 calling upon his to file

claim statement before the Tribunal on 29.01.2013. Notice

was again transmitted to the claimant by registered post

on 31.01.2013 asking him to file his claim statement on

or before 20.02.2013. Lastly, notice dated 22.02.2013 was

sent by registered post commanding the claimant to file

his claim statement before the Tribunal on or before

22.03.2013. Neither the postal articles, referred above,

were received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal

that postal services remained affected in the period,

referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in

favour of the fact that the above notices were served upon

the claimant. Despite service of these notices, claimant

opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim

statement was filed on his behalf.

Since onus of the question, referred for adjudication,

was on the Corporation, it was called upon to file its

response to the reference order. In its response to the

reference order, the Corporation projects that no notice

of demand was served on it prior to raising of dispute,

hence it has not acquired status of an industrial dispute.

The Corporation further pleads that for want of espousal,

dispute has not acquired character of an industrial dispute.

It has also been claimed that the dispute has been raised

at a belated stage, since the claimant superannuated on

31.07.2007 and no dispute was raised during his tenure

of service. Claimant is not entitled to get new pay scale

of Choudhary with effect from 01.04.1978, the date when

he was initially engaged as Mali. His claim is not

maintainable. It is liable to be dismissed being devoid of

merits, pleads the Corporation. There is a prescribed

procedure for promotion to the post of Chaudhary from

the post of Mali, i.e. there must be a sanctioned/vacant

post of Chaudhary, the incumbent possesses requisite

qualification and have passed trade test conducted by the

Corporation. The claimant neither possessed the requisite

qualification nor had ever appeared in any trade test.

Shri Ramesh Chand never performed duties of

Chaudhary. It has been projected that the claim is liable

to be dismissed.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.

Shri Umesh Gupta, authorized representative, raised

submissions on behalf of the Corporation. I have given

my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at

the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings

on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

Corporation contests the dispute on the count that

no notice of demand was served on it prior to raising a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. These facts also

remained uncontroverted. The object of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in the short the Act) is to protect

workman against victimization by the employer and

ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful

manner. The Act, however, does not provide for any set

of social and economic principles for adjustment of

conflicting interests. Such norms have been evolved and

devised by industrial adjudication, keeping in view the

social and economic conditions, the needs of the

workmen, the requirement of the industry, social justice,

relative interests of the parties and common good. These

norms have given rights to the industrial employees what

may be called industrial rights, as such rights may not be

available at common law. Disputes as to the conditions

of employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique

known as collective bargaining. This tool is resorted to

between an employer or group of employers and a

bonafide labour union. Policy behind this is to protect

workmen as a class against unfair labour practices. What

imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of an

“industrial dispute” is that it affects the right of the

workmen as a class.

An industrial dispute comes into existence when

the employer and the workman are at variance and the

dispute/difference is connected with the employment or

non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions

of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when

a demand is made by the workman on the employer and

it is rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu

Resettlement Corporation Ltd. (1968(1) LLJ 834), the

Apex Court has held that mere demand, asking the

appropriate Government to refer a dispute for

adjudication, without being raised by the workmen with

their employer, regarding such demand, cannot become

6850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

an industrial dispute. Hence, an industrial dispute cannot

be said to exist until and unless a demand is made by the

workman or workmen on the employer and it has been

rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

(1970 Lab.I.C.421), High Court of Delhi went a step

ahead and held that “ ... demand by the workman must

be raised first on the management and rejected by it,

before an industrial dispute can be said to arise and exist

and that the making of such a demand to the Conciliation

Officer and its communication by him to the management,

who rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute

an industrial dispute.”

The above decision was followed by Orissa High

Court in Orissa Industries Pvt. Ltd.(1976 Lab.I.C. 285)

and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt.

Ltd. (1993 Lab.I.C. 99). However, the Apex Court in

Bombay Union of Journalists (1961 (2) LLJ 436) had

ruled that an industrial dispute must be in existence or

apprehended on the date of reference. If, therefore, a

demand has been made by the workman and it has been

rejected by the employer before the date of reference,

whether direct or through the Conciliation Officer, it

would constitute an industrial dispute. In Shambhunath

Goyal (1978(1) LLJ 484), the Apex Court appreciated

facts that the workman had not made a formal demand

for his reinstatement in service. However, he had

contested his dismissal before the Enquiry Officer and

claimed reinstatement. Against the findings of the

Enquiry Officer, he preferred an appeal to the Appellate

Authority, claiming reinstatement on the ground that his

dismissal was bad in law. Then again, he claimed

reinstatement before the Conciliation Officer in the course

of conciliation proceedings, which was contested by the

employer. Appreciating all these facts, the Apex Court

inferred that there was impeccable evidence that the

workman had persistently demanded reinstatement,

rejection of which brought an industrial dispute into

existence.

10.

In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union (1979(39)

FL T 195), High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath

Goyal had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd.

But it had distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed

out that decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu

Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by

two Judge bench in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court

concluded that decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd.,

in case of any conflict between the two decisions, must

prevail. The High Court held that making of the demand

by the workman on the management was sine qua non

for giving rise to an industrial dispute.

11.

The High Court of Madras in Management of

Needle Industries (1986(1) LLJ 405) has held that dispute

or difference between management and the workman,

automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from

service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or difference

between the management and the workman. The Court

further observed that “it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,

particular in Section 2(k), that existence of the dispute

as such is not enough but then there should be a demand

by the workman on the management to give rise to an

industrial dispute”. However, this decision appears to be

inconsistent with the ratio of decision in Bombay Union

of Journalists(supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra).

No, doubt, for existence of an industrial dispute, there

should be a demand by the workman and refusal to grant

it by the management. However, a demand should be

raised, cannot be a legal notion of fixity and rigidity.

Grievances of the workman and demand for its redressal

must be communicated to the management. Means and

mechanism of the communication adopted are not matters

of much significance, so long as demand is that of the

workman and it reaches the management. Reference can

be made to the precedent in Ram Krishna Mills

Coimbatore Ltd. (1984 (2) LLJ 259).

12.

The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial

dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific

or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or

prescribed manner in which refusal should be

communicated. For an industrial dispute to come into

existence, written claim is not sine qua non. To read into

the definition, requirement of written demand for

bringing an industrial dispute into existence would

tantamount to rewriting the section, announced the Apex

Court in Shambunath Goyal(supra). In other words, oral

demand and its rejection will as much bring into existence

an industrial dispute, as written one. If facts and

circumstances of the case show that the workman had

been making a demand, which the management had been

refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an industrial

dispute between the parties.

13.

Since the claimant had not come forward to project

that demand notice was served on the Corporation, under

these circumstances, stand taken by the Corporation is

to be believed. The Corporation projects that no notice of

demand was served on it, before industrial dispute was

raised before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, it is emerging

over the record that it has not been established that

demand was raised on the Corporation, which was

rejected by it and as such, dispute has not acquired status

of an industrial dispute.

14.

The Corporation for further argued that the dispute

has not acquired status of an industrial dispute for want

of espousal by the union or considerable number of the

workmen in its establishment. For an answer to this

proposition, definition of the term ‘industrial dispute’ is

to be construed. Section (k) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act), defines the term ‘industrial

dispute’, which definition is extracted thus:

“2(k) “Industrial Dispute” means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6851

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms

of employment or with the conditions of labour, of

any person;”

15.

The definition of “industrial dispute” referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz.(a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen

and workmen, (3) subject matter of the dispute, which

should be connected with—(i) employment or non

employment, or (ii) terms of employment, or (iii)

condition of labour of any person, and (4) it should relate

to an “industry”.

16.

The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded in

very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem to

include all “employers”, all “employments” and all

“workmen”, whatever the nature or scope of the

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase “employer and workmen”,

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to

whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an

“an industrial dispute” or not, it must first be determined

whether the workman concerned or workmen sponsoring

his cause satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of Section 2

of the Act. The Corporation does not dispute status of the

claimant, being a workman within the meaning of Section

2(s) of the Act.

17.

The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

“industrial dispute” in Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1958 (1)

LLJ 500) and ruled that the expression “any person” in

clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act must be read subject to

such limitation and qualification as arise from the context,

the two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a

real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated

in the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be

capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the

dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for

whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment or conditions of labour, as case may be, the

parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest. Where

workman raised a dispute as against their employment,

the person regarding whose employment, non employer,

terms of employment or conditions of labour, the dispute

is raised need not be strictly speaking “workman” within

the meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose

employment, non employment” terms of employment, or

conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct

or substantial interest. The observations made by the Apex

Court are to be extracted thus :

“We also agree with the expression “any person” is

not co-extensive with any workman, particular or

otherwise, equal with other, that the crucial test is

one of community of interest and the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one

in whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment, conditions of labour (as the case may

be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or

substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a

particular case will depend on its facts and

circumstances.”

18.

In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (1958

(2) LLJ 660), the Apex Court ruled that an industrial

dispute need not be a dispute between the employer and

his workman and that the definition of the expression

“industrial dispute” is wide enough to cater a dispute

raised by the employer’s workman with regard to non

employment of others, who may not be employed as

workman at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay

Union of Journalist (1961 (II) LLJ 436) has observed that

in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute

has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the

test is whether at the date of reference, the dispute was

taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of

the employer against whom, the dispute is raised by an

individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual

dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established

that it has been taken up by the union of employees of

the establishment or by an appreciable number of the

employees of the establishment. As far as union of the

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty,

since such workmen who are members of such unions

generally have a continuity of interest with an individual

employee who is one of their fellow workman. But

difficulty arise when the cause of a workman, in a

particular establishment is sponsored by a union which

is not of the workmen of that establishment but is one of

which membership is open to workmen of their

establishment as well as in that industry. In such a case a

union which has only microscopic number of the

workmen as its member, cannot sponsor any dispute

arising between the workmen and the management. A

representative character of the union has to be gathered

from the strength of the actual number of eo workers

sponsoring the dispute. The mere fact that a substantial

number of workmen of the establishment in which the

concerned workman was employee were also members

6852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the union would not constitute sponsorship. It must be

shown that they were connected together and arrived at

an understanding by a resolution or by other means and

collectively submitted the dispute.

19.

The expression “industrial disputes” has been

construed by the Apex Court to include individual

disputes, because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu Nath

Gopal Patvardhan [1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court ruled

as to what dispute can be called as an industrial dispute.

It was laid thereon that (1) a dispute between the employer

and a single workman cannot be an industrial dispute,

(2) it cannot per-se be an industrial dispute but may

become if it is taken up by a trade union or a number of

workmen. In Dharampal Prem Chand [1965 (1) LLJ 668]

it was commanded by the Apex Court that a dispute raised

by a single workman cannot become an industrial dispute

unless it is supported either by his union or in the absence

of a union by substantial number of workmen. Same law

was laid in the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.)

Limited [1970 (1) LLJ 132]. However in Western India

Match Company [1970 (11) LLJ 256], the Apex Court

referred the precedent in Dimakuchi Tea Estate’s case

[1958 (1) LLJ 500] and ruled that a dispute relating to

“any person becomes a dispute where the person in respect

of whom it is raised is one in whose employment, non-

employment, terms of employment or conditions of

labour, the parties, dispute for a direct or substantial

interest”.

20.

What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an “industrial dispute”, is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. From

the mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

“industrial dispute” concerning an individual workman

is referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the

workmen of the establishment as its members, it cannot

be inferred that the individual dispute has been converted

into an” industrial dispute”. The Tribunal has therefore,

to consider the question as to how many of the fellow

workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned

workman by participating in the particular resolution of

the Union. In the absence of a such a determination by

the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute

acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the

Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute. Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an

industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should

always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable

number of workmen. What is necessary is that there

should be some express or collective will of a substantial

or an appreciable member of the workmen treating the

cause of the individual workman as their own cause. Law

to this effect was laid in P. Somasundrameran [1970 (1)

LLJ 558].

21.

It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a

registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once

it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman’s cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970 (1) LLJ

507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co-

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not “industrial

dispute”.

22.

It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

“industrial dispute”, while the workman may be

represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section

36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of

altogether another union. The crux of the matter is that

the dispute should be a dispute between the employer

and his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must

be espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union.

Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union

during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings

that would not affect the maintainability of the order of

reference. Law to this effect was laid by the High Court

of Orissa in Gammon Inida Limited [1974 (11) LLJ 34].

For ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has

acquired character of an individual dispute, the test is

whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken

up as supported by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom the dispute is raised by the

individual workman or by an appreciable number of the

workman. In other words, the validity of the reference of

an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they

stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on

the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made

to a precedent in Western India Match Co. Ltd. [1970

(11) LLJ 256].

23.

Here in the case, not even an iota of facts are brought

over the record to the effect that the union took up the

cause of the claimant as their own. It is also not shown

that the members of the union had shown their collective

will in favour of the cause of the claimant. Thus it is

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6853

evident that there is a complete vacuum of facts to the

effect that the union espoused the cause of the claimant.

Resultantly there is no material to conclude to the effect

that the dispute acquired status of an industrial dispute.

The reference is liable to be answered against the claimant

on that score.

24.

The Corporation agitates that a stale claim has been

referred for adjudication. Though pay for the post of

Choudhary has been claimed since the date of

appointment of the claimant, yet the dispute was raised

in the year 2012. The Corporation asserts that the dispute

was not raised within a reasonable time. The Corporation

wants this Tribunal to discard the claim of Shri Ramesh

Chand, projecting it to be a belated one. Section 10(1) of

the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for

making reference of the dispute for adjudication. The

words ‘at any time’ used in sub-section (1) of Section 10

of Act does not admit of any limitation in making an

order of reference. Law of limitation, which might bar

any Civil Court from giving remedy in respect of lawful

rights, cannot be applied by Industrial Tribunals.

However, policy of industrial adjudication is that very

stale claim should not be generally encouraged or allowed

unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay. In

Shalimar Works Ltd. [1959(2) LLJ 26], Apex Court

pointed out that though there is no limitation prescribed

in making reference of the dispute to Industrial Tribunal.

Even so, it is only reasonable that disputes should be

referred as soon as possible after having arisen and on

failure of conciliation proceedings. In Western India

Match Company [1970(2) LLJ 256] Apex Court observed

that in exercising its discretion, Government will take

into account time which has lapsed between its earlier

decision and the date when it decides to consider it in

the interest of justice and industrial peace to make the

reference adjudication. Same view was taken in Mahabir

Jute Mills Ltd. [1975(2) LLJ 326]. In Gurmail Singh

[2000(1) LLJ 1080] Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the

reference on the ground that there was delay of 8 years

in raising the dispute, which delay was condoned by the

Apex Court and it was ordered that the workman would

not be entitled to any back wages for the period of 8 years

but would be entitled to 50% of the wages from the date

it raised the dispute till the date of his reinstatement. In

Prahalad Singh [2000(2) LLJ 1653], the Apex Court

approved the award of the Tribunal in not granting any

relief to the workman who preferred the claim after a

period of 13 years without any reasonable or justifiable

grounds. From the above decision, it can be said that the

law relating to delay in raising or reference of dispute is

bereft of any principles, which can be easily

comprehended by the litigants.

25.

It would be considered as to whether a stale claim

has been referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government. As projected above, the claimant joined on

01.04.1978 and superannuated on 31.07.2007. He

approached the Conciliation Officer in the year 2012.

Consequently, it is emerging over the record that for more

than 24 years the claimant was sleeping and suddenly he

came out of slumbers and raised an industrial dispute. In

these circumstances spell of 24 years, without any action

on the part of the claimant, makes his claim stale. I find

that the claimant was not justified to agitate his dispute

after such a long spell of time. He indulged in leisure

litigation, when he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Delay in raising the dispute certainly creates

hindrance against the claimant, for grant of any relief to

him.

26.

For claim of new pay scale of Choudhary, it was

incumbent upon the claimant to establish that he had

performed duties of Choudhary. As projected by the

Corporation in the written statement, Shri Ramesh Chand

never performed duties of Choudhary and no office order

was ever issued by the Corporation assigning him duties

of Choudhary. In view of these facts, Shri Ramesh Chand

is not entitled to raise a claim for new pay scale of

Choudhary. Resultantly, it is concluded that action of the

Corporation in denying the new pay scale of Choudhary

to the claimant is found to be justified. Shri Ramesh

Chand is not entitled to any relief on factual proposition

too.

27.

The foregoing reasons make me to conclude that

Shri Ramesh Chand is not entitled to new pay scale of

Choudhary. Action of the Corporation in denying new

pay scale of Choudhary to Shri Ramesh Chand is found

to be justified. No relief can be granted in favour of Shri

Ramesh Chand. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be

sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 28.10.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2744-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh ,;jVsy

l£olst fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 134@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@07@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014

S.O. 2744 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 134/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

6854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Bharti

Airtel Services Limited and Others and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

10.10.2014.

[No. L-40011/07/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

ID NO. 134/2012

Shri Baljinder Singh,

S/o Shri Kharak Singh,

Senior Technician,

C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,

70, Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110 010

...Workman/Claimant

Versus

(1)

M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Limited,

224, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III,

New Delhi-110 020

Also at

Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar,

Phase IV, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122002

...Management No. 1

(2)

M/s. Alcatel-Lucent Network

Management Services Ltd.,

15th Floor, Tower C,

DLF Cyber Green DLF City,

Phase III, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122002

...Management No. 2

AWARD

A Senior Technician joined services with

M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd.(hereinafter referred to

as management No.1) on 01.02.2007. He served

management No.1 till 31.07.2009, the date when he

tendered his resignation. His resignation was accepted

by management No.1 on that very day and wages for the

month of July 2009 as well as some amount towards full

and final settlement was given to the ‘Senior Technician.

Thereafter, he joined services with M/s. Alcatel Lucent

Network Management Services Pvt. Ltd. ( in short the

management No.2) on 01.08.2009. However, he raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer claiming that his

services were terminated by management No.1 in an

illegal manner. Since his claim was contested, conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of

failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide order No. L-40011/07/

2012-IR(DU) New Delhi dated 18.10.2012 with following

terms:

“Whether the action of the management of Bharti

Airtel Services Ltd. in terminating services of the

workman, Shri Baljinder Singh, S/o Shri Kharak

Singh, Ex-Senior Technician with effect from

01.08.2009 is legal and justified. If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Senior

Technician, namely, Shri Baljinder Singh opted not to

file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

Notice was sent to Shri Baljinder Singh by

registered post on 07.11.2012, calling upon him to file

claim statement before the Tribunal on or before

03.12.2012. This notice was sent to him through All India

General Mazdoor Trade Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand

Giri, Kalkaji, New Delhi, the address provided by the

appropriate Government in order of reference. Neither

the postal article was received back nor was it observed

by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected

from 07.11.2012 till 03.12.2012. Therefore, every

presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice

was served upon the claimant.

Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him

by registered post on 04.12.2012 calling upon him to file

claim statement before the Tribunal on 31.12.2012.

Another notice was transmitted to the claimant by

registered post on 31.12.2012 asking him to file his claim

statement on or before 28.01.2013. Lastly, notice dated

30.01.2013 was sent by registered post commanding the

claimant to file his claim statement before the Tribunal

on or before 25.02.2013. Despite service of these notices,

claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings.

No claim statement was filed on his behalf.

Order of reference projects a question as to whether

action of M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. in terminating

services of Shri Baljinder Singh with effect from

01.08.2009 is legal and justified? Onus is there on

management No. 1 to project that its action of terminating

services of Shri Baljinder Singh was legal and justified.

Consequently, management No. 1 was called upon to file

its response to the reference order. In pursuance of the

directions so issued, management No.1 filed its response

to the reference order.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6855

When response, so filed, is perused, it emerged that

Shri Baljinder Singh joined services with management

No. 1 on 01.02.2007 as Lead. His basic pay was

Rs. 5767.00, besides house rent allowance of Rs. 4783.00

and conveyance allowance of Rs. 3000.00 per month.

His wages were paid by way of transmission to his bank

account No. 629401523110. Shri Baljinder Singh served

management No.1 till July 2009. He tendered his

resignation, which was accepted by management No. 1

on 31.07.2009. His wages amounting to Rs. 18917.00

were paid by way of transmission to his aforesaid bank

account. Besides wages, a sum of Rs. 9024.25 was also

paid to the claimant towards leave encashment. After

getting his dues, claimant left services of management

No. 1. He joined management No. 2 on 01.08.2009. His

basic salary, which he is getting from management No.2,

is Rs. 6547.00, besides house rent allowance of

Rs. 4783.00, conveyance allowance of Rs. 800.00, and

special allowance of Rs.4373.00. Thus, he gets a sum of

Rs. 16503.00 from management No.2, which is higher

than the wages which he was getting from management

No.1. It is evident that Shri Baljinder Singh resigned the

job of management No.1 in search of greener pastures. It

is apparent that management No.1 has not taken any steps

to terminate services of Shri Baljinder Singh.

As unfolded by management No.2, its name has

been changed to M/s. Telesonic Network Ltd. with effect

from 25.02.2013. Certificate issued by Registrar of

Companies has been placed before the Tribunal in that

regard. Consequently, it is evident that the management

No. 2 took required steps to change its name, as referred

above.

Nothing has been brought over the record by Shri

Baljinder Singh to establish that his services were

terminated by management No.1. On the other hand,

management No.1 could demonstrate that Shri Baljinder

Singh resigned the job for good. He joined services with

management No. 2, where he was offered better

emoluments. Consequently, it is concluded that

management No. 1 had not taken any action in

terminating services of Shri Baljinder Singh. It was the

employee who tendered his resignation and marched

away. Under these circumstances, neither any illegality

nor unjustifiability can be noted on the part of

management No. 1. Shri Baljinder Singh is not entitled

to any relief. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent

to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 25.03.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2745-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh

ds vk;qDr] uxj fuxe ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 202@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@68@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014

S.O. 2745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 202/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and their

workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.10.2014.

[No. L-42011/68/2010-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K.YADAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 202/2012

The President,

Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,

Delhi Pardesh, P-2/624,

Sultanpuri, Delhi-110045

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006

...Management

AWARD

A Chowkidar employed at MC Primary School,

Nawada II, Delhi by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in

short the Corporation) claimed payment of overtime

allowance, since he was made to work beyond normal

duty hours. His claim was not conceded to by the

Corporation. He approached the Nagar Nigam

Karamchari Sangh (Delhi) (in short the union) for

redressal of his grievances. The union served notice on

the Corporation seeking overtime allowance for duties

performed in excess of normal working hours, wages for

weekly holidays, gazetted holidays and casual leaves,

which notice was not responded to. A dispute was raised

6856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation

contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into

a failure. On consideration of failure report, submitted

by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No.L-42011/68/2010-IR(DU) dated 04.04.2001,

with following terms :

“Whether action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in denying overtime

wages to the workman, Shri Baljeet Singh, S/o Late

Shri Hari Singh, Chowkidar for performing 10 (ten)

hours duty per day since the regularization of the

workman Shri Baljeet Singh with effect from

01.04.1984 is justified or not? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to and form which date?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government

commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance

and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such

statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions, so given, the Chowkidar,

namely, Shri Baljeet Singh opted not to file his claim

statement with the Tribunal.

Notice was sent to Shri Baljeet Singh by registered

post on 27.12.2012, calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on or before 17.01.2013.

This notice was sent to him through the union, at

P-2/624, Sultanpuri, Delhi, the address provided by the

appropriate Government in order of reference. Neither

the claimant nor the union responded to the notice, so

sent.

Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him

by registered post on 22.01.2013 calling upon him to file

claim statement before the Tribunal on 11.02.2013.

Notices were transmitted to the claimant by registered

post on 12.02.2013 and 12.03.2013 asking him to file

his claim statement on or before 08.03.2013 and

09.04.2013 respectively. Lastly, notice dated 10.04.2013

was sent by registered post commanding the claimant to

file his claim statement before the Tribunal on or before

24.05.2013. Neither the postal articles, referred above,

were received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal

that postal services remained affected in the period,

referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in

favour of the fact that the above notices were served upon

the claimant. Despite service of these notices, claimant

opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim

statement was filed on his behalf.

Since onus of the question referred for adjudication

was there on the Corporation, it was called upon to file

its response to the reference order. Corporation filed its

response, pleading therein that the claim was not properly

espoused by the union, hence liable to be rejected. It

further asserted that the dispute has been raised at a

belated stage, hence it became stale. The Appropriate

Government cannot refer such a dispute for adjudication,

as it has become stale. The dispute is liable to be rejected

on this count also, claims the Corporation.

The Corporation projects that claimant was getting

overtime allowance @ Rs.625.00 upto a maximum of 50

hours in a month in accordance with circular dated

15.03.1997. For work performed on Sundays and

holidays, the Chowkidars gets compensatory leave in lieu

thereof, hence not entitled to overtime allowance.

Chowkidars are entitled to 15 days casual leave, 3 national

holidays and 6 other holidays of their choice in every

calendar year. Their normal duty hours are 10 hours per

day and previously Chowkidars were entitled to 24 hours

rest (one day) in fortnight. Now, a Chowkidar is getting

overtime allowance for 100 hours per month in

accordance with circular dated 09.05.2011. Details of

overtime allowance granted to the claimant from June,88

to March, 2013 are annexed as Annexure C with the

response. In view of these facts, claimant is not entitled

to any relief, claims the corporation.

Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.

Shri Abhinav Kumar, authorized representative, assisted

by Shri Jagdish Chandra, U.D.C. raised submissions on

behalf of the Corporation. I have given my careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:

At the outset, it has been argued that the dispute

has not acquired status of an industrial dispute since it

has not been validly espoused by the union. For an answer,

definition of the term industrial dispute is to be construed.

For sake of convenience, definition of the term “industrial

dispute”, as defined by Section 2(k) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).

“(k) ‘Industrial dispute’ means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms

of employment or with the conditions of labour, of

any person”.

The definition of “industrial dispute” referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz. (a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen

and workmen, (3) subject-matter of the dispute, which

should be connected with –(i) employment or non

employment, or (ii) terms of employment, or (iii)

condition of labour of any person, and (4) it should relate

to an “industry”.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6857

10.

The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded in

very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem to

include all “employers”, all “employments” and all

“workmen”, whatever the nature or scope of the

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase “employer and workmen”,

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to

whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an

“an industrial dispute’ or not, it must first be determined

whether the workman concerned or workmen sponsoring

his cause satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of Section 2

of the Act. Here in the case, the Corporation does not

dispute that the claimant is workman within the meaning

of clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act.

11.

The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

“industrial dispute” in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958 (1)

LLJ 500] and ruled that the expression “any person” in

clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act must be read subject to

such limitation and qualification as arise from the context,

the two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a

real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated

in the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be

capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to the

dispute giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one for

whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment or conditions of labour, as case may be, the

parties dispute for a direct or substantial interest. Where

workman raised a dispute as against their employment,

the person regarding whose employment, non employer,

terms of employment or conditions of labour, the dispute

is raised need not be strictly speaking “workman” within

the meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose

employment, non employer, terms of employment, or

conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct

or substantial interest. The observations made by the

Apex Court are to be extracted thus:

“We also agree with the expression “any person” is

not co extensive with any workman, particular or

otherwise, equal with other, that the crucial test is

one of community of interest and the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one

in whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment, conditions of labour (as the case may

be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or

substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a

particular case will depend on its facts and

circumstances.”

12.

In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. [1958

(2) LLJ 660] the Apex Court ruled that an industrial

dispute need not be a dispute between the employer and

his workman and that the definition of the expression

“industrial dispute’’ is wide enough to cater a dispute

raised by the employer’s workman with regard to non

employment of others, who may not be employed as

workman at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay

Union of Journalist [1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that

in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute

has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the

test is whether at the date of reference, the dispute was

taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of

the employer against whom, the dispute is raised by an

individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual

dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established

that it has been taken up by the union of employees of

the establishment or by an appreciable number of the

employees of the establishment. As far as union of the

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty,

since such workmen who are members of such unions

generally have a continuity of interest with an individual

employee who is one of their fellow workman. But

difficulty arise when the cause of a workman, in a

particular establishment is sponsored by a union which

is not of the workmen of that establishment but is one of

which membership is open to workmen of their

establishment as well as in that industry. In such a case a

union which has only microscopic number of the

workmen as its member, cannot sponsor any dispute

arising between the workmen and the management. A

representative character of the union has to be gathered

from the strength of the actual number of co workers

sponsoring the dispute. The mere fact that a substantial

number of workmen of the establishment in which the

concerned workman was employee were also members

of the union would not constitute sponsorship. It must be

shown that they were connected together and arrived at

an understanding by a resolution or by other means and

collectively submitted the dispute.

13.

The expression “industrial disputes” has been

construed by the Apex Court to include individual

disputes, because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu

Nath Gopal Patvardhan [1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court

ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial

dispute. It was laid thereon that (1) a dispute between

the employer and a single workman cannot be an

industrial dispute, (2) it can not be per-se be an industrial

dispute but may become if it is taken up by a trade union

or a number of workmen. In Dharampal Prem Chand

[1965 (1) LLJ 668] it was commanded by the Apex Court

that a dispute raised by a single workman cannot become

an industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his

6858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

union or in the absence of a union by substantial number

of workmen. Same law was laid in the case of Indian

Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Limited [1970 (1) LLJ 132].

However in Western India Match Company [1970 (II)

LLJ 256], the Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona

Kuchi Tea Estate’s case [1958 (1) LLJ 500] and ruled

that a dispute relating to “any person becomes a dispute

where the person in respect of whom it is raised is one in

whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment or conditions of labour, the parties, dispute

for a direct or substantial interest”.

14.

What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an “industrial dispute”, is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. From

the mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

“industrial dispute” concerning an individual workman

is referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the

workmen of the establishment as its members, it cannot

be inferred that the individual dispute has been converted

into an” industrial dispute”. The Tribunal has therefore,

to consider the question as to how many of the fellow

workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned

workman by participating in the particular resolution of

the Union. In the absence of a such a determination by

the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute

acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the

Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute. Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an

industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should

always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable

number of workmen. What is necessary is that there

should be some express or collective will of a substantial

or an appreciable member of the workmen treating the

cause of the individual workman as their own cause. Law

to this effect was laid in P.Somasundrameran [1970 (1)

LLJ 558].

15.

It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a

registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once

it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman’s cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970 (1)

LLJ 507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen

were filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co-

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not “industrial

dispute”.

16.

It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

“industrial dispute”, while the workman may be

represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of Section

36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of

altogether another union. The crux of the matter is that

the dispute should be a dispute between the employer

and his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must

be espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union.

Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union

during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings

that would not affect the maintainability of the order of

reference. Law to this effect was laid by the High Court

of Orissa in Gammon India Limited [1974 (II) LLJ 34].

For ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has

acquired character of an individual dispute, the test is

whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken

up as supported by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom the dispute is raised by the

individual workman or by an appreciable number of the

workman. In other words, the validity of the reference of

an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they

stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on

the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made

to a precedent in Western India Match Co. Ltd. [1970

(II) LLJ 256].

17.

Here in the case, not even an iota of facts are brought

over the record to the effect that the union took up the

cause of the claimant as their own. It is also not shown

that the members of the union had shown their collective

will in favour of the cause of the claimant. Thus it is

evident that there is a complete vacuum of facts to the

effect that the union espoused the cause of the claimant.

Resultantly there is no material to conclude to the effect

that the dispute acquired status of an industrial dispute.

The reference is liable to be answered against the claimant

on that score.

18.

Corporation contests the dispute on the count that

no notice of demand was served on it prior to raising a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer. These facts also

remained uncontroverted. The object of the Act is to

protect workman against victimization by the employer

and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful

manner. The Act, however, does not provide for any set

of social and economic principles for adjustment of

conflicting interests. Such norms have been evolved and

devised by industrial adjudication, keeping in view the

social and economic conditions, the needs of the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6859

workmen, the requirement of the industry, social justice,

relative interests of the parties and common good. These

norms have given rights to the industrial employees what

may be called industrial rights, as such rights may not be

available at common law. Disputes as to the conditions

of employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique

known as collective bargaining. This tool is resorted to

between an employer or group of employers and a

bonafide labour union. Policy behind this is to protect

workmen as a class against unfair labour practices. What

imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of an

“industrial dispute” is that it affects the right of the

workmen as a class.

19.

An industrial dispute comes into existence when

the employer and the workman are at variance and the

dispute/difference is connected with the employment or

non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions

of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when

a demand is made by the workman on the employer and

it is rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu

Resettlement Corporation Ltd. [1968(1) LLJ 834], the

Apex Court has held that mere demand, asking the

appropriate Government to refer a dispute for

adjudication, without being raised by the workmen with

their employer, regarding such demand, cannot become

an industrial dispute. Hence, an industrial dispute cannot

be said to exist until and unless a demand is made by the

workman or workmen on the employer and it has been

rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt.

Ltd.(1970 Lab.I.C.421), High Court of Delhi went a step

ahead and held that “... demand by the workman must be

raised first on the management and rejected by it, before

an industrial dispute can be said to arise and exist and

that the making of such a demand to the Conciliation

Officer and its communication by him to the management,

who rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute

an industrial dispute.”

20.

The above decision was followed by Orissa High

Court in Orissa Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1976 Lab.I.C. 285)

and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt.

Ltd.(1993 Lab.I.C. 99). However, the Apex Court in

Bombay Union of Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had

ruled that an industrial dispute must be in existence or

apprehended on the date of reference. If, therefore, a

demand has been made by the workman and it has been

rejected by the employer before the date of reference,

whether direct or through the Conciliation Officer, it

would constitute an industrial dispute. In Shambhunath

Goyal [1978(1) LLJ 484], the Apex Court appreciated

facts that the workman had not made a formal demand

for his reinstatement in service. However, he had

contested his dismissal before the Enquiry Officer and

claimed reinstatement. Against the findings of the

Enquiry Officer, he preferred an appeal to the Appellate

Authority, claiming reinstatement on the ground that his

dismissal was bad in law. Then again, he claimed

reinstatement before the Conciliation Officer in the course

of conciliation proceedings, which was contested by the

employer. Appreciating all these facts, the Apex Court

inferred that there was impeccable evidence that the

workman had persistently demanded reinstatement,

rejection of which brought an industrial dispute into

existence.

21.

In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979(39) FLT

195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath Goyal

had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. But it

had distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed out that

decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu Resettlement

Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by two Judge

bench in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court concluded

that decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd., in case of

any conflict between the two decisions, must prevail. The

High Court held that making of the demand by the

workman on the management was sine qua non for giving

rise to an industrial dispute.

22.

The High Court of Madras in Management of

Needle Industries [1986(1) LLJ 405] has held that dispute

or difference between management and the workman,

automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from

service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or difference

between the management and the workman. The Court

further observed that “it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,

particular in Section 2(k), that existence of the dispute

as such is not enough but then there should be a demand

by the workman on the management to give rise to an

industrial dispute”. However, this decision appears to

be inconsistent with the ratio of decision in Bombay Union

of Journalists (supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra).

No doubt, for existence of an industrial dispute, there

should be a demand by the workman and refusal to grant

it by the management. However, a demand should be

raised, cannot be a legal notion of fixity and rigidity.

Grievances of the workman and demand for its redressal

must be communicated to the management. Means and

mechanism of the communication adopted are not matters

of much significance, so long as demand is that of the

workman and it reaches the management. Reference can

be made to the precedent in Ram Krishna Mills

Coimbatore Ltd. [1984 (2) LLJ 259].

23.

The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial

dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific

or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or

prescribed manner in which refusal should be

communicated. For an industrial dispute to come into

existence, written claim is not sine qua non. To read

into the definition, requirement of written demand for

bringing an industrial dispute into existence would

tantamount to rewriting the section, announced the Apex

Court in Shambunath Goyal (supra). In other words, oral

6860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

demand and its rejection will as much bring into existence

an industrial dispute, as written one. If facts and

circumstances of the case show that the workman had

been making a demand, which the management had been

refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an industrial

dispute between the parties.

24.

Since the claimant had not come forward to project

that demand notice was served on the corporation, under

these circumstances, stand taken by the corporation is to

be believed. Corporation projects that no notice of

demand was served on it, before industrial dispute was

raised before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, it is

emerging over the record that it has not been established

that demand was raised on the corporation, which was

rejected by it and as such, dispute has not acquired status

of an industrial dispute.

25.

Turning to facts presented by the Corporation, it

emerges that the Corporation takes 10 hours duty from

Chowkidars. Keeping in view the nature of duties

performed, the Corporation was paying intermittent

allowance to Chowkidars for performing more than 10

hours duty. Allowance was paid @ Rs.130.00 per month

for performance of duty upto 12 hours, Rs.180.00 per

month for duties performed for more than 12 hours but

upto 16 hours and Rs.190.00 per month for performing

duties than 16 hours a day. Workers union agitated the

issue and demanded overtime allowance in lieu of

intermittent allowance. On the basis of the resolution,

the Corporation, vide its decision dated 15.03.1997

decided to pay overtime allowance to the maximum limit

of 50 hours. The said allowance was paid @Rs.625.00

per month. Workers union further demanded

enhancement of maxima limit of overtime allowance and

in consideration of the said demand, the Corporation

started paying overtime allowance with a cap of 100 hours

a month. Now, the Corporation is paying overtime

allowance to Chowkidars at Rs.1250.00, in pursuance of

Office Order dated 09.05.2011.

26.

Annexure C, when scanned, highlights that from

January 98 till March 2011, overtime allowance was paid

to the claimant @ Rs.625.00 per month. From April 2011

till March 2013, overtime allowance has been paid to

the claimant @ 1250.00 per month. Therefore, it is

emerging over the record that overtime allowance is being

paid to the claimant in accordance with the circulars,

issued by the Corporation from time to time.

27.

Section 10 (1) of the Act does not prescribe any

period of limitation for making reference of the dispute

for adjudication. The words ‘at any time’ used in sub

section (1) of Section 10 of Act does not admit of any

limitation in making an order of reference. Law of

limitation, which might bar any Civil Court from giving

remedy in respect of lawful rights, cannot be applied by

Industrial Tribunals. However, policy of industrial

adjudication is that stale claim should not be generally

encouraged or allowed unless there is satisfactory

explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works Ltd. (1959 (2)

LLJ 26), the Apex Court pointed out that though there is

no limitation prescribed in making reference of the

dispute to Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only

reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as

possible after having arisen and on failure of conciliation

proceedings. In Western India Match Company (1970

(2) LLJ 256) the Apex Court observed that in exercising

its discretion, Government will take into account time

which has lapsed between its earlier decision and the

date when it decides to consider it in the interest of justice

and industrial peace to make the reference for

adjudication. Same view was taken in Mahabir Jute Mills

Ltd. (1975 (2) LLJ 326). In Gurmail Singh (2000 (1)

LLJ 1080) Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the reference

on the ground that there was delay of 8 years in raising

the dispute, which delay was condoned by the Apex Court

and it was ordered that the workman would not be entitled

to any back wages for the period of 8 years but would be

entitled to 50% of wages from the date it raised the dispute

till the date of his reinstatement. In Prahalad Singh (2000

(2) LLJ 1653), the Apex Court approved the award of the

Tribunal in not granting any relief to the workman who

preferred the claim after a period of 13 years without any

reasonable or justifiable grounds. From above decisions,

it can be said that the law relating to delay in raising or

reference of dispute is bereft of any principles, which

can be easily comprehended by the litigants.

28.

Claimant raised the dispute in respect of overtime

allowance paid to him with effect from 01.04.1994. Thus,

it is emerging over the record that the claimant had raised

the dispute after a long gap of 28 years. No explanation

is offered for this inordinate delay. It appears that there

was no industrial dispute in existence or could be even

said to have been apprehended in the year 2012, when

the appropriate Government applied its mind to the facts

of the present controversy.

29.

In view of the above reasons, it is evident that the

action of the Corporation in paying overtime allowance

to the claimant @ Rs.625.00 per month till March 2011

and thereafter Rs.1250.00 till date is in accordance with

the circulars issued from time to time. Claimant is not

entitled to overtime allowance more than the amount

referred above. Resultantly, action of the Corporation is

found to be justified. No relief is available to the claimant.

An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 20.08.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6861

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2746-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v'kksd

gksVy] ubZ fnYyh ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 130@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 10-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2014

S.O. 2746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 130/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Ashok

Hotel, New Delhi and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 10.10.2014.

[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 130/2013

Shri Babu Rao

S/o Sh.Gaindu Rao,

Through President,

Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union,

C-48-49, Ashok Hotel Staff Qtr.,

50-B, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi - 110021

...Workman

Versus

The Management of

Ashok Hotel,

Through its General Manager,

New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

Shri Bapu Rao joined services of Ashok Hotel (in

short the Hotel) in 1996 as a houseman/sweeper in the

main kitchen department for carrying out house keeping

jobs. His services were abruptly dispensed with on

01.12.2008 His case for regularization in services of the

Hotel was answered in his favour, by the Industrial

Tribunal constituted by the Govt of NCT Delhi, vide

award dated 05.10.2005. The Hotel challenged the award

in High Court of Delhi through writ petition No.14828

of 2006, which was also decided in favour of the claimant.

However, during pendancy of the matter before the High

Court, his services were dispensed with by the Hotel. An

industrial dispute is raised by the claimant before this

Tribunal on 03.10.2013, using right available to him

under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act),

without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the

Act.

Arguments on maintainability of the dispute were

advanced by Shri S.S. Upadhyay, authorized representative

of the claimant. I have given my careful consideration to

the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows :—

As record projects, dispute under reference is raised

by the claimant, namely, Shri Bapu Rao under sub-section

(2) of section 2A of the Act. The term “industrial dispute”

has been defined by sub-section (k) of section 2 of the

Act to mean “any dispute or difference between employers

and employers, or between employers and workmen, or

between workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, or any

person ”. The definition of “indistrial dispute” referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz.(a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen

and workmen, (3) subject matter of the dispute, which

should be connected with (i) employment or non

employment, or (ii) terms of employment, or

(iii) condition of labour of any person, and (4) it should

relate to an “industry”.

The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded in

very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem to

include all “employers”, all “employments” and all

“workmen”, whatever the nature or scope of the

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase “employer and workmen”,

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to

whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an

“an industrial dispute’ or not, it must first be determined

whether the workman concerned or workmen sponsoring

his cause satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of section 2

of the Act. Here in the case, the management does not

6862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dispute that the claimant is workman within the meaning

of clause(s) of Section 2 of the Act.

A long line of decisions, handed down by the Apex

Court, had established that an individual dispute could

not per se be an industrial dispute, but could become one

if it was taken up by a trade union or a considerable

number of workmen of the establishment. This position

of law created hardship for individual workmen, who were

discharged, dismissed, retrenched or whose services were

otherwise terminated when they could not find support

by a union or any appreciable number of workman to

espouse their cause. Section 2A was engrafted in the Act

by the Amendment Act of 1965 and it has to be read as

an extension of the definition of industrial dispute

contained in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act. Thus by

way of extension of definition of industrial dispute, by

insertion of section 2A of the Act, the dispute of an

individual workman connected with or arising out of his

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of his service by his employer has been

brought within the ambit of the Act.

Industrial workman has got a very restricted right

to move an industrial court when his service conditions

have been changed to his prejudice during pendancy of

an industrial dispute or he has been dismissed or

discharged during such pendancy, under section 33-A of

the Act. He has a right to recover certain dues from his

employer under section 33(C)(2) of the Act An individual

workman who had been thrown out of employment had

to rely for redress only through aegis of the union or his

Co-workers where there was no union. Sometimes he

found it hard to proceed further or get the union to take

up his cause. Besides, there are industries where so far

no union have been formed. Workers are still, in certain

industries, unorganized. Enactment of section 2A of the

Act was taken up by the Parliament solely with a view to

modify the law to raise industrial disputes relating to

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of services of the workmen.

Classification between workmen unaided by union

or considerable number workmen and workman whose

cause is espoused by a union or considerable number of

workmen has been made by the legislature, when

provisions of section 2A were brought on the Statute Book.

Thus, it is evident that by way of extension - of definition

of industrial dispute relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination of service of the workmen,

Legislature provided remedy to the workmen who is

unaided by a union or considerable number of workmen.

Section 2A of the Act does not destroy the concept of

industrial dispute and collective dispute and such concept

still remains as a major class and in all other provisions

of the Act. Consequently, it is evident that excepting the

dispute relating to dispute of dismissal, discharge,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of a

workman, a dispute is to be espoused by the union or

considerable number of workmen to reach the status of

an industrial dispute.

Even in cases of dispute between a workman and

his employer connected with or arising out of his

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of his

service, it has to pass through the procedure provided in

the Act. For raising a dispute, an employee has to raise a

demand on the employer and thereafter he has to raise

the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who had to

enter in to the conciliation proceedings. In case

conciliation proceedings fails, the Conciliation Officer

submits his report to the appropriate Government. On

consideration of the report, so submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government has to

form an opinion that an industrial disputes exists or is

apprehended and refer that dispute to an industrial

adjudicator under sub-clause (c) or (d), as the case may

be, of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Procedure,

referred above, would take considerable time and an

employee had to wait for the decision of the appropriate

Government, making reference to an industrial

adjudicator for adjudication of the dispute. With a view

to do away with this hardship, Legislature, vide

Amendment Act No. 24 of 2010, inserted sub-section (2)

and (3) in section 2A and re-numbered original section

as sub section (1) in order to enable the workman to

approach an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of his

dispute, without it being referred

by the appropriate

Government. For sake of convenience, provisions of sub-

section (2) and (3) of section 2A of the Act are reproduced

thus:

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section

10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section

(1) may make an application direct to Labour Court

or industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute

referred to therein after expiry of forty five days

from the date he has made the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government

for conciliation of the dispute and in receipt of such

application, the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have

powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the

dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the

appropriate Government in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this

Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as

they apply in relation to an industrial dispute

referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2)

shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal

before the expiry of three years from the date of

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service as specified in sub-section

(1).”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6863

Provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the

Act empowers a workman to move an application before

an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute,

after expiry of 45 days from the date he made such

application before the Conciliation Officer. On receipt of

such application, the industrial adjudicator shall have

powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as if it

were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate

Government, in accordance with provisions of the Act.

Thus, it is evident that before moving an application

before an Industrial Adjudicator, the ‘Workman has to

approach the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of his

dispute. In case no settlement is arrived at or conciliation

proceedings goes beyond a period of 45 days from the

date the workman had moved the application to the

Conciliation officer, he may approach the Industrial

Adjudicator for adjudicate of his dispute, without being

referred by the appropriate Government under the

provisions of the Act. Consequently, it is evident that

before approaching an Industrial Adjudicator, workman

whose services have been discharged, dismissed,

retrenched or terminated by his employer, shall have to

approach the Conciliation Officer and wait for expiry of

a period of 45 days, in case no settlement arrived between

them. Obligation to approach the Conciliation Officer

and allow him to enter into conciliation proceedings are

mandatory. It is also obligatory on the workman to wait

for a period of 45 days and only thereafter he can seek

indulgence of an industrial adjudicator for adjudication

of his dispute. In case he opts not to approach the

conciliation Officer or fails to wait for a period of 45

days from the date of moving his application, the

Industrial Adjudicator will acquire no jurisdiction to

entertain the dispute.

10.

Bare perusal of sub-section (3) of section 2A makes

it clear that an application for adjudication of an industrial

dispute, relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment

or termination of his service can be moved by an employee

before expiry of three years from the date of his discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service, as the case may be.

11.

As emerged out of the claim statement, services of

the claimant was terminated on 01.12.2008. Claimant

projects that the Conciliation Officer entered into

conciliation proceedings and forwarded his failure report

to the appropriate Government on 23.09.2013. Out of

facts presented by the claimant, it emerged over the record

that his services were disengaged by the management on

01.12.2008. He raised an industrial dispute before this

Tribunal on 3.10.2013, using provisions of sub section

(2) of section 2-A of the Act. For approaching this

Tribunal, under provisions of sub-section (2) of section

2A of the Act, limitation of three years from the date of

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service of an employee has been imposed

by the legislature. Thus, it is apparent that the claimant

could have approached this Tribunal under sub-section

(2) of section 2A of the Act till 30.11.2011 only. As is

evident, claim preferred is beyond the period of limitation.

Under these circumstances, this Tribunal cannot invoke

its jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute.

12.

Since the dispute has been raised beyond the period

of limitation, the Tribunal cannot entertain it. Under these

circumstances, the Tribunal is constrained to brush aside

the claim statement, presented by the claimant.

Accordingly, his claim is dismissed, being barred by time.

An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 03.10.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2747-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VkVk

bafLVV~;wV vkWiQ iaQMkesaVy fjlpZ 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] eaqcbZ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- lhthvkbZVh&2@52 of 2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@30@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014

S.O. 2747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. Ref.

No. CGIT-2/52 of 2008) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai

now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 10.10.2014.

[No. L-42011/30/2008-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/52 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF

TATA INSTITUTE OF FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH

6864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Registrar

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,

Homi Bhaba Road, Colaba,

Mumbai-400 005

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Smt. Rashmi Telore

C-301, Everest Tower,

Opp. Old Lourdes School,

Santoshi Mata Road,

Rambaug, Kalyan (W),

Distt.Thane.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr.S.P. Salkar,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. G. S. Kodiyal,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 17^thJuly, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour&

Employment by its Order No.L-42011 / 30 /2008-IR (DU),

dated 11.07.2008 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 the

Registrar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,

Mumbai by terminating the services of their

workman Smt. RashmiTelorew.e.f. 31/08/2007 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, second

party workman has filed her statement of claim at Ex-

5.According to the second party, she was appointed as a

Scientific Assistant-B. She had applied in response to

the advertisement and was selected and was appointed

initially for four years since 16/09/2003. One year was

probation period. She completed her probation period

satisfactorily. She also completed her three years period,

worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year

continuously and deemed to be permanent. She was

performing her duties sincerely. For the sole purpose of

harassing her, Head of Department insisted the workman

to work in the second shift i.e. from 13:30 to 22:00 Hrs.

The workman has two and half year old child and she

was required to take care of the child and it was practically

impossible for her to work for such odd hours as she was

staying at Kalyan and requires atleast two hours to reach

from Colaba to Kalyan. For some time she worked in

the second shift. However by her letter dt. 19/07/2007

she informed the employer the reasons as to why she was

unable to work in the second shift perpetually.

Immediately thereafter on 26/07/2007 she received a

termination order issued by Registrar of the first party

w.e.f. 31/08/2007 without assigning any reason. The

workman challenged the said notice in writ petition before

Hon’ble High Court. The same was disposed of on 4/9/

2007 with a liberty to file the present reference. The

first party has terminated the services of the second party

with some mala fide intention. Therefore the workman

raised the industrial dispute before ALC (C). As

conciliation failed on the report of ALC (C), the Central

Labour Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal.

The workman therefore prays that the notice/termination

order dt. 26/7/2007 issued by the first party be declared

illegal and bad in law and the same be quashed and set

aside. She also prays that the first party be directed to

reinstate her with full back wages, continuity of service

and all other consequential benefits.

The first party, management resisted the statement

of claim vide its written statement at Ex-9. According to

the first party the reference is not maintainable as the

first party is not an ‘industry’ as defined under Section 2

(j) of the I.D. Act. On the other hand it is a research

institute doing the research work in Fundamental Science

and therefore second party is not ‘workman’ as defined

under Sec 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. It does not sell and product

or services to the customer. The object of the first party is

to sustain scientific excellence in the country.

It is further submitted that the second party was

employed for fixed term contract for four years including

one year probation and the same came to an end by efflux

of time. It was specifically informed to the workman vide

letter dated 24/08/2004 that the continuation of her

appointment will be subject to a comprehensive review

and performance appraisal after three years therefrom.

She was also given idea about the shift duty which she

had orally agreed. During the period of pregnancy and

post-delivery the second party was given concession to

work only in general shift and was never asked to work

in second shift during the said period. Subsequently she

was in a position to work in the second shift. However

vide her letter dt. 18/7/2007 she intimated the first party

that she will not be able to attend the second shift for

various reasons mentioned in the letter. It was also not

possible for the first party institute to make any alternate

arrangement in place of her in the second shift. The

colleagues of the second party and the CCF Chairperson

assured her all help but she bluntly refused to do the shift

duties. The comprehensive review and performance

appraisal were also different from each other. In case of

fixed term employment normally the comprehensive

review is done one month prior to the end of the term

and the annual performance appraisal is done annually.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6865

The second party was non-co-operative to the shift duty

despite the fact that her colleagues were ready to help

her. In the comprehensive review it was observed that

second party was not right candidate and hence her

contract was not renewed. As term of contract of

employment was about the expire, vide letter dt.

26/07/2007, the first party informed the second party that

her appointment in the institute would come to an end

on 31/08/2007 due to non-renewal of contract of

employment. They denied all the allegations made in the

statement of claim and submitted that the reference is

devoid of merit and prayed that the same may be

dismissed with cost.

The second party filed her rejoinder vide Ex-10.

She denied the allegations in the written statement about

her non-co-operation and reiterated the contents in the

statement of claim.

Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow :

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether first party is an ‘industry’?

Whether reference is maintainable?

Does first party prove that second

Yes

party cannot be continued after

efflux of time, she was appointed

on contract basis for 4 years only?

Is second party entitled for any

As per

relief

order

below.

What order?

As per

final order.

REASONS

Issue No.1 and 2:-

In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the

second party that the first party has four main

departments; they are Scientific, Administration,

Ancillary/Technical and Auxiliary. It was pointed out that

scientist work in scientific department. The

administration looks after the administrative part of

functions including pay and allowances, preserve service

record etc. The Ancillary and Technical department help

in producing the instruments and furniture items as

required by scientist for doing research work as per their

specifications. The Auxiliary department looks after

parks, gardens, security, canteen and also contributing

for scientific research by creating congenial atmosphere

to work. The first party is also a deemed university

imparting education to its students thereby giving cultural

service, technological training and personality

development.

The ld. adv. for the second party submitted that the

first party is an industry as it satisfies the triple test which

is prescribed by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Works

V/s. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548 wherein Hon’ble Court

prescribed triple test to determine the employer as an

industry. They are (i) There is a systematic activity.

(ii) Organised by co-operation between the employer and

employee and (iii) Production of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants / wishes as they are

not spiritual or religious. These conditions are admitted

by the MW-1 in his cross examination at Ex-48.

Therefore according to the second party the first party is

an ‘industry’.

As against this it is submitted on behalf of the first

party that it is an institute dealing with research in

Fundamental Science and under the control of

Government. Though their activities are systematic and

organised with co-operation of the employees, they are

not dealing with any production or selling any goods or

services to satisfy the human needs as has been defined

in the above referred case. In such circumstances the

first party cannot be called an ‘industry’. In support his

argument, ld. adv. for the first party resorted to Apex

Court ruling in Physical Research Laboratories V/s. K.

G. Sharma1997 II LLJ 625 (SC). In that case the research

work done by PRL is observed not marketable or it has

no commercial value. In the circumstances, the Hon’ble

Court in respect of the research institute of like nature in

para 13 observed that;

“It is not engaged in a commercial, industrial

activity and it cannot be described as an economic

venture or a commercial enterprise as it is not its

object to produce and distribute services which

would satisfy wants and needs of the customer

community. It is more an institution discharging

governmental functions and a domestic enterprise

than a commercial enterprise. We are therefore of

the opinion that PRL is not an ‘industry’ even

though it is carrying on the activity of research in

a systematic manner with the help of its employees

as it lacks that element which would make it an

organisation carrying on an activity which can be

said to be analogues to the carrying on of a trade or

business because it is not producing and distributing

services which are intended or meant for satisfying

human wants and needs as ordinarily understood.”

10.

The ld. adv. for the first party also referred

Karnataka High Court ruling in B. Vijaya Kumari Pillai

(SMT) V/s. Management of Indian Institute of Science

2012 II CLR 529 wherein after considering the fact that

Indian Institute of Science was mainly dealing in research

work. Therefore in the light of above referred Apex Court

ruling, the Hon’ble Court held that the said Indian

Institute of Science is not an industry. In this respect the

Hon’ble Court in para 18 of the judgement observed that;

6866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“The activity carried on is not for the benefit of

any particular individual or an institution but it is

for the benefit of the society as a whole and its object

is not to render services to the others. It is not

engaged in an activity which can be called business,

trade or manufacture since it is not engaged in any

commercial or industrial activity and it does not

fall under the category of either economic venture

or commercial enterprise as its object to produce

and distribute service is not to satisfy the needs of

the consumer community. In that view of the matter

I am of the considered view that the activity carried

on by the institute cannot be held to fall within the

definition of ‘industry’. Accordingly point no.1 is

answered by holding that Indian Institute of Science

is not an industry as defined under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.”

11.

The ld. adv. for the first party also cited Apex Court

ruling in State of Gujarat V/s. Pratamsingh Narsingh

Parmar 2001 I CLR 968 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court

held that Forest Department is not an industry.

In this ruling the Hon’ble Court further observed

that;

“The burden is on the claimant to prove that an

establishment is an ‘industry’. It is difficult for

the first party to prove that it is not an industry.”

12.

This finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court is based

on the principle that negative fact cannot be proved. The

ld. adv. for the first party in this respect submitted that

the initial burden was on the second party to prove that

the first party is an industry. The second party failed to

discharge the burden. On the other hand he pointed out

that in her cross examination at Ex-14 the second party

has contended that she does not know whether the

institute is doing any trade or business to satisfy the needs

of the customer which are the essential ingredient to

declare an institute as an industry. The ld. adv. pointed

out that the first party is doing research work in nuclear

science and mathematics and is engaged in performance

of sovereign functions. It is not doing any trade or

business to satisfy need of the customers. Therefore the

first party is not an industry. Thus the second party cannot

invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and

the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as well. Accordingly I

decide this issue no.1 in the negative. Consequently I

hold that the reference is not maintainable and decide

this issue no. 2 also in the negative.

Issue no. 3 and 4:-

13.

Though reference is not maintainable, as other

issues are framed, it is necessary to discuss and decide

the same on merit. Therefore I am discussing these issues

nos. 3 & 4 and deciding the same on merit.

14.

In this respect from the pleadings of the second

party it is clear that she was appointed for a period of

four years inclusive of probation for one year. The fact is

also not disputed that her services were terminated after

completion of the period of four years. According to the

second party she should be continued in service even after

completion of the period of four years as the post of

Scientific Assistant is of permanent nature. According to

the second party her service throughout four years was

satisfactory and without any blame. No adverse remark

was ever communicated to her. Therefore she claimed

that she is entitled to continue in the service as a

permanent employee of the first party.

15.

In this respect according to the first party the second

party workman was appointed for fixed period of four

years. Therefore she is not entitled to be continued beyond

the said period of four years. In support of his argument

the ld. adv. for the first party resorted to the Apex Court

ruling in Secretary State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi

2006 – II – CLR – 261 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court

in para 34 of the judgement on the point observed that;

“If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment

comes to an end at the end of the contract.”

16.

The ld. av. for the first party also resorted to another

Apex Court ruling in Kishore Chandra Samanth V/s.

Divisional Manager, Orissa State CDC Ltd. Dhenkanal

2006 I CLR 29 wherein workman therein was appointed

for a fixed term. After expiry of the term he was allowed

to continue for further period and thereafter he was

discontinued. Therefore the Labour Court directed to

reinstate the workman to his former post. The High Court

in writ petition observed that the workman was appointed

for fixed period of time on the basis of payment at different

rates. The contractual period of engagement ended on

3/5/1989 and there was no renewal thereafter. Since the

engagement was for a fixed period, the High Court set

aside the award of the Labour Court. When workman

approached Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Court

in this case on the point observed that;

“In the instant case in all, the orders of engagement

specific period have been mentioned. Therefore

High Court’s order does not suffer from any

infirmity.”

17.

In the light of these two Apex Court rulings I come

to the conclusion that as the second party workman was

appointed for the period of four years, she cannot claim

reinstatement or continuation of service after the expiry

of the said fixed period. Accordingly I decide this issue

no. 3 in the affirmative that first party has proved that

the second party cannot be continued after efflux of time

she was appointed for. As a result I come to the conclusion

that the second party is not entitled to be reinstated in

the service and is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6867

Accordingly I decide this issue no. 4 in the negative and

proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is dismissed with no order as to cost.

Date: 17.07.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2748-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uoy MkWd;kMZ

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] eaqcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

lhthvkbZVh&2@11 of 2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-10-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@15@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

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

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014

S.O. 2748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. Ref.

No. CGIT-2/11 of 2011) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai

now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

the Naval Dockyard and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 10.10.2014.

[No. L-14011/15/2010-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/11 of 2011

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF NAVAL DOCKYARD

The Admiral Superintendent

Naval Dockyard,

Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,

Lion Gate,

Mumbai-400 023.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Indian Naval Employees Union,

12/14, Rajgir Chambers, R. No. 60, 7^th Floor,

Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,

Opp. Old Custom House,

Mumbai -400 023.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

No appearance

FOR THE WORKMEN

No appearance

Mumbai, dated the 25^thSeptember, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-14011/15/2010-IR (DU),

dated 28.03.2011 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 demand of Indian Naval Employees

Union, Mumbai for reduction of experience from

eight years to six years for the promotion from

skilled category workmen to Highly Skilled

Category Workmen of the Industrial Employees of

Naval Dockyard, Mumbai is legal and justified?

What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference from Ministry of

Labour & Employment, notices were sent to both the

parties. Second party Union appeared before this Tribunal

on 5/9/2011 and filed their Statement of Claim (Ex-4)

making out their case. Representative of management

remained present on few dates but did not file their written

statement. Therefore “no written statement by

management” was passed on 05/10/2012. Thereafter

matter was adjourned on several dates due to non-

appearance of parties for filing documents/affidavit of

WW-1 i.e. evidence of union. The notices issued to second

party union returned unserved twice with postal

endorsement “unclaimed”. The second party union has

neither approached this Tribunal nor filed affidavit in

lieu of examination-in-chief to prove their case.Today,

since both parties remained absent, ‘no affidavit from

workman’ order was passed. In the circumstances the

reference deserves to be rejected for want of prosecution.

Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution.

Date: 25.9.2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2749-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkseku ,vj

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 78 of

6868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14&10&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@2@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014

S.O. 2749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Oman

Air, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14-10-2014.

[No. L-20013/2/2014-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Friday, the 5^th September, 2014

Present :

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 78/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as

amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010) between

the Management of Oman Air and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Ms. Annie Thomas

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Management

2^nd Party/Respondent

Oman Air,

Deshbandhu Plaza,

Ground Floor,

No. 47, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai-600014

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/

: M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates

Petitioner

For the 2^nd Party/

: Sri T.V. Lakshmanan, Advocate

Management

AWARD

This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under

2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as

amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by

the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner was appointed as Customer Service

Agent under the service of the Respondent by order dated

09.12.1998. The petitioner has been discharging her

duties efficiently. One Siny Mary Verghese was appointed

as Station Manager of the Respondent at Anna

International Airport, Chennai. She had been harassing

the petitioner and insisting the petitioner to do all her

personal work. When the petitioner became ill it was not

possible for her to do the personal work of the Station

Manager. She started ill-treating the petitioner because

of this. She had been trying to push the petitioner out

and promote Syed as Duty Supervisor. In continuation of

this the petitioner was placed under suspension on

08.07.2011 and a Charge Memo dated 06.07.2011 was

issued to her. The allegations made in the Charge Memo

related to the year 2010 and prior to that which had been

closed for ever. The petitioner gave an explanation to the

Charge Memo denying the charges leveled against her.

She also lodged a complaint against the Station Manager

in the Airport Police Station alleging harassment. The

petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit before the District

Munsiff, Alandur seeking injunction restraining the

Respondent Management from interfering with the

employment of the petitioner. As the matter was sub-

judice the petitioner had represented through her counsel

to adjourn the enquiry on the charges leveled against her.

In spite of this, the enquiry was conducted and a report

was submitted holding that the charges against the

petitioner are proved. The findings of the Enquiry Officer

is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. On

the basis of the enquiry report the petitioner was

terminated from the service of the Respondent by order

dated 29.02.2012. The termination is grossly illegal. The

charges levelled against the petitioner are without any

basis. The first allegation in the Charge Memo is that

her probation was extended. This cannot be a misconduct

as the petitioner’s service had been confirmed and she

had rendered more than 16 years of unblemished service.

The petitioner who was appointed by the Respondent in

December 1998 was only a Trainee in the year 1999. The

second allegation that the petitioner failed to handle the

passengers who have delayed or mishandled the

baggage nor left any instruction for the same and caused

operational difficulties and dislocation to the airlines is

not correct. No memo or charge memo had been issued

to the petitioner raising such allegation at the time. In

any case, there cannot be a charge in the year 2011

regarding an incident allegedly reported in the year 1999.

The third allegation that the petitioner allowed a deportee

to leave the airport without obtaining signature in the

Indemnity form and without collecting COD of

Rs. 17,070/- also is false. No memo or charge memo had

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6869

been issued in this respect. In any case, there cannot be a

charge regarding the alleged incident reported in the year

1999, in 2011. The fourth allegation in the charge memo

that the petitioner failed to collect four tokens received

through OCS and one carton was missing due to

petitioner’s negligence in 1999 also is false. There cannot

be a charge in this respect also in the year 2011. The

fifth allegation that the petitioner was transferred from

Airport to Town Office to assist in the Sales because of

unsatisfactory performance of duties in the Airport also

is false. There was work only for 5 days in a week in the

Airport and some of the employees were asked to work

in the Town Office in assisting sales. It is not as

punishment the petitioner was asked to work in the Town

Office. The sixth allegation that on 18.10.2003 the

petitioner behaved badly to a co-staff is not true. Though

a memo was submitted to the petitioner making such an

allegation no further action was taken regarding this.

There is no substance in allegations six and seven of the

Charge Memo. The eighth allegation against the

petitioner is that she was given a memo on 11.06.2005

for having accepted a passenger for travel on expired

visa. Due to work pressure sometimes mistakes do

happen. The Respondent had not conducted any enquiry

in this regard and had left the matter by not proceeding

in any manner. The incident cannot be re-opened to the

convenience of the Respondent. The ninth allegation

against the petitioner is that a memo was given to her on

22.04.2007 for accepting the passenger holding a similar

name. The charges is very vague. The memo was not

proceeded with in any manner. There cannot be a charge

now regarding the incident. The tenth allegation in the

charge memo that she was issued memo on 02.03.2009

for accepting a passenger without any proper documents

also is denied. The memo supposed to have been given

has not been proceeded in any manner. The eleventh

allegation is that on 23.03.2009 the petitioner was given

warning notice for misdemeanor while dealing with her

superiors, co-workers, passengers, etc. The petitioner had

submitted explanation to her superiors and they were

satisfied. The petitioner had been cooperating with her

colleagues. The allegation is without any basis.

Allegations twelve and thirteen in the charge memo are

without any substance. The petitioner used to report for

work half an hour earlier every day. Syed who had seen

the petitioner taking pre-flight sheets on the previous day

should have kept the papers for the petitioner to fill-up.

The charge memo was issued at the instance of the Station

Manager. The Respondent Management had conducted

a farce of an enquiry. The punishment is grossly illegal.

The petitioner had not committed any misconduct. An

award may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate

the petitioner in service with full back wages and other

attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The Respondent disputes the maintainability of the

petition. The petitioner has not stated anything

about her role in the office of the Respondent. She

has not stated her entitlement to approach the

Tribunal. The enquiry against the petitioner was

conducted in accordance with law. It is incorrect

to state that while the petitioner was working with

the Respondent she had been performing sincerely

and efficiently. She was not carrying out her duties

properly. She was also interfering with the work of

the colleagues. She had been quarrelsome in nature.

However, the Respondent had been taking a lenient

view on the petitioner. She was let off with warning

on several occasions. The actions of the petitioner

in the charge would show that her conduct was

marring the atmosphere of the office and

threatening the policy of the Respondent. Her

termination is fully justifiable. The earlier

disciplinary actions against the petitioner

culminated in warning only to avert any fall in her

moral. The instances contained in charges 12 and

13 of the charge memo reveal the misbehavior of

the petitioner. Throughout her service the petitioner

had shown insubordination and incompetence apart

from lack of integrity. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence

of WW1 and MWs 1 to 3 and documents marked as

Ext.W1 to Ext.W14 and Ext.M1 to Ext.15.

The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the action of the Respondent in removing

the petitioner from service is justified.

(ii)

What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The petitioner is said to have entered the service of

the Respondent as Customer Service Agent in

December 1998. By order dated 29.02.2012, the petitioner

was terminated from service on the basis of an enquiry

report. Various charges were leveled against the petitioner

in the enquiry.

The petitioner had contended in the Claim

Statement that the enquiry had not been conducted in a

fair and proper manner. In fact the petitioner had filed a

suit before the Civil Court seeking an order of injunction

restraining the Management from interfering with her

employment. She had given representation before the

Enquiry Officer seeking to postpone the enquiry during

the disposal of the suit. However, the Enquiry Officer

had proceeded with the enquiry. The petitioner had not

participated in the enquiry. While considering the issue

whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper

6870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

manner, this Tribunal had found that the enquiry having

been conducted in the absence of the petitioner, she had

no opportunity to defend her case and opportunity had

been given to her to cross-examine all the witnesses

examined by the Management before the Enquiry Officer.

It is accordingly, the Management witnesses were cross-

examined on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the

evidence given by them before the Enquiry Officer.

During argument the counsel for the Respondent

has raised a contention that the petitioner has not

established that she is a workman coming under Section-

2(s) of the ID Act. In fact in the Counter Statement the

Respondent has not specifically raised a contention that

the petitioner is not a workman as defined under the ID

Act. However, it is stated in the Counter Statement that

the petitioner has not stated anything about her

entitlement to approach the Tribunal on her competence

as well as on jurisdiction.

It has been argued on behalf of the counsel for the

petitioner that it is for the Management to prove that the

petitioner is not a workman as defined under the ID Act.

The counsel has also referred to the decision of the Madras

High Court in MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN

MOTORS LTD. Vs. LAKSHMAIAH AND ANOTHER

REPORTED IN 2002 2 LLN 725 where it is held that

the burden is on the Management to prove that the

petitioner is not a workman. However, this argument of

the counsel for the petitioner is not in consonance with

the dictum laid down by the Apex Court. In this respect,

the counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision

of the Apex Court in MUKESH TRIPATHI VS. SENIOR

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC AND OTHERS reported

in 2004 8 SCC 387 and also SONEPAT COOPERATIVE

SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. AJIT SINGH reported in 2005

3 SCC 232 where it was held that it is for the worker to

establish that he is a workman under the ID Act. So

certainly it is for the petitioner to establish that she is a

workman and she is entitled to approach this Tribunal

claiming relief.

10.

As already pointed out the Respondent has not

raised any specific contention in the Counter Statement

that the petitioner is not a workman. Only at the stage of

the argument this aspect is specifically put forth. In any

case, on going through the nature of contention of the

petitioner and the evidence available on either side it could

be seen that the position of the petitioner with the

Respondent is that of “Workman”. Even in the Claim

Statement the petitioner has stated that she was appointed

as Customer Service Agent. She was working under the

Station Manager of the Respondent at the Airport. It is

the Station manager who had issued memo to the

petitioner. There is nothing to show that the petitioner

was working in a supervisory capacity or that there were

any subordinates under her to be supervised by her. Lately,

she had been transferred to the Town Office of the

Respondent also where she had been doing work which

was clerical in nature only. So the contention on behalf

of the Respondent that the petitioner has no right to

approach this Tribunal for relief as a workman is only to

be rejected.

11.

The Charge Memo issued to the petitioner is dated

06.07.2011. Surprisingly, 13 charges regarding the

incidents that had taken place within a range of 10 years

are referred to in the Charge Memo. The charges 12 and

13 which are the last two charges themselves have

occurred almost a year before the charge memo was served

on the petitioner.

12.

The incident referred to as the first charge in the

charge memo (Ext.W8) is that the probation of the

petitioner in the post of Customer Service Agent in the

service of the Respondent had to be extended as the

manner of performance of the duties of the petitioner

was not satisfactory and she had failed and neglected to

improve her performance. The petitioner has stated that

the charge is without any basis. She has further stated

that she was only a Trainee during the period. In fact the

charge does not mention on which dates the probation of

the petitioner had to be extended. As seen from Exts.M12

and Ext.M13 in the enquiry proceedings (Page 99 and

100 of the Respondent’s typeset respectively) the

probation of the petitioner was extended for three months

w.e.f. 08.03.1999 and for another three months more from

08.06.1999. What is stated in both extension order is that

the performance during the period has been

unsatisfactory.

13.

By the term charge what one understands is that

there was some misconduct on the part of the concerned

employee. Failure to perform satisfactorily and that also

during the probation period could not be treated as

misconduct at all. It was for the very reason of failure to

perform properly the probation period was extended. As

could be seen, the probation of the petitioner was later

declared and she has become a regular employee of the

Respondent. One can only wonder how the extension of

probation becomes a subject of charge and that also after

a decade after probation was declared.

14.

The second incident that is referred to in the charge

also had occurred in the year 1999. The allegation is that

the Airport Officer had reported on 11.06.1999 that the

petitioner has failed to handle passengers who have

delayed or mishandled baggage and did not leave any

instruction for the same to be dealt with by the other staff

while she was on off-days causing operational difficulties

and dislocation to the airline. Ext.M14 in the enquiry

proceedings (Page-101 of Respondent’s Typeset) is the

document pertaining to this charge. Ext.M15 also refers

to this. It is clear from Ext.M12 and Ext.M13 that at the

time of this alleged incident the petitioner was still on

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6871

probation. So she could not be supposed to have been

entirely responsible for all her deeds at the time. Even

assuming that the petitioner is responsible for the same,

the incident could not be treated as misconduct on the

part of the petitioner. It is only a mistake or negligence

on her part which caused some inconvenience to the

Respondent. In any case how can this incident which

had occurred during the probation period of the petitioner

could be brought up as a charge of misconduct against

her after a period of 10 years? The Respondent in its

anxiety to see that the petitioner is turned out seems to

have forgotten this basic aspect.

15.

The third charge against the petitioner is that on

30.12.1999 the Airport Officer had reported that the

petitioner allowed a deportee to leave the airport without

obtaining his signature in the Indemnity form and without

collecting the COD amount. The fourth charge is that on

11.09.1999 she has failed to collect four cartons received

through OCS because of her delayed attendance and one

carton was lost because of her negligence and she has

failed to fill up the concerned forms properly. Ex.M15

in the enquiry proceedings (Page-102 of Respondent’s

Typeset). The incident referred to in the two charges are

also in the year 1999. On 11.09.1999 the petitioner must

have just completed her probation which was extended

for a period of three months from 08.06.1999. The other

incident is on 30.12.1999, in the same year no memo

was issued to the petitioner at the time or the matter

pursued. There is nothing other than Ext.M15 to prove

the incident. One does not know what prompted the

Respondent to take up these things which had occurred

so many years ago and use them against the petitioner. It

is totally unwarranted.

16.

As Charge No. 5, it is stated that the petitioner was

transferred from Airport to Town Office to assist in sales

because of her unsatisfactory performance of duties in

the Airport, but her performance did not improve in spite

of the same showing her incompetence to continue in the

service of the Airline.

17.

Ext.M16 in the enquiry proceedings (Page-106 of

Respondent’s Typeset) is the order of transfer of the

petitioner from Airport to the Town Office on 06.03.2000.

The order merely states that she is transferred from

Airport to Town Office to assist in sales with immediate

effect. The case is that it was because of poor performance

of the petitioner that she was transferred. However, there

is nothing in Ext.M16 to show that the transfer was for

this reason and it was by way of punishment. If the

contentions in the Claim and in the Counter Statements

are taken into account the petitioner had subsequently

been working in the Airport. Some of the incidents

mentioned in the charge have reference to the Airport.

In any case, how can a transfer itself, even assuming it

was on account of poor performance, could be a

misconduct on the part of the petitioner?

18.

The sixth charge against the petitioner is that on

18.10.2003 certain co-staff complained against her stating

that she would leave her work for others and degraded

and commanded other staff and made them to other jobs

while they were on their duty. Under Charge no. 7 it is

stated that on 25.11.2003 the petitioner was given a memo

by the Deputy Station Manager based on the complaint

of the staff. The alleged complaint made by the staff is

marked as Ext.M17 (Page-107 in the Respondent’s

Typeset) in the enquiry proceedings. Ext.M18 (Page-110)

is the memo issued to the petitioner on the basis of the

above complaint stating that the petitioner has been

advised regarding the incident to avoid hindrances among

colleagues and if no change is noticed her service will be

re-rostered to other areas. An enquiry does not seem to

have been conducted on the alleged complaint by the staff.

On the basis of the complaint the superior officer had

talked to the petitioner and had advised her. The matter

seems to have been closed by this. The closed matter is

now being re-opened and included as a charge in the

charge memo and the petitioner is asked to answer the

same a second time. Even assuming that the petitioner

had misbehaved as complained there was no reason to

re-open the same. Ext.M19 in the enquiry proceedings is

the memo given to the petitioner regarding this. Ext.M20

is the memo issued by the Station Manager stating that

such discrepancies will not be tolerated in future and the

same is to be treated as a warning. The matter was thus

closed with the warning.

19.

The eighth charge against the petitioner is that on

11.06.2005 a memo was given to the petitioner by the

Airport Officer for having accepted the passenger for

travel on an expired visa and she was warned of lack of

concentration and lack of competence. The petitioner has

not denied the charge in the claim statement. She has

stated that this had occurred due to work pressure.

20.

The ninth charge against the petitioner is that on

22.04.2007 she was given another memo for accepting a

passenger holding a similar name which displayed her

negligence and lack of competence. Ext.M20 in the

enquiry proceedings in the memo (Page 112 of

Respondent’s Typeset) is the memo stating that the

petition has wrongly accepted the passenger

Krishnamurthy instead of Manokrishnamurthy. By the

same memo the petitioner is warned. This incidents

referred under Charges 8 & 9 are not misconduct but

certain dereliction on the part of the petitioner in duty.

21.

The tenth charge given is that on 02.03.2009 the

petitioner had accepted a passenger with improper

documents revealing her lack of competence and a memo

was given to her in this respect. The petitioner has denied

the allegation in her Claim Statement. She has further

stated the memo which is supposed to have been given

had not been proceeded in any manner and this means

the allegation was wrong. She has stated that it cannot

6872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

be re-opened. Ext.M 21 in the enquiry proceedings is

the document relied upon to prove this. This memo dated

02.03.2009 states that a passenger whose visa was

cancelled was accepted by her. The memo also states that

the error should not be repeated and in future any fine

paid by the Company due to improper documents will be

debited to the petitioner for recovery. It is stated in the

memo that the petitioner is to sign it as an

acknowledgement. It could not be made out from the copy

if the petitioner has signed the same. What the petitioner

has stated during her cross-examination is that she did

not receive Ext.M 21. Even assuming that the incident

had happened and the memo was served on the petitioner,

the matter is seen closed by the memo advising the

petitioner not to commit such errors in future in the

case of which the amount that the company had to pay

will be debited on her. So this also could not have been

included as a charge for a second enquiry.

22.

The eleventh charge against the petitioner is that

she was misbehaving towards her superiors, co-workers

and passengers. It is stated under charge 11 that on

23.03.2009 the petitioner was issued a disciplinary

warning notice for her such behavior and also for

challenging Mr. Mohammad Siyad. On the issuance of

memo, she has allegedly asked him “What will you do,

you will report this behavior in my appraisal, I do not

care, I challenge you that you or the Country Manager

India with whom you are close cannot do anything, I will

remain in this company for 10 more years or till I retire

or till I die”. She is also supposed to have told him “you

are a coward that you did not have the guts to give me a

memo directly and had sent it through Sheetal”. In her

claim statement the petitioner has admitted that a memo

as stated in the charge has been served on her. According

to her, she has given her explanation to her superiors

regarding this and they were satisfied also and no further

action was initiated against her. Ext.M22 in the enquiry

proceedings is the memo in question. The memo had

sought explanation from the petitioner why disciplinary

action should not be taken against her for the incidents

referred to in the memo. Apart from Ext.M22 itself there

is no other document on the side of the management to

show that the petitioner had not given any explanation

and this and disciplinary action has been taken against

her. In fact Ext.M22 is not seen pursued further either

because the explanation of the petitioner was accepted or

because the management dropped the matter by issuance

of the memo itself. In any case, there is nothing to show

that the allegations made in the memo are true. The

incident if any having been taken up and concluded, it

should not have been raised again.

23.

Charge Nos. 12 and 13 are the last two charges

about which oral evidence has been given by the

Management witnesses. Charge 12 states that on

25.09.2010 the petitioner was given a warning letter for

displaying a poor attitude by throwing a pre-flight paper

into the dust bin because it was prepared by another staff

and when the Station Manager tried to explain the mistake

the petitioner raised her voice without accepting it and

also walked out of the briefing session without asking

for permission. Charge No. 13 merely states that on

30.09.2010 the regional Manager had given a final

warning letter to the petitioner for her irrational behavior

during job functions at office. In the Claim Statement

the petitioner has not specifically denied the charge that

she had put the pre-flight sheet in the dust bin. What

she has stated in the Claim Statement is that she usually

reports for work half an hour earlier every day and she

used to fill up the in and out details. She has further

stated that Syed the one who had prepared the pre-flight

paper had seen the petitioner taking the pre-flights sheets

on the previous night and he should have kept the papers

for the petitioner to fill up. She has further stated that

the way in which Syed writes COF and the way she does

it are different. According to her the Station Manager

instigated Syed and created problems. It has been pointed

out by the counsel for the Respondent that the petitioner

has tried to justify her act by different versions at different

stages. During her cross-examination what the petitioner

has stated is that Syed (MW2) should have kept the paper

for her to fill up. She has then stated that she had thrown

the paper in the dust bin since it was not neat and there

were a lot of mistakes. She again stated that if not for the

mistakes and if not because it was not neat she would not

have thrown it in the dust bin. What she has stated in

Ext.W9, the explanation given by her to the Charge Memo

is that the way in which she writes COF and Syed does it

are different. There were a series of email communications

regarding the incident between MW3, the Station

Manager and the petitioner. Ex.M14 is the

communication from the Station Manager to the

petitioner stating that it is a warning letter issued to the

petitioner “in connection with the attitude displayed on

22^nd September wherein she had thrown the updated pre-

flight paper prepared by Syed into the dust bin”. It is

seen from the same communication that there was a

briefing regarding the incident and the petitioner had

explained that the paper was incomplete and she had

found it not useful enough to fill up further details. As

per the letter the petitioner was not ready to accept her

mistake though she was briefed. The letter asks for an

explanation from the petitioner. By way of reply the

petitioner has stated that already they have spoken twice

regarding the matter and she has nothing more to explain.

Then the Station Manager sent another mail stating that

she did not clarify the point and she requires an

explanation. In reply, the petitioner has stated that she

has not disposed the paper in the dust bin with any bad

intention but only due to the fact that it was incomplete

and she wanted to have the report in a single handwriting

as it is kept for the record. Then there is another

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6873

communication from the Acting Office Manager stating

that the past records of the petitioner were not impressive.

The letter is by way of a final warning to the petitioner

for her “disrespectful and un-courteous behavior towards

staff and job responsibilities”. Though the letter of the

manager does not state any incident specifically, the

petitioner has sent a reply referring to the incident of

throwing away paper. She has stated that she has taken a

pre-flight sheet from the system and kept it ready for her

use to complete in the next morning as she was the

only staff to report for duty at an early time she was always

preparing pre-flight sheets whenever she was on duty,

that Syed had observed that she had kept the sheets ready

for the next day and in spite of that he has taken them

and made a few entries after she left. She has added that

it was not with any bad intention she has disposed the

paper in the dust bin but because it was incomplete and

she herself wanted to do it as she used to do everyday.

She has also stated that the details filled were in a zigzag

manner and so she decided to dispose it and use a fresh

one and fill it up in her own handwriting. She has

requested to withdraw the final warning stating that she

felt demoralized and depressed. She had stated in the

letter that her explanation has clarified the matter. She

has also stated that she will be glad to have a discussion

as she believed the problem must be judged after hearing

the story from both the disputed parties. In the reply the

Manager has stated that the Management is taking the

drastic step towards disciplinary action.

24.

It is not in dispute that the paper was disposed into

the dust bin by the petitioner. Only the attributing of mal-

intention behind it is disputed by the petitioner. There is

the evidence given by MW2 Syed who had prepared the

pre-flight paper partly on the previous day. He has

deposed in the enquiry proceedings that he had prepared

the pre-flight chart with the available information and

had kept it on table for further updation. However, when

he reported for duty on the next day he saw the same

lying in the dust bin. He had brought the matter to the

notice of the Station Manager on the same day. During

cross-examination, the witness has stated that the Shift-

in-Charge will be preparing the pre-flight chart though

others also will be doing it at times. He further stated

that on 22.09.2010 he was supposed to prepare the chart.

It has been brought out during cross-examination of MW2

and also MW3, the Station Manager that the chart was

prepared by the petitioner and it was given to the

Management and there was no disruption of flight on

this day. The attempt seems to have been bring out that

no undue incident had occurred on account of the

petitioner disposing the chart prepared by MW2 and

herself preparing it.

25.

MW3, the Station Manager has stated in the enquiry

proceedings that after the incident was brought to her

notice, she had held a meeting with the staff. According

to her she advised the petitioner that she could have

prepared another pre-flight detail than throwing the one

MW2 had prepared in the dust bin which according to

her will demoralize him. The petitioner is said to have

walked away without permission, without heeding to her

advise. She again talked to the petitioner on 23^rd and the

petitioner again refused to accept the mistake and tried

to justify her misdeed. It was thereafter she had sent

the e-mail warning the petitioner about her

insubordination.

26.

The case advanced by the petitioner is that the

Station Manager had become inimical towards her since

she had been finding it difficult to do the personal work

of the Manager after she became ill. She has also alleged

that the Station Manager always wanted to promote MW2.

27.

In fact the incident in question if considered by

itself is trivial in nature. Such kind of incidents may

sometimes occur in each and every office. The only fault

the petitioner had allegedly done is that she had disposed

the pre-flight sheet partly prepared by MW2 on the

previous day in the dust bin and she had taken it upon

her to prepare another by herself. MW3 herself did not

find fault with the petitioner for preparing the pre-flight

paper. As she has stated during the cross-examination

the paper partly filled up by MW2 could have been

retained by the petitioner even though she prepared

another sheet. What she has sated is that the act of the

petitioner would have demoralized MW2. MW2 himself

has stated that even though usually the chart is prepared

by the one who is in charge others also used to do it. The

claim of the petitioner is that she being the one who used

to reach the office first she was mostly preparing it.

Merely because the petitioner has disposed the paper in

the dust bin, any bad intention could not be attributed

upon the petitioner. However, there is the fact that MW2

was the person in charge and it was his duty to prepare

the chart. In that case, probably she could have discussed

the matter with MW2 before she resorted to preparing it

herself. Even though there was such a practice. The fault

of the petitioner in the incident can be to this extent only.

28.

The further allegation against the petitioner is that

she refused to accept the advice given by MW3 and even

walked away from the room of MW3 trying to justify

herself. As could be seen from the e-mail

communications, the petitioner has always been trying

to explain that she had no mal-intention in her act of

disposing the paper into the bin. This could not be taken

as insubordination on her part. It was only a denial of

the guilt attributed upon her by the manager. It was

because the explanation given by the petitioner was not

found satisfactory by the Management, disciplinary

proceedings has been initiated against her. As could be

seen the petitioner had to pay dearly for not accepting

the advice allegedly given by MW3.

6874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29.

The drawbacks of the petitioner starting from the

initial stage of her career, even during the probation

period were dug up by the Management and incorporated

in the charge memo issued to her. However, it is seen

from the documents produced on the petitioner’s side and

the evidence of MW1 that the Management had given

several letters of appreciations to the petitioner for the

good work done by her. These are marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W9. By Ext.W1 appreciation is given for the fact

that the efforts of the petitioner for sales in the Chennai

market had proved fruitful. This seems to have been not

long after the petitioner was sent to the Town Office.

The present allegation is that it was by way of punishment

she was sent to the Town Office. I have already found

that there is nothing to prove this case. She seems to

have been working hard to boost the sales of the airways.

Ext.W2 is the letter of appreciation in 2006 for her

handling the situation caused due to a delayed flight.

Ext.W3 is the letter appreciating her assistance to the

VIP passengers who have travelled by the flight of the

respondent Company. Ext.W4 is the letter of appreciation

by a frequent traveler to the Manager regarding the

excellent service provided by the staff especially the

petitioner. Ext.W5 to Ext.W7 are also such letters of

appreciation given at different stages in the career of the

petitioner.

30.

MW1 is the one who normally take care of the legal

issues relating to the Company in Chennai. He has

nothing to do with the incident of the petitioner throwing

the paper into the dust bin. He has no personal knowledge

of other allegations made against the petitioner also. This

witness was examined to prove the documents of the

Respondent. However, the evidence of this witness is

important in the sense that the petitioner had worked

alongwith him for six months in the Town Office. This

witness has specifically stated that the Transfer Order of

the petitioner will not show that the transfer was effected

by way of punishment. More important, he has stated

that he never had any problem with the petitioner when

she was working with him. So it could not be that the

petitioner was always quarrelling with the colleagues and

creating problems.

31.

Even assuming that the incident of throwing of the

paper is considered as an offence is it a case where the

concerned person is to be thrown out of service? The

counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision

MP ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. JAGDISH CHANDRA

SHARMA reported in 2005 3 SCC 401 in support of his

argument that breach of discipline at work place entails

severe punishment. In the above case the Apex Court

has held that in the case of breach of discipline at work

place by an employee it is not open to the Labour

Court or industrial tribunal to take the view that the

punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to

the charge proved. It was further held that discipline at

work place is essential for the prosperity of the

organization as well as that of its employees. There could

not be any dispute regarding the dictum laid down by the

Apex Court. However when the facts are taken into

account the case referred to by the counsel could not have

any comparison to the facts of the present case. It was a

case where the employee had hit his superior officer with

a tension screw on his back and nose leaving him with a

bleeding and broken nose in the presence of other

employees. In the present case, the only insubordination

said to have been committed by the petitioner is that she

denied the guilt attributed on her when the Manager tried

to make her realize her alleged guilt. It is not a case of

insubordination, which should result in termination of

the employee.

32.

If the previous incidents referred to in the charge

are brought out to show that the petitioner was not

behaving properly and was having attitude problems in

the office in her behavior towards her colleagues and

superiors, even this should not have entered in

termination of the petitioner. I find that the termination

of the petitioner by the Respondent is not justified. She

is entitled to be reinstated in service.

33.

In view of my discussion above, the Respondent is

directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a

month with 50% back wages payable within a month. In

case of default in payment within the prescribed time,

the amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of the

award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/

WW1, Ms. Annie Thomas

Petitioner

For the 2^nd Party/

MW1, Sri V. Divakar

Management

MW2, Sri Syed Bakthiyar

Hussain

MW3, Ms. Siny Mary Verghese

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

07.12.2001

Letter of appreciation

Ex.W2

03.06.2006

Letter of appreciation

Ex.W3

02.01.2007

Letter of appreciation

Ex.W4

24.01.2007

Letter of appreciation

Ex.W5

01.02.2007

Letter of appreciation

Ex.W6

30.04.2008

Employee of the month

certificate

Ex.W7

01.03.2010

Letter of appreciation

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6875

Ex.W8

06.07.2011

Charge Memo

Ex.W9

17.07.2011

Explanation to the Charge

Memo

Ex.W10

18.07.2011

Complaint of the petitioner

given to the Police and CSE

issued by the Police.

Ex.W11

02.08.2011

Complaint of the petitioner

given to the Police and CSE

issued by the Police

Ex.W12

29.02.2012

Order of termination

Ex.W13

07.12.2011

Order in IA No. 1340 and

1341 of 2011 in Os No. 478

of 2011

Ex.W14

25.12.2011

Reply to the Second Show

Cause Notice

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Report

Ex.M2

14.09.2011

Copy of the proceedings

Ex.M3

24.09.2011

Copy of the proceedings

Ex.M4

15.10.2011

Copy of the proceedings

Ex.M5

18.10.2011

Copy of the proceedings

Ex.M6

19.10.2011

Copy of the proceedings

Ex.M7

20.10.2011

Copy of the proceedings

Ex.M8

Charge

Ex.M9

Notice

Ex.M10

Notice

received

from

opposite party

Ex.M11

Statement of MW1

Ex.M12

Statement of MW2

Ex.M13

Statement of MW3

Ex.M14

Documents marked by MW1

Ex.M14(a) 30.10.2010

Mail from Annie to Siny

Ex.M14(b) 30.10.2010

Memo from RASM-Asia to

Ms. Annie Thomas

Ex.M14(c) 11.10.2010

Reply to memo dated

30.09.2010 from Annie

Thomas to WY-RASM ASIA

– Sasichandran, P.V.

Ex.W14(d) 19.10.2010

Mail from WY-RASM

ASIA-Sasichandran, P.V. to

Annie

Ex.M15

Documents marked by

MW2.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2750-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

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

78@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14&10&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@78@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- osQ- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2014

S.O. 2750.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/

2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

industrial dispute between the management of M/s.

BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14-10-2014.

[No. L-20012/78/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

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

REFERENCE NO. 78 OF 2012

PARTIES :

The Joint General Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha,

Kendua Bazar,PO:Kusunda, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager

Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Kusunda, Dhanbad.

Ministry’s Order No L-20012/78/2012-IR(CM-I)

dt.15.10.2012

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

None

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28^th August, 2014

6876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on then under

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

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide

their Order No. L-20012/78/2012-IR(CM-I) dt.15.10.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of

Gondudih Colliery of M/s BCCL in not regularizing

Sri Kamlesh Chouhan in the post Coal Belt

Operator is legal and justified? To what relief is

the workman concerned entitled?”

Neither any Representative for Bihar Colliery

Mazdoor Sabha for workman Kamlesh Chauhan nor the

workman himself nor any written statement with

documents filed on behalf of the workman since pending

from 29.1.2013.Mr.U.N.Lal,Ld.Advocate for the O.P./

Management is present.

On going through the case record, I find three

Regd.Notices dt. 20.2.2012, 08.05.2013 and 20.03.2014

were issued to the Union concerned on the address noted

in the reference itself for the appearance and for filing

written statements with documents in behalf of the

workman, whereas the Ld.Counsel for the O.P./

Management has all along been representing the O.P./

Management. The Union Representative and the

workman by their own conducts manifestly appear to be

quite unwilling to contest the case for its finality. Under

these circumstances, it appears that there is no longer

the Industrial Dispute existing, so the case is closed, and

accordingly an order of ‘No Dispute’ is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2751-—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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@

2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&10&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@64@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2751.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

industrial dispute between the management of Bank of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 15-10-2014.

[No. L-12011/64/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk 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 43 OF 2013

PARTIES :

The Dy. General Secretary,

Bank of India Employees Association,

C/O Bank of India,

Barwadih Branch,

PO & Distt: Giridih

Vs.

The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Bokaro Zone,

City Centre, Bokaro,

Order No. L-12011/64/2012-IR (B-II) dt. 11.02.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. B. K. Tiwari, Sr. Manager

Management

State : JHARKHAND

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 9^th April, 2014.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under

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

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide

their Order No L-12011/64/2012-IR(B-II) dt.11.02.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Bank of India, Bokaro

Zone in not considering the request of Sri Sitaram

for transfer at Sihodih Branch, ignoring his

seniority, while considered the request of other

workman (who happens to be member of majority

union) is fair and justified? What relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6877

Neither any Representative for Bank of India

Employees Association, Giridih nor workman Sitaram

appeared nor any written statement with any documents

filed on his behalf despite its pending since 30.05.2013.

Mr. B.K. Tiwari, the Sr. Manager is present.

Perused the case record. I find that out of the

photocopies of the documents filed on behalf of the O.P./

Management, one letter dt.11.02.2013 under the signature

of the workman Sitaram, the Staff Clerk, Bank of India

addressed to the Zonal Manager of the said Bank, Bokaro

Zone relates to the request of the workman for the closure

of the Industrial Dispute raised by the Dy.General

Secretary of the said Association, as he is no longer a

member of the Association. The workman by his conduct

appears to be reluctant in pursuing the case. Under these

circumstances; the case is closed as no Industrial Dispute

existent; accordingly an order of No Dispute Award is

passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2752-—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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

143@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

15&10&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@46@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O.2752

.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 143/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

industrial dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 15-10-2014.

[No. L-12012/46/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk 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 143 OF 2013

PARTIES :

The Secretary,

PNB Staff Union,

2^nd Floor,Saboo Chamber,

Lallwys Complex,

Exhibition Road,

Patna-1.

Vs.

Circle Head,

Punjab National Bank,

Gaya Circle,

Dist:Gaya,

Ministry’s Order No.L-12012/46/2013-IR (B-II)

dt.15.07.2013.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the

None

Workman/Union

On behalf of the

Ms. Neha Smriti, Management

Management

Representative.

State : Bihar

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th 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-12012/46/2013-IR (B-II) dt.15.07.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the workman Sri Indrajit Kumar who has

been workings part time sweeper on consolidated

wages for more than 5 years in the chandchaura

branch of Punjab National Bank is entitled to be

regularized as part time sweeper? What relief he is

entitled for?”

Neither any representative for the P.N.B Staff

Union, Patna-1 nor workman Indrajit Kumar appeared

or filed any written statement with documents.Ms.Neha

Smriti-12, H.R.D Officer as a Representative for the O.P./

Circle Head, P.N.B., Gaya is present.

On perusal of the case record, I find Mr.Umesh

Kumar Verma, the General Secretary, appears to have

filed twice petitions dts. 29.4.14 and 22.5.2014 for the

workman for the closure of the case as no Industrial

Dispute, and for the authority of Mr.B.Prasad to represent

in the case. Since the workman does not want to contest

the dispute before the Tribunal. So let it be closed as no

Industrial dispute existent between both the parties. Hence

an Award of ‘No Industrial dispute’ is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

6878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2753-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 121@

2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&10&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@30@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2753.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 121/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Central Bank of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 15-10-2014.

[No. L-12011/30/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/121/2003

Date: 26.09.2014

Party No.1

Central Bank of India

The Zonal Manager, CBI,

Oriental Building,

First Floor,

Opp. Bharat Talkies,

Mohan Nagar,

Nagpur-440001(MS)

V/s.

Party No. 2

The General Secretary.

Hemar Workers Union,

C/o Smt. Kamal Nayakwal,

Matrusewa Sangh, Sitabuldi,

Nagpur(MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 26^th September, 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 the Zonal Manager, CBI, Oriental

Building and their workman, Shri Abdul Rehaman Abdul

Azim, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12011/30/2003-

IR (B-II) dated 29.04.2003, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Nagpur Region, Nagpur(MS) in

dismissing Shri Abdul Rehaman Abdul Azim, Sub-

staff, Central Bank of India, Tumsar Branch from

services w.e.f. 08.02.1991 is justified? If not, what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman Shri, Abdul

Rehman Abdul Azim, (“the workman” in short) filed the

statement of claim and the management of Central Bank

of India, (“party no.1” in short) filed the written

statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he was appointed as a sub-staff

by party no.1 in the year 1972 and he worked as such till

the year 1991 and his service record was clean and

unblemished and by the order dated 09.02.1992, the party

No.1 dismissed him from services without any prior notice

and false allegation was made against him of submitting

false document and a show of departmental enquiry was

made, but the entire departmental enquiry was rejected

by the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 21.03.1991

and a fresh departmental enquiry was ordered and the

Disciplinary Authority was not empowered to order a

fresh departmental enquiry and such order was against

the principles of natural justice and was illegal and as

such, the same is liable to be set aside and at the first

instance, punishment of stoppage of two annual

increments was imposed against him and on the second

occasion, on the same allegation, he was dismissed from

services and he was punished twice for the same

allegations and the same was quite illegal and in 1972,

when he was appointed by party No.1 as a sub-staff no

educational qualification was prescribed in the

Recruitment Rules and due to his clean and unblemished

service records, in 1991, after his passing of the prescribed

examination, he was appointed as a full time peon and

the school leaving certificate submitted by him was a

genuine certificate and the said school was in existence

at the relevant time and he did not take any advantage

from the Bank by submitting any false school leaving

certificate and the entire departmental enquiry was

conducted against him basing only on suspicion.

It is further pleaded by the workman in the

statement of claim that in the recruitment Rules of party

No.1, there was no provision as to from which educational

institution, school leaving certificate was to be obtained

and the entire departmental enquiry conducted and

punishment imposed against him were in gross violation

of the principles of natural justice and such action of

party No.1 amounted to unfair labour practice as

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6879

mentioned in the schedule V of the Act and as such, the

entire action of party no.1 is liable to be quashed and set

aside.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

The party No.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter alia that the workman came to be dismissed from

services by way of punishment on 09.02.1991 and the

workman sat over the issue of his dismissal from service

for a period of more than 11 years and he suddenly woke

up and filed the application for conciliation before the

ALC(central),Nagpur on 11.06.2002 and there is delay

of 11years in not approaching any authority under law

and the workman has not explained the delay and

therefore, the reference is deserved to be answered in the

negative and the reference is not maintainable. It is further

pleaded by the party No.1 that the claim of the workman

for reinstatement in service with back wages is totally

misconceived and he has suppressed material facts and

the workman was employed as a peon at Tumsar branch,

prior to his dismissal from service and the workman came

to be charge sheeted on 20.08.1989, by the Disciplinary

Authority leveling certain serious charges of misconduct

and it was alleged against him that the school leaving

certificate submitted by him was a bogus certificate and

a departmental enquiry was held against him and it was

found that the charges levelled against the workman were

true and correct and the charges were proved against the

workman in the enquiry and a second show cause notice

was served on the workman on 12.01.1991 and in

response to the same, the workman appeared before the

Disciplinary Authority and made his submissions and

thereafter, it was decided by the Disciplinary Authority

to dismiss him from services by way of punishment, as

per the service conditions applicable to the workman and

after his dismissal from services w.e.f. 01.02.1991, the

workman preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority, but the same was dismissed and after the

dismissal of the appeal, the workman had also approached

the Chairman/Managing Director with a mercy petition

and the same also came to be rejected and all fair and

reasonable opportunity was extended to the workman in

the matter of the disciplinary action taken against him

and the workman had submitted a school leaving

certificate dated 18.07.1967 purportedly issued by Vidhya

Night School showing his date of admission in the said

school as 21.06.1964 and date of leaving as 30.04.1967

and the registered number of the workman was shown as

3596 in the said certificate and discharge no. as 4310

and it was certified that he had passed the 8^th class, but

the said certificate was found to be a bogus certificate, in

as much as the above named school was not in existence

during the period from 20.06.1964 to 30.04.1967 and

the school was established only in 1967 and started

functioning from 01.07.1968 and the registered number

of the school as on 26.04.1989 was 2940 and while

appearing for promotion process from the post of

permanent part time safai karmachari to the post of peon,

the workman submitted the aforesaid bogus certificate

as proof of his educational qualification and thus gained

undue benefit for himself at the time of his appointment

as a peon at Tumsar Branch on 08.07.1981 and he also

appeared for All India Promotion Tests for sub-staff for

their promotion to clerical cadre, on the basis of the same

bogus certificate and thus, he committed a gross

misconduct under para 19.5 (m) of the Bi-partite

Settlement, as amended up to date and therefore, it is

insignificant as to whether or not, his initial employment

as PTSK in the year 1971 was based on some educational

qualifications and the departmental enquiry conducted

against the workman was fair and proper and in

accordance with the principles of natural justice and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

services, after holding of a departmental enquiry against

him, the fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry

was taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration

and by order dated 06.05.2014, the departmental inquiry

conducted against the workman was held to be legal,

proper and in accordance with the principles of natural

justice.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that after about 18

years of service, on 23.06.1989, a show cause memo was

issued against the workman by the Regional Manager of

party no.1, on the allegation of the workman submitting

a bogus school leaving certificate and thereby gained

benefit of appearing for promotion test for the post of

peon and enjoyed the said post from 08.07.1981 and the

workman in his reply dated 31.06.1989 to the said show

cause memo, pointed out that the certificate produced by

him was not bogus, but legal and proper and thereafter,

party No.1 issued the charge sheet and directed for an

enquiry against him and in the inquiry, party No.1 failed

to adduce any evidence to show the non-existence of Vidya

Night High school, Barse Nagar, Panchpaoli, Nagpur,

but produced evidence about the recognition of Vidya

Night High School, Itwari Bazar, Nagpur and in the

enquiry , the party No.1 did not examine the complainant,

who had made complained against the workman of

submitting bogus certificate and the original letter dated

25.04.1989, on the basis of which, the allegations

regarding submission of of false school leaving certificate

was levelled against the workman was not produced

before the Enquiry Officer and the list of the witnesses to

be examined was neither filed nor given to the workman

by party No.1 and though originally, a list of

10 documents was filed by the management

representative, additional documents were filed in the

enquiry, before the Enquiry Officer and copies of the

6880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

letters issued by the party No.1 to the secretary of Bahujan

Dnyanotti Shikshan Sanstha dated 09.10.1989 and to the

Headmaster, Vidya Night High School, Itwari Bazar were

not supplied to the workman and important documents

were not produced in the inquiry and though the Enquiry

Officer by his findings dated 15.03.1990 had pointed out

that the charges against the workman were not proved,

the Disciplinary Authority again directed the Enquiry

Officer to submit his fresh findings after recording

additional evidence and the copy of the said finding report

was also not supplied to the workman and the Enquiry

Officer was biased and though the school leaving

certificate of the workman was first forwarded to the

Regional Office in 1979 and again the same was sent in

1984 and in 1987 for the examination of the clerical post,

at no point of time, any allegation regarding submission

of bogus certificate was made. The learned advocate for

the workman by submitting the details of the evidence

adduced in the departmental enquiry stated that no

evidence or material was produced by party No.1 to prove

the charges levelled against the workman and therefore,

the dismissal of the workman based on no evidence is

illegal and mala fide and the workman had filed the mercy

petition before the higher authorities and waited for the

result of his petition, but as he did not receive any reply,

he raised the industrial dispute before Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central) and there was no delay in raising

the dispute and his entire service record was clean and

unblemished, so the findings recorded by the Disciplinary

Authority for the dismissal of the workman are perverse

and the punishment of dismissal imposed against the

workman is shockingly disproportionate to the charge

levelled against him and the workman is entitled for his

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the Party No.1 that there is inordinate delay of

11 years in raising the dispute and by way of punishment,

on 09.02.1991, the workman was dismissed from service

and the workman sat over the matter for a period of

11 years and all of a sudden on 11.06.2002, he raised the

dispute before the ALC and the delay has not been

explained and in absence of any explanation, it can be

held that the workman is responsible for the delay and

latches and on the ground of delay, the reference is to be

answered in the negative and against the workman.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that by order dated 06.05.2014, the

departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has

already been held to be proper, legal and in accordance

with the principles of natural justice by this Tribunal and

the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the

evidence on record of the enquiry and the charges have

been duly proved against the workman in a properly

conducted departmental enquiry and the punishment is

not shockingly disproportionate and there is no scope

for the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed

against the workman and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

First of all, I will take up the contention raised by

the learned advocate for the party No.1 regarding the

delay in raising the dispute.

It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a

number of decisions that Laws of Limitation, which might

bar any civil court from giving remedy in respect of lawful

rights should not be applied by the Industrial Tribunal.

On the other hand, it is well accepted principles of

industrial adjudication that over stale claim generally

should not be encouraged or allowed unless there is a

satisfactory explanation for the delay.

It is also well settled that so far delay in seeking a

reference under section 10 of the Act is concerned, no

formula of universal application can be laid down. It

would depend on facts of each individual case. The Labour

Court may decline to decide a dispute, if due to delay

prejudice has been caused.

By applying the settled principles as mentioned

above to the case in hand, it is found that on the facts of

the case, the delay in raising the dispute is not so culpable

to deny the relief to the workman, in case it will be found

that he is entitled for the same.

In view of the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the parties, I think it proper to mention the

settled principles regarding the power of a Tribunal in

interfering with punishment awarded by the competent

authority in departmental proceedings, by the Hon’ble

Apex Court.

In a number of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court

have held that:-

“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with

the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be

equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The

Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the

Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they

are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to

impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred

on the competent authority either by an Act of

Legislature or rules made under the proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been

an enquiry consistent with the rules and in

accordance with principles of natural justice what

punishment would meet the ends of justice is a

matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the

competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be

imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct,

the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6881

discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy

of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a

matter of the Tribunal to concern itself with. The

Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if

the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the

competent authority is based on evidence even if

some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to

the matter.

The disciplinary authority and on appeal, the

appellate authority, being fact finding authorities

have exclusive power to consider the evidence with

a view to maintain discipline. They are invested

with the discretion to impose appropriate

punishment keeping in view the magnitude or

gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/

Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial

review, cannot normally substitute its own

conclusion on penalty and impose some other

penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority

shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal,

it would appropriately mould the relief, either

directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the

litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent

reasons in support thereof.

The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not

permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal.

Judicial review, it must be remembered, is directed not

against the decision, but is confined to the examination

of the decision-making process.

At this juncture, I think it proper to mention that

the submission made by the learned advocate for the

workman that in his first report, the Enquiry Officer had

held the workman not guilty of the charges and the

Disciplinary Authority did not accept the report of the

Enquiry Officer and asked the Enquiry Officer to submit

fresh report after taking further evidence had already been

considered at the time of deciding the preliminary issue

of the fairness of the departmental enquiry and as such,

there is no scope for reconsideration of the same. It is

also to be mentioned that the submissions made regarding

the validity or otherwise of the departmental enquiry

cannot be considered again as by order dated 06.05.2014,

the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman

has already been held to be legal, proper and in

accordance with the principles of natural justice.

10.

Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned

above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

On perusal of the record, it is found that the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record

of the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has

analyzed the evidence on the record of the departmental

enquiry in a rational manner and has assigned reasons

in support of his findings. It is also found that the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are not as such, which cannot be

arrived at by a reasonable man on the materials on record

of the departmental enquiry. It is not a case of total

absence of evidence on record of the enquiry or that the

findings of the Enquiry Officer are totally against the

evidence on record. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry

Officer cannot be said to be perverse.

12.

So far the question of proportionality of the

punishment is concerned, it is to be mentioned here that

in a number of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court have

held that a bank employee has to exercise a higher degree

of honesty and integrity. The charges against the workman

are serious in nature, which have been proved against

him in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. So,

the punishment of dismissal from services imposed

against the workman cannot be said to be shockingly

disproportionate, calling for any interference. Hence, it

is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Central Bank of

India, Nagpur Region, Nagpur(MS) in dismissing Shri

Abdul Rehaman Abdul Azim, Sub-staff, Central Bank of

India, Tumsar Branch from services w.e.f. 08.02.1991 is

justified? The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2754-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lSaVªy 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&10&2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@46@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2754.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/

2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Central Bank of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 15-10-2014.

[No. L-12011/46/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

6882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/29/2011

Date: 24.09.2014

Party No.1 (a) : The General Manager (HRD)

Central Bank of India, Chandermukhi,

Nariman Point,

Churchgate Reclamation,

Mumbai-400001.

(b) Zonal Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Oriental Building,

Kamptee Road,

Nagpur-440001.

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, Kalabhawan,

Vidyut Colony, NH No. 6,

Jalgaon-424101

V/s.

Party No. 2 (a) : Shri H.V. Pathak,

Plot No.114, Aadarsha Nagar,

Haripur Road, Opp. Gayake Nagar,

Chalisgaon,

Distt. Jalgaon (MS)-424101.

(b) General Secretary,

Central Bank of India Employees

Union, M-1, Saraf Court,

Yashwant Stadium, Dhantoli,

Nagpur-12

AWARD

(Dated: 24^th September, 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 Central Bank of India and their workman,

Shri H.V. Pathak, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-

12011/46/2011-IR (B-II) dated11.11.2011, with the

following Schedule:

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri

H.V. Pathak, the then Head Cashier of Chalisgaon

Branch without notice w.e.f. 01.11.2007 is legal

and justified? What relief the concerned is entitled

to?”

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman,

Shri H.V. Pathak , (“the workman” in short) filed the

statement of claim and the management of Central Bank

of India (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he joined in the service of party

No.1, upon his selection as a clerk w.e.f. 23.04.1984 and

posted at the Regional Office, Jalgaon and subsequently,

he was posted at Kajgaon as a clerk-cum-Assistant

cashier and due to his unblemished service, he was

transferred to Wadhode branch w.e.f.17.04.1995 to work

as a Head cashier “E” category and he was transferred to

Pimparkhede on 09.06.1997 and then to Chalishgaon

branch on 05.12.2001, in the same capacity and for all

these years, he rendered unblemished service and he did

not commit any illegal act amounting to misconduct. The

further case of the workman is that Pimparkhede was a

village and there was no regular branch of party No.1, as

the number of account holders were less and the policy

of the Bank was to send a cashier and one peon to village

Pimarkhede twice in a week to discharge their duties and

perform the transactions and he was doing cashier’s duties

as such, during the year 2006 and on 13.02.2006, while

performing his duties at Pimparkhede office, one villager,

namely, Shri Bandu Chindu More, who was illiterate and

having AC No. 1046, came to the Bank for withdrawal

of an amount of Rs. 3000/- and as Shri More was illiterate,

as per his instructions, Mr. Yunus Sheikh, the Daftari

filled in the withdrawal slip and Shri More put his LTI

on the same and presented the same before him and he

ascertained from Shri More about withdrawal of the

amount of Rs. 3000/- and upon Shri More’s concurrence,

he carried out the posting in the ledger accounts and made

payment of Rs. 3000/- to Shri More and there was no

over writing either in the withdrawal slip or in the ledger

accounts and everything was entered properly, but he

inadvertently, failed to make entry in the pass book of

Shri More in that regard and Shri More also failed to

take note of the same and on 06.03.2006, when other

official of party No.1 visited Pimparkhede office,

Shri More updated his passbook and after a period of 17

days, from the date of entry made in the passbook of

Shri More, i.e. on 20.03.2006, Shri More through his

son made a complaint to the Branch Manager of

Chalisgaon branch against him, stating that on

13.02.2006, he actually received an amount of Rs.1000/-

and not Rs.3000/- and on receipt of the complaint from

Shri More, on 26.08.2006, he was served with a memo

issued by the Regional Office, Jalgaon vide letter No.

RO/HRO/DAD/06-07/507 and it was alleged in the said

memo that by paying Rs.1000/- only to Shri More, he

pocketed Rs. 2000 illegally and deliberately did not make

entry in the passbook of Shri More on 13.02.2006 and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6883

such allegations were made against him relying on the

words of Shri More, without verifying the documents of

the Bank and in said memo, it was also mentioned that

his said act was against the interest of the Bank and

constituted major misconduct in terms of clause 5(j) of

the memorandum of settlement on disciplinary action

procedure and the same was viewed seriously and he was

directed to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary

action should not be initiated against him, within a period

of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memo and

he received the said memo at Lohara on 07.09.2006 and

on 20.09.2006, he submitted his explanation to the

Regional Manager denying the allegations levelled in the

memo and stating that the complaint made by Shri More

to be false and to close the matter.

It is further pleaded by the workman that on

17.11.2006, the Disciplinary Authority issued the charge

sheet against him for the alleged misconduct, holding

his explanation dated 20.09.2006 to be unsatisfactory and

one Mr. M.V.V.S.V. Prasad, the branch manager of

Bamnod branch came to be appointed as the Enquiry

Officer and the departmental enquiry was conducted

against him, in which he participated and the enquiry

was conducted for three days from 05.03.2007 to

07.03.2007, which clearly shows that it was finished in

undue haste and without affording him sufficient

opportunity to put forth his case and the Enquiry Officer

was biased and was under the influence of party No.1

and the enquiry was not fair and on 16.03.2007, written

argument was submitted on behalf of the party No.1 and

he submitted his written argument on 24.03.2007 and

the Enquiry Officer submitted his finding as, holding the

charges to have been proved against him, to the

Disciplinary Authority and on 18.04.2007, he made a

representation to the Disciplinary Authority in respect of

the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and on

06.09.2007, the Disciplinary Authority issued the show

cause notice against him, proposing the punishment of

“dismissal without notice” and directed him to submit

his explanation on 20.09.2007 and on 20.09.2007, he

submitted his explanation and he also submitted a

representation to the Regional Manager, informing about

the withdrawal of the complaint against him by Shri More

and he requested the authorities to exonerate him from

the charges, but the Appellate Authority concurred with

the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed

the order on 21.01.2008 and on 03.04.2008, he made

representation to the chairman-cum-Managing Director

of the Bank and requested for sympathetic action in the

matter and on 05.07.2010, he made a representation to

the Chief Vigilance Officer, but both the authorities did

not pay any heed to his representations and the

punishment of dismissal is not sustainable, being contrary

to facts on record and the punishment is also shockingly

disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and

for that the action of party No.1is liable to be struck down

and the complaint made by Shri More was belated and

was made as an afterthought at the behest of his secret

enemy and the action against him was motivated and

was taken out of personal enmity of the Regional

Manager.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in

service with continuity, full back wages and all

consequential benefits.

The party No.1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter alia that the workman while working as Head cashier

“E” in Chalisgaon branch, serious lapses on his part in

discharging his duties came to the fore and there was

serious complaints of misbehaviors with customers, mal

practices like misappropriation and pocketing of cash etc.

against him, for which, he was warned, cautioned,

censored and finally charge sheeted and after regular

departmental enquiry, he was awarded the punishment

of bringing his scale of pay to a lower stage for a period

of one year, which was modified to withholding of his

stagnation increment for a period of one year by the

Appellate Authority and inspite of such actions taken

against the workman, he remained defiant in his action

and he committed a serious act of misconduct, while he

was deputed to the satellite branch of Chalisgaon and an

illiterate customer, namely Shri B.C. More had come to

the said branch on 13.02.2006 for withdrawal of an

amount of Rs.1000/- from his savings bank account and

the workman paid him Rs. 1000/-, but debited his account

with an amount of Rs. 3000/- and pocketed an amount of

Rs. 2000/- and while making payment to an illiterate

customer, the workman did not take any witness and he

also deliberately did not make any entry in the pass book

on 13.02.2006 and later on, on 06.03.2006, the S.B. pass

book was updated and the customer learned through his

son about debit of an amount of Rs. 3000/- instead of

Rs. 1000/- received by him and consequently the

management was constrained to initiate necessary

disciplinary proceeding against the workman in terms of

clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of settlement dated

10.04.2002 and the workman was issued with a show

cause notice to explain his conduct and on his failure to

give any satisfactory reply, the charge sheet came to be

issued to him on 17.11.2006 and a full fledged

departmental enquiry was conducted in to the said

charges, in accordance with the service Rules applicable

to the workman and the principles of natural justice and

the workman fully participated in the said enquiry and

availed of full opportunity to defend himself and the

Enquiry Officer after considering and analyzing the entire

evidence, oral as well as the documentary evidence before

him, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled

against the workman have been proved and the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report on 30.03.2007 and the copy

of the report of the Enquiry Officer was sent to the

6884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman to submit his say and the workman submitted

his say vide his letter dated 18.04.2007 and after

considering the materials submitted before him, the

Disciplinary Authority concurred with and accepted the

findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer and second

show cause notice was issued to the workman on

06.09.2007 to give his say on the proposed punishment

and the workman was also given a patient personal

hearing and after due consideration of his say on

20.09.2007, the penalty of dismissal was imposed on the

workman, vide order dated 01.11.2007, in terms of clause

6(a) of the settlement of Disciplinary Action Procedure

for the workman and the workman preferred a detailed

appeal against the order of punishment imposed on him,

to the Appellate Authority on 29.11.2007 and the

workman was given personal hearing by the Appellate

Authority on 08.01.2008 and by order dated 21.01.2008,

the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment

and the punishment imposed on the workman is just and

proper, considering the gravity of misconduct and his

past history and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

services, after holding of a departmental enquiry against

him, the validity or other wise of the departmental enquiry

was taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration

and by order dated 08.05.2014, the enquiry conducted

against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in

accordance with the principles of natural justice.

At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that after receipt of

the memo dated 26.08.2006, the workman submitted his

explanation and denied the allegations levelled therein

and also categorically mentioned that the amount of Rs.

3000/- was made to Shri More and Shri More also

acknowledged the receipt of the said amount by putting

his thumb impression at the back of the withdrawal slip

and the complaint made by Shri More to be false and the

workman also requested to the Regional Manager to close

the matter, but party No.1 issued the charge sheet and

conducted the departmental inquiry and the enquiry was

conducted in three days in a haste and without affording

sufficient opportunity to the workman to put forth his

case and on 20.09.2007, the workman submitted his reply

to the second show cause notice and on the same day, the

workman through his defence representative informed

the Regional Manager about the withdrawal of the

complaint against him by Shri More, by submitting a

representation, attaching the withdrawal letter of Shri

More dated 19.09.2007 with the same and requested the

authorities to exonerate him from the charges, but the

authorities did not pay any heed to his request and he

was dismissed from service by the Regional Manager and

the order of dismissal passed by party No.1 is not

sustainable being contrary to facts on record and the

punishment is also shockingly disproportionate to the

charges levelled against the workman and the Enquiry

Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority did not look

into the documents maintained by the Bank i.e. the ledger

book, withdrawal slip and other documents, which did

not have any cutting or over writing and were very clean

and perusal of the said documents would have

demonstrated that the workman had not committed any

misconduct and the party No.1 seems to have over looked

those documents and has victimized the workman and

as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the party No.1 that by order dated 08.05.2014, the

Tribunal has already held the departmental enquiry

conducted against the workman to be legal, proper and

in accordance with the principles of natural justice and

the Enquiry Officer after considering and analyzing the

entire evidence on record of the departmental enquiry

came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against

the workman have been proved and the materials on

record clearly demonstrate that this is not a case of no

evidence or that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry

Officer are not as such, which cannot be arrived at by a

prudent man on the evidence on record of the enquiry

and as such, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the

decision taken by the competent authorities cannot be

said to be perverse and the workman had been warned

and punished previously for committing malpractices and

misappropriation and he did not have an unblemished

service record and the punishment imposed is quite

proportionate and the same is not at all shockingly

disproportionate and the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

In view of the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the parties, before delving into the merit of

the matter, I think it proper to mention the settled

principles regarding the power of a Tribunal in interfering

with punishment awarded by the competent authority in

departmental proceedings, by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

In a number of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court

have held that:-

“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with

the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated

with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot

interfere with the findings of the Inquiry officer or

competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly

perverse. The power to impose penalty on a delinquent

officer is conferred on the competent authority either by

an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an

enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with

principles of natural justice what punishment would meet

the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the

jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6885

can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved

misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its

own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of

penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter of

the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also

cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the

Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on

evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or

extraneous to the matter.

The disciplinary authority and on appeal, the

appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have

exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to

maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion

to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the

magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/

Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review,

cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty

and impose some other penalty. If the punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate

authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/

Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either

directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider

the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may

itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate

punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.

The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not

permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal.

Judicial review, it must be remembered, is directed not

against the decision, but is confined to the examination

of the decision-making process.”

Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned

above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

On perusal of the record, it is found that the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record

of the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has

analyzed the evidence the evidence on the record of

departmental enquiry in a rational manner and has

assigned reasons in support of his findings. It is also

found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not as

such, which cannot be arrived at by a reasonable man on

the materials on record of the departmental enquiry. It

is not a case of total absence of evidence on record of the

enquiry or that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on

totally against the evidence on record. Hence, the findings

of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse.

So far the question of proportionality of the

punishment is concerned, it is to be mentioned here that

in a number of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court have

held that a bank employee has to exercise a higher degree

of honesty and integrity. Contention that the account

holder had withdrawn his grievances would not condone

the misconduct. The charges against the workman are

serious in nature, which have been proved against him

in a properly conducted departmental enquiry against

him. So, the punishment of dismissal from services

imposed against the workman cannot be said to be

shockingly disproportionate, calling for any interference.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Central Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri H.V.Pathak, the

then Head Cashier of Chalisgaon Branch without notice

w.e.f. 01.11.2007 is legal and justified. The workman is

not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2755-—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;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 04@

2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&10&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@88@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/

2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata 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 15-10-2014.

[No. L-12011/88/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 04 of 2006

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Punjab National Bank

AND

Their workmen

Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

None

On behalf of the Workmen

None

State : West Bengal

Industry : Banking

6886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated: 19th September, 2014

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/88/2005-IR(B-II) dated

05.01.2006 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 Punjab

National Bank by not accepting Shri Sanjoy Sukhla

as pension optee as per the pension regulations of

the bank is legal or justified? If not, what relief the

workmen concernedare entitled to?”

When the case was called out on 21.07.2014, none

appeared on behalf of either of the parties. It appears

from the record that the union also did not turn up on the

previous date.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, it

appears that the union is not at all interested to proceed

with the case further. So, no fruitful purpose will be served

in keeping the matter pending.

Accordingly, the instant reference case is disposed

of by passing a “No Dispute Award”.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 19^th September, 2014.

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2756-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds

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

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

U;k;ky;&II] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 203@1999) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&10&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@295@98&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 203/

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

Court No. II, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Dena Bank,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 15-10-2014.

[No. L-12012/295/98-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk 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 203 OF 1999.

PARTIES :

Shri Kali Rout, Workman,

Rarhiya Branch, Dena Bank,

PO: Rarhiya, Distt : Deoghar

Vs.

Asstt. Gen. Manager,

Dena Bank, 225-C,

A.J.C. Bose Road,

Kolkata-20,

Ministry’s Order No.L-12012/295/98/IR (B-II)

dt.13.5.1999.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. S.N. Goswami, Ld. Advocate

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th 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-12012/295/98-IR (B-II) dt.13.5.1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Dena

Bank in terminating the services of Sh.Kali Rout,

casual workman at Rarhiya Branch w.e.f.

31.03.1994 was not justified and whether repeated

termination of the services of the workman on

various dates from 1995 to 1997 amounts to the

unfair labour practice ? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No L-12012/295/98-IR (B-II)

dt.13.5.1999 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. 203 of 1999 was registered on 10^th June, 1999

and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the Registered Posts to the parties

concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the

date fixed, and to file their written statements along with

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6887

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 own

Advocates appeared in, and contested the case.

The case of workman Kali Raut, an unemployed

youth of weaker section of village Rarhiya was engaged

with assurance of his absorption by Sri A.K.Sinha,the

then Branch Manager since inception of the Branch. He

began to work from 10.30 a.m. to 5.45 pm. from

26.12.1992 on meagre wages of Rs. 20/- per day later on

enhanced to Rs. 25/- from April,1993 and continued to

work till 31.3.1994 against a permanent post of only

subordinate staff at the Branch of the Bank. His duties

were cleaning of tables, keeping a ledger on the counter

from the Almirah keeping it back after day’s work,

carrying and delivery of the posts in the post office and

to district establishment as per post delivery register, as

well as serving water to the staff and the customer of the

Bank. He had put in more than 240 days of his continuous

service in a year under Sec. 25 of the Industrial Dispute

Act 1947. The Bank Management used to take work from

him but used to pay in the names of other ten unemployed

persons Rashid Turi and others. But he was orally

terminated from his service on and from 31.3.1994

without any reason, a notice and retrenchment

compensation. He was again engaged in the 1995 to 1997,

but repeatedly terminated after some breaks with a view

to debar from continuity of his services. On his notice

and legal notice dt. 10.7.1997 and 16.09.1997 to the AGM

and the C.M.D. concerned respectively, the Bank

Management responded that the workman neither had

ever worked nor was engaged at Rarhiya Branch, so no

consideration for reinstatement arose. Though on the

report called for by the AGM over the notice dt.16.09.997,

the Branch Manager concerned had sent his reply about

the working days of the workman from 16.12.1992 to

1997 by putting more than 240 days continuous service

in a year 1993.But it was ignored by the AGM, Calcutta.

Even at the time of opening three Branches of the Bank

at Darbhanga, Muzaffarpur and Samastipur, despite the

detailed report of the Branch Manager about the working

days of the workman for 240 days, he was not reinstated

in the existing vacancies nor given a chance for

re-employment.

At last, the workman raised the Industrial dispute

before the A.L.C.(C), Patna on 12.01.1998 but its failure

in conciliation due to adamant attitude of the

Management resulted in the reference for adjudication.

His termination on 31.03.1994 was retrenchment without

following its mandatory provision under Sec. 25 F of the

Act; and likewise repeatedly his engagement and

termination by the Management from 1995 to 1997 is

unfair, unresonable and illegal. So the workman is entitled

to reinstatement with full back wages with 12 % interest.

The workman in his rejoinder has specifically

denied the allegations of the O.P./Management

Whereas challenging the reference as misconceived

unsponsored by a Union the pleaded case of the O.P./

Management with categorical denials is that the workman

has himself admitted to be casual. A casual does not have

any granted right of employment. There is no legal bar

to engagement of casuals in any establishment in

exigencies. The first Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1966

under clause 20.7 provides for engagement/employment

on temporary basis as per the requirement and exigency

in the Bank. The workman was intermittently engaged

as a casual in exigencies. He used to perform odd and

misc jobs as casual on a particular day. But when there

was no need of the alleged workman as casual, he was

not engaged further. Merely being his unemployment and

belonging to as weaker section can not be a basis for his

employment or continuance as a casual against the

recruitment procedure of the Bank. The Bank frames the

recruitment rules for the post of subordinatets, having

regard to the reservation policy and requirement of the

Employment Exchange Act. Norms for educational

qualifications and age for recruitment are prescribed

under the rules. According to the Recruitment procedure,

the Bank has to call for the names of the candidates

fulfilling the said norms from the District Employment

Exchange, and for interview, the panels of the candidates

are drawn to be engaged whenever there is a leave vacancy

of temporary nature in subordinate cadre. While filling

up permanent full time vacancies in the subordinate cadre,

the existing permanent part time cleaner on scale wages

shall be given preference in terms of Para 18(4) of the

Bipartite Settlement dt.10^th April 1989.Providing

manpower to the new Branches to be opened is in

accordance with the Bank’s prescribed norms under

which the existing part time cleaners /part time sub staff

in subordinate cadre get preference against the vacancy,

if approved by the Authority. In pursuance of the Policy

decision at times taken by the Bank Management,

altogether 2086 workmen including 520 subordinate staff

have got their voluntary retirement. No vacancies in the

subordinate cadre exists in the Region/State of Bihar/

Jharkhand. The workman is thus not entitled to any relief

at all.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In this reference,WWI Kali Rout, and WW2 Rashid

Turi, the workman himself on behalf of the Union

Representative, MWI Arup Ghosh, the Branch Manager

for the O.P./Management have been respectively

examined.

6888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mr. S.N. Goswami, Learned Advocate for the

workman as per his written argument as well has to submit

that workman Kali Rout had continuously worked as the

Sub-staff on daily wages Rs.20/- - Rs.25/- at Dena

Bank,Rarhiya Branch,Deoghar,since his engagement by

Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha,the Branch Manger thereof on

26.12.1992 upto 31.3.1994 against a permanent vacancy,

by putting it more than 240 days in each year; thereafter

he accordingly served as the sub-staff of the Bank in the

year 1995 to 1997 as per the Bank’s statement (Ext.W.5

Management illegally terminated his service. Further

submitted on his behalf that even on his representation

(demand Notice and Legal one) through Regd.Posts (Extt.

W.1 & 2 with Regd. Posts ( Extt. 1/1 and 2/1 respectively),

the management though replied as per their letters (Ext.3

& 3/1) yet did not regularize him in the service; and

finally the failure in the conciliation before the A.L.C.

his application (dt.Nil - Ext W.4) resulted in the reference

for adjudication. Mr. Goswami, Learned Counsel for the

workman has, relying upon the ruling : 2005(106) FLR

1171 (Jhr). MNGT.F.C.I. Vs. Union of India submitted,

as held therein, that where evidence adduced established

that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in

one calendar year, and persons similarly situated were

regularized by the Management, but the sudden

termination of respondents service without compliance

with Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 was

illegal retrenchment, the Awards given by the Central

Industrial Tribunal in favour of casual workman for

reinstatement with full back wages and regularization

do not call for any interference.(Para 1 to 5).

In response to it, Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. counsel for

the O.P./Management has contended that admittedly the

workman has been casually engaged on daily wages but

he never completed 240 days in any calendar year during

the period 1992 to 1997 nor his name was called for

from the Employment Exchange for the consideration

of his employment as such, the payment of his wages

was made through the vouchers for his work whenever

deployed. The admission of the workman requires no

proof as to the status of the workman as a Daily casual

worker as established by the then Branch Manager of

Deena Bank concerned Arup Ghosh (MWI) on behalf of

the O.P./Management, so the casual working never

confers any right on the workman for his claim in respect

of his employment in the service of the Bank.

Having meticulously studied the materials of both

the parties available on the case record, it appears that

the workman Kali Rout (WWI) has admitted in his chief

itself his frequent engagement and stoppage of his work

by the Management left so scope for him to put his

attendance for 240 days in each year; neither any letter

of appointment was issued to him as the sub staff by the

management But the ruling cited by Mr.Goswami relates

to proof of 240 days working and the regularization of

similarly situated persons ,the both facts are not in the

present reference, so it is inapplicable.

At this point it is the settled law as held by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secy. State of Karnatake

Vs. Uma Devi (13) 2006 SCC (L & S) 7539CB) that an

appointment /engagement on daily wages or casual basis

comes to an end when it is discontinued, such temporary

or casual engagement is against the constitutional scheme

of public enmployment.This view has also been endorsed

by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Pinaki Chatterjee

& Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in (2000)

SCC (L & S) 259 (DB) .In such situation it stands clear

there is no application of alleged termination/

retrenchment of the workman u/s 25 F of the I.D. Act,

1947, as he had never completed the minimum requisite

days of working in a calendar year even as casual daily

wager as required u/s 25 B (2)(a)(ii) of the I.D. Act.

In result, it is hereby responded and awarded in

the terms of Reference that the question as to the alleged

action of the Management of Deena Bank in terminating

the services of Shri Kali Rout concerned workman at

Rarhiya w.e.f. 31.3.1995 neither arose nor arises; likewise

any question of alleged repeated termination of his

services on various dates from 1995 to 1997 does not

arise nor it amounts to any unfair labour practice in

respect of such casual workman, as the workman was a

casual daily wager in exigency, otherwise his

unengagement by the O.P./Management amounted to his

discontinuance for a work. The reference has no merits

whatsoever. Hence the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2757-—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; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

72@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&10&2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@107@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2014

S.O. 2757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/

2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 18] 2014@vkf'ou 26] 1936

6889

industrial dispute between the management of Bank of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 15-10-2014.

[No. L-12012/107/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk 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.72 OF 2002

PARTIES :

Sri Mangal Singh Soy (workman)

PO : Kuchai, Dist : Saraikela, Kharswan

Vs.

The Zonal Manager, Bank of India,

Bistupur, Jamshedpur

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the : Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate

Workman

On behalf of the : Mr. S.K. Chamaria, Ld. Advocate

Management

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking

Dhanbad, Dated, the 30th October, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

in exercise of the powers conferred on then under

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

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide

their Order No. L-12012/107/2002(IR(B-II) dt.26.9.2002

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank

of India, Bayang Branch in terminating the services

of Shri Mangal Singh Soy is justified ? If not,what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The case of workman Mangal Singh Soy in brief is

that he has though been continuously working as a

permanent sweeper since his original appointment in

Dec.,1991, yet unfortunately shown temporary /casual

one by the Nationalized Bank. He had put in more than

240 days attendance in each calendar year .The

management neither regularized his service nor paid

him as a regular employee, though he was paid his wages

through voucher to camouflage the real issue. At the

demand of the workman for regularization and other

benefits at par with permanent employees, the anti-labour

management stopped him from service from 2001. The

action of the management in illegally terminating his

service in violation of Sec. 25 F and principle of natural

justice was unjustified, against which he had also

represented to the management. At last, the industrial

dispute raised by the Union u/s 2A of the I.D. Act before

adjudication.

The workman did not file any rejoinder on his

behalf in the case.

Whereas with categorical denials, the contra

pleaded case of the O.P./management is that neither the

workman was a workman under the I.D. Act nor any

employer-employee relationship ever existed between the

management and the workmen. As per the employment

procedure of the service of the Bank, no Branch Manager/

Office of the Bank empowered to recruit or appoint any

person on the rolls of the Bank to his choice. The

constitutional provisions related to employment in Public

Sector Undertaking is required to call for the names of

the candidates from the Employment Exchange at the

time of recruitment. But the workman was never

appointed in the service of the Bank in accordance with

recruitment procedure by the Competent Authority, nor

terminated, so there exists no dispute of any kind with

the workmen, nor its reference made merely on the same

individual complaint is sustainable. The person has failed

to produce any appointment any interview letter, any Pay

slip, any letter of forwarding his name to the Employment

Exchange or any authorization letter of the Regional

Manager for it. In such situation, neither the question of

his termination w.e.f. 25.8.2001 nor application of Sec.25

F of the I.D. Act, 1947 to the case arises..

Further it is alleged on behalf of the O.P./

Management that the person concerned was intermittently

engaged on casual basis as and whenever required in the

Bayang Branch of the Bank to work as a Coolie for

cleaning for an hour or two in a day. He never completed

240 days working in a period of twelve months. He was

never engaged against any permanent vacancy or any

sanctioned post.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In the case, WWI Mangal Singh Soy, the workman

himself has been examined for his own sake and fully

cross- examined by the O.P./Management, but no witness

could be examined on behalf of the O.P./Management.

Mr. D. Mukherjee, Learned Sr.Advocate for the

workman submits that the workman has fully proved

his case that he had been regularly working as a sweeper

for 8 years since his appointment from Dec., 1991 until

he was stopped from working from Spt., 2001 ; so his

termination is totally illegal, and without any enquiry;

6890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 18, 2014/ASVINA 26, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and in view of the status of the workman as a casual as

admitted in paras 10 and 11 of the written statement of

the O.P./Management, there is a clear proof of the

employer-employee relationship in the case; thus the

workman is entitled to reinstatement in the service of

the Bank concerned.

In response to it, Mr. S.K. Chamaria, Ld.Advocate

for the O.P./Management has contended that in the face

of the admission of the workman himself as a temporary

one, the term ‘retrenchment’ nor ‘termination’ under Sec.

25 F read with Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute

Act,1947 is not applicable to the present case; besides

the workman has admitted neither to have got any

appointment letter for the job against any advertised

vacancy, nor faced any examination or an interview, so

no question rises about the alleged termination of the

workman.

On serene perusal and consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence of the workman Mangal Singh Soy,

it is quite undisputed fact that the workman was a part

time sweeper who was paid his wages through vouchers

as evident from the copy of the voucher dt.03.07.1995

Ext. W.4 (with objection) for consolidated wages Rs. 225

for the month of June, 1995. None of the photocopies of

Inter-office Memos. (Extt.W.1 series)admittedly by

ineligible proves the continuity of his part time service;

likewise the two photocopies of Staff Bio-data (Extt.2

series) admittedly partially legible do not prove the dates

of birth and alleged appointment of the workman; and

the photocopy of the Peon Delivery Book (dt.14.07.1999-

Ext.W.3) being unauthenticated and vague is

unacceptable.

In the instant case, the workman has neither

pleading nor proof of having completed one year of

continuous service in the Bank of India, Bayang Branch;

he has firstly failed to prove that he was employed for a

period of not less than 12 calendar months and next

that during those 12 calendar months had worked for

not less than 240 days ,then his case could be considerable

as held in the case Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd.

Vs. their workmen 1963(7)FLR 236(SC).

The fulfillment of the conditions, i.e., the

continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer is precedent to the retrenchment of the

workman under Sec.25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947, otherwise

the alleged retrenchment/termination fails to affect. In

the instant case where there is no proof of continuous

service for one year – preceding the date of the reference,

there is no question of termination.

It is hereby responded/ordered that the Award be

and the same is passed that in utter failure of the workman

to prove his continuous service for one year, the question

as to the action of the management of Bank of India,

Bayang Branch in termination of the services of

Sri Mangal Singh Soy as justified or unjustified does

not arise. Hence, the workman concerned is not entitled

to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, 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.